Vilified in modern times as one of the weakest and/or worst Oscar Best Picture winner, and spanked as "very racist and very bad" by one author, "Cimarron" does not deserve such condemnation. It won Best Picture because the script is high concept, the type of overarching, epic story that Hollywood has always rewarded.
Its script tells the fictional tale of adventurer and pioneer Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix) who, along with his wife Sabra (Irene Dunne), takes part in the 1889 land rush into Oklahoma Territory, along with thousands of others. In the film, these pioneers stake a land claim and build a new town, called Osage, out on the prairie.
The plot spans some forty years in the Cravat's lives, filled with dreams, accomplishments, sorrow, and interaction with a variety of characters, from prim and proper Mrs. Wyatt (humorous Edna May Oliver) to town thug Lon Yountis (Stanley Fields). Along the way we encounter: gun toting outlaws; dust; a strange gospel meeting; bullies; buildings and walkways made of wood; more dust; the trial of an "immoral" young woman; politicians; and still more dust.
The plot is structured to give most of the film's runtime to the Cravat's lives during the 19th century. As we move into the 20th century, the plot speeds up; characters age a little too quickly. That is a problem I have with the script. The film's tone starts out enthusiastic and rowdy, and ends stoical and long-suffering.
B&W photography is acceptable. There are lots of wide-angle shots, as we would expect for a story set in the wide-open spaces. Prod design and costumes are elaborate and probably accurate for the era. Casting is acceptable. For a 1920s type film, acting is predictably melodramatic. But with his eyes all bugged-out, Richard Dix seriously overacts, even for that era.
In retrospect, there may have been other films as deserving, or more so, for Best Picture of 1931. But at the time, this big-budget Western was almost certainly a predictable winner. I found the story only mildly interesting. But then I'm a creature of a more modern era. And I think viewers would do well to consider "Cimarron" a valid film, one that now gives us some historical perspective, both on Hollywood cinema and on American history.
Its script tells the fictional tale of adventurer and pioneer Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix) who, along with his wife Sabra (Irene Dunne), takes part in the 1889 land rush into Oklahoma Territory, along with thousands of others. In the film, these pioneers stake a land claim and build a new town, called Osage, out on the prairie.
The plot spans some forty years in the Cravat's lives, filled with dreams, accomplishments, sorrow, and interaction with a variety of characters, from prim and proper Mrs. Wyatt (humorous Edna May Oliver) to town thug Lon Yountis (Stanley Fields). Along the way we encounter: gun toting outlaws; dust; a strange gospel meeting; bullies; buildings and walkways made of wood; more dust; the trial of an "immoral" young woman; politicians; and still more dust.
The plot is structured to give most of the film's runtime to the Cravat's lives during the 19th century. As we move into the 20th century, the plot speeds up; characters age a little too quickly. That is a problem I have with the script. The film's tone starts out enthusiastic and rowdy, and ends stoical and long-suffering.
B&W photography is acceptable. There are lots of wide-angle shots, as we would expect for a story set in the wide-open spaces. Prod design and costumes are elaborate and probably accurate for the era. Casting is acceptable. For a 1920s type film, acting is predictably melodramatic. But with his eyes all bugged-out, Richard Dix seriously overacts, even for that era.
In retrospect, there may have been other films as deserving, or more so, for Best Picture of 1931. But at the time, this big-budget Western was almost certainly a predictable winner. I found the story only mildly interesting. But then I'm a creature of a more modern era. And I think viewers would do well to consider "Cimarron" a valid film, one that now gives us some historical perspective, both on Hollywood cinema and on American history.