Skip to main content

Crisis or no, nothing should interfere with tea.

Around the World in 80 Days

(SPOILERS) Around the World in 80 Days gets a bad rap. You’ll even hear it cited as one of the all-time worst Best Picture Oscar winners. Which is patently absurd, if you’ve ever had the misfortune to endure A Beautiful Mind. Or Nomadland. Or Oliver! It is, however, undeniably guilty of spectacle-first filmmaking, not so much due to the eager procession of cameos littering every port of call made by Phileas Fogg as the idea that simply visiting said port and lingering there, dramatically engaged or more probably not, would be sufficient. Perhaps it was, in some cases, with the vistas producer Michael Todd’s widescreen (Todd-AO 70mmm) cinematography offered; this was the kind of all-important visual event that made leaving the comfort of one’s home – and the then-usurping-movies new TV set – worthwhile. Mostly, though, this is simply an amiable picture, boosted significantly by David Niven’s presence but diminished somewhat by the illusion that Cantinflas is in some way inherently appealing.

Phileas Fogg: A ladies’ man, huh?

Such a position may well put me in the minority, as he clearly has his fans (including the entirety of his home country), but I quickly surmised a little of little Cantinflas goes a long way, and since there’s a whole lot of little Cantinflas in Around the World in 80 Days, he soon exhausted his welcome. It seems bona fide Frenchman Fernandel was approached – he cameos in the movie – but his English wasn’t up to scratch (also asked were Cary Grant for Fogg and Anne Todd for Princess Aouda. Ustinov auditioned for Inspector Fix; he’d have been great, and you’d have liked the character too. He went on to play the part in the 1989 Pierce Brosnan miniseries. Which features an arguably more satisfying selection of star cameos). If they’re were going to ignore the character on the page’s nationality, why not simply have Norman Wisdom as Passepartout? Rather than a randy Mexican sex pest (invariably during the movie, he gets himself in some soup or other when he is distracted by pretty ladies, and Marlene Dietrich, who invariably slap him)? Maybe, when I was eight, I found Cantinflas riding an ostrich hilarious. Now, I can quite do without.

Such deviations from the source material set the tone for later versions; the 2004 movie has Jackie Chan as Passepartout (and the ever-charmless Steve Coogan as Fogg). The recent David Tennant TV adaptation was fully versed in the gospel of woker-than-thou presentism, with Ibrahim Koma as Passepartout and Leonie Benesch as Abigail Fix. Likely defeated by the rash of problems they’d have to address with the Princess Aouda plotline – involving as it does sati/suttee, and what self-disrespecting wokester would wish to wade into that mire, or pyre? – they excised the character all together.

Likeable as she is in the movie – a defining feature of her ’50s work, something that’s easy to forget based on all later evidence to the contrary – casting Shirley MacLaine as an Indian princess perhaps wasn’t her agent’s finest hour (I’ve seen it suggested too that her voice was dubbed). Her makeup also noticeably lightens once she’s left her “native” land, although her hair at least doesn’t revert to flame red. In some respects, it’s ironic the character was omitted from more recent takes, as it could be argued Verne was positing something rather progressive; a woman who proposes betrothal and embarks on an interracial marriage.

Princess Aouda: Will you have me for your wife?

It seems that, while such marriage was common during the 1780s (“The wills of East India Company officials, now in the India Office library, clearly show that in the 1780s, more than one-third of the British men in India were leaving all their possessions to one or more Indian wives, or to Anglo-Indian children”), British society and religious stringency eventually reined in such embarkations and, “by the middle of the century, they have all but disappeared”. Naomi Eberly notes the novel’s apparent flouting of racial codes, but asserted “she actually plays a subservient role and reinforces colonial notions of a need to ‘improve’ the colonies. Fogg marries her out of duty and completes the colonial narrative of an Englishman needing to save the Indian women”. She also observes that the princess is described as “young, and as fair as a European”, her mitigating higher caste status and her education (the latter is amusingly noted in the movie: Fogg, mulling a rescue bid, is informed “She was educated in England”: “That decides it” he responds, resolute).

Of course, one might also infer an underlying, long-game globalist impulse in the mix with Around the World in 80 Days. When discussing 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, I noted that Verne occupies an undeniably core position in the cut and thrust of promulgated western futurism; whether he was a freemason or not, Verne’s publisher and mentor both had societal links, and if he wasn’t, he was surely an enormous boon in promoting scientist doctrines as they related to the landscape of the Earth and the tenets of progress.

Essentially Verne offered tribute to rational materialism, for all his Roman Catholic credentials (he is “the first writer to try to tell the story of what happens after God is de-throned”). He thus sets the scene for contemporary eugenicist HG Wells, whose works he disliked. Phileas Fogg is a member of the Reform Club, not necessarily an indication of secret-society credentials, nor of being in concert with its members – he is singled out for being mysterious and solitary, hence the suspicion of his being a bank robber. The club was, however, intended as a forum for the ideas of the First Reform Bill “a bastion of liberal and progressive thought” and latterly during the century counted Rothschilds, Goldschmidts, Bram Stoker and Henry Irving among its members.

Phileas Fogg: There was a time, not so long ago, when learned men thought that was flat.

