Best movie of this year hands down!

Very disappointing...

the audience applauded

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

This 1931 movie of the epic 1929 Edna Ferber novel is itself an epic. "Cimarron" shows the historic Oklahoma Land Rush and ensuring settlement right up to the time that the audience then lived. The amassing of so many wagons, carts and types of old conveyances is historical in itself. And the portrayal of the boomtown rising out of the Western prairie is so close to the time that it's an authentic picture of the real life of the time and place.Indeed, this RKO film captured three Academy Awards Oscars, with four more nominations. It was the Best Picture of 1931. Richard Dix and Irene Dunne were nominated for best actor and actress, and gave superb performances. Some modern viewers may see Dix's flamboyance as over-acting. He did carry a little of his silent film mannerisms into his early sound films. But his Yancey Cravat is spot on the character that Edna Ferber created. And, Dunne's portrayal was superb as her character matured over the years. The 1960 production of "Cimarron" by MGM had a fine cast and did a good portrayal of the period. But the rise of the towns from the prairie seemed to miss the touch of authenticity that this film has. And, while all of the cast of the later film were fine, they didn't provide the edge that Dix and Dunne and company give in this original "Cimarron."Dix also starred in another movie around the land rush, "Cherokee Strip", in 1940. And Dix and Dunne starred together in another film. "Stingaree" is a 1934 RKO drama and comedy romance.Here are some favorite lines from the film. For more dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb Web page of the movie. Yancy Cravat, "Why, we've had enough of this Wichita. We're going' out to a brand new two-fisted, rip snortin' country full of Indians, rattlesnakes, gun toters and desperados. Whoopee!"Yancy Cravat, "There's loyalty, Sabra, that money can't buy."Yancy Cravat, "The second button on his coat is about the spot of his wishbone. Maybe a couple inches higher." Sol Levy, "Oh, they will always talk about Yancy. He's gonna be part of the history of the great Southwest. It's men like him that build the world. The rest of them, like me... well, we just come along and live in it."Yancy Cravat, "Dixie Lees have been stoned in the market place for 2,000 years. You've got to drive the devil out first."Mrs. Tracy Wyatt, "Sorry, Mr. Levy about you not being on the committee. But you see, we invited representatives of our principal families. One of my ancestors was a signer of the Declaration of Independence." Sol Levy, "Mmm hmmm. That's all right. A relative of mine, a fellow named Moses, wrote the Ten Commandments."

I have to say that this Academy Award Best Picture winner dates badly, especially the acting. I know that The Front Page (1931) was also nominated for Best Picture that year, a film I thought was far superior to this one. It is, however, clearly better than another of the nominees I've seen - Trader Horn (1931), although that one did provide quite an educational adventure (into Africa), for the time.This film has several old stereotypes (racial, and others) in it, which is understandable for the time it was filmed. But, other than that, it feels very long and, in the end, unfulfilling. It is a Western which focuses on the settling of Oklahoma through statehood. There are several contrived scenes which cheapen what I think could have been a better film. There were perhaps two scenes worth seeing: the land rush (which has since been done better, even in the 30's e.g. The Oklahoma Kid (1939)) and a church revival held in the largest building in town (the gambling house!).Initially, I thought to myself "well, it was made in 1931, what did you expect?". And then I remembered several other well made horror and gangster films from that same year. So, who knows? Perhaps I just don't have a good feel for the pulse of America in 1931. It's clear to me that it's one of the most disappointing of the Best Picture Oscar winners (and that's saying a lot).It does, however, have Edna May Oliver (always a plus). The film also won for Art Direction and Writing. Its director (Wesley Ruggles) and two leads, Richard Dix and Irene Dunne, were also nominated as was the Cinematography. For Dunne, it would be the first of her five (unrewarded) Best Actress nominations (a crime that she never received one!); for Dix, it would be his only Academy recognition. Based on the Edna Ferber novel, and remade in Technicolor as Cimarron (1960) with Glenn Ford (among others).

I'm disturbed that so many reviewers gave this film bad marks because it is not politically correct by today's standards. They should be rating the film on its effectiveness as a story. I found it compelling and believable. All of the principle actors gave one of their best performances. Certainly Stanley Fields and George Stone were never better. Irene Dunne carried off a range of impressions seldom matched on the screen. And Richard Dix did the opposite in just as admirable a way: maintaining character through numerous situations.But what is most important is that the film was not politically correct for its time - in a brave way. It showed the intolerance for blacks as something shameful and that color didn't matter when it came to courage. Showing the black teenager as a hero was almost unprecedented for the period.At a time when native Americans were portrayed in film merely as evil hoards, this film showed both their shameful treatment and nobility. And dared to show that marrying for love knows no racial barriers.And finally, far from being anti-feminist, it showed that any woman raised to be prejudiced and subservient could become a fair-minded, independent leader.The film did all of these things within the confines of the story without being preachy. That alone is a triumph of its time. Add to that the sweep of the film that didn't lose the personal stories and you get an Oscar worthy film.

Richard Dix, Irene Dunne, and Edna May Oliver star in this film adaptation of Edna Ferber's novel, Cimarron, which centers on the new territory of Oklahoma. In the beginning we see a stampede of people wanting a new life on new grounds, galloping towards what is to be Oklahoma, to stake their claim. One such person is Richard Dix, who's married to Irene Dunne. He learns real quick, in order to get what he wants, he can't stop to be kind to others along the way. It's hard to pinpoint a certain plot that moves the movie along, as it's a mixture of all things. But, you can tell real quick that, what it does in telling the story is not subtle and does not mince words. With Richard Dix's over-the-top performance, certain typecasts of people, particularly blacks, and some pretty awkward direction and writing, the film, to be honest, shows its age and dates very badly and is pretty hard to watch and downright unbearable in parts. In fact, it was probably dated in just a few years after it was made. Irene Dunne, while trying to embody the sweet loyal wife, by the end of the film, seems judge-mental and hard, especially in terms of another member of the community. I may not would have watched this, if it hadn't been for her. And, Irene Dunne did earn an Oscar nomination for her work. But, Richard Dix really steals the show with his hammy performance, particularly with his courtroom antics. He and Henry Hull were the hammiest actors I've ever seen in movies. While his character of Yancey Cravat tends to be regarded as self-absorbed, by leaving home and feeling his duty anywhere but by his wife's side, he is in fact more likable and even more admirable in comparison to his wife. He always stands for the right thing to do, even when the consensus says to do the opposite, and he, most of the time, is on the side of the underdog or who's being treated badly, which leads to the ending being very fitting, in that it couldn't end any other way. For as much as I said that it's very dated and may in fact be a once-you've-seen-it,you've-seen-it film, it certainly keeps your attention and is never dull. Some may call it a so-bad-it's-good film; others may call it just plain awful with its depiction of stereotypes. But this Oscar-winning Best Picture! certainly shows another side to the early days of Oklahoma civilization.