"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1939) Review

"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1939) Review

Considering the popularity of the Brontë sisters, it is not surprising that there have been considerable movie, stage and television adaptations of their novels. I discovered there have been at least fifteen (15) adaptations of Emily Brontë's 1847 novel, "Wuthering Heights". 

I might as well be frank . . . I am not a major fan of the novel. I never have been. I do not dislike it, but I have always preferred the famous novels of the author's two sisters - namely "Jane Eyre" (1847) by Charlotte Brontë and Anne Brontë's 1848 novel, "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall". For some reason, "Wuthering Heights" depresses the hell out of me. I have nothing against works of fiction laced with tragedy. But the heavy barrage of emotional and physical abuse, revenge, and over-the-top passion has always seemed a bit too much for me. Due to my less-than-enthusiastic regard for Ms. Brontë's novel, I have always been reluctant to watch any of the television or movie adaptations, with the exception of one - the 1939 movie produced by Samuel Goldwyn.

Directed by William Wyler, and starring Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier; "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" told the story of the passionate and doomed love story between one Catherine Earnshaw, the daughter of a Yorkshire landowner and an orphaned Gypsy boy named Heathcliff. The story opens with Mr. Earnshaw introducing Heathcliff to his family - Cathy and her brother, Hindley - at Wuthering Heights. While Cathy immediately befriends Heathcliff, Hindley becomes jealous of his father and sister's high regard of the newcomer. Heathcliff's pleasant life with the Earnshaw family ends when Mr. Earnshaw dies and a resentful Hindley forces him to become one of the family's servants. 

Despite Heathcliff's new status within the Earnshaw family, his close relationship with Cathy remains close. Some eight to ten years later, the now adult pair have fallen in love and are meeting secretly on Penniston's Crag. One night, Cathy and Heathcliff are out when they discover the Earnshaws' neighbors, the Lintons, giving a party at the Grange. After climbing the garden wall, Cathy is attacked by a dog. The Lintons take Cathy in to care for her and Heathcliff is ordered to leave the Grange. Cathy becomes close with Edgar Linton and entranced by his wealth and glamour, while Edgar falls in love with her. When Edgar decides to propose marriage to Cathy, his action leads to a major fallout between Cathy and Heathcliff, the latter's departure for United States, his return, jealousy, obsession and in the end, tragedy.

As far as I know, the 1939 film eliminated the second half of Brontë's novel that centered on the generation featuring Heathcliff and Cathy's children. This elimination has led many fans of the novel to dismiss this version as a poor adaptation. Well, to each his own. I have never read Brontë's novel. And this is probably why I have such difficulty in dismissing "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" as unworthy of the novel. The only way I can judge the movie is on its own merits. And quite frankly, I believe it is one of the better costume dramas to be released during Hollywood's Studio Era.

Producer Samuel Goldwyn assigned his top director, William Wyler, to helm the movie. And Wyler did a superb job. Thanks to his direction, "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" turned out to be an atmospheric and well paced movie filled with superb performances by the cast. Wyler utilized the talents of cinematographer Gregg Toland, along with art designers James Basevi and Alexander Toluboff to re-create the novel's setting - the brooding Yorkshire moors with exquisite details. 

The movie's most controversial aspect turned out to be Charles MacArthur and Ben Hecht's screenplay. Many present-day critics believe that the two screenwriters took the bite out of Brontë's novel by romanticizing Heathcliff and Cathy's relationship. Literary critic John Sutherland accused Wyler, Hecht and MacArthur of portraying Cathy as a more passive character, willing to accept Heathcliff's abuse. Personally, I cannot help but wonder how he came to this conclusion. My recent viewing of "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" recalls a capricious and manipulative Cathy unable to hold back her scorn of Heathcliff in the face of the Lintons' wealth and glamour; and a Cathy more than determined to prevent Heathcliff and Isabella Linton's marriage. Not once do I recall a passive Cathy willing to accept abuse from Heathcliff. 