Michael Anderson’s film takes up the mantle of Verne at the rationalist, scientific vanguard in no uncertain terms, beginning with the authoritative Edward R Murrow spoon-feeding his audience on how to perceive the world Fogg is set to traverse; armed with a globe (which he spins) and the visual evidence that “This is how the Earth looks, from a camera in a rocket” (uh-huh) he soberly warns us of the “shrinking” world. And that, in 1872, “the world was already shrinking” (events occur roughly 150 years after the mooted “reset”, and we’re now roughly 150 years after Fogg’s trip). The tone implies we were, relatively, backward – even the clever people used to believe the Earth was flat – but we’re now confidently progressing, all the way to the top. The proof of this being Fogg and his “prophetic” assertion: “When science finally conquers the air, it may be feasible to circle the globe in eighty hours”. That the limits of this “shrinking” world may themselves be a fiction, of those who ply us with images of its shape and maps of its content, isn’t up for discussion.

Around the World in 80 Days doesn’t allow itself much time to dwell on such sobering matters, though, as an American’s take – chaperoned by an English director, with a screenplay by two Americans and an Australian – on a Frenchman’s take on an Englishman’s attitude to globetrotting. And with Niven in the lead, there’s no need to overstate the character’s cultivation and propriety, although he’s inevitably less stiff than he might otherwise have been; “An Englishman never jokes about a wager, sir”, and quite evidently, America is “a very primitive country” (this before he encounters any Native Americans on the warpath, whom he’s more than ready to dispatch with impunity).

While I’m unlikely to make any great claims for Michael Anderson as a director, since he was more than capable of making movies that lay there inertly, disinclined to rouse themselves, it seems he might be off the hook for the weakest episodes here; it’s said original director John Farrow – also one of the credited screenwriters – shot at least some of the Spanish sequence before being fired. This is one of the first stop-offs, and it’s a real slog, with protracted table-top flamenco dancing and a bullfight for which Cantinflas, having experience, did the stunts for himself. The picture picks up with the Indian section and Aouda’s rescue, and the machinations of Inspector Fix also provide some much-needed pot stirring; Passepartout ends up drugged and deposited on a steamship with Peter Lorre (having prior Verne form that decade), so Fogg has to improvise.

Phileas Fogg: Sir, you are an insolent bully and I demand satisfaction at once.

Until it gets bogged down with a western pastiche (Passepartout is captured by Indians), the American section is reasonably good fun too, with cameos from Dietrich, George Raft and Frank Sinatra, a treacherous bridge crossing, and Fogg challenging John Carradine’s vulgar colonel to a duel after having clobbered him with an umbrella. The Atlantic crossing, with Fogg buying the boat and having all available items thrown into the boiler as fuel, is also engaging.

His false defeat and final victory are perhaps not as pronounced as they might have been – the film ends rather suddenly with Robert Morley announcing “This is the end” (cutely referring both to the film itself and Aouda entering the Reform: “No woman has ever set foot in the club. Because that would spell the end of the British Empire”) – but they deserve credit for avoiding endless epilogues. Besides which, Todd needed the space to list all the cameos over the end credits.

Phileas Fogg: Extraordinary. How does one take the temperature of toast?

These include Trevor Howard (as a Reform Club member), Noël Coward (as an employment agency manager), John Gielgud (as Fogg’s ex-valet), Cesar Romero (as a sheikh’s henchman), Ronald Colman (as a railway official), Buster Keaton (as a train conductor), Victor McLaglen (as a helmsman), John Mills (as a carriage driver) and Glynis Johns. Various prospectives were nixed (Sir Larry in the Gielgud part), with Gregory Peck apparently fired from his cameo for being too larky (as the US cavalry officer).

Alexander Korda apparently tried to dissuade Todd from taking on the project, but the “flash-and-cash showman”, who had bounced back from early bankruptcy, made a success of himself on Broadway and developed the Cinerama Todd-AO widescreen, wouldn’t be deterred. It seems he was right; only The Ten Commandments out-grossed Around the World in 80 Days that year. Although, in that regard, Anthony Sutton observed the Oscars were “really choosing one mammoth advertising binge over another”.

The biggest Oscar wrangling revolved around screenplay (something that would recur with the following year’s winner), first with James Poe – later nominated for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Lilies of the Field and They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? – and John Farrow suing for a credit (initially, only SJ Perelman, of Monkey Business and Horse Feathers, was recognised). Their eventual win was no cert; Michael Wilson had strong prospects of winning an Oscar for Friendly Persuasion, but his backlisted status resulted in a new law. The Academy made Communist Party members ineligible for an Oscar and “a few quiet words from the studio bosses were enough to divert it to the writers of Around the World in 80 Days…”

Also notable is composer Victor Young winning (posthumously) on his nineteenth nomination. With regard to the score… it’s one of those where there’s a lot of it, and alas, it isn’t used judiciously. Around the World in 80 Days additionally won for cinematography, and it’s true: there are some quite resplendent golden sunsets. With five wins out of eight nominations, the big night yielded a very respectable tally. If it’s easy to point to the picture and claim it wasn’t the best of its year, well, neither were any of the other contenders (I’m well aware Giant has its staunch advocates, but I’m not one of them). There was probably a first-rate update of Around the World in 80 Days to be made, but such potential has been repeatedly levelled by the likes of Coogan and Tennant; we may have to settle for this as the definitive version, such as it is. At least, until the post-3D VR gives you the next gargantuan leap forward from Todd-AO widescreen.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.