Michael Anderson, the director of 'Around the World in 80 Days' (ATW8D), as well as 'Logan's Run', died recently. I decided to rewatch my copy of the Academy Award-winning Best Picture of 1956.
I like this movie, and it holds a special place in my heart. It was the first "cinematic" film I saw when I was young that made an impression of scope, grandeur, and cinematography. Here's a clip which I fell in love with as a kid, which you should watch before proceeding:
Train Sequence Through India
So if you find the above link visually pleasing, you may enjoy the film. If not, then... Probably not. Here's a post-viewing reckoning of the film, after having seen it again, considering its pros and cons, and whether it holds up:
Pro: Cinematography
ATW8D is full of beautiful shots. Besides the India section above, there are two other significant sequences. The first, and most famous, is the hot air balloon ride, which shows off Europe, freshly rebuilt and restored after the damage from WWII. It comprises the first leg of the journey. After India, the other train sequence of note is through America, with vast wilderness and untrammeled prairies to ooh and aah over.
Con: The really weird intro
I had forgotten that the movie opens with an extended introduction by Edward R. Murrow, discussing new rocket technologies, able to circumnavigate the globe in 80 minutes. It's a nice concept, but it doesn't add much, and having Murrow walk us through Melies' abridged 1902 classic Voyage to the Moon, while likely highly enjoyable for audiences in 1956, isn't so swell in 2018. That said, you can easily skip all this on a DVD.
Mix: Rule Britania
If you enjoy British humor, and David Niven walking around as Phileas Fogg being proper to the point of absurdity, you'll like ATW8D's sense of humor. When they arrive in San Francisco they are struck with the foreigner's barbarism. The dry wit and stiff upper lip are fun for anglophiles. It can at times be too much, though.
Pro: Cameos and credits
The movie is a who's who of famous actors and actresses. Sir John Gielgud to Marlene Dietrich, Buster Keaton to Noel Coward, Joe E. Brown to...
The end credits, by the renowned Saul Bass, of Hitchcock fame, are also a tremendous treat which help you identify all the cameos throughout the film.
Con: Racism and stereotyping
Not surprisingly, as time has gone, like Disney and the rest, the stereotypes and poor choices have only become uglier with age. With regards to cameos, not all are that pleasing, most notably Peter Lorre's depiction of a Japanese man:
This is not perhaps the only problematic Asian depiction. Cantinflas wanders through Japan in an extended silent segment which is almost charming enough to off-set the cheap humor of his attempted bull-fight with a Hindu sacred cow in India. But when Fogg and the Indian princess (Shirley MacLaine - again, not great casting) arrive:
Other scenes are problematic as well. The American section is generally a Western of the 1950s mold, with cowboys v. Indians, although one section does try to show the natives as peaceful, of course by sharing a peace pipe:
How much of this in 1956, and how much is a faithful depiction of Verne's book and what would have been normal for 1872? While I try to be generous, too many gags and jokes are at the expense of other's cultures - this is what makes the Rule Britania humor problematic when I mentioned it earlier.
Oddly, Bill Maher recently addressed this very issue around the time director Anderson died, in his usual style:
Where you fall on this issue is up to you. I think ATW8D has aged... okay. But it was uncomfortable to rewatch certain scenes, detracting from the overall enjoyment of the film.
Mix: Women and servants
There is something jarring about the tyranny of Fogg over his manservant, although, like any good protagonist, he is shown to actually care deeply about Passepartout. Likewise, the movie is trying to poke fun at the upper and lower class divisions (for example the servants of the gentleman's club are making bets alongside the their wealthy clientele).
I like this movie, and it holds a special place in my heart. It was the first "cinematic" film I saw when I was young that made an impression of scope, grandeur, and cinematography. Here's a clip which I fell in love with as a kid, which you should watch before proceeding:
Train Sequence Through India
So if you find the above link visually pleasing, you may enjoy the film. If not, then... Probably not. Here's a post-viewing reckoning of the film, after having seen it again, considering its pros and cons, and whether it holds up:
Pro: Cinematography
ATW8D is full of beautiful shots. Besides the India section above, there are two other significant sequences. The first, and most famous, is the hot air balloon ride, which shows off Europe, freshly rebuilt and restored after the damage from WWII. It comprises the first leg of the journey. After India, the other train sequence of note is through America, with vast wilderness and untrammeled prairies to ooh and aah over.
If you like sweeping vistas shot in CinemaScope-style, you may well like this movie.