Other critics of the movie have also accused Wyler and the two screenwriters of robbing Heathcliff the opportunity to seek revenge against Cathy and the Linton family by deleting the second half of the novel. These same critics seemed to have forgotten that a good deal of the movie's second half focused not only on Heathcliff's return to England, but also his efforts to get revenge on both the Earnshaw and Linton families. He did this by acquiring Wuthering Heights from an increasingly dissolute Hindley Earnshaw and more importantly, seeking Isabella Linton's hand for marriage. The latter finally reached its mark as far as Cathy was concerned. The emotional damage from Heathcliff's marriage to Isabella led to Cathy's death and tragedy. The biggest criticism that emerged from "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" was Samuel Goldwyn's decision to set the story in the mid-Victorian era, instead of the novel's late 18th and early 19th centuries setting. It is believed that Goldwyn made this decision either because he preferred this period in costumes or he was simply trying to save a buck by using old Civil War era costumes. Personally, I could not care less. The novel's setting was merely accelerated by five to six decades. And since "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" did not utilize any historical facts in its plot, I see no reason to get upset over the matter.

"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" went into production as a vehicle for actress Merle Oberon, who was a contract player at Goldwyn Studios. When Laurence Olivier, her co-star from 1938's "THE DIVORCE OF LADY X", was cast as Heathcliff, he campaigned for lover Vivian Leigh to replace Oberon as Catherine Earnshaw. Olivier's efforts failed and Oberon kept her job. Many critics believe that Leigh would have done a better job. I refuse to accept or reject that belief. However, I was very impressed by Oberon's performance. She did an excellent job in capturing Cathy's capricious and shallow nature. Although Oberon had a few moments of hammy acting, she was not as guilty as two of her co-stars. I find it rather disappointing that she failed to earn an Academy Award nomination. Her scene with Geraldine Fitzgerald (in which Cathy tries to dampen Isabella's interest in Heathcliff) and the famous soliloquy that ended with Cathy's "I am Heathcliff"declaration should have earned her a nomination.

Laurence Olivier made his Hollywood debut in the role of the Gypsy orphan-turned-future owner of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff. Olivier harbored a low opinion of Hollywood and screen acting in general. But Wyler's exhausting style of directing and tutelage enabled Olivier to drop his penchant for stage theatrics and perform for the camera. Mind you, I do not believe Wyler was not completely successful with Olivier. The actor still managed to display hints of hammy acting in his performance. And he did not seem that successful in his portrayal of a Heathcliff in his late teens or early twenties, in compare to Oberon, who seemed successful in portraying Cathy in that same age group. Regardless, Olivier gave a first-rate performance, and managed to earn the first of his ten Academy Award nominations.

Another performer who earned an Academy Award nomination was Geraldine Fitzgerald, for her performance as Isabella Linton. I cannot deny that she deserved the nomination. Fitzgerald gave a memorable performance as the passionate, naive and outgoing Isabella, who found herself trapped in an emotionally abusive marriage to a man that harbored no love for her. However, I believe that like Olivier, she was guilty of a few moments of histronic acting. I could never accuse David Niven of such a thing. The actor gave a solid performance as the quietly loving, yet privileged Edgar Linton. Flora Robson was superb as the story's narrator and Cathy Earnshaw's maid, Ellen Dean. And both Niven and Robson proved to be the production's backbone by being the only cast members that managed to refrain from any histronic acting altogether. I can also say the same about Hugh Williams' portrayal of the embittered and dissolute Hindley Earnshaw. Donald Crisp, Leo G. Carroll, Cecil Kellaway and Miles Mander also gave fine support.

I realize that "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" will never be a favorite of the fans of Brontë's novel. But as a movie fan, I cannot look down at this production. Thanks to William Wyler's direction, Gregg Toland's photography, solid adaptation by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, and superb acting from a cast led by Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier; it is quite easy to see why it is considered as one of the best examples of Old Hollywood during one of its best years - 1939. I guess I will always be a fan.

"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1939) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "WUTHERING HEIGHTS", William Wyler's 1939 adaptation of Emily Brontë's 1847 novel. The movie starred Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, and David Niven: 


"WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1939) Photo Gallery

"Who Was the Best Bond?"

"WHO WAS THE BEST BOND?"

