taurus2904
Obstinatician
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 168
- Points
- 0
The Greatest Showman
One of my co-workers offered to pay the way if I'd go with her to see "The Greatest Showman," since most of her friends don't like musicals. I was ho-him about the movie after seeing several ads and trailers, but I took her up on the offer.
Here's the blurb from IMDB: "Inspired by the imagination of P.T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business and tells of a visionary who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation."
If you like musicals, you may be able to tolerate this. If you are indifferent to or don't like musicals, skip it. The musical numbers are juxtaposed against the time period -- dance/pop and flash-mob in Victorian(-esque) clothing. More on this later.
Some of the songs are catchy and do drive some of the story. Some were just too hard to understand clearly -- the lyrics being either mumbled or drowned out by the music, or simply overworked and chewed out. Some were wrought with sentimentality or schmaltz. There are a lot of songs, often more than dialogue. Even though I do like musicals, there were sometimes way too many songs and the use of auto-tune brought things down a notch.
Same goes for the CGI -- sometimes it was glaringly obvious. Same goes for make-up -- some close-ups of the bearded lady showed edges of the facial hair appliances that would have earned severe criticism -- and probable elimination -- on the US TV special-effects make-up show, "Face-Off." The tallest man was clearly on stilts, his feet made definite impressions in his trousers which could not be mistaken for knees, as those were also noticeable -- giving the sense he had two sets of knees. (By this point, I'm starting to sound like the theatre critic in the story, Bennett -- a critic who doesn't enjoy entertainment.)
As to costuming -- several outfits are jarringly out of place for the period. Granted, most are beautiful pieces -- Jenny Lind, the Swedish Nightingale, (played wonderfully by Rebecca Ferguson) has some glorious gowns that would make many of today's red carpet best dressed lists -- but knits, as used, and spandex just weren't around in the late-1800s. Many of the outfits and costumes would be either scandalous in the Victorian era or simply would not exist.
Hugh Jackman, as P. T. Barnum, is charismatic, good looking, talented in song and dance; he brings an eager earnestness to the role. The Barnum presented in the movie, though, is a modern day semi-revisionist one -- that his show was done, and cast collected, as much out of the goodness of his heart as it was, also, about making a buck and improving his station.
Themes of diversity and inclusiveness, while laudable to current eyes and sensibilities, are reflective of the contemporary tendency to view history through a modern lens. I believe this does a disservice to history and presents a fake feeling of superiority of the modern mind. It lacks integrity, to the past and the present.
Michelle Williams plays Charity Hallett Barnum. She is one of the most underrated actresses of our day. She turns in performances that are both heart wrenching and heart lifting, often with merely an expression or the look in her eyes. Sadly, some of her musical numbers are auto-tuned within an inch of life and one costume looks like a discount store bathrobe. She turns in basically a solid performance and tries to be the moral touchstone, most of the time.
Zac Efron, who plays investor (later partner) embodied in New York high-society scion, Phillip Carlyle, brings his musical talents to the fore -- though not on a level like Jackman. His end points and dancer lines are just not as strong or defined, but they are good. Later in the film, he does present a stronger character as Barnum goes slightly off the rails, no pun intended.
The business negotiation/song-and-dance sequence with Jackman and Efron -- held in a barroom with whiskey shots -- simmers with subtle homoeroticism, each in turn eyeing the other as a potential business investment. A practiced eye might notice some other eyeballing, though. (My female co-worker leaned over to whisper, "Did Zac just quirk an eyebrow at Hugh's basket?" To which I replied, "Just like Hugh did to Zac's butt!")
Zendaya, who plays trapeze artist/aerialist and Zac's love interest, Anne Wheeler, gives strong and touching performances that hint at larger roles heading her way.
Michael Gracey, in his directorial debut, does bring sincerity to his work, but often with a commercial glitz. He is known in Australia for his commercials -- or so the buzz says. Not being Australian, I couldn't say that I know this or his previous work. He presents his vision in edge-to-edge, corner-to-corner grandeur -- the entire movie screen is filled! There are great swaths of visually stunning cinematography with strong color and light, wonderfully framed vistas and scenes packed with crowds and interesting deep-scene action. Not sure if those crowds are extras or CGI. Other times, some scenes are so low light that they are hard to read or just muddy and muddled.
There is a prelude to the film where Gracey and Jackman point out this was meant to be enjoyed on the big screen. With the way it was filmed, that's true -- much detail and impact would be lost otherwise, perhaps even on the best home theater set-up.
If you're looking for an accurate period piece, you will be disappointed. Depending upon your tastes and likes in musicals, this could go either way. However, if you're looking for an escape, can actively engage suspension of disbelief, then catch a matinee. I couldn't recommend a prime-time ticket price, however.
