EveryBestPicture.com revisits this Oscar Best Picture winner
At the time, 80 Days Around the World was released with the man behind it being chased by creditors for repayment of the massive debt incurred by his production (Michael Todd, a broadway producer who had never been involved in the making of a film before). With a paid cast of nearly 70,000 people and 8,000 animals this was certainly a production of epic proportions. It was a film with a budget of $6,000,000, shot on locations over 3 continents and even used a new filming technique ("Todd-AO") which allowed it to be filmed in widescreen on one lens and projected onto a curved screen, producing a more immersive experience for the audience. The gamble clearly worked- it made its money back nearly six times over and of course won the academy's Best Picture Oscar of 1957. Why were audiences so taken with it? Well, if this film has one thing in spades, it is spectacle. Audiences settling into the colour era which began 10 years before could witness a Jules Verne story, written 100 years before, come to life and take place all around them. There is a long air balloon sequence inserted solely to showcase the stunning palace gardens of France, Spanish bullfighting sequence which lasts a full ten minutes, train mounted cameras showing us countryside scenes from the asian subcontinent featuring elephants and other exotic animals. None of this has much bearing on the story, but are successful in providing us with sights we would almost certainly never have witnessed, had we seen this film in the 1950s. Around the World in 80 days was ambitious in its scale, technically and even quite daring in its technicolor portrayal of the past.
Sadly, this is the perfect of example of a film whose charm and success appear largely to have been lost in the 50 years since it was released. Perversely, the very things which made it so special 50 years ago are now precisely the things that now stand against it:
Although I cannot find any reference as to why the 'fisheye lens' effect dropped in and out throughout the movie, I would suspect it was down to the Todd-AO effect. Michael Todd, the man behind the movie, funded development of this, which he believed to be a more immersive experience: the screen curved subtly around the moviegoing audience. It is now impossible to see it as intended as the technology was superseded by IMAX tech and eventually lost. As the first widescreen film to be filmed through one lens (previous 'cinemascope' films required a 3 lens camera and other technical info you are probably not as interested in hearing about as I was) this was an achievement which set a standard still around today- an early version of widescreen IMAX. Unfortunately, watching it now, the fisheye effect remains in many scenes and, perversely, reminds you that you are watching a film rather than immersing you. Not a good thing to say about any movie.
The film spends the first 2 hours introducing you to cultures that you my not have been familiar with in the 1950s, which would have been a huge draw, especially since it was all in colour. The makers had the power to show sights which few in the world could boast to having seen all of. Alas, they chose to use this power to show stereotypes of all nationalities. In its favour is the fact that they spared no nation from this process, but when the stereotype of the British was someone who kept good time, had good manners and kept his cool while the Chinese come out smelling of opium (or other such intoxicants), Native Americans languished in the 'Redskins' narrative and in Japan all women were dressed as Geishas you find yourself less inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Even at the time, Around the World in 80 Days was considered to be 'Light Entertainment', for the masses and certainly not worthy or highbrow contemplation. Nonetheless, it was venerated by the academy, winning 5 Oscars. It is also fair to say that given that there was no expense spared (and it showed) audiences are likely to have come out of the cinema feeling that they certainly got their moneys worth, regardless of whether the script was written by an overzealous 14 year old. It could have been, but wasn't.
Actin performances are perfectly fine- there is only so much an actor can do with a script whose highlights are long panning shots of the Asian and American countrysides from trains. Much to my surprise I discovered that Cantinflas (playing Passepartout) won the Golden Globe for best actor, quite an achievement considering he probably spoke fewer than 100 words. Although I heard Chaplin was a fan of his work in Latin American cinema.
In the final act the story makes an appearance. Finally, the story comes alive. Our travellers make it to the states and after a fracas with some 'injuns' (and before that the most hilarious cameo ever, from Frank Sinatra, who appears to have had his lines cut) the threat of not completing their journey rears its head. In summary, the first 2.5 hours are a slow motion tour of someones idea of the concept of 'foreign', but the ending was well orchestrated. You could accuse the film of using that old cinematic trick of convincing an audience they have seen a good film by inserting 25 minutes of decent plot and dialogue just before they go home, so it stays with them. Unfortunately for me, the first two acts were too overlong to forget, so I would lean towards a rating of 'bearable relic'. Around the world in 80 Days is to be avoided, if you have a choice.
With no thanks whatsoever to Dr. Louis Bayman who requested this review. :/
|
Previous ReviewsComing soon:Archives
February 2019
Categories
All
AuthorPablo Griffiths is a man with a passion for many things. He has recently taken an interest in writing about film, and himself in the third person. |