29. Around the World in Eighty Days (1956)

Plot Intro

Rich Victorian bachelor, Phileas Fogg (David Niven) lives a life of an almost autistic routine - he has a preferred temperature for his toast, his breakfast must be at 8:24am on the dot and he is an onerous tyrant to any manservant who fails to comply with this. One day, at his gentleman’s club, Fogg commences a wager with the members that he can circumnavigate the world in 80 days. Accompanied by his new manservant, Passepartout (Cantinflas), he sets off on the ultimate race that will take him from the bullfights of Spain, to the depths of the Indian jungle where he rescues Princess Aouda (Shirley MacLaine, who is as Indian as I am), and beyond. However, a British policeman, Fix (Robert Newton) is in hot pursuit, convinced that Fogg has robbed the bank of England…

Paul says...

This is one of the biggest and most extravagant films to win Best Picture. 140 Hollywood sets, 68,000 extras, 74,000 costumes, and 8,500 animals comprise the production of this gargantuan project. And with a three hour running time and a vast range of ethnicities and locations, it’s a far-cry from last week’s 90-minute, domestic-based winner, Marty. 

It’s also a far-cry from most Oscar winners, because, to put it bluntly, there’s no real point to it. Most Best Pictures have a strong social, political or emotional debate in them. Even the most recent equivalent in terms of scale, The Greatest Show on Earth, displayed insight into the dangers and trials of circus life. But Around the World is a whimsical, colourful tale of adventure, with most characters written for comic or at least farcical effect. And after several weeks of hefty dramas, this is pretty refreshing. I enjoyed being able to laugh and chat through the film. I didn’t feel a need to concentrate fully because the script and special effects were doing most of the work for me. If you’re hungover, ill, or just feeling plain lazy on a Sunday afternoon, this film is ideal entertainment.

David Niven is the driving force. The character of Fogg is potentially oppressive and cruel (in real life, he’d be ostracised for being a bit of a twat), but Niven injects some openly ridiculous Britishness and Hollywood-style heroism to ensure that we are not meant to take him seriously. And Cantinflas’ displays of circus acts and stunts provide a great deal to “ooh” and “aah” at. While the pace of the film may be slow by today’s standards, I was far from bored for the full 3 hours.

The film is let down by a limp and perfunctory central romance. Shirley MacLaine looks bored and would later state that she was horrendously miscast (she’s meant to be an Indian princess, so she has a point). The treatment of animals (particularly a matador scene) and the many racial stereotypes are sometimes uncomfortable to watch. Admittedly, most of the humour doesn’t derive from race, but rather Victorian Britain’s narrow-mindedness. Fogg speaks to a Chinese man in simple, tourist English, only to receive a very eloquent reply, and there are, albeit briefly, a group of Native Americans who don’t want to shoot at all the white men (right before a scene in which another group of Native Americans….shoot at all the white men). Some more insight into the cultures that Fogg encounters could have expanded this film beyond a two-dimensional adventure tale written for the Western World.

I loved Around the World’s sense of fun, and looked forward to each country that our heroes would encounter. It made me a laugh and it’s a welcome diversion from the usual heavy-handedness that the Oscars favours. But the film could have involved us emotionally with Fogg’s race against time, or provided more insight into relationships between the British Empire and the nations it dominated. Considering that this film beat The King and I and The Ten Commandments to the Best Picture title, it could have presented more than just whimsical.

Highlight

The various celebrity cameos are fun to watch out for. Endless members of the Hollywood Hall of Fame get brief, unexpected scenes, such as Frank Sinatra, Marlene Dietrich, John Gielgud, Buster Keaton and Glynis Johns to name a few.

Lowlight

The matador scene displays the brutality of such a sport, rather than glamorises the Spanish. Maybe I’m being overly-sensitive, but I’ve seen the real thing and it’s not pretty.

Mark

7/10

Doug says...

The 1950s has provided us with a plethora of cracking films, each individually shining in their own way. Right at the beginning we had All About Eve giving us a camp, headstrong angle on women ageing and the theatre industry. Last week we had Marty making some still-painfully accurate reflections on dating and love, and this week we have Around The World In Eighty Days, which I think we can safely describe as the first ‘epic’ film of the ‘50s. It’s a colourful, vibrant piece which as Paul says isn’t here to do anything other than tell the story and provide some spectacles. It manages this with aplomb, and watching this the hazy day after a late night out was the perfect atmosphere. 

I pretty much agree with Paul on this one, the light-hearted and jovial tone was pleasant, and I quite enjoyed the break from what is becoming a string of realist, fairly gritty films. However I did find myself wondering quite what - apart from the spectacle - led this to a win. Spectacle seems a thin reason to merit accreditation. 

I wasn’t fully engaged, but it doesn’t feel like a film that insists on your absolute attention. In fact, when you do scrutinise it, certain elements feel a little shoddy. A scene with Glynis Johns is shoehorned in, clearly just to feature her. Marlene Dietrich’s cameo comes off as utterly weird, with an unexplained husband/lover/pimp(??) defending her honour whenever a man looks at her. And the plot speed varies hugely. They whistle through moments where Phileas is imprisoned or Passepartout is hoisted above a burning fire, and then spend a good fifteen minutes on the (most uncomfortable) scene with the bullfighters. 

It’s not filled with any particularly great performances, although the Latin actor Cantinflas plays Passepartout with aplomb and great humour. Interestingly he had refused to do many Hollywood films, and only took this role on with the proviso he could appear as obviously Latin. In non-English speaking countries he was frequently billed as the top actor, and was obviously recognised as a comic star there. 

Ultimately, it’s a fun piece of fluff, and while it has none of the staying power of other films we’ve seen so far, it’s a pleasant way to pass a few hours on a Sunday afternoon. It’s a shame Shirley Maclaine ends up trying to play an Indian princess, but the film thankfully steers away from much caricature (or indeed full-on racism). It’s not quite the dud of the ‘50s, but it feels like the younger sibling - not quite as fully developed or meaningful as the other films we’ve seen so far. 

Highlight

I think this has to be Cantinflas’ performance, with comic timing that still rings true today and a great sense of fun with his physical stunts.

Lowlight

Like Paul I found the obvious animal cruelty difficult to watch. The bulls in the matador-ring, the elephants being ridden in the jungle, and the ostriches pulling carts with difficulty. The only animal that seemed vaguely happy was the cat in the opening scene! 

Mark

4.5/10

28. Marty (1955)

Plot Intro

The Marty of the title is a mid-30’s Italian-American slightly-overweight butcher (Ernest Borgnine). He’s single and lives with his mother whilst his 5 younger siblings have married and left home. Despite constant pestering from friends and family to find a girl and get married, he doesn’t get out much and has horrendous anxiety about his appearance and desirability when it comes to meeting women- he calls himself a “fat ugly man” on numerous occasions. But one night, he meets Clara (Betsy Blair), a self-effacing, mild-mannered Chemistry teacher. And the two hit it off…

Doug says...

Marty is a really interesting and brief film. What starts out looking like a typical romantic comedy/drama quickly reveals itself as more of a character study that won’t have all the conclusions of something like Notting Hill let alone half the drama of it. It’s a study of a Italian 35 year old heavy-set man who is a kind and gentle person who is slightly afraid of the world around him. It’s a beautiful performance by Ernest Borgnine who really makes you feel the timidity and stung-before attitude to life. 

Ultimately the film focuses mainly around one night, where Marty goes out and meets a self-proclaimed ‘dog’ Clara and the two of them find to their surprise that actually two ordinary people can meet and be attracted to each other, and hope for more. It’s a lovely sentiment and both Borgnine and Betsy Blair do superb work as Marty and Clara talk through the night. 

It’s not a film that’s afraid of the darker realities - at one point Marty talks about how he’s wanted to commit suicide by hurling himself in front of a train, and Clara says ‘I know’ with such intensity that you know she’s had the exact same thoughts. It’s a harsh world that’s portrayed with people pressuring bachelors to get married, men dismissing unattractive women as ‘dogs’, and couples who have managed to get married having huge flaring arguments that suggest unhappiness beneath the domestic surface. 

