​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 It is now impossible to see it as intended as the technology was superseded by IMAX tech and eventually lost.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. :/

​The story of Cimarron follows all-round awesome guy -lawyer, gent, sure shot who everyone looks up to in his journey west (“I know my bible cover to cover”). He brings along his initially reluctant wife (Sabra), adorable 5 year old son and stowaway home help, Isaiah. They help establish the town of Osage, seeing off Bandits and lowlifes as they go.
 
This is a generous synopsis.
 
The purpose of this blog is to assess films on the basis that a viewer, in our current age, may want to see it. What will they make of the very best that Hollywood had to offer in 1932? This, a western made in living memory of the time it was set (1889) dealt with “white settlement” of “Indian Oklahoma”. The introduction immediately had my back up. Some other historical films have been successful in lulling me into looking past political incorrectness, but just 2 minutes and 40 seconds in I am already resenting the use of naïve, lazy stereotypes to tell this story. It just took grinning shoeshine boy Isaiah (yes, he is black) and the telling of the happy opening up of a “new empire” at the expense of the ‘Indians’.
 
This kind of film harks back to the origins of cinema: the fairground, where some would get a glimpse of the 'exotic'. And that is where it belongs, among the sawdust and elephant dung.

On seeing watermelons: "Yes Sir, I sure glad I came ta OaklyHomey"

Twenty minutes in and Isaiah is admiring watermelons, 30 minutes in and the ‘civilised’ hero, Yancey Cravat, is mocking a gentle, hard working man with a speech impediment for laughs with a little help from his wife, who later scolds her son for talking to “those dirty, filthy Indians”. As much as these may well have been attitudes shared by many white colonists, it does not make it any easier to stomach. The distinct lack of quality in production does it no favours and you end up with no reason to forgive it anything. Even if you wanted to. Which I don’t. Bafflingly, the man who himself tried to stake a claim on acres of Indian land in the opening scenes announces the Cherokee are “too smart to put anything in the contribution box of a race that has robbed him of his birth right”. Which land are you staking a claim to, Yancey? It can’t possibly be the moral high ground, can it? If so, you missed by a mile. But then, this is a man who shoots a mans dead while giving the towns first sermon from the pulpit and considered a hero for doing so.

Yancey later declares how deeply unfair the government have been in buying up more land from the Cherokee at a paltry $1.40 an acre and in the same breath declaring he wants to head off and stake his own claim on this new handout of Indian Land to white folk. Make up your minds, film folk, is this land grab good or bad?

And so, our hero departs. He leaves Sabra, son and daughter and won't be seen for another 5 years: they are left to fend for themselves. His wife pines for him and converses with Levy the Jewish tailor (is that racial stereotype bingo yet?) who declares Yancey to be one of the men whose shoulders America is built upon. She does not disagree and continues to long for his return. Some hero this Yancey is turning out to be.
 
Cimarron declares to know right from wrong, but just can’t resist appealing to the base instincts of cinema goers and assuming their ignorance. The makers can’t seem to decide which side of the fence they are on (or perhaps just don’t care, or understand) and so take up positions on both. As well as on it. All this added to slapdash storytelling leads to another movie-going experience much like The Broadway Melody: full of spectacle and very little substance. Having seen all of these tropes before, we, the modern viewers, are bored. I cannot believe that this could have been considered on a par with All Quiet on the Western Front which won the same award just one year earlier.
 
The film tails off summing up the next 20 glorious years. Yancey follows his wanderlust and goes walkies again, the cast age, their town becomes a city and Sabra runs for governor. Will he return? Do I care? Everyone seems to be getting on just fine without him, if not better. Finally, his last appearance sees him commit one last act of bravery, saving hundreds of lives in a sacrificial act at an oil field. Despite a last bid by the film to use blunt force exposition to explain what a hero he was, the idea that a man who shirked responsibility so consistently throughout his life be someone to emulate and worship falls flat. Much like the film.

The Academy went from choosing the light and airy The Broadway Melody as Best Picture in 1930 to next voting the dark nightmare of trench warfare, All Quiet on the Western Front.
 
