Cavalcade.

Review #1339: Cavalcade.

Cast: 
Diana Wynyard (Jane Marryot), Clive Brook (Robert Marryot), Una O'Connor (Ellen Bridges), Herbert Mundin (Alfred Bridges), Beryl Mercer (Cook), Irene Browne (Margaret Harris), Tempe Pigott (Mrs. Snapper), Merle Tottenham (Annie), and Frank Lawton (Joe Marryot) Directed by Frank Lloyd (#099 - Mutiny on the Bounty and #1321 - The Sea Hawk)

Review: 
It is easy to say in retrospect what films are memorable or striking for a particular year (particularly when talking about awards for said films of a year). When one thinks of 1933, one would likely think of certain films like King Kong, The Invisible Man, or perhaps even Morning Glory before Cavalcade. This is a strange one, since this was the highest grossing film of the year, and it eventually went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture in its year, the first and only win for studio Fox Film Corporation before its merger in 1935 along with an award for Lloyd, the second director to win two Academy Awards. Lloyd had a forty-year career directing films for a variety of studios, and this was one of his noted films (the war sequences, however, were directed by William Cameron Menzies). Maybe this is perhaps of its home video history, since its first VHS release came only in 1993, while the first stand-alone release on DVD and Blu-Ray came out in 2013, after being included in one of those prestige movie packs in 2010. This 2013 release came after winning an online write-in poll, which made it the last Best Picture winner to do so (of course it also is available on streaming services, but those don't count for anything). One must note the source material it comes from, a play by famed playwright Noël Coward, which had premiered in 1931 in London, which used hydraulics and moving components on a big stage for great effect. One can give credit for the ambition in making a British production (in terms of stars and writers while Lloyd was born in Scotland), but this generosity does not quite help the film when it comes to actually watching it.

For an epic that spans 30 years, one would be surprised to note that the pace of the 112-minute film makes one feel like they are spending 30 years watching it. Events come and go, but these characters remain flat for most of its run-time, as if the "stiff upper lip" is the only thing worth mentioning of these people. This is a march of platitudes (a fancy word for cliche) that is in search of an idea. Oh sure, one gets to see glimpses of history such as the Boer War, the Titanic, and World War I. But all of it feels tremendously empty, a by-the-numbers kind of romantic drama that seems dated now but certainly must've reeled others more familiar with the dawn of the 20th century than I. With such stagy qualities, one can't quite fault the actors for not quite living up to film standards, where one is left with a sense of detachment. Wynyard was an actress of the stage (before and after being borrowed for this film, a nominated performance), while Brook had fair success abroad from Hollywood before moving back to Britain in a few years later, reportedly in part because of kidnapping threats on his children. In any case, they seem unflappable as one could expect, but it seems hollow nowadays. At least Wynyard proves effective when it comes to the war sequences, checking on to see if her husband (and in another sequence, son) are still alive. The cliches have collapsed into other cliches, honestly. The best instance of that is a sequence involving a newly wed couple, speaking about romantic cliches while aboard a ship on April 1912. Gee, I wonder what ship these folks are on. Of all the events portrayed in the film, this is the only one that seems brushed aside, with the famous wreck of the Titanic and the fate of said characters being talked about just once in dialogue. One can depict flashes of war, the death of Queen Victoria, someone getting run over by horses, but I guess the Titanic is a bit too much. Seriously though, the way in people come and go in this film is astounding, where one would find more emotion present in someone's death in a children's book. At least the film looks like it spans a couple of decades, as opposed to being done on the cheap (not that there's anything wrong with that). On the whole, this is a film that has little enduring power, doing so on the basis of awards from decades ago and milder-than-mild spectacle that make it an antique above usual antiques. If you're into this kind of film, you might find something worth looking into, but for me I found mild disappointment above all, a piece that fits the 1930s in ambition but not one in terms of ultimate enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.