 Recently, I have been perusing the Internet for articles and forums on EON Productions’ upcoming Bond flick, "SKYFALL". Naturally, I came across scores of articles and reviews on both the new and past Bond movies. I also checked several forums that focused upon the Bond franchise. The one topic that popped up without fail seemed to be the question of which actor portrayed the best James Bond.

The character of James Bond, Agent 007, has been portrayed by six actors for EON Productions and in two unofficial Bond films during the past 52 years. In 1954, American actor Barry Nelson portrayed the famous spy (as “Jimmy Bond”) in the CBS television production of “CASINO ROYALE” (the first of three adaptations of Ian Flemming’s first Bond novel). Eight years later in 1962, EON Productions – created by Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman – produced and released “DR. NO”, starring Sean Connery. Connery did four other Bond films before he temporarily gave up the role in 1968. A year earlier, Connery starred in his fourth Bond movie, “YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE”, while Columbia Pictures and Charles Feldman released a second version of “CASINO ROYALE”. This latter film spoof starred David Niven and he portrayed Bond as a retired superspy who is coerced into accepting command of MI6. Meanwhile, Australian model, George Lazenby, took up the Bond mantle in one film – “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”. Connery returned in 1971 for one last film before Roger Moore – formerly known as TV’s Simon Templar (aka “The Saint”) assumed the role of Bond for twelve years. Welsh actor, Timothy Dalton appeared in two Bond films in the late 1980s. Following a period of six years that saw no Bond films, Irish-born Pierce Brosnan portrayed the superspy in four movies from 1995 to 2002. Four years later, the blond-haired Daniel Craig became the eighth actor to portray Bond. 


Barry Nelson
 

 So, which actor portrayed the best James Bond? Most Bond fans have forgotten Barry Nelson’s 1954 performance. Aside from one memorable line, many recent critics have viewed his performance as bland and unforgettable. I found this to be regrettable, considering that I have seen Nelson in other characters in which he has projected a cynical yet humorous air. It is a shame that Nelson was prevented from injecting this style into his performance in “CASINO ROYALE”. 


Sean Connery
 

 The year 1962 introduced the first actor to successfully portray Bond – namely Sean Connery. The Scottish-born actor seemed to be the popular choice for many as the best Bond in the entire franchise. Connery injected an air of machismo, light menace and sardonic humor. In many fans’ opinion, Connery was the perfect Bond . . . a man’s man. Although his attitude toward women boarded on sexism, Connery never took Bond’s sexist attitude to the level of rampant misogyny reflected in Fleming’s literary counterpart. And Connery’s Bond seemed to be a balanced mixture of his own rugged personality and the elegant sophistication introduced to him by his first (and possibly best) director, Terrence Young. Despite the popular regard for Connery, other fans have expressed their preference for other actors who have portrayed Bond. Someone on one of the Bond forums had suggested that the reason many viewed Connery as the best Bond, may be due to the fact that he was the first to make a success out of the role. I had expected many to reject this theory. To my surprise, others have considered it as possible. As I have earlier pointed out, Barry Nelson had failed to make a success from playing Bond. And there have been fans who have complained about Connery’s overt masculinity . . . and machismo, claiming that it bordered on sexism. When I learned about all of this, I had no idea that there were others who might prefer another actor as Bond, over Connery. The Scottish actor did portray Bond for one last time in 1983’s “NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN”, a Bond movie produced by one of the original authors of the “Thunderball” story idea, Jack Whittingham. However, many Bond fans consider this movie as a poor remake of the 1965 film. 


David Niven
 

David Niven, longtime Hollywood idol from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, became the third actor to portray James Bond. Unfortunately, his turn appeared in the 1967 spoof, “CASINO ROYALE” (the second version of Fleming’s first novel). I say unfortunately, because the movie is regarded as a jumbled and confusing travesty in the history of the Bond franchise . . . and it has overshadowed Niven’s witty and amusing portrayal of the super spy. Niven had been in his mid-50s around the time he filmed the 1967 spoof. And for a man his age, he did an excellent job of dealing with some of the film’s action sequences. He also managed to turn in a witty and elegant performance as the aging intelligence legend coerced by “M” and the latter’s American, French and Soviet counterparts to return to MI-6 and lead the investigation into the shenanigans of the infamous “Dr. Noah” (a hilarious Woody Allen). Niven, who is known for uttering one of the most wittiest comments in the history of the Academy Awards (think of a streaker), also managed to utter one of the wittiest lines in the history of all Bond movies. But no one remembers this, due to the low reputation of the 1967 spoof. 


