The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

Continue Reading

With so much attention currently being paid to The Greatest Showman I have selected another circus film for my 'Oldies but Goodies' post this week.  The 1952 film, The Greatest Show on Earth, was based on the famous railroad circuses of the day and went on to win the Academy's Best Picture award for that year.  Directed by the famous Cecil B DeMille and starring Charlton Heston, Betty Hutton, Cornel Wilde and Jimmy Stewart, this movie takes us behind the scenes of the famous Ringling Brothers - Barnum and Bailey Circus. What makes this movie so fascinating is that when you review the cast list it becomes apparent that most of the circus characters were true circus performers.  The story focuses on the circus manager, Heston, trying to keep the circus financially viable.  To do so he has to employ an arrogant and womanising trapeze artist, Wilde, to be his star attraction.  This impacts the manager's girlfriend, Hutton, who thought she would be the central trapeze artist as she is relegated to a lesser role. As the story progresses it becomes apparent that Heston cares more for the circus than his girlfriend. Hutton feels neglected and starts falling for Wilde's character but still wants the top billing so they both try more daring performances to prove there skill.  Eventually Wilde has an accident that prevents him from continuing to perform.  There are a whole lot of side stories revolving around who has romantic feelings about who and also there is the mysterious clown, Buttons (Jimmy Stewart), who never takes off his makeup. The climax of the film is a spectacular train crash that cripples the circus, brings out everyone's true feelings for each other and uncovers a couple of mysteries.  The true spirit of 'the show must go on' brings the movie to its close. Stephen Spielberg tells that this was the first movie he ever saw and influenced his desire to make movies.  Those who have seen his film 'Super 8' will recognise the influence of the train crash from this movie transferred to his. The love of circuses continued on TV as remember growing up  watching Bozo the Clown. I really enjoyed this movie and while I never was adventurous enough to ever consider running away to the circus it gave me a greater appreciation for how exciting the circus was 7 friends out of 10 https://youtu.be/2QswjButLfA  

The Greatest Showman lives up to its name

Continue Reading

Let me be honest up front and tell you that I am a fan of the musical and have Singing in the Rain high in my top ten movies of all time.  Let me also be honest and tell you that last year I was deeply disappointed in La La Land regardless of all its recognition. So this year I reservedly selected The Greatest Showman as my Boxing Day special and was rewarded with a revival of all that is great about a musical.  Catchy music, great dance routines, likable characters, a worthy story and of course a happy ending.   From the musical catch that starts over the Production company credits I was hooked and by the time Hugh Jackman appears I was already tapping my feet. The story is loosely based on the life of the famous entertainer Phineas Taylor (PT) Barnum and his efforts to create on of the first circuses in America.  The film shows him as a young boy and shows that even through hardship he is able to raise a family with a girl from a wealthy family (Michelle Williams), much to her parents regret.  In creating a forum of entertainment Barnum collects an ensemble of 'freaks' including General Tom Thumb, the bearded lady as well as a giant, dog boy and a negro brother/sister trapeze act.  This combination of oddities both repulses and enthralls the residents of New York while forging a sense of family for the performers who had previously been shunned for their special circumstances. The second half of the show focuses on Barnum's preoccupation with a famous Swedish singer, Jenny Lind, (Rebecca Ferguson) who he manages while conducting a huge tour of America.  This sees Barnum neglect his family and his circus troupe until he is forced into financial ruin.  Recognising that he has turned his back on those who mean so much to him he returns humbled and in true musical tradition everything comes together for a happy ending. While the story is cheesy and the facts thin on the ground I emerged from the movie full of joy and a genuine desire to watch it all again (I have now seen it three times).   The soundtrack consists of upbeat foot stomping numbers that generate the excitement of the circus.  There are songs that carry the story line whether it be romantic or inspiring but the anthem 'This is Me' led by Keala Settle as the bearded lady touches the heart as they defy anyone who will not accept them for what they are. The dancing is well choreographed with the trapeze setting for 'Rewrite the Stars' truly spectacular(Zac Efron and Zendaya).  In some scenes the dancing seems too modern for the films setting but I loved the energy that came frequently throughout the movie.   The mixture of music and narrative was well balanced and…

“Did you Know” – Australia Day Special

Continue Reading

Happy Australia Day to all at home and around the World. For today let me share with you some special Aussie "Did you know's" 1. Did you know Australia is attributed with producing the first narrative feature film in the world. The Story of the Kelly Gang was made in 1906 and ran for over 60 minutes. 2.The first Australian to win an Academy Award was Ken G Hall who directed the documentary "Kokoda Front Line" in 1942. It won the Best Documentary award 3.The first Australian feature film shot in colour was also the first film that cast Aboriginal actors in the lead roles. Jedda was made in 1955 and was entered in the Cannes film festival. 4. Crocodile Dundee is the highest grossing Australian film. Made n 1986 it has grossed more than $47 million dollars