Con: The really weird intro
I had forgotten that the movie opens with an extended introduction by Edward R. Murrow, discussing new rocket technologies, able to circumnavigate the globe in 80 minutes. It's a nice concept, but it doesn't add much, and having Murrow walk us through Melies' abridged 1902 classic Voyage to the Moon, while likely highly enjoyable for audiences in 1956, isn't so swell in 2018. That said, you can easily skip all this on a DVD.
Why.
Mix: Rule Britania
If you enjoy British humor, and David Niven walking around as Phileas Fogg being proper to the point of absurdity, you'll like ATW8D's sense of humor. When they arrive in San Francisco they are struck with the foreigner's barbarism. The dry wit and stiff upper lip are fun for anglophiles. It can at times be too much, though.
Pro: Cameos and credits
The movie is a who's who of famous actors and actresses. Sir John Gielgud to Marlene Dietrich, Buster Keaton to Noel Coward, Joe E. Brown to...
The end credits, by the renowned Saul Bass, of Hitchcock fame, are also a tremendous treat which help you identify all the cameos throughout the film.
Con: Racism and stereotyping
Not surprisingly, as time has gone, like Disney and the rest, the stereotypes and poor choices have only become uglier with age. With regards to cameos, not all are that pleasing, most notably Peter Lorre's depiction of a Japanese man:
All you Scarlet Johansson complainers should check this scene out for yellow-face and pidgin English that is second only to Mickey Rooney's 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'. Yikes.
This is not perhaps the only problematic Asian depiction. Cantinflas wanders through Japan in an extended silent segment which is almost charming enough to off-set the cheap humor of his attempted bull-fight with a Hindu sacred cow in India. But when Fogg and the Indian princess (Shirley MacLaine - again, not great casting) arrive:
I mean... this is probably how Brits would've dressed, which... doesn't excuse... *sigh*
Other scenes are problematic as well. The American section is generally a Western of the 1950s mold, with cowboys v. Indians, although one section does try to show the natives as peaceful, of course by sharing a peace pipe:
Oof.
How much of this in 1956, and how much is a faithful depiction of Verne's book and what would have been normal for 1872? While I try to be generous, too many gags and jokes are at the expense of other's cultures - this is what makes the Rule Britania humor problematic when I mentioned it earlier.
Oddly, Bill Maher recently addressed this very issue around the time director Anderson died, in his usual style:
Where you fall on this issue is up to you. I think ATW8D has aged... okay. But it was uncomfortable to rewatch certain scenes, detracting from the overall enjoyment of the film.
Mix: Women and servants
There is something jarring about the tyranny of Fogg over his manservant, although, like any good protagonist, he is shown to actually care deeply about Passepartout. Likewise, the movie is trying to poke fun at the upper and lower class divisions (for example the servants of the gentleman's club are making bets alongside the their wealthy clientele).
Or you can mix servants with racial stereotypes for a fun and healthy mix of British Imperialism
So, too, the role of women - MacLaine, besides being cast as an Indian princess, is further first introduced as an Indian princess in distress (she is about to be burned alive in barbaric cruelty). Her relationship with Fogg is very reminiscent of Prof. Higgins and Eliza Doolittle. The weirdest, most heavy-handed, joke is that of the ending of the film, when she arrives at the club, which no woman has ever entered before, and which is taken as a sign of the end of the British Empire.
It's meant to be funny, to show how progressive 1956 was compared to 1872, but both the master-servant relationships and depictions of women can be a swing and a miss. We've progressed so far, just in 20 years, that even the best attempts of past eras to be progressive can strike us as woefully out-of-touch. (See again that Bill Maher clip.)
Cantinflas also goes around lusting after the local ladies in many ports of call, and is first introduced on penny-farthing circling back to take a look at a shapely governess, which reminded me of something:
Some things haven't changed all that much, I suppose...
Final verdict: Does it hold up?
That depends more on you, than the film. If you can overlook the stereotyping and you find the British funny, then yeah, you'll probably like it. As said before, if widescreen visuals of foreign locales is your thing, then again you're in for a three-hour treat. Admirers of classic Hollywood and cameos will also get a kick out of spotting all 48 or so famous people. It comes back to that original sequence of the train - simple gags, lush imagery, accompanied by an equally lush film score, and a celebration of Britain with a mix of sincerity and a wink. Part travel film, with long sequences of "action" like a Wild West movie, a bullfight, and trying to outrun the police - it's sprawling, cinematic, and clearly the sort of film the Oscars would go for. I like it enough, but maybe that's just me.
No comments:
Post a Comment