This Is The Greatest Show! Or Is It?

"Ladies and gents, this is the moment you’ve waited for!" I, like so many eager fans of musical theatre, have been anxiously awaiting the release of Hollywood’s newest musical The Greatest Showman. The film starring Zac Efron, Zendaya, Michelle Williams, and Rebecca Ferguson is inspired by the story of American showman, politician and founder of the Barnum and Bailey Circus, P.T. Barman, played fearlessly by the great Hugh Jackman, and follows Barnum from his humble beginnings to becoming "The Greatest Showman." And even though it continues to rake in at the box office and has even earned an Academy Award nomination, it has to be said that this passion project of Hugh Jackson’s, which took over 7 years to get made, is not without its faults. So, with that being said, I have a compiled a list of 10 reasons why I both loved and hated The Great Showman.

1. Hey, who’s the new guy?

I’ll be the first one to say it, I have no desire to direct a movie musical, especially when it’s my directorial debut of a feature film. The pressure is unparalleled. Not only from studios and critics, but from fans of the genre. But for first-time director, Michael Gracey, this was exactly the case. I say first-time director like he was just some extra that suddenly found himself in the head chair; he has directed before, commercials and music videos, but nothing to the size and scale of a feature film. The Aussie originally started working in visual effects before finding his flair for directing after working on several music videos. With all this you’d think he be the perfect choice to direct this type of film, but here’s where I have a problem. The musical numbers are spectacular. They are filmed to the point of excellence. However, it’s in the transitions, the moments of dialogue, those important and imperative scenes in which an audience has to connect and relate the characters where he lost me. It felt really disjointed and maybe the script is partly to blame for this, but the film didn’t have the natural flow that I have previously found in this genre in films like Chicago or La La Land. When you film a music video, you have to get everything (the story, the themes, the general vibes) all in space of 5 minutes and once the song is over, it’s over. The end. Cut, print, moving on folks! And unfortunately, because the musical numbers are so beautifully shot, so intricately choreographed and so extraordinarily timed, it only highlights the disjointedness of the next scenes even more. I say this like I’m an expert, I’m so not, but I have to applaud Michael Gracey for taking on the task and not faltering like so many before him have. It’s not the best, but it’s by no means the worst.

2. Visually, it’s to die for!

Like I previously mentioned, Michael Gracey started in visual effects. So of course you can at least guarantee the film is going to look stunning, and it does. Visually, it’s an explosion of colour and excitement that draws you further into the fantastical world of P.T. Barnum. From sets to costumes to cinematography, it really is a sight to behold. So much so that I was actually surprised and a little disappointed that it had not been nominated in these categories at the Academy Awards. Musical films, especially those set further back in history, tend to be easy targets for Oscar voters. In the past, Les Miserables, Moulin Rouge, and Chicago have all been nominated for Best Costume Design, with the latter two winning and being nominated for Best Cinematography. But hey, what do I know? Even if the Academy weren’t swayed by the glitz and grandiose, I still believe that it’s one the film’s most redeeming and most breath-taking features.

3. What a cliché!

I guess when you combine the writing talents behind Never Been Kissed and Dreamgirls, you’re not exactly going to get Citizen Kane. It sounds like a I’m shaming these movies, I’m not, believe me, I live for rom-coms and showtunes, that’s my life! All I’m saying is the story is not going to be heavily endowed with themes of existentialism and political warfare, or maybe they are, hey, I’m no expert! But the script is so intent on delivering a positive message about acceptance and individuality and achieving the impossible, that it throws in some of Hollywood’s oldest clichés just to get there, even if that means forfeiting what actually happened. Some of the clichés I couldn’t stand were the classic "poor boy falls for rich girl," the old "I’m going to achieve everything I wanted and then forget what it’s all for" and that old chestnut, "everyone is special," which, by the way, I totally agree with but does it really have to be said? Seriously! The story is fine, it does what it needs to do, it get you from A to B with minimal fuss but it just didn’t tug at my heartstrings like they hoped or I thought it would.

4. The cast is just perfection.

One of my biggest worries and probably the most justifiable worry that I have when a new musical film is announced, be it original, remake, or adaptation, is who are they going to cast? After the whole Russell Crowe/Les Mis debacle, I think it’s safe to say that I am not alone in this. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of musical theatre fans around the world, thinking the exact same thing and praying that that mistake is never made again. Thankfully, for The Greatest Showman, it wasn’t. Every single performance is stellar, and completely blew me away and I am so happy that they chose to cast people who could actually sing (bar one, I’ll come to that in a minute). Hugh Jackman, of course, is, what I like to call, the "Jackman" of all trades. He is the ultimate triple threat with a career that started in musical theatre. From Oklahoma, to his Tony winning performance in The Boy from Oz, to his Oscar nominated role in Les Miserables, he really does live up to the title of the greatest showman. And he’s not the only one! With Michelle Williams, Zac Efron, and Zendaya all having dipped their toes into the musical scene, this cast is more than capable of carrying the requirements of musical film. And God do they do it well! But there is one star that, for me, shined brighter than any other, and that was Keala Settle. Having made a name for herself on Broadway in musicals such as Les Miserables and Waitress, she is force to be reckoned with, and in The Greatest Showman, she is phenomenal. Her voice is everything and if you don’t believe me, listen to the soundtrack. She knocks it out of the park!

5. Wasn’t Jenny Lind a world famous soprano?

Remember how I mentioned that I worry about casting people who can’t sing? Well, my other worry that coincides with this is casting people who don’t sing. Now, when you have a role written in the script of a young opera singer who really did have a connection to P.T. Barnum himself, I understand that it can be quite daunting to cast someone who fits those requires, especially when you have a star-studded cast already lined up and films actresses who can sing opera are hard to come by. So what’s the solution? Well, you either cast a relatively unknown trained opera singer, which I personally don’t see the problem with. Or you cast a well-known actress and dub over her voice, which is what they did. Now, don’t get me wrong, Rebecca Ferguson is a wonderful actress and plays the part beautifully. But my issue is not with the fact that her voice was dubbed over. It’s with the type of voice that they chose. This is primarily the fault of songwriters, Pasek and Paul, who despite writing a beautiful song, wrote the wrong type of song. When you establish to the audience that the character of Jenny Lind is not only a Swedish opera singer, but also a world famous soprano, you can’t be that surprised when audiences are shocked by an alto voice singing a pop ballad. Is it just me, or did everyone else find it weird too? The song "Never Enough" is great and is sung beautifully, but the experience is so jarring. It’s not opera, it’s not soprano, and it’s not even Rebecca Ferguson singing. It’s just really odd. I almost feels like this song was written for another character and then swapped in at the last minute, it doesn’t quite fit. Whether they were going for that shock element or not, they got it!

6. The score is simply sensational.

I mentioned before one of the many songs that this film has to offer and I cannot sing their praises enough, every one of them is glorious! Pasek and Paul, who have already won the Academy Award for Best Song, the Tony Award for Best Score, and the Grammy Award for Musical Theatre Album, have been killing it this year and The Greatest Showman is no exception. Each song is tailor-made for every emotion felt at that given time by both character and audience member and I think one of reasons this film will be considered a classic, is solely down to this score. It is magic! It’s hard to name favourites and it almost unfair because all of them are so wonderfully crafted for this film, but I do have three I want to pick out. First, is the song "Tightrope" sung by Michelle Williams. I think it’s one of the most beautiful and underrated songs of the entire score. It’s small and simple in comparison to other songs in this film and yet it deals with the complex dynamic of the central relationship between Barnum and Charity so well. It really encapsulates that feeling of insecurity when you’re in love and it doesn’t go as planned. The second is "From Now On," a powerhouse ballad near the end of the film that is as poignant as it is triumphant, and just a tip, if you listen to it, listen right to the end, there are some fantastic harmonies going on, and A capella no less. And the third is of course the song everyone has had stuck in their heads for weeks, "This Is Me." It is one of the best songs I’ve ever heard and it is so evocative of everything that’s happened over the past two years both in political and social circles. The idea of coming together, as a strong, united force and shouting out to the naysayers "This is me!" And, no surprise, it’s nominated for the Oscar this year, and if it doesn’t win, I’ll eat my hat!

7. Did that really happen?

Okay, I understand how movies work. Sometimes you can’t have everything. I’m certainly not the first person to question why a certain chapter in a book was left out of the film version, or why an event in history was taken out or why there’s a character missing, and I know I won’t be the last. But sometimes straying too far from the truth can lead to a little trouble. I’ve already mentioned the issue with the character of opera singer (not really!) Jenny Lind, but that’s not all. In the movie, Jenny Lind is portrayed as being in love with P.T. Barnum, even going so far as to kiss him in front of the press while on stage during their nationwide tour. However, there is no evidence to suggest she had any romantic feeling towards him and was known to be incredibly selfless, for example, she donated her share of the money she earned from the tour with him to charity and ultimately left the tour not because of her unrequited love for him, but because of the exhausting demands of touring life. I understand that the writers wanted to use the character of Jenny Lind as a catalyst for the destabilisation of Barnum’s marriage to Charity but it does nothing for historical accuracy of a perfectly innocent and generous woman. There is also the matter of Barnum’s background and upbringing. In the movie, Barnum is shown as growing up in poverty and living on the streets, however, P.T. Barnum was far from living in squalor and he did not struggle nearly as much for success as it makes out in the film. Again, artistic license prevails. But the thing I’ve found the most scathing is the remodelled portrayal of American New York Herald founder, James Gordon Bennett who in the movie, is basically the antagonist of the story. Every story has to have one and it certainly can’t be Barnum, although mainly claim it should be, Bennett is brought in as the killjoy who just can’t let Barnum and his "band of curiosities" have a little fun and make people laugh. Bennett was a real historical figure and was involved with P.T. Barnum, mainly dispelling his hoaxes and tricks. But the greatest disservice they deliver of him is not his lack of seeing the fun and excitement is Barnum’s creation, but that by the end of the film, he basically apologizes to Barnum and reiterates that his circus was a “celebration of humanity.” I think perhaps James Gordon Bennett may be turning in grave at the mere thought of this!