This is a movie that is difficult to extricate from the context in which it was made- the great depression had led the masses into a ruined world from which there was no escape and for which they bore no direct responsibility. The recent advent of sound also made it more possible than ever to give audiences a taste of trench warfare. Cinema’s roots lay in circus tents, films of trains rushing towards the camera sent audiences diving for cover at the turn of the century in scenes impossible to imagine for our screen-conditioned eyes. Sound now added to the immersive impact, and as ‘Wings’ had been so well received just 3 years earlier (Best Picture winner 1929, also set in the Great War) one can picture the people behind AQotWF anticipating the prospect of the impact of adding sound and dipping into the deep palette of pathos provided by the great depression shared by the viewing public.
 
Now, I could go deeper into the fresh young recruits learning how to deal with the horrifying realities of war from the worldly, grisled trench veteran they cling to (Kat) being a reflection of the naivety and unpreparedness of the charleston dancing, jazz handed, chorus-girl filled 1920’s smashing face first into the Great Depression. We could also comment on the clear disdain throughout for authority figures: ridiculed, mocked and undermined; being an expression of the feeling of disappointment in what the industrial military complex gave them (WW1 & the depression). The “look where blind nationalism gets us” message is woven in throughout. Our boys swap home comforts for trench foot at the behest of the Kaiser, are scoffed at by their drafted comrades for having been foolish enough to be talked into volunteering to be in this predicament. As an American (or any allied) audience member you would find yourself rooting for the survival of these men, quite rightly undermining any blindly patriotic views.

 
The last act of the film moves away from the front line to take a look at goings on back home when our protagonist (Albert) is given leave after suffering an injury to his side. He is despairing at the attitude taken by those around him, who have not tasted the bitter sharp end of war and proselytise more young recruits. In fact, it is in a classroom where he is reunited with the professor who convinced he and his classmates to go to war where he makes what would have been considered a criminal speech in wartime: “It is dirty and painful to die for your country. When it comes to dying for your country it is better not to die at all”.
 

Returning early to his 2nd Company comrades willingly, as he can no longer bear being on home leave, the film closes gently but powerfully. The final shot is a super-imposition of two images: a cemetery of white crosses which stretches to the horizon and the 2nd company marching in the same direction, each glancing back to look directly down the camera as if to say goodbye.
 
So what impression does this film leave the modern viewer? The effect lies in an unrelenting effort to drown you in the whistles of shells, bullets and mud, which is entirely successful. Long lasting tracking shots along the trenches as troops are mowed down bring you closer to each soldier’s death than an aerial shot of a busy, muddy field. The shot that lingers on the empty space left by a man going ‘over the top’ long enough for you to feel the unease brought on by a sense that within seconds his corpse will be filling that same space, and so it does. The elaborate camerawork and direction rarely distracts and often impresses, adding to the scale of the production. The multitude of characters and a dreaded feeling of ‘who’s next?’ only dissipates when they are on leave, far from the front line, and this adds to the audiences' emotional connection with the young Germans.

Once again the stylised, theatrical acting (although massively toned down in comparison to previous Oscar winners) is still somewhat off-putting, especially as everything else seems so contemporary in its execution. 
 
I can see that the tone of this post reflects the sombre, earnest spirit of the film. There are moments intended to shock, but the overall effect is one of a relentless, unforgiving advance towards an inescapable fate whose only relief comes from no longer partaking in the experience. Although it did not make for comfortable viewing for the first two acts there is undeniably something very special about a picture which so successfully allows you to join the experience of its protagonists. 

​This was well worth revisiting.

Despite being  considered a ‘lost film’ for much of the 20th century this epic silent movie was rediscovered and restored in the 1990’s, and subsequently re-released.

Wings was the biggest movie of its day, taking 9 months to put together- much longer than the 1 month generally expected of a shoot. It ran massively over-budget, featured stars of the day (Clara Bow, for whom the phrase “It Girl” was coined) and stars of the future (Gary Cooper). Cast and crew were holed up in an Arizona hotel for the duration, tales of love and lust became Hollywood legend: affairs, engagements and marriages began and ended, few lasted beyond filming. Battles in the air were shot using 300 pilots, special effects abound, many of which were created just for Wings. This movie was made to seize the mainstream by the scruff of the neck and boy, did it succeed.