Oscars Retrospective: Around the World in 80 Days (29th Academy Awards Review)
_poster.jpeg)
Around the World in 80 Days is one of the most famous adventure stories of all time, arguably being the most famous story by famed 19th century author, Jules Verne. It’s one of those things that lends itself to an epic scale and sparks the imagination of globetrotting adventure. The story revolves around a stuffy, upper-crust British gentleman named Phileas Fogg (David Niven) who claims that it’s possible to circumnavigate the world in 80 days. He pitches the idea to his local Reform Club who face him with skepticism and agree to take the bet. So the race is on as Fogg and his loyal manservant, Passepartout (Cantinflas), must travel the length of the world and make it back to London in 80 days or less.
Verne was an author whose books seemed steeped in the spirit of adventure that would’ve appealed to most audiences of Victorian England. Many of his stories had already been adapted to the silver screen by this point, usually done in such a way to experiment with new special effects. A few years before this, the Walt Disney Company pioneered underwater cinematography with their adaptation of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1953) and, more famously, was Georges Méliès’ A Trip to the Moon (1902), which is one of the earliest and most iconic silent films ever made. Around the World in 80 Days was invented to be able to show up all of those and finally bring the full imagination of Jules Verne to the silver screen. It would take as long as it needed to (over 3 hours), as much as it needed to ($6,000,000 which is $69,000,000 in 2024 money, a pretty large amount for back then) and feature an all-star international cast.
The plot is pretty simple as it’s a road trip movie: Fogg and Passepartout will go to a country, see some exotic part of the culture, make a slapstick joke and then move on to the next country to see the next thing. From the bullfights in Spain to the splendid palaces in India to the Wild West in America, anything interesting in the world is seen. Along the way, they’re pursued by a police detective (Robert Newton), rescue a princess (Shirley MacLaine) from a forbidden marriage and get involved in feuds from cowboys and Indians among other fun side-quests.
Part of why I enjoy doing this blog series isn’t just because of my wannabe punk filmmaker mentality of messing with the establishment but also to see the history of film develop and how you can use those developments to really learn more about the culture of the 20th Century. Specifically, it’s a thesis of mine that if you want to understand what people were thinking back in the day, you should watch movies that came out back then. But if you really want to understand what people were thinking back in the day, you should watch the more pulp entertainment movies that came out back then.
As the 20th Century progressed, the world seemed to get smaller and smaller as traveling became more and more ubiquitous for more people. Going to Europe used to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity but, as time has gone on, seems to be a regular occurrence for most (middle-class or higher-status) Americans. Around the World in 80 Days landed on the scene just in time for the world to become more open for the average person. Contrast this with most TV shows which showed mostly local Americana, getting to vicariously globetrot was a common appeal in most movies of the 50s going into the 60s. Coupled with the studios wanting movies longer and bigger to draw crowds away from the TV, Around the World in 80 Days seems like a match made in Heaven.
Now, this being a film made by upper-class British producers, these are all obviously less what the world back then was actually like and more what they thought the world was like. In other words, every non-British character and culture does come across as somewhat simple-minded and stereotyped though the film is not nearly as offensive as I thought it would’ve been. This is another interesting inflection point regarding most of these globetrotting adventure films. I don’t know if it’s liberalizing attitudes or the fact that the makers of this film would have had to actually interact with people of other cultures more but the fact that most of the actors are actually international and get to showcase positive aspects of their culture was a major step forward for the time. While attitudes would still have a long while to go yet, they certainly had come a long way from the 1930s. Films of this generation would probably be the oldest movies I could recommend in regards to political correctness as, even if they do suffer from whitewashing and outdated values, they’re (usually) not distractingly offensive, treat the cultures in question with respect and can be enjoyed on their merits as a story.
