Skip to main content

Trouble’s part of the circus. They said Barnum was in trouble when he lost Tom Thumb.

The Greatest Show on Earth
(1952)

(SPOILERS) Anyone of a mind that it’s a recent development for the Oscars to cynically crown underserving recipients should take a good look at this Best Picture winner from the 25thAcademy Awards. In this case, it’s generally reckoned that the Academy felt it was about time to honour Hollywood behemoth Cecil B DeMille, by that point into his seventies and unlikely to be jostling for garlands much longer, before it was too late. Of course, he then only went and made a bona fide best picture contender, The Ten Commandments, and only then pegged it. Because no, The Greatest Show on Earth really isn’t very good.

Indeed, it often enjoys a comfortable residency in lists of the ten worst Best Picture winners. Empire published one such in 2005 that placed Greatest Show third (behind the well-deserved Braveheart and A Beautiful Mind; other more contentious appearances included Ordinary People, Terms of Endearment, Rocky and How Green Was My Valley). Premiere’s 2006 ranking included Chicago and Oliver! but also, mystifyingly, My Fair Lady. Both featured Around the World in 80 Days, another where it’s difficult to argue the Academy wasn’t rewarding size over content.

Which is to say Greatest Show’s probably not really very much worse than many a consciously constructed epic styling of the classical Hollywood period, and it seems it delivered the goods in terms of box office, always a positive in boosting a ceremony (reputedly, it was the most successful film of the year in the US). Imagine a slow-moving stodge with a smattering of big names and laborious efforts at incident to enliven matters; the four credited writers were doubtless doing their best to meet Cecil’s demands, but shorn of the period trappings and pomp of his better-known efforts, Greatest Show is left looking rather bashful and bereft. DeMille comes armed with the big idea: a circus movie! But that’s where inspiration promptly exits.

Perhaps part of the problem is the inherent difficulty of translating the audience-pleasing antics of one medium to another. With the theatre, you’re either adapting plays or you’re focussing on the conflict that comes with staging them: the people. Greatest Show is compelled to do likewise, so it’s inevitably found wanting when DeMille stops for extended interludes showing the acts and the audiences’ reactions thereto (even the pressures of making ends meet and the attentions of a competing circus owner seem like something somewhat incidental, rather than a seriously meaty plot thread).

While it’s about a Barnum circus, this isn’t about Barnum himself, so Greatest Show diverges markedly from the recent, similarly titled but not very Oscar-troubling The Greatest Showman; there’s no magnificent compere boosting proceedings, which may have been a fatal mistake. Instead, we get Chuck Heston as brooding, steadfast manager Brad Braden, caught in a love triangle with flyer Holly (Betty Hutton) and smooth-talking star trapezist The Great Sebastian (Cornel Wilde doing his best Pepe le Pewe; Wilde would go on to direct The Naked Prey – which he also starred in – as well as dystopian John Christopher adaptation No Blade of Grass).

There’s also Gloria Grahame as elephant girl Angel (not in the John Merrick sense), with her eye on anyone who isn’t obsessive elephant trainer Klaus (Lyle Bettger). Cue various emotional entanglements and fraught declarations of dedication, which might have worked better if Hutton had any presence beyond a gosh-darn American-as-apple-pie Doris Day persona (and yet Holly still comes across as fecklessly fickle in her attachments, switching professions of love at a bewildering rate); Grahame’s much better as the bad girl who naturally ends up with bad boy Sebastian (and his gammy hand) when the dust has settled (the best line relates to her, as Chuck announces, impressed, “You know, I never knew a woman who could fill a pipe”).

Also popping up, rather thanklessly, is Dorothy Lamour (her penultimate Road movie was released the same year, the last being the unwanted and unfunny Road to Hong Kong a decade later), but no, I didn’t spot Hope and Crosby in the crowds. Oh, and Jimmy Stewart’s there too, as Buttons the Clown (“Clowns are funny people, Holly. They only love once”), operating on the hilariously daft, only-in-the-movies conceit of a performer who never takes off his makeup on account of being a former doctor on the run after having euthanised his dying wife (the Fed tracking him down is working off a hunch that Stewart had always wanted to join the circus as a boy!)

At one point, poor proud Sebastian, show off that he is, decides to perform net-free and comes a cropper, left with a twisted, immobile hand (“Flyers have fallen before. They will again. He won’t die”); it’s Buttons, no doubt keeping up with his subscription to current medical journals, who discerns the limb’s no write-off and a full recovery is possible (the incident also inspires possibly the picture’s most hopeless line, as Holly announces “It wasn’t your arm I fell in love with. Or your head. I fell in love with you”).

None of this is remotely sufficient to grant DeMille’s cinematic event a head of steam, so he deduces he needs the spectacle not of an extraordinary feat in the ring but a train crash for the final act (really, this thing runs with all the well-wrung logic of a desperate soap opera), caused by the spurned Klaus and dodgy concessionaire Harry (John Kellogg). Curiously, this doesn’tlead to a rash of Chuck heroics; instead he’s laid low with a spurting artery and Buttons has to operate (and in so doing reveal his true identity). And still the show must go on!

I may have maligned the love triangle (or quadrilateral), but at least there’s a kindling of tension between Heston and Wilde, something the picture desperately needed more of. One gets the sense that DeMille was able to keep churning out epics on the basis that, if audiences who didn’t often go to the cinema were going to see a movie, one movie, that year, it was going to be a big one, so he rarely didn’t reap rewards. The Greatest Show on Earth is too pedestrian to be labelled actively bad; it just hangs there limply – to quote Brad Braden, I think DeMille had “stardust mixed up with sawdust” – and it’s telling that while DeMille got an Oscar as producer, he was pipped as Best Director by John Ford for The Quiet Man (no one was a slouch in the category that year, with John Huston, Fred Zinneman and Joseph L Mankiewicz all getting nods). High Noon was the favourite to win outright – certainly, it and The Quiet Man are in another league to Greatest Show – but had to settle for song, editing and Gary Cooper. Notably, Grahame took home an Oscar too, but for The Bad and the Beautiful rather than this. One of the worst winners then? It likely won’t actively irk you the way, say, A Beautiful Mind should, but it might just send you to sleep.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. Spot on. I watched this only a couple of years ago, and didn't even remember Jimmy Stewart was in it, let alone the specifics of the plot(s), nor even the circus-based spectacle, which I vaguely, hollowly recall is surprisingly unexciting. It's not bad so much as too boring and meandering to even be bad. But, yeah, by that I mean it is pretty bad.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.