Monday 1 May 2017

6. Cavalcade (1932/1933)


Plot Intro

In the opening scenes we are introduced to Robert and Jane Marryot (Clive Brook and Diana Wynyard), and their two sons, Edward and Joey, on New Years’ Eve, 1899. We know that they are upper class because they say things like “By George!” and “What the Dickens”, and have a team of pragmatic, peasant-esque servants. As the film progresses, we see this indubitably British family go through the major events of the first three decades of the twentieth century- namely the Boer War, the sinking of the Titanic, the First World War and the decadence of the ‘20s. But not the Great Depression, oddly enough. 



Paul says...

Good Lord, we were dreading this one! Doug read somewhere that, along with The Broadway Melody (which we hated), it is one of the lowest-regarded Best Picture winners. Plus, it has the lowest rating of all the Best Picture winners on IMDB. In actual fact, Cavalcade is nowhere near as bad as that, and it is actually a lovely insight into what appealed to audiences in the early to mid 1930’s. 

We’ve seen the “passing of time” structure before in Cimarron, and I think the earlier film did it better due to its concentration on the building of Oklahoma as a framing technique. Cavalcade is less grand because it concentrates on the personal and domestic tribulations of a small family during periods of strife. Plus it’s not interested in the staunchly patriotic “building a new civilisation” motif that the all-American Cimarron flaunted. 

It nonetheless has touching moments- the depiction of the First World War in particular brings a lump to your throat. This is now the third film in the first 6 years of the Oscars to tackle war. In 1933, in which the film was released, Hitler gained power, so murmurings of war may well have bounded across Europe. Cavalcade’s preoccupation with reflecting on the tragic events that opened the 1900’s (all of which were down to human error and complacency, and would be fresh in the memory of many movie audiences) would have struck a chord with enormous force at the time. The closing scenes even look forward to the future, with the main characters providing a stirring, if platitudinous, speech to the camera about the need for a peaceful society. Plus the film conspicuously begins and ends with the British National Anthem. It’s very poignant, although if Noel Coward intended to prevent another world war occurring then he did a bloody rubbish job of it, didn’t he? 

My problem with the film, however, is Noel Coward’s original play script (on which the film is based). My only other exposure to him is 1945’s Brief Encounter which, though touching, is still susceptible to vicious parody (which Victoria Wood has proven so well). In Coward-world the upper classes have awfully clipped accents (pronounced “ix-sents”). They stand with dignity even when their children die and act like they’ve learnt expression and gesture from a Victorian instruction manual on acting. The lower classes say meaningless maxims like “It is what it is” and “What happens, happens”, and are charmingly dim and raucous. It’s all very mawkish and sent us into fits of giggles most of the time, so the film lost a great deal of its power.

If you like old-fashioned “oh woe is me!” over-acting then this film is a lark, but most modern audiences would just scoff like we did. Nonetheless, Cavalcade’s saving grace lies in his historical significance, and in the scale of time and events that it covers. The leading lady, Diana Wynward, who was nominated for Best Actress, is vulnerable and touching, and gives the film a driving force so that you’re never bored. But, for me, Cavalcade is a far-cry from a full 10 out of 10. 

Highlight
A stirring and inventive montage of World War One, in which marching soldiers, dying soldiers, explosions, gunfire and pretty girls singing propaganda songs are mixed together forming a memorable 3 minutes.

Lowlight
Some awkwardly ancient acting and writing styles steal the emotion from even the most tragic scenes. 

Mark
4/10  


Doug says...



As Paul has said, I read somewhere that this film was said to be on the same level as the dire Broadway Melody (thinking of that film winning an Oscar still makes my teeth hurt). The expectation then was that we would be subjected to an agonising two hours that rendered us relieved to have finally escaped it. 

It wasn’t anywhere near that. For a start, it’s not boring, and I’m a huge fan of wordy stage plays - and this was taken from a Noel Coward play. I’m a sucker for human observation in my entertainment - and Coward delivers, with the servants’ lives noted in minute details - of course they are stoic and common sense-filled caricatures, but it’s interesting to see them given as much screen time as the ‘above stairs’ family. And that’s one of the most interesting things about this film for me - we are seeing one of the first Upstairs Downstairs/Gosford Park/Downton Abbey films. It’s a genre that has endured to the current day, and it’s intriguing to see how right from the beginning we’ve structured the plots to include both masters’ and servants’ lives. 

It bears similarity to Cimarron in the way it spans a great expanse of time, but where Cimarron seemed to do that almost organically, with Calvacade it jumps a bit awkwardly, and often labours its point. For instance at one point two lovers are on a boat. They’ve already made speeches in the previous scene about how they would have their honeymoon on a luxury ship, then the titles told us it was 1912, then they’re stood on the boat itself making ‘witty’ speeches about how they could easily die in the water, then finally they move away revealing an inflatable ring with ‘Titanic’ written on it. I’m sure the film-makers expected us to gasp at this, but we’d already worked it out about ten minutes ago. The director didn’t exactly credit the audience with intelligence. 

And then here’s my main bugbear. World War I was of paramount importance to contemporary history, and I understand the desire to cram it in to every film possible. However because it’s such a big issue - and back then was still very recent - once the film reaches the point of WWI, they get stuck there and the momentum of the film (moving quickly from Boer War to Titanic and onwards) falters. There’s a series of montages showing the ‘horrors of war’ and to me it all felt very dull and unnecessary. How much more interesting it could have been if they’d treated WWI with the same brevity as all the other historical events and thereby addressed more events. 

Finally there’s the ending, which takes the form of a huge warning against people being too ‘easy’ with each other (girls dancing with their shoulders uncovered, heaven forbid) and vicars preaching that we must take care not to get caught up in TERRIBLE SIN etc etc. It’s all very forced and a bit odd that Coward has slung some sort of moral in, right at the end. 

Apart from that, it’s a fun film and perfect for a lazy Sunday afternoon. Coward’s writing is certainly a bit dusty, but it’s peppered with a few good actors (Diana Wynward as the film’s star is very good despite a hilarious ‘faint’) and some great characters, including the social climber Ellen who goes from housemaid to Kris Jenner-wannabe over the two hours. 

Highlight
The mother telling her small child who woke up and called for her: ‘Joey you awful child. How dare you make such a noise? What would you do if I spanked you soundly and sent you to bed?’

Low light
The odd preachy end (with the lead characters looking into the camera and declaring how we must remain 'dignified'), and the unusual over-use of montages. 


Mark
4/10

No comments:

Post a Comment