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

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…

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…

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two (2019)
(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
(SPOILERS) It sometimes seems as if Quentin Tarantino – in terms of his actual movies, rather than nearly getting Uma killed in an auto stunt – is the last bastion of can-do-no-wrong on the Internet. Or at very least has the preponderance of its vocal weight behind him. Back when his first two movies proper were coming out, so before online was really a thing, I’d likely have agreed, but by about the time the Kill Bills arrived, I’d have admitted I was having serious pause about him being all he was cracked up to be. Because the Kill Bills aren’t very good, and they’ve rather characterised his hermetically sealed wallowing in obscure media trash and genre cul-de-sacs approach to his art ever since. Sometimes to entertaining effect, sometimes less so, but always ever more entrenching his furrow; as Neil Norman note in his Evening Standard review, “Tarantino has attempted (and largely succeeded) in making a movie whose only reality is that of celluloid”. Extend t…

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.