One of my co-workers offered to pay the way if I'd go with her to see "The Greatest Showman," since most of her friends don't like musicals. I was ho-him about the movie after seeing several ads and trailers, but I took her up on the offer.
Here's the blurb from IMDB: "Inspired by the imagination of P.T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business and tells of a visionary who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation."
If you like musicals, you may be able to tolerate this. If you are indifferent to or don't like musicals, skip it. The musical numbers are juxtaposed against the time period -- dance/pop and flash-mob in Victorian(-esque) clothing. More on this later.
Some of the songs are catchy and do drive some of the story. Some were just too hard to understand clearly -- the lyrics being either mumbled or drowned out by the music, or simply overworked and chewed out. Some were wrought with sentimentality or schmaltz. There are a lot of songs, often more than dialogue. Even though I do like musicals, there were sometimes way too many songs and the use of auto-tune brought things down a notch.
Same goes for the CGI -- sometimes it was glaringly obvious. Same goes for make-up -- some close-ups of the bearded lady showed edges of the facial hair appliances that would have earned severe criticism -- and probable elimination -- on the US TV special-effects make-up show, "Face-Off." The tallest man was clearly on stilts, his feet made definite impressions in his trousers which could not be mistaken for knees, as those were also noticeable -- giving the sense he had two sets of knees. (By this point, I'm starting to sound like the theatre critic in the story, Bennett -- a critic who doesn't enjoy entertainment.)
As to costuming -- several outfits are jarringly out of place for the period. Granted, most are beautiful pieces -- Jenny Lind, the Swedish Nightingale, (played wonderfully by Rebecca Ferguson) has some glorious gowns that would make many of today's red carpet best dressed lists -- but knits, as used, and spandex just weren't around in the late-1800s. Many of the outfits and costumes would be either scandalous in the Victorian era or simply would not exist.
Hugh Jackman, as P. T. Barnum, is charismatic, good looking, talented in song and dance; he brings an eager earnestness to the role. The Barnum presented in the movie, though, is a modern day semi-revisionist one -- that his show was done, and cast collected, as much out of the goodness of his heart as it was, also, about making a buck and improving his station.
Themes of diversity and inclusiveness, while laudable to current eyes and sensibilities, are reflective of the contemporary tendency to view history through a modern lens. I believe this does a disservice to history and presents a fake feeling of superiority of the modern mind. It lacks integrity, to the past and the present.
Michelle Williams plays Charity Hallett Barnum. She is one of the most underrated actresses of our day. She turns in performances that are both heart wrenching and heart lifting, often with merely an expression or the look in her eyes. Sadly, some of her musical numbers are auto-tuned within an inch of life and one costume looks like a discount store bathrobe. She turns in basically a solid performance and tries to be the moral touchstone, most of the time.
Zac Efron, who plays investor (later partner) embodied in New York high-society scion, Phillip Carlyle, brings his musical talents to the fore -- though not on a level like Jackman. His end points and dancer lines are just not as strong or defined, but they are good. Later in the film, he does present a stronger character as Barnum goes slightly off the rails, no pun intended.
The business negotiation/song-and-dance sequence with Jackman and Efron -- held in a barroom with whiskey shots -- simmers with subtle homoeroticism, each in turn eyeing the other as a potential business investment. A practiced eye might notice some other eyeballing, though. (My female co-worker leaned over to whisper, "Did Zac just quirk an eyebrow at Hugh's basket?" To which I replied, "Just like Hugh did to Zac's butt!")
Zendaya, who plays trapeze artist/aerialist and Zac's love interest, Anne Wheeler, gives strong and touching performances that hint at larger roles heading her way.
Michael Gracey, in his directorial debut, does bring sincerity to his work, but often with a commercial glitz. He is known in Australia for his commercials -- or so the buzz says. Not being Australian, I couldn't say that I know this or his previous work. He presents his vision in edge-to-edge, corner-to-corner grandeur -- the entire movie screen is filled! There are great swaths of visually stunning cinematography with strong color and light, wonderfully framed vistas and scenes packed with crowds and interesting deep-scene action. Not sure if those crowds are extras or CGI. Other times, some scenes are so low light that they are hard to read or just muddy and muddled.
There is a prelude to the film where Gracey and Jackman point out this was meant to be enjoyed on the big screen. With the way it was filmed, that's true -- much detail and impact would be lost otherwise, perhaps even on the best home theater set-up.
If you're looking for an accurate period piece, you will be disappointed. Depending upon your tastes and likes in musicals, this could go either way. However, if you're looking for an escape, can actively engage suspension of disbelief, then catch a matinee. I couldn't recommend a prime-time ticket price, however.
