Cavalcade

That was a chapter heading in a book on the making of KING KONG. KING KONG which received no Oscar nominations and this one (1) won BEST PICTURE. That is why we were very interested in seeing it and were not disappointed. No need to go over the films short comings which some other reviewers have done. Though we don't see how being shot in B&W is relevant since that was the prevailing technology of the time.

The importance of the film is how the post (WWI) war generation viewed themselves and the tragedies, personal and international that transformed their world. The two (2) most powerful being the brief Titanic sequence and the montage of WWI where young men in an unending stream march into a Dante's Inferno never to return from that circle of hell. How the confidence of the Victorian/Edwardian age was shattered and their Empires were swept away or Gone With The Wind.

Film has clearly had it's influence and the most pronounced was in the SUPERIOR Jean Marsh television series UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS. If you cannot feel empathy for the characters of CAVALCADE you will in this. Do yourself a favor and watch CAVALCADE first. Watching both might get some people to, dare I say it, even read a book about that time period and realize that the current time does not have a monopoly upon conflict and pain.

One final comment KING KONG should of WON.

Often forgotten, but very excellent 1933 Best Picture Oscar winner that stands up amazingly well after 70 years. "Cavalcade" is the near-epic tale of two British families (one set of aristocrats led by Oscar-nominee Diane Wynyard and Clive Brook and the other a set of servants led by Una O'Connor and Herbert Mundin) and their experiences from New Year's Eve 1899 to the start of 1933. As the film opens, the country is entangled in the bloody Boer War in South Africa. Queen Victoria's death soon follows and naturally the loss hits the entire country very hard. The sinking of the Titanic also effects the richer group as they lose family members on the doomed liner. Of course World War I produces a terrible situation for the two groups' children. The film progresses through the Jazzy 1920s and then we re-visit the couples in the early-1930s as they reflect on eventful, dramatic and tragic years since the start of the century. A new hope seems possible by the end (of course history would continue to be unkind as World War II would soon become a sad reality for the English), but far from certain. Frank Lloyd (Oscar-winning for his direction) crafted a vastly interesting film that is technologically strong for the time period (the Titanic sequence in particular is something to be appreciated) and very intelligent from the start. The editing techniques are revolutionary with impressive fades throughout to show the passing of time and the cinematography still holds up strong even today. One good thing about the Academy Awards is the historical significance it gives to films like "Cavalcade". True the film is not always well-known among movie enthusiasts, but that does not mean that this is not an excellent production and one of the first truly excellent movies that Hollywood would develop for the world. 5 stars out of 5.

I suppose you don't have to be an Anglophile to like Cavalcade, but it certainly helps.

The film it seems to be most like to me is Giant. Just as the Edna Ferber based film is some 25 years of the second quarter of the last century as seen through the eyes of the Texas Benedict family, Cavalcade is a British social history through the Marryots, Robert and Jane played by Clive Brook and Diana Wynyard. Though the Benedicts have their problems, they don't go through near the tragedies that the Marryots do.

Cavalcade was presented on the London stage a few years earlier and it never made it to Broadway unlike most of Noel Coward's works. It was an expensive production with revolving kaleidoscope like sets that probably made American producers on Broadway shy away from it.

A lot of standard English Music Hall numbers were used instead of Coward writing an original score. He did contribute one number however, 20th Century Blues which was a whole commentary unto itself of the roaring twenties.

Although at that point in time our history in the USA certainly does connect with the United Kingdom's during World War I for the most part Cavalcade deals strictly with British subject matter. I'm afraid unless one is a fan of Noel Coward or is familiar with 20th Century British history, it's hard for today's audience to appreciate Cavalcade.

Cavalcade however was the Best Picture of 1933 and Frank Lloyd won for Best Director. He'd win another Oscar for Best Director on another, but far different British subject in Mutiny on the Bounty. Diana Wynyard was nominated for Best Actress, but lost to Katherine Hepburn for Morning Glory.

Two other good performances are Una O'Connor and Herbert Mundin as Mrs. and Mr. Bridges. They are the downstairs in service couple to the upstairs Marryots. Both play far different parts than what we normally see of them. Most film fans remember Herbert Mundin as the meek mess man from Mutiny on the Bounty and Much the Miller from The Adventures of Robin Hood where he's paired with Una O'Connor. He's quite different here.

Cavalcade is good, but terribly dated. Still it should be seen and evaluated as a commentary of how the British saw themselves at the beginning of the Great Depression.

I enjoyed this film, not so much as a piece of entertainment that still holds up today, but as a moment frozen both in time and geography. Unlike "42nd Street" and "Dinner at Eight" which are other films from 1933 that I think most Americans would find very accessible today, you might not care for Cavalcade if you don't know what to look for.

This film is totally British in its perspective and it is also very much in the anti-war spirit that pervaded movies between 1925 and 1935 as WWI came to be seen by nearly all its global participants as a pointless war and caused everyone to lose their taste for fighting another.

The British perspective that you have to realize is that the Marryotts are accustomed to being on top - both in the world as England had dominated the globe for centuries, and socially, as they were part of the aristocracy. That didn't mean that they were snobs - they were very friendly and compassionate with their servants. But the point is, they were accustomed to the relationship being their choice and under their control. Suddenly England appears to be on the decline on the world stage and the servants they were so kind to are coming up in the world on their own and don't need their permission to enter society. Downstairs is coming upstairs, like it or not.

Downstairs is personified in this film by the Bridges family, Marryot servants that eventually strike out on their own and into business. Eventually the daughter, Fanny, enters into a romance with the Marryot's younger son. When Mrs. Marryot learns the news she is not so shocked as she is resigned to the fact that this is another sign that her world is slipping away. As for Fanny Bridges, she seems to personify post-war decadence as she grows from a child to full womanhood in the roaring 20's. At one point in the film, as a child, she literally dances on the grave of a loved one. This is not a good sign of things to come.

If the movie has a major flaw it is that it goes rather slowly through the years 1900 through 1918 and flies through the last fifteen years. Through a well-done montage you get a taste for what British life was like during that time - in many cases it looks like it was going through the same growing pains as American society during that same period - but it's only a taste.

Overall I'd recommend it, but just realize that it is quite different in style from American films from that same year.

Widely considered, on the IMDB at least, as one of the least deserving Best Picture winners ever. And I disagree. Yes, there were other great films in 1933: Dinner at Eight, Gold Diggers of 1933, Duck Soup, State Fair, to name a few. This one is, first of all, unusually lavish, in the way Academy voters then tended (and still do, to an extent) to admire. It's from a stage success by a major playwright, and offers spectacle and crowd scenes even the Drury Lane never could have contained. It has a lively, Upstairs Downstairs/Downton Abbey vibe, and the reliable Una O'Connor and Herbert Mundin making the most of the downstairs couple. Clive Brook is a solid patriarch, and if Diana Wynyard tends to play to the second balcony more than she ought, she has some fine quiet moments, too. There are some very well-written scenes (the young couple on the Titanic, Wynyard telling O'Connor off late in the proceedings), some very accurate depictions of what was considered mass entertainment at the time, and some good montages. The constant passage-of-time device of those people and horses parading across the screen does get tired, and one can detect a certain self-congratulatory air in Frank Lloyd's direction; oh, look how capable I am at handling the sheer volume of this. But I'm interested throughout, and can see how it may well have been the most impressive of the Best Picture nominees that year. Give it a break.