I think this is why I liked it so much. Marty achieves what last week’s On The Waterfront set out to do. It shows gritty, normal life with an overweight central figure and a bunch of characters who are in various ways malcontent or at least not entirely happy. But where it beats Waterfront is it shows that life isn’t all bad - the comic moments that pepper this film are real and hilarious. Two old Italian grandmothers sit chatting shit about everyone they know and chalking up the latest deaths in their friendship group with great enjoyment; while Marty himself tells a story about how he accidentally became known as the best shot in the army with such mirth that viewers end up chuckling along with him. 

It’s a snapshot certainly, but as Marty manages to break free of his enforced routine and actually reach for happiness, we support him fully. Everyone in the cast hits the mark in terms of their character which means you end up rooting for all of them in their own way. From the moment Marty snaps at his mother early on, crying out that he’s fat and ugly and no one will love him however hard he tries, I found myself pleading that someone would look beyond the chubby exterior to see a kind, loving man. This film speaks to all of us and our innermost insecurities, and more than that - encourages everyone to reach out for happiness in life, because you might just get something that makes your life a little brighter. 

Highlight 

Aside from Borgnine’s superb central performance (and it is exquisitely observed), the Italian grandmother listing off people who’ve died with overt relish was a glorious scene. 

Lowlight

The one moment where Marty briefly tried to force a kiss from Clara was uncomfortable and certainly would cause alarm bells today. More than that though - it was entirely at odds with the character and didn’t feel like a genuine action. It would probably be left out altogether if remade today. 

Mark 

8.5/10

Paul says...

Have you ever felt totally undesirable? Like you’ll never meet and fall in love or be considered sexy by anyone because you see yourself as fat/ugly/boring/repulsive in any way? Have you ever felt like hiding away forever rather than doing what society orders you to do- find a spouse, get married, have children etc etc? If yes, then you will identify no end with the titular character of this short and sweet drama that tip toes skilfully on that boundary where comedy and tragedy meet each other.

In fact, “short and sweet” is the perfect way to describe this film- it applies to the main character, the title, the length of the film (at 90 minutes it’s the shortest Best Picture winner at the Oscars) and the film’s nature. Right from Marty’s rant at his mother about how she pesters him to do exactly what he is afraid of (go out and meet women) to Clara’s wordless tears because Marty hasn’t called her as he promised, this is an extremely touching film. A romance devoid of mindless Love Actually-style schmaltz and Sarah Jessica Parker or Kate Hudson trying to pass themselves off as ordinary women. 

The darkness of Marty is what made it all the more endearing to me. Virtually every other character apart from the two leads is self-absorbed, lecherous and crude. Marty’s best friend is furious at him for daring to find a girl that he likes and, shock horror, spend time with her! Marty’s mother and her sister, whilst hilariously gossipy and stereotypically Italian, are judgemental and dictatorial. Most of the men only go to meet women for one purpose, and it isn’t to discuss the poems of W.H. Auden, and Marty’s married cousin has horrendous arguments with his wife. As a result, Marty and Clara’s “outsiderly-ness” starts off as something out-of-the-ordinary, and they are initially presented as the strange ones in a society full of sociable, happy, naturally charismatic people. But by the end, we realise that it is actually their kind hearts, and genuine desire to do good in the world rather than to fit into the domestic ideal that sets them apart and even raises them above the lowlifes, lechers and leeches that permeate their lives. 

The two central performances are wonderfully nuanced. Tiny facial expressions and minimalist dialogue are used to give far more than any Shakespearean soliloquy could possibly divulge. Ernest Borgnine won a well-deserved Best Actor Oscar for portraying Marty as the sort of guy you could easily run into on the street (in New York City, anyway). This was a step in a different direction in his career as he was more accustomed to playing brutish villains (as he did in From Here to Eternity which we reviewed two weeks ago). Betsy Blair also deserved her nomination for Best Supporting Actress. She has even less dialogue and spends much of her time listening to Marty ramble, but her reactions are natural and fit the introverted character she plays. Frequent shots of her standing alone also emphasise her awkwardness and vulnerability and puts the audience well into her shoes. Interestingly, this film re-launched her career after being blacklisted by Hollywood for Communist sympathies. It was her then-husband, Gene Kelly, who fought for her to win the role.

This is one of the best films I’ve seen so far on the Oscars journey, and there isn’t really much more to say on the matter. For anyone who has ever felt like a socially-awkward outsider, who doesn’t feel they have the attractiveness or charisma that these Instagram models and reality-TV mannequins seem to be born with, this film will remind you that you’re loveable and perfect just the way you are.

Highlight

When Marty promises to call Clara and then allows his friends to persuade him not to, the camera pans into Betsy Blair’s face whilst watching TV with her parents. The look is one of sheer, suppressed devastation. Haven’t we all been there?

Lowlight

As Doug has pointed out, when Marty tries to force a kiss out of Clara, the writer is obviously trying to display Marty’s desperation and emotional vulnerability, but it felt out of character for someone so excessively conscientious. 

Mark

10/10

27. On The Waterfront (1954)

Plot Intro

Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) is a longshoreman in his local dockyards. However, he also runs errands for Johnny Friendly (Lee J. Cobb), the longshoreman’s union leader who is corrupt, dictatorial and connected to mobsters. If he likes you, you get work. If not, you starve. And the longshoremen live a life of suppression and fear. Terry finds himself an accomplice in the murder of a young man named Doyle who was reporting Friendly’s activities to the authorities. Terry also finds himself falling in love with Doyle’s grieving sister, Edie (Eva Marie Saint), and just make his life even more complicated, a local priest, Father Barry (Karl Malden) is encouraging him to risk his own life to speak up against Friendly. Will Terry end Friendly’s reign of terror? Or will he end up mysteriously murdered too?

Paul says...

We’ve hit another film that has “icon” status. On the Waterfront may not quite have the catchy household name as Gone With the Wind or Casablanca, but it is often on “top movies” lists, and Marlon Brando’s “I coulda been a contender” speech is an oft-quoted moment. I was expecting something along the lines of How Green Was My Valley, a study of the everyday struggle of the poor and downtrodden- only this time about dockworkers rather than 19th-century Welsh miners. On the Waterfront is that kind of film on some level, but it also employs a heavy gangster edge, more human-on-human violence, and a focused storyline on one character rather than an ensemble.

And I thought it was pretty darn good. This is one of Brando’s highest-regarded performances (it won him his first of two Oscars) and he’s so natural in his expressions and movements that it’s easy to see why he receives such acclaim. What we are now seeing is the movement from heavily-rehearsed, theatrical acting styles, into more emphasis on naturalism and method acting. Brando would famously only half-learn his lines, preferring to work on his character’s mannerisms and just kind of see what happens when the camera rolls. He does it so brilliantly that I often forgot I was watching Brando, and thought I was seeing a real working-class longshoreman. He is very much a 50’s symbol- young, attractive, and rebellious against the older generation’s ways of life. He is the Elvis Presley of acting.

Eva Marie Saint is also very engaging- vulnerable and diminutive but also strong-willed and easy for an audience to support. The love story between them is treated with tenderness and it felt believable- the gruff, sardonic worker and the soft-spoken, Catholic school girl balancing each other out and falling in love. It’s lovely, involving writing.

The plight of the workers is that they are torn between their horror at the corruption of Johnny Friendly and their reliance on him for work and money and this is demonstrated very well by some increasingly violent confrontations. The social issues addressed are quite specific to the 1950’s, and may be less relevant now (How Green Was My Valley felt very timeless by comparison), but there were still some very powerful moments, such as when Terry reveals to Edie his involvement in her brother’s death, and when Terry discovers the dead body of someone very close to him. 

What lets the film down slightly are two things. Firstly, the villain himself I found too pantomime. Lee J. Cobb is outstanding in Twelve Angry Men, but here he was a bog-standard gangster surrounding by lurching, dim-witted minions like the villain in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. His eventual comeuppance felt clownish rather than sincere compared to the grittiness of the rest of the film too. And secondly, I was bloody glad to have subtitles because without them I wouldn’t know what the hell was going on. The characters speak in such authentic New-York-via-New-Jersey accents full of colloquialisms that make them sometimes difficult to understand, and the complex relationship between the longshoremen, the police and the mob is a bit obscure as a result.

On the Waterfront is worth a watch. It has some cracking acting from the leads, it serves up an exciting story, and has powerful moments. But, it’s not a powerful film. That villain needed to be far more villainous.

Highlight

The scene in which Terry tells Edie about his involvement in her brother’s death. Strikingly, director Elia Kazan only shows snippets of dialogue, with the overwhelming sounds of the boats and factories blocking out the lines and consequently intensifying the moment.

Lowlight

The final scene gave little comeuppance to the villain, and didn’t really make a lot of sense to me. Exactly who is supporting who changes suddenly for reasons which are left unclear to modern eyes.

Mark

7/10

Doug says...

On The Waterfront is one I’ve been slightly dreading because it’s the first real time I have to acknowledge that my reviews may at times carry a heavy bias. In this case - it’s the simple fact that I strongly dislike films that classify themselves as ‘gritty gangster films’. There’s nothing more offputting to me than the idea of a Western or a Gangster film, it just doesn’t appeal in any way. The stories are usually hyper-masculine, there aren’t any decent women in them, and there’s often a lot of focus on guns. So while these films may be classed as among the greatest in the world, I won’t actually like them enough to seriously rate them.  

It’s a slight relief to say that On The Waterfront isn’t quite in that category. It’s still far from a favourite, and I did find myself drifting off at various points, longing for just a hint of comedy or a light-hearted moment. It’s a constantly oppressive film, making it clear at every point how everyone is wretched and miserable in this hugely working class atmosphere. But it’s a good story - if a little thin - and the idea of corrupt dock businesses was far from fictional, with many records of various companies being found out to be run by mobs. 

It’s a treat too to see Marlon Brando. Despite the fact that he was a rather diminutive 5”8, he’s still a real matinee idol and the looks that sent Hollywood wild are at their peak here. He’s also - as Paul says - heralding in the introduction of Stanislavsky as a popular and recognised acting style. That means he has to, in some sense, ‘become’ the character, taking on their thoughts and feelings. Stanislavsky acting or ‘Method Acting’ is still hugely popular in modern cinema with devotees such as Meryl Streep, Alan Rickman and Daniel Day-Lewis all having famously stayed ‘in character’ all day long. With Brando, it lends him an air of spontaneity and freshness that sometimes has been lacking from our previous films. In one scene he picks up Eva Marie Saint’s glove, plays with it, and eventually puts it on. This was improvised apparently, and I found myself fixated on the glove, rather than the events for the whole scene. 

But that’s probably where my admiration of this film ends. I found the gangster/gritty stuff pretty dull as expected and while Brando is certainly bringing in a fresh approach, he is by no means the best at it. There are far greater actors who have used this style since and so I found him interesting contextually but not massively impressive overall. His famous line ‘I coulda been a contender’ was so quietly delivered that I fail to see how it has become iconic, and overall I found myself not caring for any of the characters. 

Iconic film? Not for me. But it’s interesting to see the new style of acting appear after decades of staidness. Did I care about anything in the film? Not really. It’s a film with machismo running through it, and I just find that dull. At several points I kept thinking of Bette Davis in All About Eve and wishing On The Waterfront had even a hint of the flair and lightness of that. 

Highlight

The scene in the restaurant when Brando tries to instinctively calm Eva Marie Saint by picking up her glass and pouring beer into her mouth. It’s oddly charming and reveals a lot of the character swiftly. It’s good to see some modern ‘show not tell’ acting emerging. 

Lowlight

As Paul said, the villain doesn’t even bear talking about. 

Mark

4/10

26. From Here To Eternity (1953)

Plot Intro

It’s 1941 at a military barracks in Hawaii - with Pearl Harbour just around the corner. Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) is new to the barracks, and when he refuses to participate in the boxing team, despite his prowess, his commanding officer, Holmes, bullies and punishes him unjustly. He does, however, find a friend in Private Maggio (Frank Sinatra) and love interest in Loreen (Donna Reed). Meanwhile, the commanding officer’s hapless wife, Karen Holmes (Deborah Kerr) conducts an affair with Sergeant Milton Warden (Burt Lancaster) and they are particularly amorous amongst the sea’s waves...

Doug says...

More than anything I am beginning to get a sense of the cinema’s place in the lives of 1940s and ‘50s cinema-goers. As we sit down each Sunday to watch a classic film, I find I am swept up into it, given some exotic voyage or travel away from the mundane normalities of everyday life. And while I think film today has a position of ‘entertainment’, there’s far more obvious attempting to transport the viewer in these old Hollywood flicks. The music is surround-sound and sweeping, the frames are gorgeous and elegant, and there’s little attempt to make you think beyond the storyline - no symbolism that a viewer needs to grasp to enjoy what’s happening. 

The 1950s has been particularly strong so far, with films that pull you right into the storyline and while An American In Paris was an odd piece, it still acted as a vibrant splash of colour. We’ve had Bette Davis roaring through All About Eve and last week’s spectacular circus fiesta The Greatest Show on Earth. So it’s with a little nonplussed confusion that I record From Here To Eternity as our first ‘meh’ film of the decade. 

It’s got all the facets of one of the ‘trapped’ films - think Casablanca where they are all waiting to escape the Third Reich, or even The Best Years Of Our Lives where the returning soldiers are back in their old lives and trapped among attitudes they no longer understand. But while it’s a sweet film, and Deborah Kerr looks fab, there’s no real attempt to make you sympathise with the characters or actually get emotionally involved. 

I think what this film signifies more than anything is a change in certain attitudes. For the first time we have a married woman having a (highly charged) affair. We also have a critical eye cast at the army and the bullying behaviours it can foster. It’s notable as the film that revived Frank Sinatra’s flagging career (and he does turn in a very respectable performance) and of course has that beach kiss scene. 

Is it terrible? By no means. It’s a good story and the dramatic irony of us knowing the Pearl Harbor attacks are imminent lends an air of danger to the whole piece. But is it memorable - note-worthy - important? Probably not. I doubt a film like this would snatch any trophies today, but by putting the still-recent war at the heart of the film, they have instantly drawn in the audiences of 1953, and connected with them in a way that we will never be able to. For us nowadays, it’s just a bit bland. 

Highlight 

 There’s not much that stands out, but there was a great turn from the not-a-brothel-but-clearly-actually-a-brothel’s madam who despises drunk soldiers and yet relies on them. 

Lowlight

Not much to criticise here as nothing really stood out as great or awful. Probably the bad editing of clearly archive footage of bombings cut with the cast looking scared and running away. 

Mark 

5/10

Paul says...

What’s interesting about From Here to Eternity is that we have returned to the recurrent war theme for the first time since 1946’s The Best Years of Our Lives but with a new perspective. The war films of the early ‘40s like Mrs Miniver and Casablanca displayed the war as it was happening. Eternity is looking back on the war, with eyes that have seen the full extent of its effects, ranging from the massacres in the concentration camps to the long-term mental health problems endured by the officers who fought. Naturally, this is a different depiction of soldiers at war. Mrs Miniver and Casablanca didn’t shy away from showing humanity struggling whilst fighting, but it was obvious who our heroes were and which values we were supposed to condone.

Eternity takes an alternative path. Here, virtually everyone is so messed up due to something traumatic from their past, that their actions are either villainous or downright daft. And I think we’re meant to sympathise with all of them - right from the lovelorn wife whose husband cheats on her, so she conducts her own affair, to the Private so determined to go on a bender that he abandons his watch duty and ends up in the barracks’ equivalent of a prison. With audiences and film-makers alike still reflecting on the war that ended eight years beforehand, suddenly the good and bad characters are no longer cleanly divided, and audiences are asked to feel for people who act badly because they are in a bad situation.