George Lazenby
 

Australian model George Lazenby, has suffered from a low opinion of his acting abilities ever since his all too-brief tenure as James Bond. One strike against Lazenby seemed to be his lack of acting experience when he became EON Productions’ second actor to portray the super spy. He also had the bad luck to follow on the heels of Connery, following the latter’s refusal to do a sixth film. Even worse, Lazenby appeared in a Bond film – 1969’s “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE” - that deviated from the Bond formula that had been established by “GOLDFINGER”, possessed a longer running time than its predecessors, hardly featured any gadgets and featured Bond in a serious relationship with the movie’s leading lady, portrayed by Diana Rigg. And unlike the previous Bond movies, “OHMSS” ended in tragedy. For the next decade or two, critics, Bond fans, and EON Productions heaped scorn upon Lazenby’s performance and the movie, itself. However, during the last ten to fifteen years, “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE” has come to be regarded as one of the finest Bond films in the franchise. And even Lazenby has enjoyed a revision of opinion by those who not only seemed impressed by his humanistic performance, but who have also expressed regret that he did not continued in the role in 1971’s “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”. There are those who still insist that “OHMSS” would have been better off with Connery in the lead. But it is not a general opinion. 


Roger Moore
 

After Connery did his last Bond film for EON Productions in 1971, Broccoli and Saltzman hired Roger Moore to assume the role of James Bond in “LIVE AND LET DIE”. Moore continued in the role for twelve years and in seven movies, ending with 1985’s “A VIEW TO A KILL”. Moore proved to be very popular with the fans. He brought a cheeky and light sense of humor and sophisticated interpretation to the role . Yet, he could also portray Bond as a deadly, cold-blooded and ruthless agent. In the twenty-one years since his last film, there has been a serious backlash against Moore. Many fans and critics have accused him of injecting too much humor and a cartoonish element to the Bond franchise, citing his fourth film – “MOONRAKER” – as a prime example. I have always found this accusation rather amazing. Looking back on the films before 1973, I have noticed that the franchise’s cartoonish element had first been established in 1964’s “GOLDFINGER” – a Connery film. And it continued in other Connery films like “YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE” and “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”. These same fans have also failed to notice Moore’s darker interpretation of Bond in movies like “THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN”, “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME”, “FOR YOUR EYES ONLY” and “OCTOPUSSY”. Despite the increasingly negative opinion of Moore as Bond, he still remains popular with a good number of fans. 


Timothy Dalton
 \

Following Roger Moore’s departure from the franchise, EON Productions had hired Pierce Brosnan to assume the Bond mantle. Unfortunately for Brosnan, NBC Television forced him to finish his “Remington Steele” contract for one last season, making him unavailable. EON Productions then turned to Welsh-born Shakespearean actor, Timothy Dalton, to portray Bond. Dalton portrayed the British agent closer to Fleming’s literary interpretation than any of his predecessors – terse, ruthless, dry sense of humor and a great need for a psychiatrist. Fortunately, Dalton’s interpretation left out Fleming’s more misogynist portrayal of Bond. Dalton had the bad luck to follow Moore’s more humorous take on the role. Many die-hard Bond fans found it difficult to accept Dalton’s more serious take on the role, especially since it came upon the heels of Moore’s humorous Bond. Dalton only made two Bond films – 1987’s “THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS” and 1989’s “LICENSE TO KILL”. After the latter’s release, EON Productions found itself immersed in another lawsuit over the much contested “Thunderball” story. By the time the smoke ended, EON Productions was ready to film a third movie with Dalton around 1993 or 1994. However, too many years had passed and Dalton – ready to put the Bond role behind him – rejected their offer. Since the release of films like “THE BOURNE IDENTITY”, the most recent Bond film and television shows like “24” and “MI-5” (aka “Spooks”), Dalton’s take on Bond has become more appreciated. 


