Well this was fun. Noel Coward's bizarre, episodic exploration of early 20th century England has some nice ideas and moments, but ultimately the writing is too poor, the acting too stiff, and the direction too stagy for the story to take off. I call to comparison E. L. Doctorow's famous novel Ragtime, and the subsequent film and musical adaptations it inspired: Ragtime tells the story of America at the turn of the 20th century; the difference between Ragtime and Cavalcade is that Ragtime actually seems interested in investing in the characters as human beings, not just as means to get to the next historical event. That's Cavalcade's biggest problem--none of these people matter. They're just there so they can die in a war or drown in the sinking of the Titanic. That's the writing's big problem. The acting is either too wooden or too melodramatic. Diana Wynyard, Oscar-nominated for the film, finds the happy medium somewhere along the way but she's still not good, bookending every phrase with a wistful gaze into the camera. The rest of the cast is nothing to speak of. Frank Lloyd's direction is another puzzling aspect. At times he's very adventurous (the cavalcade metaphor is beaten into the ground), but when it comes to the human drama, it's as if watching a filmed stage play. That's essentially what Cavalcade is--a poorly filmed production of a poorly written play. Voila, Best Picture winner.