No wonder such as film swept up eight Oscars. But has it stood the test of time? Well, not entirely. As interesting as it is, I didn’t feel a huge emotional attachment to any of the characters. Perhaps I’m not supposed to- perhaps this is designed to be more of a documentary than a drama. But I would like to feel something for me to be totally transported. Sinatra, usually raved about by virtually everyone, felt like that annoying comic-relief side character whom all the other characters love but, in real life, would come across as annoying. He comes in with a big cheesy grin, acts all jovial and charismatic, and then exits. He was very much the Scrappy Doo of the film for me. And Lancaster and Clift stunk so much of testosterone-laden masculinity with their brick-wall postures and frequent aggression that they didn’t appeal much to me.

The women of the picture, Kerr and Reed, had a little more to offer. The two characters are almost entirely unrelated in the film and only meet in the very final bittersweet scene. The complexities of their characters felt more natural to me than the more bellicose men. Kerr is lonely and unloved, but also quite demanding and self-involved, while Reed has a good heart but then makes up an entire story about her love interest being more heroic than he actually is- displaying society’s need for a Perfect Hero, and her insecurities that result from this. I would have liked more insight into that side of her, and into this idea of the imperfect hero, as we only see it in the closing seconds of the film.

From Here to Eternity is essentially a military-based soap opera. There are various storylines interweaving, providing insight into the darker side of war, but none of them are especially powerful from a modern perspective because they never really build up or climax. There’s a sense that we are entering in media res, and leaving without a full conclusion - needing a second season or a sequel. It’s a snapshot, but it could have been a full photo album.

Highlight

The final scene that suddenly provides extra dimensions to both female leads.

Lowlight

Frank Sinatra was too cheesy and musical-theatre-esque for me to be engaged.

Mark

4/10

25. The Greatest Show On Earth (1952)

Plot Intro

Brad Braden (Charlton Heston) runs his spectacular travelling circus with a cool head and a protective nature. In order to secure a whole season’s worth of shows from his financiers, Brad hires an infamous trapeze artist, The Great Sebastian (Cornel Wilde). Unfortunately, this irks Brad’s girlfriend, Holly (Betty Hutton), who is also an aspiring acrobat and wanted the centre ring for herself. Holly and Sebastian begin a competitive but flirtatious relationship in the big top that could jeopardise Holly’s relationship with Brad- and her life. Meanwhile, a popular clown named Buttons (James Stewart) is revealed to have a Deep Dark Secret…

Paul says...

The Greatest Show on Earth is generally hailed as one of the least deserving Best Picture winners ever. Empire named it alongside Cavalcade and Braveheart amongst it’s top ten Oscar fails. Many people have put its win down to the voters avoiding voting for the bigger competitor, High Noon, an outstanding low-budget western starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly, dealing subtly with the McCarthy witch-hunt happening in American politics at the time. Instead of being controversial, the Academy voted for a big-scale, stunt-heavy spectacle involving bickering circus hands, elephants, and small dogs in funny hats. In other words, a safe option.

Bearing in mind that High Noon and another film released in 1952 that didn’t even get a nomination for Best Picture, Singin’ in the Rain, have both surpassed it in notoriety, does The Greatest Show deserve the criticism it receives? In my opinion, no - this is a feast for the senses! It’s a welcome return to the ambitious opulence of the '30s epics, but with the character-driven dramas of the ’40s mixed beautifully into it. We will see more of this blend as the decade rolls on. 

Many elements of the film made me recall 1936’s winner, The Great Ziegfeld, which had a storyline interspersed with some of the most garishly over-the-top dance sequences known to mankind. The Greatest Show follows a very similar structure but what makes it better than Ziegfeld is not just the fact that the colours further enhance the scale of the circus performances, but many of the performances work hand-in-hand with the action. Betty Hutton and Cornel Wilde end up competing against each other on the trapeze in an escalating series of suicidal stunts; a woman puts her head under an elephant’s foot, but the elephant is being controlled by her possessive lover who knows she loves another man; one stunt goes horrifically wrong leading to the audience seeing the tragic side of circus performances; and Buttons’ clownish antics are used to disguise a quick conversation with his mother in the audience. While there are some song-and-dance segments that are put it to fill up time, many of them develop the characters or the action with great skill.