12 Angry Men

Continue Reading

Growing up in the 60's my first experience with courtroom drama was watching Perry Mason defending the innocent by uncovering all the hidden facts. The first courtroom movie that I remember was the classic '12 Angry Men' Made in 1957, the same year as the first series of Perry Mason, the film tells the story of a jury that has to consider the innocence or guilt of an 18-year-old boy accused of killing his father. If found guilty the boy would face a mandatory death sentence. 95% of the film is shot in the one room to which the jury has retired to consider their verdict. In considering the age of the movie, the first thing you notice is that to be judged by your 'equals' in the 1950's meant to sit before 12 white males. As the jurors enter the room, their flippant remarks and labelling of the male defendant, who comes from the slums, shows a wide range of bias, bigotry and lack of concern for the outcome they are to make a judgement on. What appears to be a simple decision of all voting guilty is thrown into disarray when juror 7, Henry Fonda, goes against the grain and votes Not Guilty. So begins a journey that requires each man present to consider their own status in life and whether there may be a reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. There is no doubt that the movie has aged but the exploration of each jurors motivation helps each character develop. The decision to only identify each man by their juror number and with no background provided the viewer is free to identify with one or more characters based on their own views of morality and ethics. The room has no cooling and as the heat of the day grows and the men become more visibly uncomfortable the claustrophobic atmosphere helps build the tension. The use of close-ups as characters make statements also gives you a sense of how small the room is as tempers fray. While the movie has aged the premise is not much different to a number of documentaries shown recently that ask people to face their own intolerances such as refugees or indigenous communities. If the defendant was not an abused boy from the New York slums but an aboriginal or Muslim youth from the western suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane I believe we would see 'our peers' struggle with a similar dilemma as the cast of this movie. One by one each character has to question their initial conclusion and determine whether the verdict of guilty should stand. While Henry Fonda is the star of the movie, the cast many of the respected male actors of the period with Lee J Cobb, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, E.G Marshall and a young Jack Klugman of Quincy and…

When is acting not really acting?

Continue Reading

Did you know that since 2004 that the Academy has awarded 8 Best Actor awards and 5 Best Actress awards to people who have portrayed real people? That's 13 awards in 13 years. With Gary Oldman already being tipped as an Oscar favourite for this year's awards, I would like to throw this question out there - Is portraying a real person really acting or just being a good mimic. To begin, allow me to remind you of those recent awards that fall into this category. In the Best Actor category, we have Jamie Foxx for Ray Charles, Philip Seymour Hoffman for Truman Capote, Forest Whitaker for Idi Amin, Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, Colin Firth as King George VI, Daniel Day-Lewis for Abraham Lincoln, Matthew McConaughey for Ron Woodroof and Eddie Redmayne as Steven Hawking. In the Best Actress field, you have Reese Witherspoon as June Carter Cash, Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth, Marion Cotillard for Edif Piaf, Sandra Bullock as Leigh Anne Tuohy and Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. It is fair to say that some of these characters would not be known to the general public and so comparing the actor to the real person would not have been an issue. However, with youtube, it is possible for the actor to listen to the character's speech and see their mannerisms thus allowing them to mimic them. In some cases, such as Gary Oldman's Winston Churchill, the makeup and prosthetics make him look so much like the real person that I wonder how much acting is required to have the audience accept him as the role he is playing. Interestingly during the same period of time, only 3 biopics won the award for Best Picture, The Kings Speech, Argo and 12 Years a Slave. So apart from The Kings Speech, the strength of the actors/actresses who won the best acting awards was not strong enough to carry the story to also earn the best movie award. So to my question, does it take great acting to portray the role of a real person or can anyone who is a good mimic be able to carry it off. Look forward to your comments.  

Darkest Hour (2018)

Continue Reading

Having recently watched John Lithgow play the role of Winston Churchill in the Netflix series 'The Crown' I was a bit apprehensive about how I would accept Gary Oldman's portrayal of the former British Prime Minister.  Let me give you a response to that later....... This story focuses on the four week period in May 1940 that covers the appointment of Winston Churchill as British Prime Minister up to the time that the evacuation of Dunkirk commences. The Parliament, having lost confidence in Neville Chamberlain, seeks a new leader but much to the ruling party's despair the only person the opposition is willing to accept is Winston Churchill. With a poor war history, including overseeing the Gallipoli campaign, most of his colleagues don't rate his chances of stepping in and saving Britain from the possible Nazi invasion as high.  Should he accept peace terms with Hitler or tough it out?   We all know how it ends so there is no spoiler alert warning. The film itself felt as if the screen writer had gathered a whole lot of personal anecdotes, speeches and historical facts and thrown them together to make a patchwork of stories that were supposed to show Churchill's personality and character as he struggles against his own weaknesses and the enemies from within his own political party. While Churchill is the focus of the film, the stories have been drawn from his relationships with his wife Clemmie, played by Kristin Scott Thomas, King George VI played by our own Ben Mendelsohn and his personal secretary Elizabeth, portrayed by Lily James.  I found the supporting characters very wooden with those opposing Churchill portrayed as untrustworthy scoundrels straight out of an old Sherlock Holmes movie while those who support him as very tolerant and forgiving of his heavy drinking and rudeness.  To me Churchill came across as the unwelcome uncle who attends family gatherings and upsets everyone with his lack of social skills but is generally allowed to attend because he can tell funny jokes every now and then.  There are interesting anecdotes showing his popularity with the people as well as the lack of respect from his peers and of course his rousing speeches were used for patriotic effect.  However for much of the film I felt that he was portrayed as a doddering alcoholic and it made me wonder how Britain fought off the Germans to keep their independence during the Second World War The awards buzz is that Gary Oldman is a good chance to win an Oscar for his portrayal as Churchill.  Personally I did not see his portrayal as worthy of the recognition he has received so far. The make up and prosthetics made him look like Churchill, and from film clips I have seen of the wartime Churchill he was able to copy his mannerisms and speech,  However I…

Close Menu