I really don’t want to spend a lot of time discussing Around the World in 80 Days. I’ve already spent 3 hours watching it and spending too much time writing about it is pretty much unwarranted. This is one of those annoying years where I go into it knowing that I’m going to be disappointed because there are at least 2 or 3 better films that I could be watching. But then, as I watch the film, I try to put myself in the place of an audience member of the time and try and discern what it was about this particular film that made it resonate so much with its contemporary audience. Clearly Around the World in 80 Days is a film that resonated with its audiences.

One thing to keep in mind was the era. The 1950’s were a time of scientific innovation. Cities were expanding. Factories were sprouting like flowers and things that were once unattainable for everyone but the rich, like automobiles and television sets, were starting to appear in everyone’s respective driveways and living rooms. When you think about it, America in the 1950’s was a very left-brained society. It makes sense then, that a film that pushed the boundaries of technical innovation would be so popular with the general movie-going public, as well as with the academy’s voters.

There were certainly a fair amount of technical innovations in Around the World in 80 Days that I’m certain must have influenced a number of Academy voters. There were over 100 locations used in 13 different countries. They literally used thousands of extras and thousands of animals on the production, and it was shot in color on 70 mm film. All of this created a larger than life spectacle that must have seemed to take film making to the next level, despite the fact that there are holes in the story that are wide enough to fly a hot air balloon through.

The story is long and convoluted so I’m not going to bother with a full synopsis. The premise, however, is about an eccentric English gentleman named Phileas Fogg (David Niven) who proposes to the other members of his Gentlemen’s Club that he can circumnavigate the globe in eighty days. None of them believe him and they all wager against him. Taking his man-servant Passepartout (Cantinflas) with him, he sets out on the journey that takes him through Spain, the Barbary Coast, India, China, the United States and all points in between. On the way, he’s pursued by a detective from Scotland Yard who is certain that Fogg is responsible for a bank robbery in order to finance his expedition. They rescue an Indian princess (Shirley MacLaine) from being burned with her dead husband in India. And they meet all manner of unique people that make each country special in its own way. All the while, the members of the club monitor his progress through the newspapers and continue to gamble based on the varying degrees of his success.

One of the technical innovations of the 1950’s was television, and it had a direct effect on how films were being made. For the most part the movie studios were terrified of television, and saw it as a direct threat to their business. If people could stay at home and watch television shows for free, what reason would they ever have to go to the movies? One of the ways they tried to solve that was with large format. Shooting in Cinemascope on 70 mm and giving the audience a huge image to look at that television couldn’t possibly replicate was one way of enticing people to continue to go to the theaters.

I look at the introduction of widescreen formats in similar way as the introduction of sound 30 years earlier. Much like the technical innovation, as well as limitations, set filmmaking back by a decade or so in the 20’s, widescreen set filmmaking back in a less drastic, but similar way in the 50’s and Around the World in 80 Days exemplifies that. This is a beautiful film. The cinematography is outstanding and the film makers did a great job of showing the environments, landscapes and vistas of various worldwide locales. The problem is that they did too much of it. They shot all of this beautiful footage and felt compelled to leave it in the film so that every introduction to every new location has five minutes of shots just showing the setting. While it may be beautiful to look at, it slows down the story to an interminable pace. The story is slow enough as it is, and the need of the filmmakers to show off a new toy has gotten in the way of their ability in this film to tell a good story.

The story itself is disorganized and unsatisfying. Director Michael Anderson had a nasty habit of putting the characters in difficult situations and setting up how they were going to get out of them, but not showing the action itself. For example, there’s a scene in the second half of the film as they’re making their way across the western United States when the train comes under attack by Comanche’s. Passepartout heroically leads the Indians away from the train, but is captured by them. After the train has safely reached the station, Fogg is told by local cavalrymen that Passepartout is certain to be tortured and killed by the Comanche, and Fogg convinces the cavalrymen to come with him on a rescue mission. We see the Comanche preparing to burn Passepartout at the stake. The cavalry arrives at the village and we see Passepartout with the flames around him look with relief at their arrival. We then cut to Fogg, Passepartout, Princess Aouda, and Inspector Fix sitting in front of the train station contemplating how they’ll get to New York. Then we see them attach a sail to a rail car and sail along the tracks, unsure if they’ll make it on time, and then we see them in New York. They film is full of these types of scenarios where Anderson gave his characters road blocks, and then just shows them on the other side without showing us how they got there. To me, that’s one of the most frustrating motifs of this film, and it happens constantly throughout.

Is this film all bad? Not at all. The story is a convoluted mess, but as mentioned before it’s beautifully shot and stunning to look at. There are also some genuine moments of good humor sprinkled throughout the film. The performances by David Niven, Cantinflas, Shirley MacLaine, and Robert Newton are terrifically entertaining, and are the main reason to sit through the film. Although even with that said. Fogg is a terribly pretentious and aloof character who is hard to root for or care about. That’s another one of the main problems with this film. It’s never a good thing when your main character isn’t at the very least sympathetic.

Ultimately, though, Around the World in 80 Days is all about the spectacle. The problem is with what it’s missing. It’s hard to think that a 3-hour film could be missing anything, but this film is missing a lot. First of all, with the characters as well developed and well performed as they are, we should care about them. We should care about what they’re doing and what’s going to happen to them. Unfortunately everything in the story is so superficial that it’s impossible to become emotionally engaged. The reason for that is that this is a self-indulgent film. Too many of the scenes take way too long. Such as the scene where Passepartout has to act as a matador in a bullfight so that they can procure transportation out of Spain. It’s a fine scene, but it lasts 5 minutes too long. The Indian chase is another scene that takes too ling. The hot air balloon scene is yet another one. I can’t help but think that if they’d been able to edit themselves down to 2 hours or even 2:15 that they would have had a much tighter film that would have felt a lot more riveting and entertaining.

Did the Academy get it right?

The obvious answer from today’s perspective is no, they did not. Around the World in 80 Days was nominated against Giant, The King and I and The Ten Commandments. Any one of those films was more deserving of winning the award, as they were all big films as well, and they had compelling stories and/or wonderful music. They also had compelling stories with characters that you cared about and rooted for. The Ten Commandments also made more at the box office that year than all of the other nominees combined and, along with The King and I, have become two of the most beloved films of all time. In fact, The Ten Commandments actually has a lot of the same technical innovations as Around the World in 80 Days. I’m honestly surprised that that film didn’t win that year, and the only reason I can think of for that being the case, is that Around the World in 80 Days was probably perceived to be a much more fun and entertaining film, whereas The Ten Commandments probably felt a little bit like going to Sunday School. Giant is also the only film on this list to make AFI’s list of top 100 films, coming in at #82. Another thing I have to mention is one film that wasn’t even nominated, and that’s The Searchers, which is perhaps John Wayne’s finest film, and is a film that transcends its genre and has become timeless. It also is on AFI’s list, coming in at #96. With all that said, however, Around the World in 80 Days was a spectacle and a feel-good adventure that must have had audiences in 1956 supremely entertained and feeling happy when they left the theater. So overall, while I don’t think the Academy got it right in 1956, I do understand why they got it wrong.