Cavalcade 1932/3

The Film:

Two years earlier, Cimarron was billed as "Terrific as all Creation". This film is apparently "Great as Life Itself!". The passage of time has deemed both of these films as among the least worthy winners - Cavalcade has the same low IMDB rating as Cimarron. However, Cavalcade has the added indignity of winning when there are several films in the nomination list that have far better stood the test of time - and also one that is considered one of the greatest early classics of sound cinema but doesn't get a single nomination anywhere....

None of that is Cavalcade's fault and it will be interesting to try and work out quite what all the fuss was about when it was awarded both Best Picture and Best Director that year. It was the first non-American film to win Best Picture and it would appear that the Academy were charmed by the ever-so-Englishness of the whole thing. From what (little) I'd read before watching it, it sounded very much like the whole of Upstairs Downstairs crammed into two hours - it covers pretty much the same timespan with a similar sounding family. I still consider UpDown to be one of the greatest TV Dramas ever made, so I was anticipating being a pretty harsh critic.

Cavalcade (unsurprisingly) was proving difficult - or, at least, rather expensive - to find on DVD. But then we found the whole thing on Youtube, which saved me about £30! It all seems legit (it's been up there for years) and it's quite a nice print. So, if you want to see what all the (lack of) fuss is about, here it is:

Your host for the evening.....

The Ceremony:

The 6th Ceremony was held again at the Ambassador   Hotel, on March 16th 1934, and it was hosted by Will Rogers. Although no footage of the ceremony exists, it's fair to assume that this was the first of many ceremonies that included some comedy schtick from the presenter (previous presenters were movie execs and, the year before, serious silent film star Conrad Nagle)

It was also the first year to feature a fairly major gaffe - not quite of La La Moonlight Land proportions, but still pretty embarrassing. When Rogers announced the Best Director he shouted "Come and get it Frank!", forgetting that two of the three nominated directors were called Frank. Mr Capra got there first, but Mr Lloyd was the winner. In the great scheme of things I'm sure Capra didn't mind too much - he won two awards the following year and another four after that!

This was the last year that the ceremony recognised films from a season rather than a calendar year, and so the eligibility period spanned nearly 18 months. From now on they all stick to a date somewhere in February, March or April and recognise films from the previous calendar year.


Other Notable Winners That Night:

I don't need an excuse to put up a ravishing photo of the divine
Katharine! It was her or Charles Laughton - no contest really!

Katharine Hepburn won the first of her (still unbeaten) four Best Actress awards, for Morning Glory. By all accounts not the greatest film, but she was great in it. She also appeared in another nominated film that year, Little Women. I can vouch for the fact that she was completely brilliant in that!

The Academy clearly had a thing for British talent and British history that year, as Best Actor went to Charles Laughton for his depiction of Henry VIII.

Disney won yet another Oscar but, to be fair, there wasn't a great deal of competition in animation at the time. It'll happen.....



What We Could/Should Have Been Watching:

Where's my Oscar?!!!

This is the most controversial one yet - and possibly ever! There were ten films nominated that year. Among them are such fondly remembered (and still watched) classics as 42nd Street, The Private Life of Henry VIII, She Done Him Wrong (probably the most famous Mae West film), Little Women, A Farewell to Arms and I Am A Fugitive from a Chain Gang.

Whatever the particular merits of Cavalcade, it's easy to argue with hindsight that any one of these films is better in some way or other - and therefore should have won the Oscar. Personally, from this list, I'd go for 42nd Street. (But then, I would, wouldn't I?)

Far more shocking, with decades of hindsight, is that the most famous, innovative, game-changing, enduring and financially successful film of 1933 didn't even get a nomination. In any category. There were no technical categories at this point - if there were King Kong would have cleaned up in all of them. And, considering its box office success, it seems bizarre that it wasn't on that pretty long list of nominees.


Our Verdict:

Upstairs and Downstairs - what will the next three decades
bring? Go on - have a guess! You're probably right!

So, it probably shouldn't have won. But if it hadn't we wouldn't be watching it. And we'd probably be watching one of the above mentioned films that I've already seen before. The question remains - is it any good?

The answer - I don't really know! I sort of like it, and I'm glad I watched it. But did I like it just because I'm a sucker for this sort of thing (Early 20th Century British social history, to be precise) or is there more to it? It's definitely a curate's egg. And a well scrambled one at that.

There goes the Queen, the end of an era!

I was right in my prediction that it sounded very Upstairs Downstairs. In terms of story it was all five seasons rolled into one, but in terms of script and acting it too often resembled the dodgier episodes of Season One (sorry, that's a bit of a specific reference, I'll try to stay off the UpDown from now on).

One big difference is that it was filmed in or around the final year it depicts. Yet another film that looks at either the First World War or society shortly after it (in this case, both) with absolutely no knowledge of what's about to happen next. That adds an extra poignancy to the ending, when the couple are reflecting on the past and pondering the future.

Hmmm now let's see. What completely random ship to
America in 1912 might this be? And how can we be certain?

However, this is also the main reason why I am really struggling to review it properly. It's almost impossible for me to get into the mindset of someone watching it in the mid-30s. I have hindsight which gets in the way, in several different ways. Firstly, I know what happens next so their hopes and predictions for the future just seem very lame and pointless. Also, the style of storytelling comes across as very clunky and almost amateurish - lots of over-the-top stereotypes, a bit too much exposition, bloody great obvious clues as to what is going to happen next ("What if we die tonight?" is not a usual question to ask on your honeymoon, but the caption just told us its 1912 and they are on a great big ship, so guess what??), lots of scenes where people are in a room but are staring forward at the camera rather than at each other (it's obvious it was adapted from a play)

It's like the last thirty years went by in a blur of short scenes,
long songs and not particularly convincing make up

The other thing is the sheer Noel Coward-ness of the whole thing, which a modern audience is always going to find funny in the wrong ways and the wrong places. The accents are incredibly plummy and the acting often correspondingly wooden. On one hand this sort of stuff has been done so much better since (UpDown and the like) and on the other hand this sort of stuff has been parodied to death over the years - "many, many times", to quote Celia Molestrangler!

Having said this, it's still got its merits. There are some very well staged crowd scenes with casts of thousands and some effective montages, particularly showing the war years advancing. (Although it's odd how much of a fuss they make of relieving Mafeking whilst montaging the whole of WW1). And Fanny Bridges singing 20th Century Blues slightly softens the blow of not watching Ruby and Ginger!

Overall, it's quite an impressive bit of film making, but it just hasn't stood the test of time (maybe I feel this more with this film than Cimarron because its set in Britain?). And, after just under two hours, I really wasn't that bothered about the Maryotts or the Bridges. Not like I am about the Bellamys, Hudson, Rose and co.

Sorry Ruby, you're not quite what we're looking for
- where's Fanny Bridges?

So - I'm glad I watched it, I probably won't bother again, I'm glad I didn't pay £20+ for the Spanish release DVD and I still can't quite work out what the Academy saw in this over the others on the shortlist. I'm going to put it down to the fact that it is impossible for me to get inside the mind and soul of a 1933 Academy member.

Roll on 1934 - it's a belter!