La ruée vers l'Ouest

I thought perhaps the reason this version of "Cimarron" butchered its source material was because Edna Ferber was dead by the time it was made. But no, she didn't die until 1968. I can't believe she gave her stamp of approval to this film, which, while visually stunning, bears very little resemblance to her novel.

Glenn Ford was a heck of an actor, but too much the strong 'n' silent type to play such a flamboyant character as Yancey Cravat. Maria Schell's accent is distracting, and her Sabra is whiny, clingy and devoid of most of the strength and heroism I love about Ferber's female characters.

The 1931 "Cimarron" is a far more faithful adaptation of the novel, but be warned: The character of Isaiah (conveniently left out of the 1960 version) is an offensively exaggerated black stereotype, which, unfortunately (sorry, Edna) is also true to the book.

Cimarron is mostly directed by Anthony Mann and written by Arnold Schulman. It's based on the Edna Ferber novel of the same name and was previously made into a film in 1931. It stars Glenn Ford, Maria Schell, Anne Baxter, Harry Morgan, Russ Tamblyn, Mercedes McCambridge and Lili Darvas. Franz Waxman scores the music and Robert Surtees is the cinematographer. It's a CinemaScope production, filmed in Metrocolor and exterior locations were shot in Arizona.

--At high noon April 22, 1889, a section of the last unsettled territories in America was to be given free to the first people who claimed it. They came from the North, they came from the South and they came from across the sea. In just one day an entire territory would be settled. A new state would be born.

They called it Oklahoma--

With changes from both the novel and the 1931 film, Cimarron 1960 was a big budgeted production. With a huge cast and a running time to match, it was expected to be an epic winner for MGM. It wasn't. For although it has undoubted qualities to please the keen Western fan, it has just too much flab on its belly to let it run free. On the plus side is Surtess location photography and Anthony Mann's ability to stir the blood by way of his action know how. The highlight of the film, and certainly a Western fan's must see sequence, is that of the actual "land-rush" that forms the narrative starting point of the film. A stunning collection of crashes, bangs, death and heartbreak are put together by Mann and the heroes that form the stunt team. Sadly the bar is raised so high so early in the film, it's all down hill from there for expectation and actuality. With the last third of the film laborious in the extreme as an ill equipped Maria Schell attempts to carry the dialogue driven heavy load.

The story is a good one, and Schulman's adaptation doesn't want for trying to reach epic horse opera status. But it's just not a fully formed whole, it comes out as a small group of fine scenes slotted into a gargantuan story of no real distinction. How else can you react to having sat thru two hours of film, to get to the big historical oil strike, to find the film petering out into a series of uninteresting conversations? Much of the problem can maybe be put down to problems off screen? Mann was fired towards the end of production, to be replaced by Charles Walters (High Society), while producer Edmund Grainger himself added scenes in an attempt to clarify the relationship between Yancey (Ford) and Sabra Cravat (Schell). The latter of which was without Mann knowing. This probably accounts for why the final third is so dull. The cast are mostly safe, with Charles McGraw and Aline MacMahon standing out in support slots, the latter of which excels during a graveside scene. But Tamblyn is hopelessly miscast and McCambridge and Baxter are, for different reasons, underused. Waxman scores it as more reflective than sweeping, tho the accompaniment for the "land-rush" sequence is boisterous and uplifting, while hats off to the nice costuming by Walter Plunkett; where Baxter, and us the viewers, benefit greatly.

The great scenes make it a film for Western fans to seek out. But in the context of two of the genre's heroes in Ford and Mann, it's one to easily forget about. 5.5/10

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.

I did not see this when it was new. I remember thinking that it wasn't worth the effort then. It is less worth it now.

Its device is its scope, both in time and size. There are not one but two land grabs. it spans 25 years and much attention is spent on the theatrics of the sets. It must have been a strange year for this to have done well. At least we can value it to the extent that its success for Columbia made the scope of Lawrence of Arabia possible for MGM.

The story here is only there to support a celebration of settlers of Indian territories and to pull out a specific type which we are to admire as an ideal, an ideal American.

He is a champion of justice and a man of action. His adherence to certain principles punishes him. He is a proponent of civil rights here coded as Indian rights. What's not to like?

Well. He loves the adventure of the land. We get great vistas that anchor him in the place, a convention of Westerns since Ford. But he is not a man of the land, he is a city boy who likes adventure. That's this film's basic undoing of ideals.

It's reflected in the parallel western convention of woman as place. This guy loves deeply but he just can't settle with a woman. We see two.

When they meet, they talk of wives as mothers, companions and lovers. We are to admire that he does not need the first, is companion to nearly everyone and is deep in his love.

The narrative power of this idea by itself would be weak in any package. It is even worse here because of the inept direction. We see this more sharply now because of the obsolete acting and staging styles.

Ann Baxter is a pretty prostitute whose story of self is close to our hero. Though she has less screen time than the immigrant wife, we are to see her as genuine. It's really about her as the land, as the place, and why it isn't the blond wife.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

"Cimarron" is much like two films crammed together. The first half is exciting and enjoyable in many ways and the final portion is dull and seems to drag on forever...and then some! Rarely have I seen a film this different at the start and at the finish. As a result, it's a real mixed bag of a movie...worth seeing but it sure should have been a lot better.

When the film begins, Cimarron Cravat (Glenn Ford) is back East to marry a recent immigrant, Sabra (Maria Schell). Her way of life is about to change radically, as she's moving from relative comfort to the wide open Oklahoma Territory in 1889. Cimarron wants to go there for the giant land grant but many things seem to get in the way of his and Sabra's plans. They don't get the land they wanted and soon Cimarron finds himself running a newspaper. He also finds himself a do-gooder--one of the only men willing to stand up to evil. And here is where you start to see cracks in their marriage. Cimarron has a very strong sense of right and wrong but his wife just wants stability and security at all costs. As the years pass, this gulf between them widens and ultimately they both go their separate ways. What's next for the duo?

This Edna Ferber saga is basically the recent history of Oklahoma-- from territory to statehood--and all wrapped around the fictional story of the Cravats. At times exciting and interesting (such as when Cimarron repeatedly risks his life to stand up for the local Indians) and others long, long and long!!! And, rather depressing when all is said and done. The first half merits a 9 and the last a 2! Rarely have I ever seen a film this uneven.