Cimarron (1960) Reviews

• Much Overrated Western

  jpdoherty2009-06-03

  CIMARRON (1960) was MGM's big Cinemascope/colour remake of RKO's 1930 epic production of Edna Ferber's classic story of the same name. From a screenplay by Arnold Schulman it was, I am loathe to say, unevenly directed by Anthony Mann. I am quite astonished - even aghast - that some reviewers on these pages elected to award this film a seven, eight, nine and in some cases a ten star rating? Some even hinted that it is Mann's most underrated western and could be his best work. "Cimarron" is nowhere near his best work! His best work is "El Cid" (1961) and his best western is "Winchester 73" with "The Naked Spur" coming a close second. "Cimarron " isn't even a good western! Not in the normal sense of what is regarded a good western like "Shane", "The Searchers" or "Last Train From Gun Hill". Even Ford's "The Sheepman" is a superior western to "Cimarron"! More lighthearted - sure but much more fun to watch! The first half of CIMARRON isn't at all bad and contains the best staging of the 1889 Oklahoma land rush ever put on the screen and in widescreen too (though in 1992 Ron Howard made a good fist of it in "Far & Away"). But let's face it the second half is relentlessly boring and just drags and drags! Firstly Anne Baxter, who has third billing after the leading lady Maria Schell, is written out of the film which I suppose isn't very noticeable since she didn't have a very important role in the picture anyway. But then Glenn Ford - the star of the movie - is also written out of the picture and only makes a brief and perfunctory reappearance just before the last reel. Then he's up and gone again never to be seen in the movie any more. With its star gone from the film the picture loses much of its balance and never regains the stature it had in the first half. Of course the story is the old chestnut of the mismatched couple who get hitched - she wants to play house and raise a family - while he wants to be charging up San Juan Hill, winning battles wherever they are and never seems to want to come home to his lovely wife. Well, to my mind any man who could leave the stunning Maria Schell - even for a long weekend - isn't playing with a full deck! Hmmm! Nope I'm sorry but I really don't think that "Cimarron" is all that great a movie! There are some great things in it! Besides the gorgeous Miss Schell there is the fine Cinemascope/Colour cinematography of Robert Surtees, the elaborate score by Franz Waxman (his Anthem like choral Main Title and his recurring main theme throughout plus his frenetic music for the land rush is outstanding) and the land rush itself is wonderfully exciting to see but there is nothing in the turgid second half that can persuade me to give this movie any more than a three star rating. Pity!!

  More

• Enjoyable pioneer saga

  patriciahammond2005-08-14

  I admit to not having read the book (but will now go to abe.com to find it!) or seen the earlier film, but find it interesting to compare this enjoyable movie with 'Giant'(Stevens, 1956), which incidentally also had Mercedes McCambridge in it, also concerned an essentially ill-matched couple, prejudice, mixed-race marriage, early oil-barons, and also takes in a number of years in which we see the characters grow older. Unlike the other reviewers here, I did NOT find Maria Schell's accent annoying in the least. She makes a wonderfully believable pioneer (note: the accent is genuine, which also sets her apart from many other Hollywood 'foreigners') and she has a pleasingly natural acting style. She shines beautifully when she is interacting with other women, be it the wildcat and part-time prostitute Anne Baxter in one of the finest scenes of the film (smouldering and feisty but underused I think) or the earthy and magnificent McCambridge, whose subtle but hilarious Southern accent is expertly modulated and a joy to the ear. So many scenes between women in Westerns of this time are somewhat flat and stagey, but I think they're superb here and set this film apart. Glenn Ford is good, and although the film rather tries to do too much (as does Giant, in my opinion), it's really a fun way to spend a rainy afternoon or even a hot afternoon. Plenty happens along the way and it has something to say.

  More

• In defense of a much maligned remake

  play78rpms2002-05-31

  Sorry but despite the fact that the 1931 version of this novel was the only western film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture it does not compare to the entertainment value of this version. True this is perhaps not the best adaptation of Ms. Ferber's novel, but then how many films are perfect adaptations of their source material. There are wonderful scenes missing from this adaptation, but then there are wonderful scenes missing from the adaptation of GWTW. No, I am not comparing this to a classic like GWTW. But the '31 version is not in the same class as GWTW either. This film should be taken for what it actually is, a good solid epic entertainment with spectacular scenes and good performances. Glenn Ford is perfect casting for Yancy. His performance is far superior to that of the overripe, stilted scenery chewing one delivered by Richard Dix in the original. Ford's boyish manner easily captures the charming immature nature of the character. Maria Schell is on a par with Irene Dunne. It is a pity her character was rewritten from the novel to be weaker than Ferber intended. This was obviously done to make the film Ford's but she's still gives a performance that is on the money. As so do the myriad supporting players in the film. Back in 1960, MGM obviously needed a big movie to move into the theaters that had been playing "Ben-Hur" for over a year. So this production was rushed to completion to fit the bill. The fact that it was shot in Cinemascope instead of a "Big" 70 mm process is evidence of this. It has been written that the production was shut down before the scripted ending could be filmed. This explains the rather abrupt and somewhat awkward end to the film. Perhaps a regular non "Roadshow" release might have fared better both with the critics and at the box-office. It often seems that those who praise the older version over this film have seldom actually seen the former. For many years the 1931 version was not available for viewing. During that period many film historians gushed in their praise of it. When it finally reappeared on screens most of them found it very creaky and revised their opinions but the older opinions are still in print, available and read. True, they didn't change their opinion of this version, but the older fell into proper perspective...Cinema History and rather dry history at that. While this version is not a classic it remains good entertainment. Compare it to "How The West Was Won" made by the same studio just a few years later.

  More

• Every Bit As Good As The First Time

  bkoganbing2007-11-29

  I've always liked the 1960 remake of the RKO classic Cimarron and have never understood why it gets panned by so many people the way it does. Director Anthony Mann who got fired towards the end of the film's production did a very good job with both the cast and the spectacle. The Oklahoma land rush scene was as thrillingly done as it was in the 1931 version. In fact truth be told, Glenn Ford did a better job as frontier renaissance man Yancey Cravat. Richard Dix though nominated for Best Actor in 1931 never did quite master the art of sound film and his star progressively sank lower and lower in Hollywood. Glenn is a strong heroic figure cursed with the fatal flaw of wanderlust. Truth also be told is that many different accents made up the western pioneer population. Maria Schell's German accent is most assuredly not out of place here and she holds her own with Irene Dunne's portrayal of Sabra Cravat. All the characters present in Edna Ferber's saga of the transforming of Oklahoma from territory to state made it from the first film. All of them meet during the Oklahoma land rush and while Glenn and Maria are the leads, the story of the film is what happens to all of them. One character is expanded considerably from the 1931 film. Edna May Oliver was Mrs. Wyatt who was a pioneer woman whose husband we never did meet. Here Mrs. Wyatt is played by Mercedes McCambridge who is married to Arthur O'Connell who is very important to the story. They're this hardscrabble share cropper family who get a real scrubby piece of land at the beginning of the land rush, mainly because O'Connell falls off the stagecoach right at the beginning of the land rush and Mercedes runs across the starting line and she claims the land right at the line. It turns out the land has oil and these people become the proverbial beggars on horseback. McCambridge remains unchanged by their sudden wealth, O'Connell is very much like that other nouveau rich oil millionaire that Edna Ferber created, Jett Rink. From people who the Cravats lent a hand to back in the day, O'Connell at least becomes an opponent. One character that was eliminated thank the Deity was the black kid Isiaih who hero worshiped Richard Dix in the 1931 version. In 1960 that kind of racial stereotype would not have been tolerated. The cast includes also such fine people as Anne Baxter, Edgar Buchanan, Russ Tamblyn, Vic Morrow, Aline McMahon, Robert Keith, Charles McGraw, all ably filling out parts from the original version. The land rush scene is every bit as good as the first time around. I'm at a loss as to why this film was panned the way it was. It's a very good western and fans of the genre will appreciate it.

  More

• One of the few pre-1965 westerns with depth, without being preachy

  donmage2005-09-16

  To sum up a in a sentence, this movie is about what happens with a couple in an early pioneer town of Oklahoma, where a man gets to do what he wants and a woman must do what she must. This is one of those movies that, unlike 90% of the "westerns" before the realist period (1965-present), has a lot more realism than one would expect from one produced in 1960. Not only does it depict violent racism, 19th century views on women, wayward youth, etc., it also depicts the nuances prevalent in a man desiring to give up, but incapable of burying, his wanderlust ideals (men are just boys with bigger toys) for the sake of his family. Just when one thinks the plot has died a death of boredom, another wrinkle of interest pushes it's way to the viewing screen provoking an astute viewer's enthusiasm for the story. Cimarron is one of those movies with just enough realism that it is a welcoming bridge from the 1950s 'cowboys & Indians' saccharine period to the ultra-realist, albeit minimalist, "spaghetti" westerns. If one doesn't fall in love (not in an amorous way) with Maria Schell in this movie then they haven't much of a heart anyway. This is a great western-genre movie with lots of characters to care about lovingly or with disdain.

  More