Pierce Brosnan
 

Pierce Brosnan’s desire to portray James Bond finally came to fruition in the mid-1990s. He brought greater profit to the Bond franchise in four films – ranging from 1995’s “GOLDENEYE” to 2002’s “DIE ANOTHER DAY”. Many hailed the Irish-born actor as the best Bond since Connery and saving the Bond franchise. Fans and critics pointed out Brosnan’s interpretation of the secret agent as a mixture of Connery’s grittiness and Moore’s sophistication and humor. Some have even praised him for being able to portray Bond’s angst just as well as Dalton without being too serious. But despite the profit that EON Productions had earned from Brosnan’s films, many fans began to complain about their weak storylines in at least three of them. Some consider “GOLDENEYE” as the only Brosnan film worthy of acclaim. Others felt that “THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH” was his best film. And there are a few who are willing to give that honor to 1997’s “TOMORROW NEVER DIES”. Interestingly enough, 2002’s “DIE ANOTHER DAY” is considered to be Brosnan’s worst film – despite the fact that it earned more profit for EON Productions, until 2006’s “CASINO ROYALE”. And like Moore and Dalton, Brosnan has suffered a backlash from fans and critics since the end of his tenure as Bond. Many have complained that his “multi-faceted” portrayal of Bond was nothing more than a rehash of his predecessors’ styles without any development of his own. Others have accused him of being too generic or too much of a dandy. Despite this latest backlash, Brosnan still has his fans. And many of these fans believe that EON Productions should have never dumped him for the younger Daniel Craig.


Daniel Craig 
 

The most recent actor to assume the mantle of James Bond is 41 year-old Daniel Craig. He is the first Bond actor who was born after Ian Fleming’s death in 1964. He was the first actor to be born after the creation of the Bond franchise. He is the first Bond hired by EON Productions to stand under six feet tall. He is also the first Bond actor to sport blond hair. Barry Nelson was a redhead when he portrayed Bond and Roger Moore possessed light brown hair. But for some reason, many fans had objected to Craig’s blond locks, when he was first hired by EON Productions. Many fans also objected to his height – at 5’11”, he was the Bond actor who stood under six feet tall. And many objected to his rugged countenance that made Connery’s look like a GQ model. In the end, there were many fans, who were not simply ready for Brosnan to give up the role of James Bond. Craig endured criticism and ridicule on the Internet for his looks, his heights and the light injuries that he suffered during the production of “CASINO ROYALE” (the third version of Fleming’s story and EON Production’s first version). However, there were fans who had seen Craig in films like "ELIZABETH", "LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER", "THE ROAD TO PERDITION", "LAYER CAKE", "MUNICH" and "INFAMOUS". They believed that he had the presence and talent to make a credible Bond. More Bond fans began to accept this view following the release of the movie trailers for “CASINO ROYALE” in the late summer/early fall of 2006. But Craig finally won over the opinions of many fans and film critics following the movie’s release in mid-November 2006. Not only did the movie and Craig win rave reviews and a British Film Academy Award nomination, “CASINO ROYALE” became one of EON Productions’ biggest hits. Craig struck gold again in the 2008 follow-up, "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". But despite all of this success, there are fans who remain unimpressed by the movie. Like “OHMSS”, both “CASINO ROYALE” and "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" featured very few gadgets (perhaps one or two that seem very credible). The first movie featured the longest running time for a Bond film and a tragic romance with the film’s leading lady. The second featured the shortest running time in the franchise's history, a possible revenge tale and no romance for Bond with the leading lady. Also, Craig still seemed to go against the grain from what more traditionalist fans expect in a Bond film. At the moment, these disappointed fans seem very few at the moment. Only history will tell us how future fans will judge Craig’s tenure as James Bond. 


CONCLUSION 

Despite all of what I have written, the question of who was the best Bond still remains. I am going to make two things perfectly clear about my personal opinions. Until the 2006 release of “CASINO ROYALE”, I never had a “favorite” Bond. Thanks to Daniel Craig’s performance, I have finally found my favorite Bond. He seemed to combine the ruggedness of Connery, Lazenby’s humanity, Moore and Brosnan’s humor and Dalton’s angst neurosis without looking like some copy cat. For me, he has a well-rounded style that appealed to me on a personal level. Yet, I still remain a die-hard fan of the other actors who played Bond. Does this mean I believe that Craig was the “best” James Bond? No. Each actor had brought something to the role that made their performances very memorable. Even Nelson had a one-liner that many still remember to this day, fifty-two years later. Who was the “best” Bond? Who knows? In the end, it is all subjective and not a question that can be answered as a fact. 

"AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" (1956) Review

"AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" (1956) Review

Based upon Jules Verne’s 1873 classic novel, "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" is the story of a 19th century English gentleman named Phileas Fogg and his newly employed French valet, Passepartout, attempt to circumnavigate the world in eighty (80) days on a £20,000 wager set by his friends at the Reform Club. Produced by Michael Todd, the Academy Award winning film starred David Niven, Cantinflas, Shirley MacLaine and Robert Newton.

Could someone please explain how "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" managed to win the 1956 Best Picture Academy Award? How on earth did this happen? Do not get me wrong. Ever since I first saw "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" on television years ago, I have been a fan of the movie. The idea of someone taking a long journey around the world – especially in an age before air travel – greatly appealed to me. It still does. I like the idea of travel, whether I am doing it myself or watching it on the big screen or on television. And even after all of these years, I still enjoy watching this movie. And yet . . . I simply cannot fathom the idea of it being considered the Best Picture of 1956. Even more surprising is the fact that John Farrow, S. J. Perelman, and James Poe all won Oscars for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Perhaps the reason behind the movie’s accolades centered around Hollywood’s amazement that first time movie producer, Mike Todd, had succeeded in not only completing the film, but also creating an entertaining one. Two men directed this film – Michael Anderson, an Englishman who had only directed seven movies before "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS"; and John Farrow, a well-known Australian director who had co-written the film’s script. Farrow, by the way, did not receive any credit for his work as a director of this film. Which makes me wonder how many scenes he actually directed. Considering the movie’s running time of 183 minutes (3 hours and 3 minutes), I find it surprising that it took only seventy-five (75) days to shoot it. Along with the four leading actors, the movie featured over forty (40) stars, 140 locations, 100 sets and over 36,000 costumes. No wonder Hollywood seemed amazed that Todd managed to finish the film.

Set around 1872, "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" told the story an English gentleman named Phileas Fogg (David Niven) who claims he can circumnavigate the world in eighty days. He makes a £20,000 wager with several skeptical fellow members of his London gentlemen's club (Trevor Howard, Robert Morley and Finlay Currie included), the Reform Club, that he can arrive back within 80 days before exactly 8:45 pm. Together with his resourceful valet, Passepartout (Mario Moreno "Cantinflas"), Fogg sets out on his journey from Paris via a hot air balloon. Meanwhile, suspicion grows that Fogg has stolen his £20,000 from the Bank of England. Police Inspector Fix (Robert Newton) is sent out by Ralph the bank president (Robert Morley) to trail and arrest Fogg. Hopscotching around the globe, Fogg pauses in Spain, where Passepartout engages in a comic bullfight; and in India, Fogg and Passepartout rescue young widow Princess Aouda (Shirley MacLaine) from being forced into a funeral pyre so that she may join her late husband. The threesome visit Hong Kong, Japan, San Francisco, and the Wild West. Only hours short of winning his wager, Fogg is arrested upon returning to London by the diligent, yet misguided Inspector Fix.

The main differences between Jules Verne’s novel and the movie centered around Fogg and Passepartout’s efforts to leave Europe. Quite frankly, the novel never featured Fogg’s journey through Europe. In the novel, there were no stops in either France or Spain. Fogg had considered using a hot air balloon in Chapter 32, but quickly dismissed it. Also, Fogg never punched Detective Fix after being released from jail near the film’s finale. He simply insulted the detective’s skills as a whist player.

I might as well stop beating around the bush. What is my opinion of the movie? Like I had stated earlier, I still find it entertaining after all these years. I love travel movies. And I found the movie’s caricatures of the different nationalities that Fogg, Passepartout, Aouda and Fix encounters on the journey rather amusing – including encounters with a boorish American politician portrayed by John Caradine, Charles Boyer’s Parisian travel agent/balloonist and Reginald Denny’s parody of an Anglo-Indian official. The movie’s funniest moment featured Fogg and Aouda’s encounter with a Chinese gentlemen portrayed by Korean actor Philip Ahn, who proved that his English was a lot better than Fogg’s Chinese-English pidgin. The locations in this movie are absolutely gorgeous, especially Fogg and Passepartout’s trip over France, and the rail journeys through India and the United States. And Lionel Lindon’s Oscar winning photography is accompanied by the memorable score written by another one of the film’s Oscar winners – Victor Young. In fact, the most memorable thing about "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" is Young’s score. Even after 52 years, it is the first thing many fans mention about the film.

I was surprised to learn that Cantinflas had won a Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in a Musical/Comedy for his portrayal of Passepartout. Frankly, I found this as astonishing as the movie’s Best Picture Oscar. Mind you, his performance was a little more animated than David Niven’s portrayal of the stiff-upper lip Phineas Fogg. And his dance with a young dancer at a Spanish cantina was entertaining. But a Golden Globe award? I cannot think of one actor or actress in that movie who deserved any acting award. As for Niven, I think he may have gone a little too far in his portrayal of the reserved Fogg. There were times when he came off as a bit inhuman. I have to wonder about Todd’s decision to cast a young American actress from Virginia to portray the Indian Princess Aouda. Shirley MacLaine, ladies and gentlemen? She is the last person I would have chosen for that particular role. I must give her credit for not succumbing to some clichéd portrayal that would have left moviegoers wincing and instead, gave a restrained yet charming performance. Robert Newton’s portrayal of the persistent detective, Mr. Fix, was just as restrained. Which turned out to be a miracle, considering his reputation as a cinematic ham. Sadly, Newton passed away from a heart attack before the movie’s release.

One might ask why I had expressed astonishment at the thought of "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS” winning the Best Picture Oscar for 1956. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the movie deserved such a major award. Sure, the movie is entertaining. And that is about the best thing I can say about the film. Granted, Victor Young’s score and Lionel Lindon’s photography deserved its Oscars. But I feel that the movie did not deserve to be acknowledged as 1956’s Best Picture. Not over other films like "THE KING AND I", "FRIENDLY PERSUASION", "GIANT", "THE SEARCHERS" or even "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS". Nor do I feel that the three men who won Oscars for Best Adapted Screenplay deserve their statuettes. Heck, the movie featured a major blooper carried over from the novel – namely Fix’s revelation to Passepartout in Hong Kong about the British authorities’ suspicions that Fogg may be responsible for robbing the Bank of England before his departure. Passepartout told Aouda about Fix’s suspicions . . . but neither of them ever told Fogg. Not even when they were about to reach the shores of Britain. Why?

Another scene that continues to baffle me centered around Passepartout’s bullfight in Spain. Impressed by the manservant’s cape work during a dance in a cantina, a Spanish-Arab sea captain named Achmed Abdullah (Gilbert Roland) promised to give Fogg and Passepartout passage to Marseilles if the manservant would take part in a bullfight. What started as a comic moment for Cantinflas turned into a bullfight that promised to never end. The damn thing lasted five minutes too long and I felt more than happy when Fogg and Passepartout finally arrived in Suez.

I have read Jules Verne’s novel. At best, it was entertaining fluff. I could say the same for the 1956 movie. Like the novel, it lacks any real substance. For me, both versions struck me as nothing more than a detailed travelogue disguised as a series of vaguely written adventures. Unfortunately, the movie’s entertaining fluff lasted slightly over three (3) hours. Three hours? I like the movie a lot, but an obviously dated three hour movie based upon a piece of fluff like Verne’s novel just does not seem worthy of a Best Picture Oscar. Despite the movie’s undeserved Oscar, I still find it entertaining after all these years.

"AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" (1956) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery featuring photos from the 1956 Oscar winning film, "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS". The photos originally came from "LIFE" magazine and the movie was produced by Michael Todd and starred David Niven, Cantinflas, Shirley MacLaine and Robert Newton:


"AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS" (1956) Photo Gallery