JohnHowardReid Fortunately, unlike the over-emphatic Richard Dix, Irene Dunne improves considerably as the film progresses. Her old age is much more convincing than her youth. (The many critics who complained so vociferously about her casting as a querulous Queen Victoria in Jean Negulesco's "The Mudlark" (1950) — before that film had even commenced shooting — had obviously never seen her performance in Cimarron). So much so in fact that few would argue her Best Actress nomination was undeserved.The support players, by and large, tend to take their cues from Edna May Oliver and Rosco (sic) Ates. Most are uniformly hammy. Only Stanley Fields can really get away with these scene-chewing mannerisms, though Edna May and Rosco certainly try hard enough.There are exceptions to the prevailing rule of amateurish dramatics, of course. Estelle Taylor, for one. She's really most convincing as the town trollop. And Nancy Dover — a fine actress who changed her name to Judith Barrett — is absolutely unforgettable as the rebellious Donna.It's George E. Stone, though, who figures in the movie's second most memorable sequence. Not to be outdone by Dunne, he acts his way through the movie in reverse. His early scenes are a masterly triumph, a lesson in how superlative acting can not only overcome tedious clichés but weave them into a characterization that wipes every other player off the screen.The scene in which Stone is gunned down by Stanley Fields is almost as great an audience-stirrer as the justly celebrated land rush with which the film opens. (Incidentally, it wasn't the Cherokee Strip that was opened on 22 April 1889 — that even bigger land rush is referred to later in the film, though, disappointingly, it isn't actually shown on camera — but two million acres of other Indian Oklahoma land). This is quite something. The trouble is that you just can't match a scene like that. Although we anticipate that the movie-makers are aware of this problem and have taken measures to keep an even more spectacular climax in reserve, most unhappily such a finale never eventuates. Indeed, the rest of the movie could be described — a bit unfairly, certainly — as just one long anti- climax.In addition to Best Picture, the movie carried off an award for Best Screenplay Adaptation. The story proceeds — no doubt following the novel — in a series of vignettes, each initiated by a sub-title announcing the year. Whilst certainly effective enough, this is an old-fashioned device that serves to give the whole movie an even more dated and musty museum air than was already the case — thanks to Richard Dix's histrionic mannerisms (a habit that he never wholly overcame, although he did eventually manage to tone his barnstorming down considerably) and his dialogue's tendency to evolve into speeches and declamations (doubtless also derived directly from the Ferber novel).On the other hand, few people would argue with Max Ree's prize for Best Art Direction. The sets, brilliantly reflecting the various passages of years, are an absolute marvel. Of course, Ree apparently had the resources of an almost unlimited budget. It would be impossible to duplicate such elaborate street scenes in a modern studio. Such staggering back-lot facilities are simply no longer available. True, miniatures and special effects could be employed, but to my mind the end result isn't quite the same as that achieved by using real people, real streetcars, real shop-fronts, etc. For once, critics and the public agreed. Both groups voted "Cimarron" the best film of the year. One wonders, if all the releases of that year were placed before our current crop of critics, plus a representative sample of picture-goers, if either or both would still vote the same way. I very much doubt it. A pity, because "Cimarron" has much to offer.

jacobs-greenwood I have to say that this Academy Award Best Picture winner dates badly, especially the acting. I know that The Front Page (1931) was also nominated for Best Picture that year, a film I thought was far superior to this one. It is, however, clearly better than another of the nominees I've seen - Trader Horn (1931), although that one did provide quite an educational adventure (into Africa), for the time.This film has several old stereotypes (racial, and others) in it, which is understandable for the time it was filmed. But, other than that, it feels very long and, in the end, unfulfilling. It is a Western which focuses on the settling of Oklahoma through statehood. There are several contrived scenes which cheapen what I think could have been a better film. There were perhaps two scenes worth seeing: the land rush (which has since been done better, even in the 30's e.g. The Oklahoma Kid (1939)) and a church revival held in the largest building in town (the gambling house!).Initially, I thought to myself "well, it was made in 1931, what did you expect?". And then I remembered several other well made horror and gangster films from that same year. So, who knows? Perhaps I just don't have a good feel for the pulse of America in 1931. It's clear to me that it's one of the most disappointing of the Best Picture Oscar winners (and that's saying a lot).It does, however, have Edna May Oliver (always a plus). The film also won for Art Direction and Writing. Its director (Wesley Ruggles) and two leads, Richard Dix and Irene Dunne, were also nominated as was the Cinematography. For Dunne, it would be the first of her five (unrewarded) Best Actress nominations (a crime that she never received one!); for Dix, it would be his only Academy recognition. Based on the Edna Ferber novel, and remade in Technicolor as Cimarron (1960) with Glenn Ford (among others).

