Skip to main content

Well, hyperbole isn’t the worst crime.

The Greatest Showman
(2017)

(SPOILERS) I can see why The Greatest Showman was such a big hit, but largely, I still have to side with the critical drubbing it received. As a patchwork of infectiously catchy songs (all with the same effusive crescendos to get you properly emotionally uplifted) it has a certain appeal, in an extended pop-promo sense. As a movie, it’s barely coherent.

It’s one that largely dispenses with characterisation, assuming audiences will get the gist of the fundamentals, knowing that all you really need is an intermittent belter to fill in the fine detail. And I guess director Michael Gracey and screenwriters Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon (the latter really ought to know better, but then the last two Twilights and live-action Beauty and the Beast would probably have something to say about that) were right, as it’s probably the most impressive example of a sleeper success of the last few years, written off on opening but subsequently proving that positive word of mouth and cynicism-free allegiance can still turn a leaky ship around.

To me though, much of what’s here is only palatable as borderline parody, right from the opening flashback of young PT Barnum launching into A Million Dreams with his childhood sweetheart, then reprising it as big Barnum Hugh Jackman, now wed with Michelle Williams’ Charity. This sets the stage for what follows, the briefest of sketches considered sufficient to tell us what’s going on, favoured over imparting the characters with any actual emotional life. Barnum’s freaks get zero development, aside from Zendaya, who isn’t actually a freak. Keala Settle’s bearded lady delivers This Is Me (it should have taken the Best Song Oscar, no argument there), but there’s nothing else to her, while Sam Humphrey’s General Tom Thumb is only distinguished by being an obnoxious little shit. As a result, they’re only really informed by Barnum being ashamed of his discoveries when he’s finally invited into high society.

Which kind of fits, as the picture’s most interesting feature is that it has the audacity to pass off Barnum’s exploitation as aspiration, progressiveness and inclusivity. I’m not talking the real Barnum here (the picture’s such an obvious fantasy, I’m genuinely surprised anyone would have a serious beef with it on that score), merely the nuts and bolts of putting societal rejects and fringe dwellers on display for the leering, voyeuristic inspection of others and testifying to it creating a positive familial atmosphere among them. I mean, that’s what the songs tell us, so it must be so, despite their having abuse hurled their way by an angry mob each night and the filmmakers being as remiss as Barnum by omitting to characterise the freaks in any way other than sum-them-up-in-a-stage-name freakishness.

Gracey doesn’t seem to know what the hell he’s doing when he isn’t choreographing a number, such that the picture’s cutting can become bewilderingly distracting during a simple conversation (witness Barnum meeting Zac Effron’s Carlyle for a drink before they break into song). The song-and-dance routines themselves are fizzy and eye catching, but all operate according to the same formulaic uplift, designed to leave the audience on a serotonin high. Barnum has an arc of sorts; hoisted by his own petard and distracted by the genuine talent of opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson), he needs bringing back down to earth, to his family and freaks, but it’s all pretty perfunctory in execution.

I mean, I’d much rather watch something like this, where there’s evidently genuine passion involved, than the dead-eyed, reheated stage antics of the likes of a Chicago, but you still need to come up with a something that works coherently as a movie, when all is said and done. This most resembles the kind of ADD, frenetic, fractured fare Baz Lurhmann routinely comes up with, although thankfully Greatest Showman isn’t quite as horrifically off-putting as his Moulin Rouge. Still, the movie sufficiently resembles the results of spending a coke-fuelled, weekend bender in the editing suite (no less than five editors are credited, including two Oscar winners, suggesting a serious salvage job was called for – certainly, James Mangold was sequestered to oversee post-production) that one can call it an achievement, but that isn’t necessarily a compliment.

Occasionally, the picture actually threatens to become involving. The Zendaya-Effron romance works surprisingly well, particularly as Effron does his best to preen his way through the picture (he’s particularly laughable when puffed up in his Barnum outfit at the end, literally handed the baton to take over compere duties). Ferguson too, albeit not performing with her own pipes, offers a frisson Williams has no chance to compete with, relegated to wifey on the fringes. And Frederic Lehne brings the necessary loathsome credentials as Barnum’s father-in-law.

What The Greatest Showman does highlight is how difficult it is to get the musical formula right, such that La La Land’s modestly satisfying achievement is a relatively rare one. The recent Mary Poppins Returns could have done with some of Showman’s restless energy – and crucially, rousing tunes – while Gracey could have done with a touch of her restraint. Between them, there’s probably an accomplished musical. This also feels like the natural outcome of two decades of music-orientated reality shows, such that one can cut straight to the edited highlights without worrying about the messy, involved business of actually telling a story or coming up with motivation and character. I suspect the restrained response to Poppins and contrastingly effusive one to this means there’s more of the latter style to come. Certainly, Greatest Showman 2 has the greenlight, whereas it might be another couple of decades before there’s a Poppins 3.


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.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

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.

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.

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

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There