We watched this today and having grown up on watching Westerns I hate to admit it but this is the first time I have ever watched this movie. Glenn Ford is perfect for this role of Yancy.
Pity that there isn't an outlet for these types of movies anymore.
I saw Cimarron on TCM and I thought it was okay, but I don't think it's as good as you think it is. To tell you the truth, I don't like the story very much, and while Glen Ford is a good actor, I don't think he was exactly the right choice. Maria Schell, as the bitchy housewife, was also maybe a little miscast.
"Snap out of it!" -Cher in Norman Jewison's "Moonstruck"
No, Maria Schell is great.
shareIceboxWarlock:
The first time I saw it, I was disappointed. Watched it again, and considered it better than I remembered.
The third time I viewed it, I got it: Yancey was right. I'd looked at him as a man filled with wanderlust, and he was basically just wanting to get away from the corruption that had taken over the town he'd helped to settle.
We need more Yanceys in every time, especially in Oklahoma now.
"So what else is on your mind besides 100 proof women, 90 proof whiskey, and 14 karat gold?"
It was "cleaned up" exstensively. The book is MUCH better. This film DEMANDS remaking. The treatment of the slave boy and native indians is all but removed, except when "romantics" necessitates their appearance.
I wish Costner would consider dusting this off and re-making it. The same can be said for Ferbers "Ice Palace".
What a great American author.
I hope Costner has nothing to do with a remake. I couldn't stand his PCing of a great genre...but this is just my opinion.
I thought Maria Schell was superb; should have even been nominated for an Oscar.
All the actors were great (even Russ Tamblyn who could be a self-conscious actor at times)!
Of all Ferber's works this is one I've never read. I've seen both film versions and prefer the 1960 remake for many reasons. I believe posterity has been unkind to this overlooked gem. Although I could take a considerable amount of time discussing its flaws, I would need much more time to discuss its merits.
Perfect casting, beautiful colour, sturdy score,a dngreat cinematography are just some of this picture's merits.
"I love corn!"
I consider it to be a horrible copy of "Giant" which is the identical (almost) story line and with far, far better acting. I guess Ferber only had one plot...big Texas oil. Ford is OK, and Schell always looks like she has been crying for a week.
Sorry if the negatives hurt feelings but IMHO, Giant is the best movie in the modern (post 1950) era. This just plain "inhales".
Peek-a-boo
"Order has been restored, for I have passed judgement."
There is a lot of confusion here about what makes a great film. The film, taken as a whole work, is dreadful. That does not mean Ford and Schell did not do creditable jobs.
To begin with, the film is overlong. It could have been cut by at least a half hour. It, like its 1931 predecessor, suffers from the "bigger therefore better" syndrome.
Much of the length problem stems from the screenplay's including many scenes which do nothing to contribute to development of the plot. As an example, consider the scene near the start of the film just after Ford has taken the printing press from Mrs. Pegler. Ford climbs on his horse and checks his carbine. What was this about? Who was Ford going to shoot? Mr. Pegler was not murdered. He met his death when he was run over by a wagon after he fell to the ground. The death was an accident, one of many stemming from an insane govt plan to turn settlement of counties in Oklahoma into an athletic contest.
The script seems to have been glued together from 3 x 5 cards. Incident 1, Incident 2, Incident 3, etc. In this, it follows the soap opera formula.
Growing out of this episodic nature is another of the film's problems. Events happen that are never explained. Consider Ford's return from the Spanish American War. Townspeople scour the train searching for him. He is nowhere to be found. Then, all of a sudden, Ford appears to Schell in his home. We are never told how Ford managed to avoid being found nor why he avoided being found.
We see Tom Wyatt in the beginning as a destitute, if overly prolific, sodbuster. He shows no signs of education or culture. Then oil is discovered on his land. Suddenly, we see him in soup-and-fish hobnobbing with the upper crust, smoking big cigars, and drinking fine champagne as if he were fourth- generation French nobility, to the manner born. He is the ultimate nouveau riche yet, magically, he fits in to a higher station as if he had been part of it all his life.
Part of the Wyatt problem is that the script has every character speaking the same modern, upper middle class dialect. Especially before television accelerated language uniformity, people from different areas used very different ways of speaking. We should have expected Wyatt to included an "ain't" or "out to Egypt" here or there. Even today, there are words that creep in that identify where a person comes from.
In that scene with Wyatt and the Washington influentials in which Ford is offered the governorship of the territory, Ford is faced with a challenge to his code of morality. Ford says nothing. He just bows out allowing the crooks to put up a more pliant stooge. A moral man would have taken the job and stood up for what is right even at the cost of the job. Or, Ford could have used the newspaper to expose the crooks. He did not. "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."
Other than Wyatt, characters do not develop. Ford is the same card he was in the beginning.
Some of the scenery is so obviously fake it was almost laughable. Consider the backdrop in the area of the land claim registration office.
All in all a poor film with some decent acting.
In reply to fiat0903:
I don't think there is any confusion here about what makes a great film. You just happen to have a different opinion than others.
I think Ford is spectacular in his role, given what he has to work with. He did what he was asked, amd of course he had nothing to do with the editing, which was where this film was probably taken off the course of what could have been a great film.
Most of your quibbles about scenes that did not contribute are probably due to edits. And I agree that did impact on the films success, but is certainly not dreadful, and should not be compared to a soap opera.
I do agree that the films poor development of character, made some of the later character acting look foolish, and I especially agree that Ford should have taken the Gov job, and worked out the kinks later, but I suppose that did not happen in the book.
So in my opinion the makers of the film were faced with what to do with great actors, and their opinion of how the plot should be furthered, but were unable in the end to make a decent mix of those aspects with the actual book.
One thing that really bothers me is how the Ford character, who is so moral, could leave his wife and son for 5 years, but I suppose that is what happened in the book, so it just had to be that way?
I think I will read the book.:) But overall, this was one pretty darn good western, better than most all others for its time. And we all know there were some pretty bad ones.
I saw the premier of HTWWW as a 10 year old in a panoramic theatre in 1963, and it was one of the greatest experiences of my life (to that point). But looking at it now, it is so full of plot holes, and inaccuracies, it is almost ludicrous. Like Grant (Morgan) and Sherman (Wayne) standing in a field discussing the war, and that Lincoln might fire Grant...and then a private almost shooting him, well that was all done to get Peppard into the historical record. Pretty cheesy! And the movie drags on in the end to near silliniess.
However, in the late 50's and early 60's we had only 3 channels on TV, and if we saw one movie a week on TV that was pretty exciting! Other than that it was Ed Sullivan, Bonanza, Twilight Zone, and a test pattern. But we never missed a chance to see the latest movie in a theatre (sometimes 3 times in one day), and I am sure that those that produced them knew that, so in our 2009 eyes, we need to forgive them for catering to the desires of the time.
And the standards of us movie goers were very low.:) If the creators of those movies back then were held to the same requirements of today in scope, range and cost of production no movies would have been made, in my opinion.
But what do I know? That is just my opinion.
I agree; the film borrows much from George Stevens' "Giant" and doesn't have a great deal to do with Ms. Ferber's original novel, "Cimarron." I tried to watch it and gave up when there was a scene where a Native American was being threatened with being burned alive in a bonfire. Likewise, the scene where a gentleman has liquor bottles shot out of his hands (while his arms are in a crucifix position) by juvenile gunmen (one being Russ Tamblyn) is excessive. Stevens was able to portray the topic of racial prejudice and crowd stupidity with much more effectiveness and style than did Mr. Mann.
With due respect for Mr. Ford's career, I don't feel this is one of his best films. Ms. Schell is pretty good, but again, too many turns away from the original material really mark this film.
I prefer the original "Cimarron" though the prehistoric film technique really hinder it, and feel that it's much closer to Ms. Ferber's novel than was the 1960 remake.
HAVENT READ THE BOOK, AND HAVE seen "Giant" which is more Valley of the Dolls, Dynasty style.
Cimarron (1960) is a social commentary of the Old West, ala much of Clint Eastwood's later westerns, Unforgiven etc.
It has more Of Mice and Men, East of Eden, Steinbeck feel....
I agree that it follows in Giant's footsteps, but IMO is not as successful in telling a big story, for many of the reasons touched on above by fiat0903.
It does touch on social commentary without seriously getting its hands (or characters) dirty. E.G. Tom Wyatt is said to have and cheerfully admits to having screwed the Indians out of their oil rights, which prompts Yancy to withdraw his candidature for governor.
Putting aside the argument that he could have been more effective operating inside the "wigwam" than outside (besides keeping his wife happy), that's all that occurs. We don't find out any thing more and Yancy, the crusading newspaper editor, comes out of the whole affair, looking weak, indecisive and of course separated. Arguably not a good look for the supposed hero of a "western epic".
Unfortunately this is the pattern of story-telling in the film, which IMO, led to it never being strongly promoted and being seen as a commercial failure.
It's an interesting film, as many of Mann's were, but not a particularly good one.
Events happen that are never explained. Consider Ford's return from the Spanish American War. Townspeople scour the train searching for him. He is nowhere to be found. Then, all of a sudden, Ford appears to Schell in his home. We are never told how Ford managed to avoid being found nor why he avoided being found
I have to agree 100% .. I love westerns and I don't know why I haven't seen this movie .. and I loved it .. I can't wait to see it again .. Glenn Ford has a new fan in me .
"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".