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.

Popular posts from this blog

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.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism