You could make a movie about producer Michael Todd that would be incredibly more entertaining than the one film that he did produce, 1956’s Around the World in 80 Days. This man took what was considered to be an unfilmable script, borrowed and conned enough money to pull together a multinational production with a large cadre of who’s who in the entertainment business, and won an Academy Award for Best Picture for his efforts. All the while, he was wooing Elizabeth Taylor away from another man and becoming her third husband.
By the time he was wrapping up production of Around the World in 80 Days, he was so in debt that the negatives were being held in a secure vault overseen by his creditors, treated like escrow. How he managed to hold them off, woo Taylor, and oversee this massive production is the stuff of legends, and any film made telling that story would be so fantastical it would be hard to take seriously.
The final product was shot simultaneously in 35mm as well as Todd’s version of Cinemascope, called Todd-AO. In order to make the film in Todd-AO—which at the time was 30 frames per second (fps), not the industry standard of 24 fps—the film had to essentially be made twice. Later alterations to Todd-AO scaled it back to the industry standard 24 fps, eliminating the need for double filming, which was very expensive.
Despite the high price tag, this film was a massive success, in large part because at the time very few people had the means to travel the world and see the sights of India, Hong Kong, or Japan. This was not a world where anyone could simply log on to YouTube and see any natural wonder they could ever want to see. By the very nature of this story, this film was presenting large parts of the world to an audience who hadn’t seen it before. People flocked to theaters in droves, and it remained sold out for many months.
This was shot in eighteen countries all over the globe, featuring a cast of known actors in a large number of walk-on roles. The problem is that most of these walk-on roles serve little purpose but to distract from the story. Frank Sinatra, for instance, plays a saloon piano player, and the camera hovers repeatedly on the back of his head, telling us that this is someone we should recognize. So when stuff is happening away from him, we are distracted trying to guess who this actor is. When he finally turns towards the camera, we see that it’s Frank Sinatra, but he never says anything or does anything to justify it being him. Many of the other cameos are just as wasted. This is not It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, where the cameos have meaning or are there for a specific punchline; they are just there so you can point to the screen and say “It’s Glynis Johns!”
The basic plot all of this is surrounding is that English Gentleman Phileas Fogg (David Niven) has been called out for stating to his fellow gentlemen at the Reform Club that a man could circumnavigate the globe in 80 days. To prove his point, he makes a wager with them that he can accomplish this feat in the set time. He brings with him his newly acquired French valet, Passepartout (Cantinflas), and they set out on a hot air balloon to cross the Alps and the first leg of the journey. In his absence, suspicion grows that a recent robbery of the Bank of England was committed by Fogg, and Police Inspector Fix (Robert Newton) follows Fogg on his journey, attempting to capture him on British soil so as to arrest him.
Along the way, Fogg and Passepartout rescue Princess Aouda (Shirley MacLaine), a woman set to be sacrificed on a funeral pyre along with her deceased husband. The film follows these four as they travel from Europe, through Asia, across America, and back to Europe, overcoming obstacles all the way. It naturally ends right back where it started, in England.
The story behind the making of this film is far more entertaining than the film itself. This plays more like a Disney Channel travelogue than an actual movie, with large segments dedicated to showcasing the terrain and the people rather than forwarding the plot. It stays fairly close to the original Jules Verne text but stops to show off the real locales they are filming at. This brings with it some unfortunate stereotypes along the way. For instance, we see two sides to America: the saloons and the Indians attacking a train as it crosses the frontier. Fogg is bound for New York City to catch a trans-Atlantic steamer back to London, but we never see this half of the States, only the frontier.
And when we are seeing anything other than that frontier, it is the inside of an old-west saloon, complete with bawdy women and a roughen played by George Raft who does nothing but look angry and throw knives around whenever anyone talks to his woman played by Marlene Dietrich. We get just as awkward stereotypes in India and Japan, including the rather unfortunate casting choice of Peter Lorre as an Asian man.
The best part about this film is Cantinflas, who was top-billed in Hispanic regions because of how big a star he was in his homeland. He is outshining David Niven with his expressions, his mannerisms, and physical abilities. This was a much smaller role in the novel, but Cantinflas takes it and makes it one of cinema’s greatest characters. When Disney remade this film fifty years later, they cast Jackie Chan with the hopes of replicating the physicality of this character. The results were the same, with Jackie Chan stealing the show away from the lead. Still, neither version has managed to replicate the wonder and sheer imagination of the Jules Verne prose.
This was once considered an unfilmable book. As yet, I haven’t seen a production that has proved otherwise. It spends too long gazing at the scenery and the culture and not enough time giving us an engaging story. There is too much emphasis on showing off the locals and not enough time on giving us a reason to care why we are seeing it. This may have worked for audiences back in the 1950s, but it doesn’t hold up in the modern era where all of this can be seen just by clicking on a video on YouTube. Our main protagonist isn’t a particularly likable character and gives us nothing really to root for besides getting the best of some equally stodgy Brits who are no more likable than he is. Large portions of the world are either glossed over or seen from the window of a train as it passes by. This film is padded to the gills, and that gets old after a while.
It is understandable why this film won the Best Picture Oscar back in 1957. It’s elaborate and stagey, a real feat of filmmaking. On a technical standpoint, it is impressive. But from every other aspect, it is lacking and really shows the inexperience Mike Todd had as a filmmaker. Had he not died soon after the release of the film, he may have gone on to better things, but this was the only film we ever got from him. It’s not a terrible film, but it is mediocre and, worse, it is often quite boring.
Academy Award Nominations:
Best Motion Picture: Mike Todd (won)
Best Director: Michael Anderson
Best Screenplay - Adapted: James Poe, John Farrow, and S. J. Perelman (won)
Best Art Direction - Color: James Sullivan, Ken Adam, and Ross Dowd
Best Cinematography - Color: Lionel Lindon (won)
Best Costume Design - Color: Miles White
Best Film Editing: Gene Ruggiero and Paul Weatherwax (won)
Best Music Score of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture: Victor Young (won)
____________________________________________________
Release Date: October 17, 1956
Running Time: 175 minutes
Not Rated
Starring: David Niven, Cantinflas, Robert Newton, and Shirley MacLaine
Directed by: Michael Anderson
Comments
Post a Comment