——The following is all nonsense, if you don’t agree then you are right————
The movie is good, but not exciting enough.
The main line is that Barnum struggled from a poor boy to the most successful circus owner in the United States, lost between success and fame, and returned to the starting point because of a fire, and set sail again with the company of his partners and family.
The plot is very simple, and there is nothing particularly touching, but this is not a big disadvantage, after all, this is a musical. In terms of singing and dancing, this film is good enough.
The most impressive part of the film for me is Barnum convincing Philip in the tavern, the two of them expressed their views to each other, then pulled, wrestled, and finally reached an agreement. During the whole process, the wine glass acts as a prop to externalize the psychology of the characters. The dance moves are neat and neat, and the camera transitions are also perfect. It feels like a bottle of ice Coke on a hot day: this is the refreshing sensory that a mature industrial product brings to people. experience.
Everything is set up, and what you expect, it can satisfy you: Isn't that what a qualified product is all about?
But it's far from exciting.
The short board is in the plot.
A good performance is only the basis of qualification, and a good plot is an excellent stepping stone.
The plot of this film is shown in many aspects: it shows class contradictions and personal struggles, and it also shows social prejudice and individual resistance. But in every aspect, they are shallow: the male protagonist wants to rely on personal efforts to cross the class, while the female protagonist (if her wife is the female protagonist) focuses on the stability of the eyes and eyes. The male protagonist is constantly tormented by differences in class status and wealth, while the female protagonist is relatively impoverished. The deep reason behind this is actually that the male protagonist who is a poor man has no way out because of his desire to advance, while as a female protagonist born in the upper class, he has always had a way out (later when the male protagonist went bankrupt, it was true I went back to my mother's house, although the reason was that I felt betrayed, but there was no doubt that there was a way out).
If I give an inappropriate example, this is the story of a poor boy marrying a rich second generation. The poor boy will have nothing if he fails to start a business, and the rich second generation can go home and inherit the family property if he fails to start a business: the difference in class determines how the two treat each other. The difference in things, the radicalness of the male protagonist in some aspects, actually also reflects his no way out (this is also reflected in the difference between him and Philip in whether to tour).
However, in these respects, the heroine does not understand the male lead, and at the same time, there is too little space for the emotional preparation in the early stage, and it cannot make everyone reasonably feel that there is enough love between them to overcome the class barriers (what is a childhood sweetheart? Is it exclusive?), which also makes the reason why the heroine leaves the hero in the later stage is very heartless and cold: "I'm never afraid of any risks, as long as we can face it together", you are at this time because the hero has not passed through You agreed (you said you would agree) and you felt betrayed by mortgaging the house. How could you not respond when the male protagonist borrowed $10,000 with the actually worthless boat certificate at the beginning? After all, this kind of fraudulent behavior has not been communicated with the hostess in advance. Is it not a risk to defraud the bank? The combination of these plots makes the heroine's performance seem quite love-minded: you can do anything when love is still there, and you can't do it when love is gone. The male protagonist's behavior logic is consistent before and after, while the female protagonist seems to be back and forth. It is difficult to be satisfied as the love line of the male and female protagonists mixed with the main line.
The plot is in several other lines: the money made by taking advantage of people's prejudice is also burned because of people's prejudice; Philip, who has left his class, is still tortured by the original concept of class; people who suffer from prejudice resist prejudice ; These are very common presentations and then it is difficult to leave any impression.
But it's like the phrase repeated in the opening and closing credits: this is a greatest show.
As a movie, the short board in the plot of the King of Circus is too obvious.
As a show, how about "The King of the Circus"?
great.
That's enough.
View more about The Greatest Showman reviews
