Moviecut—Cimarron

source: Cimarron

Big budget, sweeping epic and actually a decent film to boot. Cimarron covers forty years of frontier life in Oklahoma. A large part of the film rests on the shoulders of the flamboyant character Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix). Yancey embodies the spirit of the kind of men who build cities. He is a newspaper man, a politician, a lawyer, a preacher, a family man and a gunfighter. When he talks, people listen, when he decides to do something, he does it, and when he draws his guns, men die. Richard Dix may not have been the most natural actor in the world, but his broad build, booming voice and intense energy lent itself to the strong, forceful character of Yancey Cravat. Cimarron is also quite an impressive production. The opening Oklahoma land race is captured every bit as well as it was sixty years later in Ron Howard's Far and Away. The costumes, sets and decor show us the passage of time as a small shanty town develops over the years into a major city. Like most films high on production value, though, Cimarron is low on substance. The storyline is too broad to be engaging and there is no real emotional core to the film. Nonetheless, it is entertaining and that is enough to make it worth watching.

Infamous Best Picture Winner that is Considered by most Critics and Viewers one of, if not the Worst, to obtain the Coveted Oscar. It is routinely Attacked for being Racist, Boring, and Condescending. But it must be Considered as a Contender for other Things and given some Slack. Richard Dix's Hammy Performance isn't that Far Afield for 1931 when Compared to His Contemporaries. It does Include Stereotypes, but at the same time is Very Progressive. The Film Encompasses a Strong Female Lead (Irene Dunn), Sympathy for Native Americans... After calling the Indians "Filthy and Dirty", Dunn's Character "Mrs. Yancy Cravat" (Dix's Wife), Reforms and is Proud of Her Son's Marriage to a Native American. The African-American Teenager is Presented as a Caricature but is Later Shown in Heroic Terms. Same with the Jewish Merchant and "Dixie Lee" (the Prostitute). Almost Every Major Character has Noble Traits within the Flaws of the Human Condition and is Historically Correct, as seen through the Lens of Early Thirties Hollywood and Reflective of Society at the Times Presented. Technically, the Movie is Impressive. Great Pains and a lot of Money was Spent on the Sprawl, the Epic Timeline, and Period Detail (the Film lost oodles of Money, mostly because it was released during a period of extreme economic deprivation). The Film can be Picked Apart Today for Dated Behavior but it is Not Anachronistic, it is Real. If done in another way it would be an Unrealistic Fantasy and the Movie can not be Faulted for Presenting What Was. Underrated, Misunderstood, and Unfairly Maligned, the Movie Deserves Better. It is an Entertaining Early Sound Piece with a lot to Offer. It's Western Milieu is Rugged and Respectably Authentic, and the Soap-Opera Element has a Female Touch, so a Wide Audience can Enjoy this Wide-Open Spectacle as long as it is Viewed in Context.

Cimarron (1931) * 1/2 (out of 4) Oscar winner for Best Picture tells the story of a newspaper editor (Richard Dix) who takes his wife (Irene Dunne) and son to Oklahoma to settle on some land and start a new life. This here turns out to be one of the worse Best Picture winners and I have to wonder what voters loved so much about this film. It certainly plays dated today but even by 1931 standards this thing is pretty dated. Looking at the other films nominated for Best Picture, it's clear voters had to have been on drugs because most of the noms are now forgotten while countless other films from this era are remembered and loved. I think the biggest problem for this movie is that the direction is so incredibly flat that there's not an ounce of energy to be spotted anywhere. The story itself isn't even original so making a familiar story boring is just deadly. Another problem is the performance by Dix, which comes off quite hammy and at times downright silly. I'm not sure what type of accent he's going for but it doesn't work. Dunne doesn't add too much to the picture but the supporting cast does include Estelle Taylor, Nance O'Neil and George E. Stone. The film is certainly ambitious and beautiful to look at but that's pretty much it. The highlight is the opening sequence, which shows the Oklahoma rush.

This is a comment following up to a previous post. Richard Dix was a big silent film star before Cimarron. He was one of the few silent actors who successfully made the transition to talking pictures. I hardly recognized Irene Dunne at first, this was only her second film. This film is fun to watch as the talent of the actors is evident. People must keep in mind that the sound quality, sets, etc. were all still relatively new in 1931. Actors and directors were accustomed to silent movies. The costumes, performances, and sets are quite good, in my opinion. Once gets a feel for how the home life, new life in the southwest, and the timeless snobbery of the town "ladies." The courtroom scenes are intense. The writing was realistic for the time period. Scathing accusatory and judgmental remarks to browbeat and break the woman's spirit. A very moving picture.