carleeee The historical but fictional film, based on the book by Edna Ferber, presents us with a clash of cultures and attitudes. Yancey is a restless jack-of-all-trades: the new town's newspaper editor, a lawyer, fast-shooting law enforcer and even a preacher. Wanderlust gets the better of him, leaving his wife Sabra (Irene Dunn) to raise the family and run the newspaper.Mostly set in the fictional 'Boom Town' of Osage, not to be confused with today's Osage in Oklahoma which is tiny, we see the townsfolk making do with what they have. Yancey is mainly the Editor of The Oklahoma Wigwam but at the same time he gets to use his shooting skills, act as a lawyer, and run the first church service.The issue I had with Cimarron was that the storyline was disjointed and lost focus at times. Overall it was about the birth of a new state, though it went in different directions at different times and many sub-plots were never fully-explained. Sabra's character grew into a wise and admirable older woman, however we missed out on seeing her character actually develop. A woman in a more modern film would not have shown so much loyalty to her husband...her loyalty is to be admired even if her husband needs a clip round the ears!On a technical note, the characters didn't always age in sync with one another. By the end of the film Sabra has aged (at least in the hair department), but not nearly as much as Yancey. Her complexion remained unrealistically youthful for a woman over 60, though her vocals were always spot-on to whichever age she was playing which is no mean feat for an actor.The acting overall was convincing, special mention to Estelle Taylor as town prostitute Dixie Lee for her moving life story showing there is more than meets the eye when it comes to judging someone, though the town gossip Mrs Tracy Wyatt was a bit over-played by Edna May Oliver. Tracey's mannerisms and loud outfits give the impression of a cross-breed of Hyacinth Bucket and Madame Thenardier. Some minor story lines could have been cut to speed things up where it was needed, but overall Cimarron is a great example of 1930s film, and gives a good grasp of the lives of pioneers in the late 19th Century.

mikegordan This is the oddball of the early Oscars. Considering their growing rise to popularity, I'm kinda surprised that we didn't see more Westerns taking home the Oscar for Best Picture. Heck, they wouldn't honor another one until Kevin Costner made Dances with Wolves in 1990 (but I'll get to that one much later). It kinda baffles me because; they were historical epics, they were big money-makers, and they were cheap and easy to make to boot. I say that had all the makings of a Best Picture winner.But then when you finally see it, you kinda understand why the Academy practically gave up on Westerns in general…with a few exceptions of course (I'll get to those when I get to those). This movie was just far too big for the filmmaker's own good that what he was trying to get at when making this movie just never fell through.The story actually isn't a story so much as it is the life of a restless Jack-of-all-trades, Yancey Cravat as he claims a spot of land during the Oklahoma Boom, and the rest of the film is the rest of his life afterward. This was definitely an interesting and ambitious turn in movies as it focused more on somebody's life rather than a coherent story. That, I have no problem with…if the character of Yancey was anything interesting, and he's not. He's completely boring and forgettable. Heck, he's not even a consistent character. The things he does in this film are spur-of-the-moment, and we don't get to know him enough as to why he would do any of these things. It's essentially a character-study where we do not even get so much of character so much as random personality quirks. And this wouldn't be too bad if the point of view was from other perspectives (like in Citizen Kane, a film I plan to cover down the road).But I guess that's a plus side to this movie; the point of view isn't always on Yancey. And when it isn't, it's on his wife, and what she has to go through when Yancey is away is quite interesting. In fact, this film should have been told entirely from her point of view instead; that way, we could have a very interesting dynamic. An ambitious husband that does whatever he wants and nobody understands why, and the wife he leaves behind. If the film stuck entirely from her POV, this film would have been a lot better, and we'd have a central character we could sympathize with.Not to mention that for an early talkie, the acting in this picture is passable. I don't recall any of the characters being unbearable or anything. In fact, the church scene where Yancey is preaching is actually pretty hilarious. And while my memory is a bit foggy regarding this, I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt; it's one of the few films that actually demonstrate what an actual Christian baptism is. Ain't that something? There are a few cheesy scenes and moments here and there too (as if anybody can fire bullets in the air rapidly and without dire consequences), but it's nitpicky at best, and I'll let Hollywood logic slide as they aren't all that bad. And while the plot is random to the point where we, the audience, will be left in the dark at times, I do think that area of the writing could have worked if done right…if it was entirely from the POV of the wife. That way, it would make total sense for us to not know what is going on, because the wife doesn't either (I say doesn't because that's actually true).I guess when it comes down to it, the film is only half-good; the half involving the wife. The half from Yancey's point of view, however, is far too scatterbrained to the point where we don't even care about him or what he's doing. I'm guessing that because Westerns were very popular because we got to cheer for our favorite heroes (no serious; they were the 1930's-1950's equivalent of today's Superhero movies), they decided to add Yancey's POV to attract that kind of crowd. But this is an example of a film where one must draw a fine line between art and popularity, and when it came to our established protagonist, they definitely crossed that line when making this movie. As an aspiring writer, I find it pretty insulting. But at the same time, I view it more as a cautionary tale; to be ready to identify that line and not to cross over into popularity if it meant jeopardizing the quality of my art.Overall, Yancey pretty much keeps this film from being good, but his wife at least preserves some dignity with this picture. Take it for what it's worth, I'll rate it a 5 Out of 10.