Cavalcade

Moviecut—Apocalypse Now (1979) - 'Ride of the Valkyries' scene [1080p]

source: Cavalcade

Well, I finally got the chance to see this. It's not an easy movie to get a hold of. For several years, now, I had had only two movies outstanding in my quest to see all the Best Picture films, and this was one of them; the other is Wings. Netflix, usually a wonderful source, mysteriously refused to have either of them. Finally, a friend of mine simply *bought* me the two films. I got the chance to watch Cavalcade tonight. Meh. I guess it's reasonably well made, for what it is. But I don't especially care for what it is. Exactly the kind of movie I don't care for, it's more a sequence of events rather than having any coherent plot. Rather a history lesson of the early 20th century, spun around the lives of two families (and to make that work, it sometimes gets rather contrived). But I think what really harms the movie the most for me is simply when it was made. The movie covers the time frame of 1900-1933, the year the film came out. And if you make a movie like this in 1933, you are necessarily going to have a skewed view of history. We, the viewers, know '33 as the year Hitler came to power and set events in motion that would lead to perhaps the biggest event of the century: WWII. But the film, of course, doesn't know that yet, so when it makes a big deal out of the *Boer War*, it's pretty weird, and hard to get all worked up about it. Similarly, from the time of the movie-- and especially the *place* of the movie (it is a British film), I guess it made sense to have the death of Queen Victoria be a big deal, but as a modern American, I really was unable to shake off a profound feeling of "Who cares????" And you might expect that, again, from 1933, the Great Depression might get some coverage. But no. No time for a trivial little thing like the Great Depression, c'mon, we've gotta tell people all about the hell that was the *Boer War*!!! So I'm afraid this film really didn't do it for me. It wasn't awful, I wouldn't list it as the worst Best Picture (I've seen some I positively *hated*, and I didn't hate this). But it wasn't magnificent.

This is a letter perfect film taking in the sweep of time from 1900-1933 for a British upper-class family (the Marryots) and a family that serves them (the Bridges). If you enjoyed Cavalcade you might want to see the 1944 film, This Happy Breed. I think of the two as companion pieces. Cavalcade looked took an Upstairs-Downstairs approach, showing families at either end of the economic and class scale, from 1900-1933. This Happy Breed focuses on the Gibbons, a middle-class family, beginning with the end of the Great War to the start of World War II. It was the second film directed by David Lean. The movies common ancestor is Noel Coward. Both films adapted from plays written by him.

For those of you keeping up with my retrospective on all the Best Picture winners up to now, you will know these writers, directors and actors were still not accustomed to the transition to talkies, but they were slowly getting the hang of it. And on top of it all, they were even taking advantage of the visual medium. The sets, the ability to shoot on location, the cinematography, the lighting, and down the road, the color of the film itself all helped contribute all kinds of creative ways for these filmmakers to either make the impossible possible, or reliving the past. King Kong, a film that came out in 1933, is one of those films that accomplished this task and so much more. But unfortunately, we're not reviewing King Kong today because it didn't win Best Picture. It wasn't even nominated. What won instead, unfortunately, was a film that made no attempt at all to take advantage of what film as a medium has to offer; Cavalcade. Yeah, they adapted one of the drollest of plays into a feature film, and people actually loved it. What's the story? It's the life of an English couple from the New Years Eve of 1899 up until then-present day 1933 as they experience historical events include the Second Boer War, the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic, and World War I among many other things. And within the now-reasonably short running time of 110 minutes, then that means the film's going to be either exciting or rushed. This film is anything but exciting; it's dull as a rock. There is absolutely no soul in this picture at all. And the picture is indeed rushed. These events are just glanced over for no good reason other than to show that they lived through them, and they never seem to show how much they impacted them or the world around them. There's nothing interesting about these characters or this story whatsoever. And what's worse is that these events don't seem to impact the viewer in any way because those scenes are executed in a manner identical to those of a play; you never see these events happen. Come, on! We already had 2 War films win Best Picture in the past; where's the budget? Where are the calamities? For a sentimental film, this film sure does feel devoid of any real emotions. And that's why I call this film dull and soulless; there's no logic or reason, no critical thinking, not even pure sentimental hogwash. At least all the previous nominees had a semblance of a soul; this film doesn't. This film is completely static and unmoving to say the least. The acting is boring, the characters are boring, and the story is boring. There is nothing positive to say outside of the fact that the premise had promise. More extravagance (to help these events leave a bigger impact), about 20 or 30 more minutes added to the running time, and more interesting characters. That is all that is needed to make this film any good. So while the film is pretty bad, it is salvageable. I would just skip it if I were you. 2.5 out of 10 rounded up to 3 out of 10.