I'm disturbed that so many reviewers gave this film bad marks because it is not politically correct by today's standards. They should be rating the film on its effectiveness as a story. I found it compelling and believable. All of the principle actors gave one of their best performances. Certainly Stanley Fields and George Stone were never better. Irene Dunne carried off a range of impressions seldom matched on the screen. And Richard Dix did the opposite in just as admirable a way: maintaining character through numerous situations. But what is most important is that the film was not politically correct for its time - in a brave way. It showed the intolerance for blacks as something shameful and that color didn't matter when it came to courage. Showing the black teenager as a hero was almost unprecedented for the period. At a time when native Americans were portrayed in film merely as evil hoards, this film showed both their shameful treatment and nobility. And dared to show that marrying for love knows no racial barriers. And finally, far from being anti-feminist, it showed that any woman raised to be prejudiced and subservient could become a fair-minded, independent leader. The film did all of these things within the confines of the story without being preachy. That alone is a triumph of its time. Add to that the sweep of the film that didn't lose the personal stories and you get an Oscar worthy film.

In fairness to Richard Dix's overacting, Charles Bickford, one of the great character actors ever, also overacted atrociously in "Anna Christie," which was made exactly one year earlier than "Cimarron." The majority of movies didn't go from being silent to talking until 1929 and "Cimarron" was filmed in 1930, so both these films were real early talking films and the performers had not learned to down scale their performances. The editing and cinematography were outstanding, even revolutionary for that era. The film needs to be viewed in a historic context and not compared to current films. I do agree that "Cimarron" does not hold up as well during the march of time from 1930 to 2008 as does "Public Enemy," "Little Caesar," "Scarface" but it was a complex and ambitious film adaptation of a novel by an outstanding writer, Edna Ferber. Richard Dix's character does stand up for and vehemently support fairness to Indians and prostitutes, which was a revolutionary idea for a movie made in 1930. I did notice that Eugene Jackson, the young black teenager, worked for 60 years in the film business, including a recurring role in "Stanford and Son," and in "Julia." Richard Dix, a major star in silent films starting in the early 1920s, peaked around the time of "Cimarron" and by the second half of the 1930s was stuck in B films but did continue his career and stared in films until his retirement in 1947. Irene Dunne went on to super stardom for the next 20 years and made quite a few classics (check out her film list in her biography.) It is amazing! I want to compliment the other writers who are classic film lovers but do want to state that too many readers check the not helpful box instead of the helpful box when evaluating the reviews of others. I feel that they are being too picky. After all, we are a select group of people who appreciate old films and should have support each other more as a group, unless the review is vindictive or totally uninformed.

This is a Western and Westerns don't usually get Best Picture Oscars, but coming out in 1931, the Academy was apparently much more willing to bestow this honor on this type of film. Unfortunately, when seen today, the film seems terribly ordinary and possessing relatively lousy sound. However, some of this can't be blamed on the picture. Poor sound was a problem with many movies from 1927-1931. Plus, a lot of the clichés you see in this Western weren't clichés when the film premiered. Still, even when you consider this, I find it really hard to imagine that this movie was indeed the best film of the year because it just doesn't seem that out of the ordinary. Sorry, but I wasn't bowled over by this story--it seems like just another early Western. For a better Western film starring Richard Dix, try THE CONQUERORS. The sound is much better and the story is far more engaging.

Not the worst(Crash), but to be honest I found Cimarron rather dull. It pained me to say that as I am a fan of film, old and new, good and bad. It is lavishly photographed and the scenery is beautiful, Irene Dunne is good and Max Steiner's music is rousing and dramatic. However, some parts have dated quite badly, particularly the one with the gospel meeting. The dialogue is mostly poor and heavy handed, while the story is bloated and has lots of unfocused scenes that could have been excised. The characters are clichéd,- not always a bad thing unless the component is poorly explored or acted out, which was the case with Cimarron- the film is much too long, the direction is flat and the pace drags on and on. The acting didn't do much for me either, Dunne was good though, but Richard Drix overacts and comes across as embarrassingly pompous. Overall, a dull film, albeit with some good points and worth seeing for historical interest, and one of my least favourite Best Picture winners. 4/10 Bethany Cox