Also, Buttons’ storyline is extremely touching. I won’t reveal what his Deep Dark Secret is, but it is displayed with a nuance and tenderness that beautifully contrasts the grandeur and ostentatiousness of the bulk of the film. This is our second and last encounter with James Stewart on the Best Pictures list, but I would strongly recommend any of his films (particularly Rear Window and Mr Smith Goes to Washington), because he conveys vulnerability and tragedy like no other actor.

On a negative note, I do wish the main storyline involving Charlton Heston and Betty Hutton had a similar level of tenderness - it is overshadowed horribly and comes across as too theatrical and bromidic mostly due to Hutton’s melodramatic expressions. But despite this, The Greatest Show is a lot of fun, has touching moments, and captures the stress, furore and excitement of circus life very well. If you want an insight into what circuses were like before the RSPCA got involved, then look no further.

Highlight

A terrifying series of trapeze stunts between Holly and Sebastian led to Doug and I screaming “She’s gonna die!” at the TV screen.

Lowlight

Betty Hutton is great on a trapeze but I was underwhelmed by her acting. It’s like someone told her to move and shout a lot and hope for the best.

Mark

8/10

Doug says...

I don’t have any knowledge of High Noon, the film that most movie buffs say should have nabbed the Oscar this year, but having seen The Greatest Show On Earth, I find myself surprised by the full-on disparaging and snooty attitudes towards this extravaganza of colour and circus life. From the beginning, this sets out to almost be a documentary, capturing the life of circuses as they were then - with some melodramatic plot thrown in for good measure. A whole section shows how they assemble the Big Top in each new location, while many of the performers actually hailed from circuses and were brought in to lend some truthfulness to the scenes. 

When I first heard that this was a film about circus life, I hoped that there would be plenty of circus scenes as I grew up loving the circus from our sporadic visits to touring Big Tops, and boy does it deliver. There’s dancers, parades, acrobats, clowns, and perhaps more controversially (now, anyway),  dancing horses, elephants, lions, tigers, bears (oh my) and a horde of dogs wearing hats that make them look like tiny elephants. And as Paul has pointed out, what is great about this film is that the characters’ and plots’ developments are woven through these performances. Two women bicker over the same man, while dressed as 18th century women, smiling forcedly at the audience and hissing angrily at each other. The death-defying nature of the aerial stunts performed by Holly and Sebastian are terrifying in themselves, but the fact we know the characters are competing against each other means that we don’t know how far they will go to ‘win’ - adding another layer of tension. 

I particularly liked the use of the two and a half hour run time to slowly develop characters. One man who begins as a comically jealous wannabe-lover, ends up getting darker, and more aggressive, until he ends up precipitating the final catastrophe of the film, twisted by his love. It makes no attempt to hide the full-on and passionate emotions that surely run freely through any circus, as they do in theatre, dance and all art settings. Gloria Graeme deserves a nod for her turn as the dissatisfied circus performer who tries to escape this jealous lover, and has a wonderful scene where she attempts to charm the circus owner into loving her. 

Overall it’s a lot of fun and you’re never bored, which given its lengthy run-time is impressive. I loved the generous time allocated to showing the circus acts, and am still bowled over by how much more lively colour makes cinema. I might have liked The Great Ziegfeld a hell of a lot more had it been in colour…

It’s fascinating to see circus acts and performances, and the well-written story woven around it with suitably crooked salesmen, a tormented clown and aerial performers who cannot bear to be out of the heights is gripping. The ‘50s are turning out some cracking films so far…

   

Highlight

I loved the array of circus life on display, and the fact that over sixty years later, these acts are still as exciting and tense as they are today. Also I loved the clown emerging from the tiny clown car. How?! 

Lowlight

An odd one, but I found the scenes where the elephants and horses were made to dance quite uncomfortable and verging on upsetting. Still, a sign that we’re a more enlightened world today? 

Mark

7/10