This is a wonderful slice of life film about one family as they cope with the 20th century and all its upheaval. While the film came out long before WWII, it does focus a lot on the destruction and loss of WWI, as many of the characters you come to care about through the course of the film are killed. And, through it all, the survivors keep a stiff upper lip like a good Brit! The film features excellent acting, writing and action. All around, it is a top-quality film. However, while an excellent film and one that will tug at your heart, it is NOT as high a quality film as you would expect for the BEST PICTURE award it received. Excellent and worth seeing--absolutely. Oscar worthy--not really.

The Marryot family is the focus of Noel Coward's antiwar film, "Cavalcade," made in 1933 and starring Diana Wynyard, Clive Brook, Una O'Connor, and Margaret Lindsay. This is an upstairs-downstairs look at the effects of war, and war's effects on society as we see what happens to the Bridges family, the servants, and the Marryots, during the years 1899-1933 in Great Britain. Not in any way snobbish, the Marryots in fact have a very close relationship with their servants. But class is class, and the class system declines to the point where the daughter (Ursula Jeans) of Ellen and Alfred Bridges (O'Connor and Herbert Mundin) becomes involved with her childhood playmate, Joe Marryot (Frank Lawton), a sign that the world the Marryots knew is fading away. All three Marryot men are involved in the Boer War, and two fight in World War I, to the distress of Jane Marryot (Wynyard), who is the representative of the antiwar sentiment. There are other world events that touch the family as well: the death of Queen Victoria, and the sinking of the Titanic. The film is a bit on the slow side and spends more time on the early period than the later. Coward, however, with shots of men blinded in the Great War, young men being shot, etc., makes his point very well. My big quibble with this film is that it goes for 34 years. At the beginning, the Marryots have young children. Even if the Mr. and Mrs. Marryot were 30 years old at the beginning of the film -- why at the end of the movie did they look and act 90? It was hilarious as they're probably in their sixties. It goes to show how the concept of age has really changed. This film is okay but somehow not as involving or as good as David Lean's This Happy Breed which concerns a middle-class family post World War I to World War II - also written by Noel Coward. I think This Happy Breed has a better cast; some of the acting in Cavalcade is a little stiff. Still, there are some striking scenes.

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.

A sloppy but beautiful British family saga chronicling the lives of two families, the Marryots and the Bridges, the former upper class and the latter their servants, from the end of the 19th Century up to 1933. A few major events are portrayed. At the beginning of the film, the patriarchs of the two families go off to fight the Boer War. Much later on in the film we experience WWI, and in between we see the Titanic sink. The film is filled to the brink with good characters, all of them being portrayed by very good actors, as well. There are a few very bad scenes, most notably the one on the Titanic (I know it was an important event in this time period, but it's handled very poorly and predictably in the screenplay). The final speech, a necessary element in every film of this sub-genre, is particularly bad, too. The film ends during a worldwide depression, and there is a half-attempt to provide the audience with hope. Unfortunately, there is none to be found. I would have hated to be an audience member at this film in 1933! The many good scenes do far outweigh the bad ones, though. There are a couple that are really masterful. The very long montage that paints a portrait of WWI is gorgeously done, and appropriately harrowing. The scene in which the matriarch of the Marryot family watches her youngest son go off to war is exquisite. After he leaves, she attempts to light a cigarette. At that moment, a young nurse and a wounded man in a stretcher pass by; the nurse lights a cigarette for the wounded man. The match goes out between the matriarch's fingers as she stares at them. This very economical scene expresses both the cold fear she has for her son and the ways in which the boundaries between the classes were fading. The theme of class in Cavalcade is important, although I wish it had been developed further. Early in the film, the Bridges family moves away and amasses something of a fortune of their own. As history marches on, we do see the class lines falter a bit. Cavalcade may actually have been an influence on none other than Jean Renoir, at least in The Grand Illusion. That film also deals with the melding of the classes as a result of wars. There is one scene in Cavalcade that is simply too close to one in The Grand Illusion to be a coincidence. A theater show is interrupted to announce that the Boer War is over and that the troops are coming back. Together, the audience members stand up and begin singing. It looks very much like the scene where the P.O.W.s sing "The Marseilles" in The Grand Illusion. 8/10.

In a year that produced enduring classics like "King Kong,Dinner at Eight,Queen Christina and 42nd Street",just to mention a few examples of this amazing crop of films,"Cavalcade" managed to be awarded with the Oscar for best picture.This dated and quite boring movie didn't deserve such an honor.Based on the play by Noel Coward about two British families (one aristocratic and one of working-class stock)the movie traces their lives through the three first decades of the 20th century.With the possibilities that the story gave of making a grand epic saga,the film makers opted for more or less to reproduce the play as filmed theater only with montages of those world shattering events of the early 20th century.This almost killed the movie for me.The acting is not especially noteworthy except for the performance of Herbert Mundin.The movie is quite interesting in it's depiction of the old Edwardian society trying to adjust to the upheavals of the times and not quite managing it. Although I found it hard to sit through the movie isn't quite a waste of time because of its historical significance.