Cimarron
1931
Release date: 1/26/1931 (N.Y. Premiere)
123 minutes
Director: Wesley Ruggles (Uncredited)
Novel: Edna Ferber
Screen Version: Howard Estabrook
Dialogue: Howard Estabrook
Contributing Writer: Louis Sarecky (Uncredited)
Producers: William LeBaron, Wesley Ruggles
Associate Producer: Louis Sarecky
Cinematographer: Edward Cronjager
Nomination Year: 1930/1931 - 4th Academy Awards Ceremony
Won: Best Picture; Best Writing, Adaptation - Howard Estabrook; Best Art Direction - Max Ree
Nominations: Best Director - Wesley Ruggles; Best Actor - Richard Dix; Best Actress - Irene Dunne; Best Cinematography - Edward Cronjager
Writer's note: In this series I will watch a Best Picture-winning film each week and go a little deeper than my usual reviews. I hope you enjoy my thoughts and perspective. I will, of course, attempt to be sensitive to spoilers for newer films but for these early films I will be writing without regard to spoilers so be forewarned. I suggest you see the films I am discussing before reading.
Movies that deal with the Western expansion in the United States capture a moment in time that is difficult to discuss. It is a subject that is complex and has myriad perspectives. Many older films feature what could be called racist depictions today, because at the time they were accepted widely by people ignorant of the need to be culturally sensitive. While I will address some of these issues, I do not intend to dwell on them, preferring instead to have a more comprehension assessment of the work as a whole.
Magnificent spectacle is emphasized in the opening moments of the film, depicting the land grab of over 2,000,000 acres. This was doled out by the government, no doubt, in opposition to treaties that had been made with native peoples. This opening is impressive, showing an expansive tract of land with all manner of wagons, horsebound riders, even a fellow pedaling away at a penny-farthing, fleeing across it to stake out a spot. Among those racing to claim the land are Yancey Cravat and Dixie Lee.
This was captured by cinematographer Cronjager creating set-ups based directly upon passages from Ferber's novel. Along with the opening land rush being filmed on a ranch, an 89 acre piece of land was purchased by RKO pictures in order to build the frontier town of Osage, Oklahoma. The film depicts this city at several points from 1889-1929, and shows the growth of the town. One of the signs of the ever-expanding city comes in a gunfight where Yancey uses trenches - which have been dug for placement of sewer and water lines - for cover.
This guy can do it all. As a former lawyer, Yancey Cravat sought to start up a newspaper in Osage, in some cases doing the investigative work of a sheriff. He can shoot like all get-out, and he can lead a bible meeting! And herein lies what makes this movie such a tough nut to crack: There is not really a core to Yancey's character, and as such, Cimarron does not have an emotional core, or any other kind of solid footing. There is no arc to Yancey's character, we just see him do a bunch of cool things.
But we don't even get to see him perform some of his coolest deeds, since he leaves his family in Osage for years at a time in order to keep taming the West. And while Edna Ferber's novel may have been excellent, there are many elements of the screenplay that just don't play by the typical "rules" of filmmaking. For instance the film's title, Cimarron, is the name Yancey gives his son. Yet the story is not framed by the son's point of view. In fact there isn't any singular point of view. At the mid-point, when Yancey goes away for five years, his wife Sabra Cravat (nee Venable) takes over the newspaper business and makes it extremely successful. Near the end of the piece, Sabra holds a meeting where she announces a bid to run for Senate (during yet another time when Yancey has gone off and left her and their children alone). Sabra is a surprisingly strong woman despite the protestations she offered when they first moved to Osage - she was ready to run back home on the first night there. Yet we never get a sense of her as a character, we never get to see her make the paper a success, it happens in a cut to "five years later..."
All of these elements threaten to add up to what might be considered a soulless, lifeless, bloated, and over-produced epic. And some scenes do play out rather slowly. Yet...
Yet, I can still see how this stands amongst the annals of Best Picture entries. It's a grand, sweeping epic of a film that covers 40 years of the American West. It doesn't so much create an arc of stories for the character, as it does show the movement of time and the growth of a city central in the process of Western expansion.
