“Cimarron” (1931) is a film that attempts to capture the spirit of the American West during a time of expansion. Directed by Wesley Ruggles, it features Richard Dix as Yancey Cravat and Irene Dunne as his wife, Sabra. While the film has some strong performances, it is marred by outdated racial stereotypes and confusing gender roles.
Key Points
Plot Overview
Set in 1889, the film begins with President Harrison opening Oklahoma for settlement. Yancey leaves his wife and young son in Wichita, Kansas, to claim a homestead. However, he is tricked by a woman named Dixie Lee, played by Estelle Taylor, who takes his land. When Yancey returns home empty-handed, Sabra defies her family and joins him in the new town of Osage, Oklahoma.
Upon arriving, Sabra finds a lawless town still under construction. Initially, she wants to go back home, but Yancey convinces her to stay. They set up a newspaper and law office, and Yancey begins a crusade against local criminals. As time passes, Sabra grows to love Osage, becoming a community leader and a mother.
However, Yancey’s wanderlust leads him away from home multiple times, leaving Sabra to manage their lives alone. The film spans over two decades, showing Sabra’s evolution from a reluctant pioneer to a congresswoman, while Yancey remains a wandering figure.
Conflicting Themes and Characters
The film presents a mix of themes, including manifest destiny and women’s empowerment. Sabra becomes a strong figure in her community, running a newspaper and raising her children. Yet, she often allows Yancey to dismiss her concerns, which can be frustrating for modern viewers.
Yancey is portrayed as a complex character, advocating for Native American rights while Sabra holds prejudiced views. This contradiction creates a disjointed narrative. The film tries to show progress but often falls back on outdated stereotypes. For example, the character of Isaiah, a young Black servant, is depicted in a way that reinforces harmful racial tropes.
Historical Context and Reception
“Cimarron” is based on a novel by Edna Ferber, published in 1929. The film was produced during the Great Depression and had a massive budget. Despite winning three Academy Awards, including Best Picture, it lost $5.5 million by the end of 1931. The film has since faded into obscurity, largely due to its dated racial views.
Interestingly, the Academy Awards ceremony that year was notably dull. The event was poorly organized, and guests were more interested in comedian Roscoe Ates than the speeches. This context adds to the film’s historical significance, as it reflects a time when Hollywood was struggling to find its footing.
Final Thoughts
Watching “Cimarron” today can be a jarring experience. While it attempts to address important themes, the execution often feels clumsy. The film’s portrayal of women and minorities is problematic, making it difficult to appreciate its intentions fully.
The production values, including costume and set design, are commendable, showcasing the era’s aesthetic. However, the film’s outdated views on race and gender overshadow its achievements.
In conclusion, “Cimarron” serves as a historical artifact rather than a relevant film for modern audiences. Its attempts at progressive storytelling are undermined by the stereotypes of its time. While it may have been a significant film in its day, it is best viewed through a critical lens that acknowledges its flaws.
