1h 45min || 20 December 2017
Director: Michael Gracey
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Michelle Williams, Zac Efron
Genres: Biography | Drama | Musical | Romance
Watched in theatre, Tues matinee, poorly attended.
As of this writing, the IMDb average is 8.0, with 21,408 votes (yesterday was 17,600+).
Having sat through all the credits, I thought the "Full Cast and Crew" page on IMDb would be horrendous. When sent to print, it composed to a mere 19 pages. Copied them into a spreadsheet; just under 900 credits. Is it possible we didn't watch 15,000 names scroll by after the film? (By contrast, printing the credits of The Wizard of Oz ('39) consumes 11 pages (that's a lot of munchkins); printing the credits of They Shall Have Music ('39) consumes 4 pages.)
I have a big disadvantage here. With an online or dvd musical, I can roll it again while writing. Here I must rely on memory, and the credits finished 6+ hours ago.
You really need to visualize a whip pan to understand how changing from 1939 musicals to a 2017 musical might feel. You need a souped-up Delorean, or a special phone booth, or at least a Wayback Machine to get from one to the other. Musicals in the '30s do NOT generally use the songs to propel the plot or reveal the characters. They are just pleasant diversions, often performances by the characters who are show biz professionals within the film. But in TGS, they adhere to modern rules: the songs are ALL about the characters and/or story. They may not sing every line of the play, but modern musicals are closer to opera than to musical films of the '30s.
In those early years, movie musicals patterned themselves after theatrical shows, mostly revues/vaudeville, usually joined by a storyline irrelevant to the songs. I'll be curious whether I see an evolution or an abrupt shift at some point in the movies. On Broadway: Pal Joey premiered on 25 Dec 1940, Lady in the Dark premiered about a month later. Both definitely have songs explaining what the character thinks/feels. Oh, and it may be that Broadway deserves earlier credit than I know: when Hollywood brought B'way musicals to film, they usually gutted them and wrote new songs.
Back to the show, The Greatest Show. What I didn't like: music-video-style cutting on the dance numbers. Whether the ensemble or the duos, these dancers would have been better served (not to mention the audience) if the camera merely moved with them in an artful way, rather than splicing takes together. The performers worked hard at their craft and on their dances; SHOW the result.
Had Barnum lived in current times, he might have contributed to the development of CGI. It's SO much easier to fake what you want by computer. Here the animals (elephants, lions, maybe some horses too?) are CLEARLY fake. The biggest tell: they were moving in unison (with each other), and in time to the music. If you watch lion tamer acts, the beasts rarely cooperate. In this film, they weren't even in cages. Is this a Disney film? Dumbo? The Jungle Book?
When the bearded lady, Keala Settle, has her big musical number, her cleavage is pushed so high that I was expecting a wardrobe malfunction. The speaking voice of the little person was a big mismatch for me. On his IMDb page, he has a demo reel, and THAT voice matches. But he has a heavy Aussie accent, so I understand why he was dubbed, just not the choice of the replacement.
Also on the negative side: the ending makes it seem as though Barnum retires to watch his children grow up (and they haven't aged at all in the film), and no more show biz. I don't know if he took any time off, but he certainly was still in show biz later in life.
Aside: echoing in my brain: didn't Burt Lancaster play PT Barnum? Yes. Barnum ('86), and it can be watched online (lots of choices, all the wrong length, s/b 90 min per IMDb); not a musical. I watched the first few minutes, and BL as Barnum is speaking to us, saying he didn't own a circus until he was 60. Huge difference from TGS.
OK, positives.
- Obviously I saw enough talent in the dancing that I was disappointed in the cut-cut-cut presentation.
- From start to finish, it reminded me of Moulin Rouge (2001). The period is roughly the same, they used modern musical styles, there was a fair amount of aerial work, and MR had an elephant too (it's where Satine lived). Frankly, if Hugh Jackman and Zak Efron had a baby, it might grow up to look like young Ewan McGregor. And I rated MR as 7.
- Jenny Lind's song in the movie was very good. You think it's the voice you like, until you listen to it without the visual. It's the combination of Ferguson's acting and Loren Allred's singing that makes it work, both times it was sung, in 2 very different interpretations.
- I like the "forbidden love" storyline between Efron and Zendaya. (Not gonna write a spoiler.)
- Per IMDb trivia, Zendaya did her own trapeze stunts.
- Young Phineas and Charity were cast well, played well. I love how red PT's cheek looked after he was slapped. Don't know if their singing was dubbed; they don't appear on the Soundtracks page, but neither is someone else given credit for their part of A Million Dreams.
I already preordered the DVD; I want to support the future development of film musicals. I predict the disc will arrive (5 Mar) well before I'm ready to watch a 2017 musical in my quest. (It's taken me 2.5 months to cover '29-'39. The number of musicals doesn't start to decline until the 50's.) I really need another viewing to solidify my rating. It has the potential to go up. (BTW, it's now 8 hours since the credits finished, and another 380 people have rated the film.)
Fox (and more), dir. Gracey; 7