8. It’s an original musical!

A what? An original? Here? In Hollywood? No! Surely not? Yep, that’s right folks, Hollywood is slowly but surely coming round to the idea that not only are original musicals a good idea and not a dying art form but that they make money and people want to see them. I mean, come on, there’s an entire industry dedicated to this art form so why not expand and enjoy, right? The Greatest Showman may not be the greatest musical of all time but is a small step in the right direction to getting musicals back into the norm of Hollywood. Just think, only 50 years ago, musicals were the top dogs in Hollywood. In order to stay in business, you had to be able to act your socks off, carry a tune, and tap your way into the next scene. Simple. But by the end of the 60s, musicals were fading into obscurity, with studios slowly decreasing their musical production to adapt to the changing demographics of filmgoers and placing greater emphasis on gritty realism in their films. Broadway shows often came to the forefront, reworked and remodelled for screen, but thankfully, because of films like Moulin Rouge and Hedwig and the Angry Inch, and more recently, La La Land, Hollywood is starting to warm to idea of bringing the musical back, and God, am I glad about that!

9. The Glorification of P.T Barnum

Let me just say one thing, if I may. P.T. Barnum was not a nice guy. Or at least, he certainly wasn’t the marvellous figure the film tries to paint. The film presents the character of Barnum as a man who believes that anything is possible and that as long as people are happy, what harm can it do? And although the film does allude to Barnum’s trickery, it merely displays these hoaxes as little white lies, such as stretching the truth about a person’s height or weight, and masking some of the more rugged edges with colour and lights. Conveniently, the film chose to omit some of the more disturbing hoaxes that Barnum paraded for his show, such the Fiji mermaid, which Barnum claimed was the body of a mummified mermaid, when in fact it was a monkey’s body sewn onto a fish tail and more horrifying than that, in 1835, he bought a slave woman name Joice Heth, who was both blind and paralyzed on one side, who he presented to the public as the 161-year-old former nurse of George Washington. He worked her 10 to 12 hours per day and after she died a year later, he held a live autopsy of her body for the public to pay and watch. Not to mention that The Bearded Lady and Tom Thumb who are seen in the film, were brought into his so called "freak show" as children, not adults like the film suggests, and professed that they were older than appeared, encouraging them to drink and smoke for audience’s amusement. You can understand why 20th Century Fox would have wanted a rewrite if presented with that version of the script. But, it’s important to note that Barnum really did those things and he did it to con people and make money, and whether you can justify his actions by saying that "back then it was different time" and we as a society are a lot more aware now, does that justify what happened? And to further extent, does that justify the film’s rose-tinted view and glorified ideals of the portrayal of P.T. Barnum. Hugh Jackman may play a superhero in other films, but in this one, he can hardly convince us that P.T. Barnum was heroic.

10. The Retelling of an Inspiring True Story

Taking into account what I’ve just said however, Barnum can be considered a genius. He told tall tales and conned the public into believing what he made them see, and freely admitted this; that a lot of the content within his show were based on elaborate hoaxes, but that’s why he’s a genius. He didn’t hide his faults. He distinguished himself someone who admitted to their own fraud and some credit has to be given for that, surely? And while the treatment of his so called "oddities" can be and more and more frequently are viewed as immoral and derogatory, the film does speak from the opposite point of view. He gave employment to those who otherwise would have none and empowered them by allowing them to embrace their differences and viewing themselves in a positive light, to bring joy and happiness to others. He really was the personification of The American Dream. He wanted a better life for himself and he was going to get it, any way he could. His is a real rags to riches story and there’s got to be something inspiring about a man who was willing to do anything to make a better life for his family. He also ushered in a new type of entertainment. He decided that theatre wasn’t just for the upper classes anymore, it was for everyone from anywhere. It wasn’t about taking yourself too seriously, it was about fun and excitement and the thrill of live theatre and although it was mainly self-proclaimed, for that you could call him, "The Greatest Showman."