Returning to the moment when Yancey is called upon to lead a bible meeting, as this congregation belts out "Who Were You at Home," a rather secular song as Yancey points out, the themes began to solidify. Themes like, how, when you head out West and claim a stake of land, it was not supposed to matter who you were at home. It was a tabula rasa; any man could head out West and leave their past behind.
Except, it seems, prostitutes like Dixie Lee, who is not only pushed out of her land, but is persecuted by the locals creating a "vigilance committee," highlighting another theme: how some folks don't want to let you shake off your past, sordid or otherwise.
And, interestingly enough, here is where we find the through line of the story. In the opening scene Dixie played Yancey dirty by feigning a fallen horse, then staked the claim he was about to take. Later in the movie, there is some attention focused on Dixie at the bible meeting and Sabra shows some jealousy towards her simply because Yancey doesn't join in the brow-beating and advises the congregation to offer forgiveness to Dixie and her girls rather than disdain. Then finally at the mid-point of the second half (the film follows a two-act structure rather than the traditional three), Yancey defends Dixie successfully in a court case made of trumped-up charges like "public indecency"
Yancey is just that good of a guy that he doesn't care that Dixie stole his stake of land - and his horse. He feels she has as much right as anyone to get a fresh start out West. There is also never any hint of impropriety or dalliance between them, despite Sabra's jealousy.
As a side note, whenever Yancey orates I get a sense that Robert Preston must have studied his monologues when crafting the character of Professor Harrold Hill for The Music Man.
Despite the slowness of some of the early scenes, I found the movie to be rather quickly paced. As I stated before there is a two-act structure to the movie. The first half is sweeping and epic while the second half deftly shifts gears into being a more personal, character-driven narrative, despite its lack of clear characterization. The second half is built around two major scenes - the sequence where Yancey defends Dixie in a court case, and a jump forward another 20 years to the afore-mentioned luncheon where Sabra announces her bid to run as one of the first female Senators in the U.S.
Another striking attribute to this film - previous protestations aside - is the complexity of relationships. Even though the film paints in extremely broad strokes, the old-world ideals of the Venable family butt up against the seeming progressivism of Cravat's ideals: Yancey fully supports his son's romance with their native servant girl, Ruby while sister and mother fret over how it looks for the family image amongst high society.
Yancey's personal politics are complex as well. At times he shows open contempt for the way that the government has handled native peoples and their treaties with them. But he is also more than willing to take advantage of the Western expansion and be a part of the process, heading out to put stakes on native land whenever the government gives the go-ahead.
Many scenes perform several different functions at once. Sabra's lunch meeting not only is used to announce her Senate run but it also gives exposition which highlights Sabra's changes - she proudly introduces her son and his native wife, this all coming just moments before Yancey is killed in an oil rig explosion. He ironically dies in Sabra's arms as a statue to him is unveiled in Osage's town square.
If my review of this movie is disjointed and scattered, it's because the movie is. I have to keep reminding myself that this was only the fourth Best Picture winner ever - incidentally one of only two that RKO Pictures would receive and one of a very few Westerns which would win the vaunted award - as well as one of the earliest examples of sound pictures. It makes sense that the focus is more on the technical aspects such as cinematography and sound recording and editing.
Taken as a whole one can understand that, despite it dragging in places, this movie is in many ways a technological marvel. The visuals are impressive, especially with the establishing shots showing the growth of Osage from a main street full of tents and ramshackle buildings to a bustling, lively city. It is in some ways an encapsulated fractal for the growth of the U.S. from 13 colonies to 50 states. It's not my ideal way to spend an afternoon. It's a fine film, much better than The Broadway Melody, yet falling short of reaching the heights of the other two award winners thus far. I have seen some criticism leveled towards Cimarron that it's boring and racist but I don't see it. I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. That being said, it does stand as a great picture of the history of the West, and that alone has merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment