Cavalcade (1933) User Reviews (67)

Stylistically Dated But Nonetheless Memorable

[gftbiloxi · 7/10 · 18 April 2005]

CAVALCADE is an extremely good example of films made in the first few years following the advent of sound, an era in which actors, directors, writers, and cinematographers struggled to find a new style that could comfortably accommodate the new technology. During this period, many actors and writers were drawn from the stage--only to discover that what seems real and natural in the theatre seems heavily mannered on screen.

This is certainly the case with CAVALCADE. The film presents the story of two London families whose lives intertwine between 1900 and 1933. The film begins with the upperclass Marryot family and their servants, Mr. and Mrs. Bridges, facing the Boer War--and then through a series of montages and montage-like scenes follows the fortunes of the two families as they confront changing codes of manners and social class and various historic events ranging from the sinking of the Titanic to World War I.

From a modern standpoint, the really big problem with the film is the script. CAVALCADE was written for the stage by Noel Coward, who was one of the great comic authors of the 20th Century stage--but the sparkling edge that seems so flawless in his comic works acquires a distastefully "precious" quality when applied to drama. Although the play was a great success in its day, it is seldom revived, and the dialogue of the film version leaves one in little doubt of why: it feels ridiculously artificial, and that quality is emphasized by the "grand manner" of the cast.

That said, the cast--in spite of the dialogue and their stylistically dated performances--is quite good. This is particularly true of the two leading ladies, Diana Wynyard and Una O'Connor (best known for her appearances in THE INVISIBLE MAN and THE BRIDE OF FRANKESTEIN), both of whom have memorable screen presences that linger in mind long after the film ends. The material is also quite interesting and startlingly modern; although it is more covert than such films as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, CAVALCADE has a decidedly anti-war slant, and the characters in the film worry about where technology (which has produced such horrors as chemical warfare by World War I) will take them in the future.

I enjoyed the film. At the same time, I would be very hesitant to recommend it to any one that was not already interested in films of the early 1930s, for I think most contemporary viewers would have great difficulty adjusting to the tremendous difference in style. The VHS (the film is not yet available on DVD) has some problem with visual elements and a more significant problem with audio elements, but these are not consistent issues. Recommended--but with the warning that if you don't already like pre-code early "talkies" you will likely be disappointed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

A fascinating period piece

[gsimmers · 7/10 · 20 April 2006]

If you want to know what the twentieth century looked like to people in the early thirties, this is the film to watch. Two families - upstairs and downstairs - go through the events of the Boer War, the Edwardian age, the First World War and its aftermath, ending in the "chaos and confusion" of the depression. The film seems to be fairly closely based on the original Drury Lane theatre production (many of the cast are the same). So when Binnie Barnes delivers "Twentieth Century Blues" (excellently) this is presumably how Coward wanted it sung. Noel Coward's clipped dialogue can't always carry the weight of the themes, and the nobility of the upper-class couple gets a bit wearing, but there are fascinating glimpses of a music hall performance and an Edwardian seaside concert party. The film races through thirty eventful years, and one or two of the tragedies are predictable, but the period detail is terrific. The film is well worth catching.

An odd bird of a film

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 12 June 2010]

I enjoyed this film, not so much as a piece of entertainment that still holds up today, but as a moment frozen both in time and geography. Unlike "42nd Street" and "Dinner at Eight" which are other films from 1933 that I think most Americans would find very accessible today, you might not care for Cavalcade if you don't know what to look for.

This film is totally British in its perspective and it is also very much in the anti-war spirit that pervaded movies between 1925 and 1935 as WWI came to be seen by nearly all its global participants as a pointless war and caused everyone to lose their taste for fighting another.

The British perspective that you have to realize is that the Marryotts are accustomed to being on top - both in the world as England had dominated the globe for centuries, and socially, as they were part of the aristocracy. That didn't mean that they were snobs - they were very friendly and compassionate with their servants. But the point is, they were accustomed to the relationship being their choice and under their control. Suddenly England appears to be on the decline on the world stage and the servants they were so kind to are coming up in the world on their own and don't need their permission to enter society. Downstairs is coming upstairs, like it or not.

Downstairs is personified in this film by the Bridges family, Marryot servants that eventually strike out on their own and into business. Eventually the daughter, Fanny, enters into a romance with the Marryot's younger son. When Mrs. Marryot learns the news she is not so shocked as she is resigned to the fact that this is another sign that her world is slipping away. As for Fanny Bridges, she seems to personify post-war decadence as she grows from a child to full womanhood in the roaring 20's. At one point in the film, as a child, she literally dances on the grave of a loved one. This is not a good sign of things to come.

If the movie has a major flaw it is that it goes rather slowly through the years 1900 through 1918 and flies through the last fifteen years. Through a well-done montage you get a taste for what British life was like during that time - in many cases it looks like it was going through the same growing pains as American society during that same period - but it's only a taste.

Overall I'd recommend it, but just realize that it is quite different in style from American films from that same year.

Somewhat Forgotten, But Highly Impressive and Imperative 1933 Best Picture Winner.

[tfrizzell · 25 March 2003]

Often forgotten, but very excellent 1933 Best Picture Oscar winner that stands up amazingly well after 70 years. "Cavalcade" is the near-epic tale of two British families (one set of aristocrats led by Oscar-nominee Diane Wynyard and Clive Brook and the other a set of servants led by Una O'Connor and Herbert Mundin) and their experiences from New Year's Eve 1899 to the start of 1933. As the film opens, the country is entangled in the bloody Boer War in South Africa. Queen Victoria's death soon follows and naturally the loss hits the entire country very hard. The sinking of the Titanic also effects the richer group as they lose family members on the doomed liner. Of course World War I produces a terrible situation for the two groups' children. The film progresses through the Jazzy 1920s and then we re-visit the couples in the early-1930s as they reflect on eventful, dramatic and tragic years since the start of the century. A new hope seems possible by the end (of course history would continue to be unkind as World War II would soon become a sad reality for the English), but far from certain. Frank Lloyd (Oscar-winning for his direction) crafted a vastly interesting film that is technologically strong for the time period (the Titanic sequence in particular is something to be appreciated) and very intelligent from the start. The editing techniques are revolutionary with impressive fades throughout to show the passing of time and the cinematography still holds up strong even today. One good thing about the Academy Awards is the historical significance it gives to films like "Cavalcade". True the film is not always well-known among movie enthusiasts, but that does not mean that this is not an excellent production and one of the first truly excellent movies that Hollywood would develop for the world. 5 stars out of 5.

This Blessed Isle

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 26 June 2007]

I suppose you don't have to be an Anglophile to like Cavalcade, but it certainly helps.

The film it seems to be most like to me is Giant. Just as the Edna Ferber based film is some 25 years of the second quarter of the last century as seen through the eyes of the Texas Benedict family, Cavalcade is a British social history through the Marryots, Robert and Jane played by Clive Brook and Diana Wynyard. Though the Benedicts have their problems, they don't go through near the tragedies that the Marryots do.

Cavalcade was presented on the London stage a few years earlier and it never made it to Broadway unlike most of Noel Coward's works. It was an expensive production with revolving kaleidoscope like sets that probably made American producers on Broadway shy away from it.

A lot of standard English Music Hall numbers were used instead of Coward writing an original score. He did contribute one number however, 20th Century Blues which was a whole commentary unto itself of the roaring twenties.

Although at that point in time our history in the USA certainly does connect with the United Kingdom's during World War I for the most part Cavalcade deals strictly with British subject matter. I'm afraid unless one is a fan of Noel Coward or is familiar with 20th Century British history, it's hard for today's audience to appreciate Cavalcade.

Cavalcade however was the Best Picture of 1933 and Frank Lloyd won for Best Director. He'd win another Oscar for Best Director on another, but far different British subject in Mutiny on the Bounty. Diana Wynyard was nominated for Best Actress, but lost to Katherine Hepburn for Morning Glory.

Two other good performances are Una O'Connor and Herbert Mundin as Mrs. and Mr. Bridges. They are the downstairs in service couple to the upstairs Marryots. Both play far different parts than what we normally see of them. Most film fans remember Herbert Mundin as the meek mess man from Mutiny on the Bounty and Much the Miller from The Adventures of Robin Hood where he's paired with Una O'Connor. He's quite different here.

Cavalcade is good, but terribly dated. Still it should be seen and evaluated as a commentary of how the British saw themselves at the beginning of the Great Depression.

Thirty-four years in the life of a British upper class family

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 17 June 2011]

The Marryot family is the focus of Noel Coward's antiwar film, "Cavalcade," made in 1933 and starring Diana Wynyard, Clive Brook, Una O'Connor, and Margaret Lindsay.

This is an upstairs-downstairs look at the effects of war, and war's effects on society as we see what happens to the Bridges family, the servants, and the Marryots, during the years 1899-1933 in Great Britain. Not in any way snobbish, the Marryots in fact have a very close relationship with their servants. But class is class, and the class system declines to the point where the daughter (Ursula Jeans) of Ellen and Alfred Bridges (O'Connor and Herbert Mundin) becomes involved with her childhood playmate, Joe Marryot (Frank Lawton), a sign that the world the Marryots knew is fading away. All three Marryot men are involved in the Boer War, and two fight in World War I, to the distress of Jane Marryot (Wynyard), who is the representative of the antiwar sentiment.

There are other world events that touch the family as well: the death of Queen Victoria, and the sinking of the Titanic.

The film is a bit on the slow side and spends more time on the early period than the later. Coward, however, with shots of men blinded in the Great War, young men being shot, etc., makes his point very well.

My big quibble with this film is that it goes for 34 years. At the beginning, the Marryots have young children. Even if the Mr. and Mrs. Marryot were 30 years old at the beginning of the film -- why at the end of the movie did they look and act 90? It was hilarious as they're probably in their sixties. It goes to show how the concept of age has really changed.

This film is okay but somehow not as involving or as good as David Lean's This Happy Breed which concerns a middle-class family post World War I to World War II - also written by Noel Coward. I think This Happy Breed has a better cast; some of the acting in Cavalcade is a little stiff. Still, there are some striking scenes.

One thing after another.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 9 February 2011]

This is one of those sweeping intergenerational stories of an upper-middle-class British families in which the children grow up over the course of thirty or so years, with the older and the younger generations each encountering triumph and tragedy. There's a bit of class conflict thrown in when the daughter of the kitchen maid becomes a successful and wealthy singer and the upper-echelon son of the ruling family fall in love with each other. There are some musical interludes, none of the songs written by the author of the play from which this film derives.

That author was Noel Coward. Coward was great in some of his movie appearances, which ranged from the heroic ("In This We Serve") through the comic ("Our Man in Havana") to the somewhat bizarre and slightly menacing ("Bunny Lake Is Missing"). I quite like the guy.

