Cimarron (1960)

You won't be disappointed!

The Age of Commercialism

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

I am at a loss to understand why this has been panned by critics, and why it did not do better at the box office. Like other reviewers I found Glenn Ford's depiction of Yancey Cravat far better than that of Richard Dix, in the 1931 version. The land rush was brilliantly done, and the remainder of the cat, eg Harry Morgan, Russ Tamblyn, Anne Baxter and especially Maria Schell were excellent. The music by Franz Waxman was splendidly done, the cinematography brilliant, and the title song very catchy. Generally I am not (with one or two notable exceptions) a fan of westerns, however Cimarron should not be missed. It is a thoroughly enjoyable film.

Thinking as I have, upon seeing the two versions (on consecutive days) depicting the fourth (from April 22, 1889) of the five Oklahoma land rushes, I have to reconsider my initial impression that the 1931 film was marginally better than this, Mann's 1960 version. I realize I'm not a member of the Glenn Ford Fan Club by any stretch of the imagination, but his co-stars are WAY better, and in Anthony Mann, you find a master of both the Western and the epic format (his later 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' is one of my favourite films from the 60's).A jar of beeswax could have out-acted Richard Dix's performance in the original (it's a dirty rotten shame HE even got nominated for Best Actor, in a year when MANY outstanding actors were overshadowed, not being so honoured), but I have to admit Ford was good, even if IMHO he didn't deserve the honour of being front-and-center of a 2 1/2 hour epic, and you can't beat what Maria Schell, Anne Baxter, Harry Morgan and Vic Morrow--just to name a select few--brought to the picture.Some scenes in the 1931 original still work better, but overall I believe this is one case in which the remake is better than the original. I further would insist that had Mann not been fired and replaced by Charles Walters, it would have been a minor masterpiece.

Though the 1931 version of Edna Ferber's 1929 novel is not any good, yet we make allowances for it owing to the times in which the movie was made. It seems to be trying to say prejudice is bad, but makes its point with stereotypes of African Americans, Jews, and Native Americans, often set up to show how enlightened Yancey is and what a great guy he is for coming their rescue. Yancey is also supposed to be enlightened when it comes to women, hence his defense of Dixie Lee, but this is done at the expense of women like Sabra, making her out to be narrow minded. And so, we handicap the movie for when it was made, making allowances for both the style and content.But when watching the 1960 remake, we lose all patience. To take an extreme example for comparison, we are glad to have "Birth of a Nation" (1915) as a document revealing the racist attitudes of the times, and as such, we watch the movie with fascination. But that does not mean we want the movie remade today, even if we could do it better, so to speak, by making it with sound, in color, and in widescreen.Perhaps the land rush for the Unassigned Lands in Oklahoma in 1889 begged to be filmed in color and in Cinemascope, but that could have been depicted in an entirely different story. Placed within a remake of "Cimarron," however, it is simply wasted. Some of the misogyny is eliminated by simply eliminating Yancey's bigoted daughter and by eliminating the persecution and trial of Dixie Lee. The African American stereotype is avoided by eliminating the boy who sneaked away with Yancey and Sabra early in the 1931 movie. However, Sol Levy is still depicted as the stereotypical Jew who is a helpless victim, which allows Yancey to play the savior.In my review of the 1931 version, I said that Yancey Cravat is an irritating character played by a bad actor, Richard Dix. In this 1960 version, Yancey is played by a much better actor, Glenn Ford, but he is just as irritating as ever, if not more so. However, the 1960 version makes apologies for him by having Sabra tell him she never wants to see him again when he refuses to accept the appointment as governor, instead of simply having Yancey abandon her again the way he did in the 1931 version.The melodramatic death of Yancey in the oilfield is eliminated, with Yancey dying in the First World War instead. A more modestly sized statue of Yancey appears at the end of the 1960 version, though with Yancey still towering over the Native American he is helping up.

There is a lot right with CIMARRON, but a lot wrong too. Now on DVD in a great transfer/wide screen/stereo sound, it's interesting viewing. Not having read the book I can't compare, but there are several plot doings that don't have any conclusions. The movie is an epic of sorts and would have run hours if everything came together. A bit illocgical at times. Main plot line is Glenn Ford and Maria Schell a newlyweds coming to settle in Oklahoma when free land is available. In the span of over 30 years there is much going happening both good and bad, just like in real life. If I hadn't seen Glenn Ford in so many films I would think his performance would be excellent, but he kind of mumbles and hems and hahs every other sentence in every film he's in. He acts very much like he did in TEASHOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON just a few years earlier. Better direction was needed for his character. Maria Shell was quite wonderful in a difficult role and she's in almost every frame the last 1/4th of the movie. The support actors are all good to fair. Russ Tamblyn disappoints as the baddie. Anne Baxter does well in an ill-defined role. Looks like most of her performance ended up on the cutting room floor or wasn't even filmed. Too many conflicts go unresolved...but it's still an interesting film with much to admire, especially the the cinematography and music score. Worth a look.