Of course, that doesn’t matter all that much if the story tends to suck which, for all the fun and adventure of the film, yes, it certainly does. I realize that story isn’t exactly Around the World in 80 Days’ strongest suit so we won’t criticize it too much for that. What we are going to criticize it for, however, is the characters or lack thereof. While all tales require both story and character, not every one requires both, despite what your film professor taught you. A film can have somewhat stock characters but you can ignore them if the story is fun enough and takes you through some cool twists and turns. Or you can have a pretty blasé, nothingburger story but fun characters will make up for it. If you have neither, though, you’re going to have some serious problems and be left hoping that the spectacle makes up for it.
Around the World in 80 Days falls into the last category and this is the big problem with the movie. The story is clearly there as an excuse to just see fun locales but most road trip movies will have a fun protagonist seeing these locales which makes traveling with them enjoyable. For example, take Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (1951). Alice is a bit of a temperamental girl who sees everything very logically which makes it fun seeing how that contrasts with the insanity of Wonderland around her.
On the list of movie characters I want to go globe-trotting with, Phileas Fogg and Passepartout are nowhere near the top. They’re so terribly unfunny that it honestly makes me wonder how this movie actually got the level of success that it did, even accounting for differing tastes of comedy so many years later. And it’s not really a problem with the actors. David Niven was a very excellent actor from mid-century Britain, being in stellar films like A Matter of Life and Death (1946) and The Guns of Navarone (1961). Cantinflas was a Mexican comedian who was known as the “Charlie Chaplin of Mexico,” being one of the most decorated and respected actors in the Hispanosphere of his day (he was so big that he was given top billing when the film was shown in many Spanish-speaking countries). Most of the slapstick scenes with Cantinflas showcase some impressive stunts so the dude could clearly have the potential to be funny. These are two great, funny guys. So why don’t I have fun traveling the world with them?
The bullfight scene. Take note how neither Nivens nor Cantinflas are doing anything particularly amusing.
This goes back to the problem I’ve discussed in previous blogs where I think screwball movies tend to have aged very poorly because of how reserved they come off because these two are sooooo boring together. The film has a pretty funny opening where Passepartout is trying to get hired as a manservant and finds out that Fogg is the only local aristocrat with an opening because he is such a nightmare of a boss that his last several manservants all quit within a few weeks. A protagonist who’s a total control freak being paired with his servant who is constantly walking on eggshells to please him should be comedic gold. But their characters are just so reserved that it doesn't work.
This I think is a case of a slightly outdated work not being adapted accordingly to a new era. The original Around the World in 80 Days was written at the height of Pax Britannia where Britain was seen as superior to everyone else. A tight-lipped Brit traveling the world and seeing all these cultures would’ve tickled the fancy of any Victorian British lad. By 1956, quite a few things had changed though. You couldn’t make the character of Fogg so stiff-lipped anymore. There needs to be some element of energy or silliness to this performance. And I don’t think this is just a problem with it being from a different time anymore like prior screwball comedies. By now, comedies were starting to get a lot more manic and edgy in their performances with films like Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) and Bedtime for Bonzo (1951). There should be some sort of energy to Fogg to make him stick out. I mean, for Christ’s sake, the dude is willing to travel the world in a hot air balloon just to win a bet, odds are he’s gotta have a few screws loose. Instead, Nivens and Cantinflas always feel very dialed back. Even when Cantinflas is doing some really stupid stuff like running with the bulls, he doesn’t give any goofy faces and Nivens is just smiling and nodding. I also never got the sense of them becoming close friends over the course of the film which is supposed to be the dramatic arc.
There also isn’t any good sense of suspense in Around the World in 80 Days despite having two opportunities to do so. First is that, despite the title, there isn’t much of a sense of time passage over the course of the film. Considering how much this bet means to Fogg, this is a major misfire. It doesn’t need to be constant, we don’t need to keep cutting back to his Reform Club (which the film, to be fair, does but only once and after about 3 hours have passed since we last saw them). Just a rolling counter of dates cross-faded between each transition would’ve made this an easy fix to keep the audience wondering if they would hit the 80-day mark and add more excitement to the film.
The film also fails to have an effective villain. As mentioned, the antagonist is a police detective named Inspector Fix who thinks Fogg has committed a crime and is hot on their heels the whole way. In any other movie (particularly ones influenced by this one), he would get involved in his own hijinx, usually comically injured but still remain relentless in his pursuit. However he fails to be an effective antagonist because, once again, the director told him to just remain stiff upper-lipped. If Fogg is supposed to be such a stuck-up, why couldn’t his antagonist be more of an idiot? Or funny or stupid or mean? There’s so many ways to make this character more entertaining than he is.
When going back into cinematic history to see the roots of a genre, one of two things usually happens. Either you’ll find a movie that started all these tropes but did them so well that it makes sense that everyone still copies those tropes and it does make the movie hold up. Around the World in 80 Days falls into the other category: a movie that started tropes that are reused because they’re very fun tropes but it did not do them well enough the first time. It’s frustrating to watch because these all seem like easy fixes. Just give the characters a bit more oomph and fun to them and the movie would become so much more wonderful for it.
As it is, though, Around the World in 80 Days is still an okay adventure. The vistas are gorgeous, the concept is a fun one, the two guys flying around in a hot air balloon is one of the most iconic shots in film history and I do admire it for pioneering the idea of globetrotting cinema. Most American movies before this were usually set in America and whatever foreign tales existed were more than a little racist. After Around the World in 80 Days, more big-budget films would be willing to set the stage in foreign countries and immerse audiences into foreign culture such as the James Bond movies (1962-present), America America (1963) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962). And despite being over 3 hours, it does move at a decent clip.
I just wish that the two main characters were more fun. And, keep in mind, I’m using the word fun, not interesting. While adventure movies don’t necessarily dictate extremely 3-dimensional characters, they still need to have a protagonist that we want to go on an adventure with. And these two are so frustratingly underwritten and underacted (or, more accurately, told to be underacted by the director; I don’t think it’s fair to blame Nivens and Cantinflas for these performances), that it does distract from the fun.
But could it be called movie of the year though?
In case you missed it:
1st Academy Awards (1927/28): Wings/Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans: Part 1, Part 2
2nd Academy Awards (1928/29): The Broadway Melody: Part 1, Part 2
3rd Academy Awards (1929/30): All Quiet on the Western Front: Part 1, Part 2
4th Academy Awards (1930/31): Cimarron: Part 1, Part 2
5th Academy Awards (1931/32): Grand Hotel: Part 1, Part 2
6th Academy Awards (1932/33): Cavalcade: Part 1, Part 2
7th Academy Awards (1934): It Happened One Night: Part 1, Part 2
8th Academy Awards (1935): Mutiny on the Bounty: Part 1, Part 2
9th Academy Awards (1936): The Great Ziegfeld: Part 1, Part 2
10th Academy Awards (1937): The Life of Emile Zola: Part 1, Part 2
11th Academy Awards (1938): You Can't Take It With You: Part 1, Part 2
12th Academy Awards (1939): Gone With the Wind: Part 1, Part 2
13th Academy Awards (1940): Rebecca: Part 1, Part 2
14th Academy Awards (1941): How Green Was My Valley: Part 1, Part 2
15th Academy Awards (1942): Mrs. Miniver: Part 1, Part 2
16th Academy Awards (1943): Casablanca: Part 1, Part 2
17th Academy Awards (1944): Going My Way: Part 1, Part 2
18th Academy Awards (1945): The Lost Weekend: Part 1, Part 2
19th Academy Awards (1946): The Best Years of Our Lives: Part 1, Part 2
20th Academy Awards (1947): Gentleman's Agreement: Part 1, Part 2
21st Academy Awards (1948): Hamlet: Part 1, Part 2
22nd Academy Awards (1949): All The King's Men: Part 1, Part 2
23rd Academy Awards (1950): All About Eve: Part 1, Part 2
24th Academy Awards (1951): An American in Paris: Part 1, Part 2
25th Academy Awards (1952): The Greatest Show on Earth: Part 1, Part 2
26th Academy Awards (1953): From Here to Eternity: Part 1, Part 2
27th Academy Awards (1954): On the Waterfront: Part 1, Part 2
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment