Scanialara
You won't be disappointed!
VeteranLight
I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.
ShangLuda
Admirable film.
LeonLouisRicci
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.
jacobs-greenwood
I have to say that this Academy Award Best Picture winner dates badly, especially the acting. I know that The Front Page (1931) was also nominated for Best Picture that year, a film I thought was far superior to this one. It is, however, clearly better than another of the nominees I've seen - Trader Horn (1931), although that one did provide quite an educational adventure (into Africa), for the time.This film has several old stereotypes (racial, and others) in it, which is understandable for the time it was filmed. But, other than that, it feels very long and, in the end, unfulfilling. It is a Western which focuses on the settling of Oklahoma through statehood. There are several contrived scenes which cheapen what I think could have been a better film. There were perhaps two scenes worth seeing: the land rush (which has since been done better, even in the 30's e.g. The Oklahoma Kid (1939)) and a church revival held in the largest building in town (the gambling house!).Initially, I thought to myself "well, it was made in 1931, what did you expect?". And then I remembered several other well made horror and gangster films from that same year. So, who knows? Perhaps I just don't have a good feel for the pulse of America in 1931. It's clear to me that it's one of the most disappointing of the Best Picture Oscar winners (and that's saying a lot).It does, however, have Edna May Oliver (always a plus). The film also won for Art Direction and Writing. Its director (Wesley Ruggles) and two leads, Richard Dix and Irene Dunne, were also nominated as was the Cinematography. For Dunne, it would be the first of her five (unrewarded) Best Actress nominations (a crime that she never received one!); for Dix, it would be his only Academy recognition. Based on the Edna Ferber novel, and remade in Technicolor as Cimarron (1960) with Glenn Ford (among others).
sinel-47034
Will Cimmaron ever end? Yes, but only after our heroine has lost her husband in a glorified wanderlust, both her children have married successfully—if you can call your daughter marrying a millionaire a success—and the heroic husband has one last chance of saving lives after a lifetime of adventure, killing bad guys, defending the downtrodden, knowing virtually everybody in Oklahoma, campaigning for Indian citizenship years before it was granted them, and probably three or four other heroic deeds that escape my mind at this moment.The Indians are portrayed as noble savages and the equal of whites—Cimmaron even marries one (notwithstanding his mother's objections, after all heroic Yancey approves)—and no opportunity is wasted to indict and condemn the ill treatment of the native race by the U.S. government; which is laudable in itself, yet seems ironic coming from the lips of a man who twice literally rushes in to newly "opened" Indian territory at the first moment of opportunity, the second time leaving his wife and children, only to see them at very brief intervals for the rest of his life. Certainly, for one who detests the treatment of Indians, he can't wait, for mere adventure's sake, to benefit from the forcible exploitation of those same Indians' lands. But perhaps I should not judge Yancey's activities too harshly. The author apparently does not see Yancey as a hypocrite and neither should we. After all, while most Americans today are appalled at the history of the white man's treatment of the red man (if they are aware of it), the question of giving any of the land we've taken back to the Indians is never considered, even though every non-native American in this country including, like me, the descendants of immigrants, has benefited, at least indirectly, from the exploitation of Indians.Perhaps I should take off my politically sensitive eyeglasses and see Cimmaron for what it is: a woman's fantasy about a frontier marriage between a highly successful woman and her erudite, but not entirely civilized, husband. She accepts his need for wanderlust, even if she doesn't understand it, and despite his absences of many years, she stays loyal to him all her life in a love that does not fail. In other words, a good but forgettable melodrama.
Lechuguilla
Vilified in modern times as one of the weakest and/or worst Oscar Best Picture winner, and spanked as "very racist and very bad" by one author, "Cimarron" does not deserve such condemnation. It won Best Picture because the script is high concept, the type of overarching, epic story that Hollywood has always rewarded.Its script tells the fictional tale of adventurer and pioneer Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix) who, along with his wife Sabra (Irene Dunne), takes part in the 1889 land rush into Oklahoma Territory, along with thousands of others. In the film, these pioneers stake a land claim and build a new town, called Osage, out on the prairie.The plot spans some forty years in the Cravat's lives, filled with dreams, accomplishments, sorrow, and interaction with a variety of characters, from prim and proper Mrs. Wyatt (humorous Edna May Oliver) to town thug Lon Yountis (Stanley Fields). Along the way we encounter: gun toting outlaws; dust; a strange gospel meeting; bullies; buildings and walkways made of wood; more dust; the trial of an "immoral" young woman; politicians; and still more dust.The plot is structured to give most of the film's runtime to the Cravat's lives during the 19th century. As we move into the 20th century, the plot speeds up; characters age a little too quickly. That is a problem I have with the script. The film's tone starts out enthusiastic and rowdy, and ends stoical and long-suffering.B&W photography is acceptable. There are lots of wide-angle shots, as we would expect for a story set in the wide-open spaces. Prod design and costumes are elaborate and probably accurate for the era. Casting is acceptable. For a 1920s type film, acting is predictably melodramatic. But with his eyes all bugged-out, Richard Dix seriously overacts, even for that era.In retrospect, there may have been other films as deserving, or more so, for Best Picture of 1931. But at the time, this big-budget Western was almost certainly a predictable winner. I found the story only mildly interesting. But then I'm a creature of a more modern era. And I think viewers would do well to consider "Cimarron" a valid film, one that now gives us some historical perspective, both on Hollywood cinema and on American history.