Yet this story seems pointless to me in many ways. A lot of these epic movies about subsequent generations and their adaptation to social change do. I know Noel Coward's work is esteemed, and I know we should all keep a stiff upper lip and hope for the best, but as one New Year celebration follows another, the message gets tiresome. Really, I was saddened by some of the turns taken by events, but didn't much give a damn what happened to any of the characters, all of whom struck me as animated messages rather than living people.

What tragedy. Let me see. In the beginning there is the Boer War. The death of the Old Queen. Then two characters from the household discover they love one another -- on the Titanic. Then there is World War I. That's followed by the Jazz Age with all its threats, and what noisome threats to social stability they are -- drinking is flagrantly shown on the screen, along with homosexuality (that's a laugh, coming from Noel Coward), the threat of yet another war, art moderne, smoking cigarettes (well, we've gotten rid of that filthy nuisance), blues singers, and long fluffy feathers.

At the end, the original father and the original mother, now old and a little bent, toast each other delicately. They turn and look solemnly into the camera and the mother pronounces a long toast to both the past and the future while the viewer pendiculates. Then, arm in arm, the stroll to the balcony and smile at the New Year celebration in the streets below.

I suppose this sort of thing appeals to a good many people. There seems no avoiding these stories. If there IS a way of slipping past them, would someone let me know?

Cavalcade review

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 18 April 2020]

The saga of two families from opposite ends of the social spectrum from New Year's Eve 1899 to New Year's Eve 1933. An ambitious drama from a play by Noel Coward which is as superficial as you'd expect from a movie which skips through four decades in under two hours. Diana Wynyard is truly excruciating as the matriarch of the upper class Marryot family, but Margaret Lindsay shines in a small role.

Obviously, sentimentality and lifelessness do not mix

[mikegordan · 3/10 · 4 January 2012]

For those of you keeping up with my retrospective on all the Best Picture winners up to now, you will know these writers, directors and actors were still not accustomed to the transition to talkies, but they were slowly getting the hang of it. And on top of it all, they were even taking advantage of the visual medium. The sets, the ability to shoot on location, the cinematography, the lighting, and down the road, the color of the film itself all helped contribute all kinds of creative ways for these filmmakers to either make the impossible possible, or reliving the past. King Kong, a film that came out in 1933, is one of those films that accomplished this task and so much more.

But unfortunately, we're not reviewing King Kong today because it didn't win Best Picture. It wasn't even nominated. What won instead, unfortunately, was a film that made no attempt at all to take advantage of what film as a medium has to offer; Cavalcade. Yeah, they adapted one of the drollest of plays into a feature film, and people actually loved it.

What's the story? It's the life of an English couple from the New Years Eve of 1899 up until then-present day 1933 as they experience historical events include the Second Boer War, the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic, and World War I among many other things. And within the now-reasonably short running time of 110 minutes, then that means the film's going to be either exciting or rushed. This film is anything but exciting; it's dull as a rock. There is absolutely no soul in this picture at all.

And the picture is indeed rushed. These events are just glanced over for no good reason other than to show that they lived through them, and they never seem to show how much they impacted them or the world around them. There's nothing interesting about these characters or this story whatsoever. And what's worse is that these events don't seem to impact the viewer in any way because those scenes are executed in a manner identical to those of a play; you never see these events happen. Come, on! We already had 2 War films win Best Picture in the past; where's the budget? Where are the calamities? For a sentimental film, this film sure does feel devoid of any real emotions.

And that's why I call this film dull and soulless; there's no logic or reason, no critical thinking, not even pure sentimental hogwash. At least all the previous nominees had a semblance of a soul; this film doesn't. This film is completely static and unmoving to say the least. The acting is boring, the characters are boring, and the story is boring. There is nothing positive to say outside of the fact that the premise had promise. More extravagance (to help these events leave a bigger impact), about 20 or 30 more minutes added to the running time, and more interesting characters. That is all that is needed to make this film any good. So while the film is pretty bad, it is salvageable. I would just skip it if I were you. 2.5 out of 10 rounded up to 3 out of 10.

Early 1900s In Reflection

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 2 July 2016]

A cavalcade of English life from New Year's Eve 1899 until 1933 seen through the eyes of well-to-do Londoners Jane and Robert Marryot. Amongst events touching their family are the Boer War, the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic and the Great War.

The film was one of the first to use the words "damn" and "hell", as in "Hell of a lot". These had been used in the play. There was concern at the Hays Office that this could set a precedent. Fox president Sidney Kent was quoted saying the mild profanity "could not offend any person; and, after all, that was the real purpose of the Code. And as far as the use creating a precedent which might be followed by other producers is concerned, the best answer would be that anyone who could make a picture as good as Cavalcade might be justified in following the precedent." Some of the early Best Picture winners are really duds in retrospect. Looking back now (2016) they are bland, or aged poorly, or are sometimes musicals that just no longer impress. "Cavalcade" is a rare exception in that it seems like it has not aged one bit. The years go by, and we watch the events fly by with the characters, and it is somewhat timeless. We see how the 1900s were viewed from the 1930s, and I wonder now how much films like this continued to affect our view. We no longer talk about the Boer War, but even re-assessing history it seems our focus has never changed.

Dated family saga of the early 20th century

[nnnn45089191 · 5/10 · 13 May 2007]

In a year that produced enduring classics like "King Kong,Dinner at Eight,Queen Christina and 42nd Street",just to mention a few examples of this amazing crop of films,"Cavalcade" managed to be awarded with the Oscar for best picture.This dated and quite boring movie didn't deserve such an honor.Based on the play by Noel Coward about two British families (one aristocratic and one of working-class stock)the movie traces their lives through the three first decades of the 20th century.With the possibilities that the story gave of making a grand epic saga,the film makers opted for more or less to reproduce the play as filmed theater only with montages of those world shattering events of the early 20th century.This almost killed the movie for me.The acting is not especially noteworthy except for the performance of Herbert Mundin.The movie is quite interesting in it's depiction of the old Edwardian society trying to adjust to the upheavals of the times and not quite managing it. Although I found it hard to sit through the movie isn't quite a waste of time because of its historical significance.

"Time changes many things"

[Steffi_P · 8/10 · 12 June 2011]

Unlike the big Oscar winners of later decades, the Best Pictures of the 1930s have largely been neglected (the only notable exceptions being It Happened One Night and Gone with the Wind). Of them all, Cavalcade is perhaps the most rarely remembered, and if remembered at all frequently dismissed as a dated, stagy melodrama, a product of an embarrassing era in cinema's history that even film buffs tend to shy away from, without even the added attraction of some pre-code naughtiness. But are bare legs, innuendo and mean-faced gangsters the only things worth salvaging from this era? The accusations of staginess are not surprising, Cavalcade being adapted from a Noel Coward play. But while Coward may have been a bit of a theatre snob with a naively upper-class attitude, he is not as impenetrably British as he may appear at first glance. Although Cavalcade focuses ostensibly on the concerns of a typical well-to-do English family, Coward strings together his story from universally emotional events, many of which would have related to the lives of people all over the world, and most of which still bear a kick today. Granted, Cavalcade's social conservatism and stiff-upper-lipped fustiness can be a little alienating, but this is not a preachy movie and nothing is forced home or laid on too thickly. Besides, Coward's warm humanism pervades even the most clichéd of characters.

The director is Frank Lloyd, himself an unfairly forgotten man of old Hollywood. Many will not understand why Lloyd one an Oscar for his work on Cavalcade, because he does not use any overt camera tricks, but the truth is Lloyd is too much of a master to need any tricks. Many of the claims of stiltedness probably stem from the fact that Lloyd uses a lot of long and often static takes, but there is still subtle and clever technique at work here. Take that first scene of Diana Wynyard and Clive Brook making their preparations for New Years Eve. A large chunk is done without a single edit, yet with a few simple panning manoeuvres Lloyd's camera is smoothly changing the focus and keeping things feeling fresh, at one point having Brook's face appear in the mirror, then following her over to the table where the two of them stand with a garland of flowers framing the lower edge of the shot. Another director might have used a dozen cuts in the same scene, but Lloyd does it with just one or two. And the great thing is you don't notice. Often he will shift our attention from one place to another, but do it by having the camera follow a walking character to disguise the movement, such as the father carrying off a crying child on the beach. In spite of this unostentatious approach, the style is purely cinematic.

To be fair however, most of the accusations of theatricality fall upon the cast. I would however describe the performances here as being stereotyped rather than grandiosely hammy. Diana Wynyard was the only Oscar nominee for acting, although she does little here but emote rather wetly. In her favour she does put a lot of expression into her small gestures, and as the picture progresses she ages her character convincingly. More realistic turns however are given by Clive Brook and Irene Browne. The real surprise performance of the lot though is Herbert Mundin. In his many supporting roles Mundin typically played a bumbling yet lovable comedy character, but here he is forceful, passionate and rather moving. Had such a thing existed in 1933, he could have been in line for a Best Supporting Actor award.

But, aside from all these qualities, why did Cavalcade of all things appeal to the Academy, which was not exactly cosmopolitan in those days? The answer may be that the mood of the picture was very apt for the times. This was of course the height of the depression, and despite appearances Cavalcade is a rather downbeat affair. The gung ho optimism of the Boer war is replaced by the bitter folly of the World War; characters disappear from the narrative, everyday life becomes increasingly impersonal, until the final scenes are almost despairing. And yet this is not some tale of personal tragedy. Crowds are a constant presence in Cavalcade, with Lloyd using them as a backdrop to a teary farewell, the bookends to a scene or even just a noise heard through a window. In Coward's play characters are killed off in significant events making them symbolic of the losses of a nation. This is a story of great suffering, but it is a story of collective suffering, and this makes it comparable to the most poignant and affecting pictures of depression-era Hollywood.

Twentieth Century Blues

[boblipton · 7/10 · 8 March 2024]

The restored copy that Turner Classic Movies ran this week is a little soft, but I'm twenty years younger and also getting a little soft myself. Long the hardest to see of the Academy Award winners for Best Picture, it's easy to see why it fell out of favor, with its old-fashioned attitudes of Britain, and its starting out with the Boer War. Who cares about such things now?

Yet if we look at it in the context of turning Noel Coward's immense and elephantine stage pageant about the first third of the 20th century into a movie, we can see the artistry, from the immense crowds, to the spectacular staging, to the artistry of Charles Dudley's make-up work, as Diana Wynard and Clive Brook grow old, lose their children to disaster, yet remain stalwart in their love of country and each other. For 1933 and with Fox Studios an organization on its ass, it's an immense achievement. Even I, who am no fan of spectacle, can see that.

Total hackneyed tedium

[mnpollio · 2/10 · 15 February 2007]

Total dreck and arguably the worst film to walk off with a Best Picture Oscar. This still-born chronicle of British life as experienced through the eyes of the wealthy Marryot family and their servants, The Bridges, spanning from 1899 through 1933 is instantly forgettable and tiresome, and leaves nary a cliché unplumbed. It plays like a Cliff Notes version of Upstairs Downstairs with none of the depth, sophistication, insight or wit from that later series. The screenplay, inexplicably with Noel Coward as one of the writers, is more concerned with integrating events from the time period into the mix than fleshing out the people with whom the viewer should ostensibly identify, with most of the events flying past at such a speed that it is nearly impossible to have much of a reaction to them. When family members are lost, it is difficult to much care as we have barely been introduced to them before they are sacrificed for "the cause". Most of the scenes are stagy moments that seem lifted directly from a play to film brimming over with stilted dialogue and wooden performances. As the heads of the elegant Marryot family, Diana Wynyard and, especially, Clive Brook, are the quintessential caricatures of the stiff-upper-lip British couple, who feel that no sacrifice is too great for the Empire. The final moments when they look back at the loss of their entire family and decide that it was all worth it so long at Merry Old England can carry on into the future is surely one of the most laughably delivered and flat conclusions of any acclaimed film.

Interesting curiosity

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 16 February 2011]

I have to admit I liked this movie. I am not sure whether it deserved Best Picture, but I do not think it is worthy of the maligning I have seen some people give it. I saw Cavalcade out of curiosity, and I found it both impressive and interesting.

It may be slightly overlong, a little slow and have moments of stuffiness, but... the period detail and cinematography are terrific and the music is well composed and fits well. The story has a play-like feel and it feels adeptly constructed and very rarely lost my interest, and the script is consistently very good. The direction is adroit, likewise with the actors. The acting style here may be broad, but it is also thoughtful and interesting to watch; I think Diana Wynyard, Clive Brook and Una O'Connor are fine. Also the final march is both stirring and moving.

In conclusion, Cavalcade was interesting, a curiosity yes but an interesting one at that. 7/10 Bethany Cox

It's history, but is it entertaining?

[The_Film_Cricket · 7 March 2014]

I guess you could write a case study on the way that a society deals with tragedy. Take, for example, the First World War. For years after the conflict - at least until the conflict that followed it – those left behind tried to deal with it any way they could. That's where the arts are so important, in a manner of dealing with tragedy in art or music or in film, it makes for a certain auditory and visual means of wrapping our minds and our emotions around the tragedy of the insatiable need for humans to kill one another in the name of honor.

In the early years of the academy awards, several films dealt with the subject and walked away with the top prize. First was Wings, a largely pro-war epic that tried to help us understand the war in the air. Two years later came the devastation of Lewis Milestone's adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front, a fearless anti-war epic about the men in the trenches displayed in bloody and unflinching detail. Those films dealt with the war from battlefield. Two years later came Cavalcade, a portrait of war and family on the home front.

Of course, with Cavalcade, The First World War only makes up part of the story, but the impact is there. Based on a 1931 play by Noël Coward and directed by Frank Lloyd (who would go on to direct another Best Picture winner Mutiny on the Bounty before the decade was out), Cavalcade follows thirty years in the rise and fall of a wealthy British family from New Year's Eve of 1899 to New Year's Day of 1932. We see them through The Second Boar War, the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of The Titanic and finally The First World War. Like Cimarron, a western that won the Oscar for Best Picture two years earlier, Cavalcade deals with the progression of world affairs as seen through the eyes of a family over several decades. The difference is that this film deals with specific red-letter moments whereas the other film simply dealt with personal issues seen through the passage of time.

The focus of Cavalcade is on two families, one rich, the other employed as their servants. The wealthy are the Marryots, headed by Sir Robert and wife Lady Jane (Clive Brook and Diana Wynyard. They have two sons, Edward (John Warburton and younger brother Joe (Frank Lawton). The Bridges are headed by Alfred (Herbert Mundin) and wife Ellen (the invaluable Una O'Connor). They have a daughter Fanny (Ursula Jeans).

The film opens with Robert going off to fight the Boar War and ends with son Edward coming back from The Great War. That leaves the focus of the film mostly on the women, specifically on Lady Jane who stays home and fears that her husband and then son won't come back. It is a decent performance but not great. The film is very talky and most of that talk is very flat and stiff. Cavalcade leaves you feeling as if you're watching a stage play – which is the last thing you want from a feature film.

Diana Wynyard, a darling of the British stage made only a few stopovers in film throughout her long career (this was her second film) but mostly spent her life in the theater. She gives a decent performance here as Lady Jane but it is clear that the theater is still in her blood. She's was not a natural film actor and it is evident in her performance. She got her only Oscar nomination here but lost to Katherine Hepburn, came back to film occasionally but stayed on the stage until her death in 1965.

Her legacy would outlive this movie. It is an interesting curio in that it shows us the lives and attitudes of people just a generation into the 20th century, but there's not real tension here. The movie is dusty and flat. There's no passion, no energy. Everyone looks as if they are reading cue-cards. For that reason, Cavalcade is all but forgotten today, a curiosity but not a necessity. Of all the Best Picture winners is has more or less passed out of common knowledge. That's as it should be because, as well intentioned as it is in dealing with war, it is not worth remembering.

Diorama of English History of the Early 20th Century

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 11 November 2017]

When it came to handing out its top prize in its first years of existence, the Academy really had a thing for historical retrospectives. I happened to watch "Cimarron" and "Cavalcade" back to back in an effort to finally see the handful of Best Picture winners that had slipped past me, and both are historical pageants, one American, the other British, chronicling the first three decades of the twentieth century.

"Cavalcade" begins with the outbreak of the Boer War, and takes its audience right up to the year of its release (1933), following a host of famous historical moments in between -- the sinking of the Titanic, WWI -- as experienced by a well-off English family and its servants. It ends on a rather bleak and uncertain note, with the blurring of class boundaries and the rise of mechanization -- and its possibilities for human destruction -- leaving the English couple at the film's center feeling anxious about the future. Like many of the films to be recognized by the Academy in the early years of sound, it's creakier and much less cinematic than any number of much better films in any given year that were completely or almost ignored, but Oscar has a long legacy of passing over the truly worthy for the mediocre, so it doesn't much surprise me that "Cavalcade" won the Best Picture Oscar over far better nominees like "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" and "42nd Street."

Frank Lloyd won the Best Director Oscar for the second time for his efforts on this film, and the many sets needed to give the film its historical sweep won William Darling the award for Best Art Direction. Its only other nomination was for Diana Wynyard as the family matriarch, not a performance that was particularly deserving. She performs the role as if she's on stage, understandable given that the material originated as a play, but still...plenty of other actresses at the time (Barbara Stanwyck, Norma Shearer, Jean Harlow) knew how to give performances on film that were unique to the medium.

Grade: B

The past time and sorrow for him

[alekspredator87 · 4/10 · 30 August 2022]

Cavalcade is considered one of the most important films of its era. What are only three Oscar statuettes worth, including the winning of the picture in the Best Film nomination. However, I expected much more. For me, the picture turned out to be uninteresting and rather static. Although the plot is quite original.

The film focuses on memories of epochs. And according to the vision of the creators, there are several of them. And each of these is marked by certain events of a global scale, which in one way or another influenced not only the characters of the picture, but also the entire world history.

At some moments, you remember how we once waited for something special from the new millennium, meeting the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. In the picture, this is done by the characters that celebrate the new year 1900. An important cut-off in people's minds, which everyone perceives in their own way. But in fact, these are just numbers. How interesting, but only years later people, both in the film and in the reality of today, can realize this. Nothing dramatically changes with the onset of the next year. Just a calendar change.

Another important event that affects people's minds is the year 1901. This is the year of the death of Queen Victoria of England. For decades and decades, the monarch has been on her throne, people are used to this fact. And now she was gone. People are confused again, not sure about the future, thinking about it.

One of the most famous shipwrecks in recent history - the Titanic drowned on its first voyage to a New World. This event is also played out in the picture, once again demonstrating how apathetic people are about this. And as a pile of problems and negativity swirling into a snowball, the First World War comes, an event that probably could not have been worse for that period.

In general, the whole film is imbued with a sense of nostalgia and some disappointment with their lives by the actors. The creators of the picture are trying to convey these thoughts to the viewer, but they obviously do not reach me as the director intended them to be. The film is obviously boring, it doesn't catch on. In my opinion, it lacks brightness and fades just by passing by.

Writing a negative review is always more difficult. First of all, you need to understand for yourself what went wrong, and you didn't like the picture. "Cavalcade" remains an unsuccessful experience of getting acquainted with another Oscar-winning picture, a film that passed by without leaving something significant inside.

4 out of 10.

CAVALCADE (Frank Lloyd, 1933) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 7 March 2009]

This – one of the rarest Best Picture Oscar winners to get hold of (in fact, I had to make do with a copy culled from Spanish TV with forced subtitles in that language!) – is yet more evidence that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences was still finding its feet in those early years and pretty much clueless as to which movies would stand the test of time! It is hard to believe now that this film managed to triumph over 42ND STREET, I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG and THE SIGN OF THE CROSS…not to mention THE INVISIBLE MAN, KING KONG and QUEEN Christina, which were completely bypassed for Oscar consideration! For the record, according to the "Combustible Celluloid" website, CAVALCADE was named by Luis Bunuel as one of his favorite films and, while the Leonard Maltin Film Guide awards it full marks, Leslie Halliwell is more moderate in his appraisal – with which I found myself agreeing in the long run, given its stodgy overall quality (the title, by the way, is a repeated visual motif referring to the inexorable passage of time). In fact, inspired by an elaborate staging of the Noel Coward play, this epic production is basically the granddaddy of all those films of much more recent vintage – say, ZELIG (1983) and FORREST GUMP (1994) in which world events are seen through the eyes of one source – in this case, instead of an innocent bystander, we have the members (both upper and working-class) of a British household. The historical events depicted, then, incorporate the Boer War, the funeral of Queen Victoria (marking the death of an era in itself), the sinking of the Titanic, World War I (via montages supervised by the renowned and multi-talented William Cameron Menzies), and the Jazz Age up until then-contemporary times (with, however, another all-encompassing war already looming). Incidentally, though made in Hollywood, most of the cast is authentically British – which, however, means that the acting alternates between stiff-upper-lipped types and earthy caricatures (resulting in rampant melodrama, crude attempts at humor and the inevitable bland romantic interest)! Having said that, what the film has going for it is a strong prestige value that keeps the disparate parts hanging together and the interest going throughout; in short, while CAVALCADE still impresses somewhat, it has inevitably dated. Director Lloyd, too, has been pretty much forgotten over the years: though he won an Oscar for his work here, following a previous win in 1928/29 for the supposedly lost(!) THE DIVINE LADY, his most (perhaps sole) enduring effort is the original version of MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1935) – which was also named Best Picture but, though nominated once more, Lloyd failed to make it a hat-trick (which, ironically, Frank Capra managed in the space of just 5 years: there is a famous story about how the man presenting the Best Direction Oscar for 1933 announced the recipient by simply saying, "Come and get it Frank", so that Capra rose from his seat to pick up his award for LADY FOR A DAY when the winner was really Frank Lloyd for the film under review!).

Paper Thin Characters and a Rushed Theme

[xiaoli7377 · 4/10 · 4 April 2023]

Personally, it was very hard for me to get emotionally invested and mentally immersed into the world and characters of "Cavalcade." Each of the characters has paper thin motivation and arcs, seems more like a stereotype based on social class and gender, and there are no super jaw-dropping performances that reel you in either. The dialogue is very soap-y and melodramatic. It just is all very boring, and the nearly century old audio mixing and picture quality doesn't exactly help.

The concept is really interesting; showing the effects of a third of a century's events on a group of characters. It's a concept that would be executed much better later in the history of movies, but it's also kind of hard to fault the film as this is still very early on in the history of the medium. Unfortunately, major events such as the Boer War, the funeral of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic, and World War I are all events that just happen off screen. So we never get to actually see any of the characters in the moment but rather just see them talking about their feelings about events and how it personally effects them in bedrooms and parlor rooms and such.

I also really disliked how the last years, from 1918 to New Year's Eve 1932, are sped through in the final fifteen minutes of the film, and how it all of the sudden has a change of theming towards the social change that occurred during those fifteen years (which we barely saw any of) in a very brief montage. It felt extremely rushed. In a real world context, it's interesting to see that many of the problems that they faced, such as a culture that is growing more apathetic and cynical and materialistic, is similar to today's world.

It is unfortunate that the call to action to have hope for the future and to snap out of that lethargic societal attitude was missed on audiences, and only six years after the film's release, the world was plunged into another war that was even bloodier and longer than any of the events that are depicted in this film. It adds a unique and interesting layer to watching this movie in the twenty-first century rather than the twentieth, as we are able to look back at the other two-thirds of that century and realize that things were just warming up in that inter-war period of the 1920s and 30s.

I wouldn't really recommend "Cavalcade", I think there are a lot better movies like "Forrest Gump" that take that whole "group of characters living out a paradigm period of history" concept to a higher level than this film. It is a curiosity as a Best Picture winner, but it is incredibly dated and has not stood the test of time so well.

Forgotten Oscar Winner Creaks with Age

[dglink · 7/10 · 25 August 2013]

A cavalcade of British history flashes past the eyes of a prosperous London family and their domestics during a fairly interesting two-hour melodrama that presages both "Upstairs, Downstairs" and "Downton Abbey." From the Boer War to the death of Queen Victoria, the sinking of the Titanic and World War I, Jane and Robert Marryot watch their sons grow up and become romantically involved, watch men march off to war, watch their servants leave and go into business, watch British society change. As the Marryots, Diana Wynyard and Clive Brook have the required stiff upper lips; unfortunately the stiffness extends to other body parts in performances more suited to the stage than film. "Cavalcade" began life as a Noel Coward play, and director Frank Lloyd's adaptation often betrays its stage origins, especially when characters look past the proscenium and deliver their lines to the audience. Despite three Academy Awards, including the sixth ever awarded for best picture, "Cavalcade" betrays its age and fails to merit classic status.

Although an Oscar went to art director William S. Darling, the production's limited budget shows in a lack of spectacle, despite numerous opportunities. Queen Victoria's funeral is reflected in the family's faces as they watch from a balcony. The Titanic is a white life ring emblazoned with the ill-fated ship's name. However, an extended montage of images and sounds effectively depicts World War I, a technique later reused with less effect to depict the social upheaval of the 1920's. During the brief scandalous 1920's episode, historians of gay film will note a nightclub scene that includes a Lesbian couple and two gay men, one fitting a bracelet on the other's wrist. While the images pass without comment, the intent seems to underscore an anything-goes depravity, at least in the eyes of the Marryots. However, Mrs. Marryot clearly illustrates the social changes underway when she pulls out a cigarette and even lights up in public. But, despite her personal liberation, she remains a social conservative and cannot cope with a marriage between her son and the daughter of her former domestic.

While they make a valiant attempt, the upstairs actors fail to make deep impressions; they are manikins mouthing lines and depicting a social class, rather than flesh-and-blood characters. Wynyard rarely shows emotion and often stares off into space; Brook acts the English stereotype, complete with facial hair; the sons are bland and colorless. The downstairs performers fare better, led by the always entertaining Una O'Connor as the brash domestic, Ellen Bridges, and by Herbert Mundin as her husband. The colorful duo are perhaps a bit over the top, but their performances add life and, unlike the upstairs residents, their characters develop over time. Film buffs will spot a young Bonita Granville as Fanny, the Bridges's daughter. At the conclusion of "Cavalcade," the aging Marryots, tastefully powdered to suggest age, toast Britain's future on the eve of the New Year 1933, which was not only the year of the film's release, but also the year Hitler rose to power. If the oh-so-proper couple thought the prior three decades had been tumultuous, they had not seen anything yet. However, despite the film's over use of "Auld Lang Syne," viewers may be reluctant to share the Marryot's company more than once

England changes

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 11 December 2016]

Frank Lloyd's adaptation of Noël Coward's "Cavalcade" is one of the lesser known Best Picture winners. It focuses on a pair of families in England over the course of three decades. There's the upper-crust Marryots, and their servants, the Bridgeses. The rich family is used to seeing their country dominate the globe, and there's no shortage of wars getting fought - the Boer War, World War I - to ensure that the United Kingdom will continue to rule the world. One scene even takes place aboard the Titanic. But there are soon to be changes in the lives of this rich family, starting with Queen Victoria's death.

With WWI still fresh in people's minds, it makes sense that the movie takes an anti-war stance, showing countless people getting killed on the battlefield. That war was one of the most senseless ever (and the Versailles Negotiations set the stage for WWII, the Vietnam War, and the current bloodshed in the Middle East). The 1920s and 1930s were the brief period when it authentically looked as though the world would avoid war. The Marryots, having seen the changes that have transpired since the dawn of the 20th century, can luxuriate in their wealth, but can only wonder what the future will bring.

Among the other things that I noticed was that the recruiting song performed by the woman in the tavern (I'll Make a Man of You) also got performed by Maggie Smith's character in Richard Attenborough's anti-war musical "Oh! What a Lovely War".

So, it's not the greatest movie ever made, but worth seeing.

One of the great films of the 20th century

[John_Mclaren · 10/10 · 23 July 2004]

Cavalcade is one of the great films of the 20th century, and was justifiably honoured as "best picture" by the Academy in 1932-33. It is a golden cinematic treasure- waiting to be found anew for those who may know nothing of its existence.

It is dated only for those who have no sense of history or cultural depth. It tells the story of England and western civilisation through the history of two families, the Marryots and Bridges. It is the same technique of intimate narrative history that was successfully used in "Roots" and other family-history sagas.

Noel Coward's highly successful London-set stage play "Cavalcade" was adapted for the big screen with a cry of "A love that suffered and rose triumphant above the crushing events of this modern age! The march of time measured by a mother's heart!" It tells of the struggle of civility against the brutalising effects of war (and in particular the Great War).

It tells the story of Britain's struggle against barbarism in the late 19th and 20th century, and of old fashioned virtues in a world that seemed determined to leave them all behind. The final "march of the heroes of history" is perhaps quasi melodramatic Wagnerian mysticism, but it tightens the stiff upper lip- and makes me (for one) proud of Britain's contribution to the modern world.

Twentieth Century Blues

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 20 March 2011]

An upper-crust British family and their servant class react to the preeminent events that introduced Earth people to the Twentieth Century. Mainly, we see three decades of dramatic interludes surrounding lady Diana Wynyard (as Jane) and her noble husband Clive Brook (as Robert Marryot). This "upstairs" couple is contrasted by "downstairs" maid Una O'Connor (as Ellen) and her boozy husband Herbert Mundin (as Alfred Bridges). But, they take a back seat to the quartet's children, after they grow up to be rich Frank Lawton (as Joe Marryot) and poor Ursula Jeans (as Fanny Bridges)...

Noel Coward's stage play is more than a little tedious, at least in cinematic form. "Cavalcade" was well-produced, however, and was the year's "Best Picture" by "The New York Times", "Film Daily", and the "Academy Awards". The latter group named Frank Lloyd "Best Director" and nominated Ms. Wynyard as "Best Actress" of the year for falling hard upon reading bad news. A British Norma Shearer, Wynyard came in third in "Oscar" voting, after winner Katharine Hepburn (in "Morning Glory") and May Robson (in "Lady for a Day"); a good ranking, but Greta Garbo (in "Queen Christina") outperformed them all.

"Cavalcade" is an anti-war excursion, by Mr. Coward, with some observations on the British class system (both rich and poor mourn the death of "Queen" Victoria), and alcoholism among the working class. The awards notwithstanding, watching these characters react to news events is hardly ever engaging. One exception is when Mr. Lawton goes blushingly backstage to meet Ms. Jeans, after she has become an entertainer. This scene gives their otherwise ordinary and predictable storyline some spark. Another strength is the wonderful Coward tune "Twentieth Century Blues" sung by Jeans' character. The song serves not only as the film's theme but also as a timeless comment on chaotic societal changes.

****** Cavalcade (1/5/33) Frank Lloyd ~ Diana Wynyard, Clive Brook, Frank Lawton, Ursula Jeans

OK, I guess.

[Qanqor · 5/10 · 30 September 2009]

Well, I finally got the chance to see this. It's not an easy movie to get a hold of. For several years, now, I had had only two movies outstanding in my quest to see all the Best Picture films, and this was one of them; the other is Wings. Netflix, usually a wonderful source, mysteriously refused to have either of them. Finally, a friend of mine simply *bought* me the two films. I got the chance to watch Cavalcade tonight.

Meh. I guess it's reasonably well made, for what it is. But I don't especially care for what it is. Exactly the kind of movie I don't care for, it's more a sequence of events rather than having any coherent plot. Rather a history lesson of the early 20th century, spun around the lives of two families (and to make that work, it sometimes gets rather contrived).

But I think what really harms the movie the most for me is simply when it was made. The movie covers the time frame of 1900-1933, the year the film came out. And if you make a movie like this in 1933, you are necessarily going to have a skewed view of history. We, the viewers, know '33 as the year Hitler came to power and set events in motion that would lead to perhaps the biggest event of the century: WWII. But the film, of course, doesn't know that yet, so when it makes a big deal out of the *Boer War*, it's pretty weird, and hard to get all worked up about it. Similarly, from the time of the movie-- and especially the *place* of the movie (it is a British film), I guess it made sense to have the death of Queen Victoria be a big deal, but as a modern American, I really was unable to shake off a profound feeling of "Who cares????" And you might expect that, again, from 1933, the Great Depression might get some coverage. But no. No time for a trivial little thing like the Great Depression, c'mon, we've gotta tell people all about the hell that was the *Boer War*!!! So I'm afraid this film really didn't do it for me. It wasn't awful, I wouldn't list it as the worst Best Picture (I've seen some I positively *hated*, and I didn't hate this). But it wasn't magnificent.