Pro Review
“The Greatest Showman” is a giant step backward
Pro Review By: Matthew Rozsa
I think that the "top critic", Matthew Rozsa, creates an effective review that clearly shows his POV and tells the reader what the movie, "The Greatest Showman," failed to do. He clearly expresses what he feels the creators of the movie should have focused on, and what they should have avoided doing, instead of what they actually did. He brings under questioning the ethical standpoint of the film, and also how the people in charge of making the movie failed to accurately portray P.T. Barnum's life and how, frankly put, he took advantage of others to make money. Rozsa also brings up what he thinks would be common audience reactions in order to spice up the review a little bit. Overall, he keeps digging at the blandness and simplicity of the film, saying that it is a true "step backward" in the movie industry, especially "at a time where social justice politics have encouraged many artists to become more thoughtful in their depictions of historical figures." At the end of his review, he does remember to mention the parts of the movie that he thought were good. However, Rozsa never budges from his view that "The Greatest Showman" did not accurately represent neither the circus entrepreneur Barnum, nor the "circus freaks," nor the interracial relationship between the characters played by popular celebrities Zac Efron and Zendaya.
I definitely got the gist that it was because of the plot that this movie was not necessarily emotionally captivating or historically accurate, and for those reasons was considered by the critic to be bland. However, the acting and the choreography were supposedly actually really good, and if one weren't interested in the morality or honesty of the film, then it could be considered a good movie to watch.
Review of Review By: Alyssa Pilecki
Pro Review By: Matthew Rozsa
I think that the "top critic", Matthew Rozsa, creates an effective review that clearly shows his POV and tells the reader what the movie, "The Greatest Showman," failed to do. He clearly expresses what he feels the creators of the movie should have focused on, and what they should have avoided doing, instead of what they actually did. He brings under questioning the ethical standpoint of the film, and also how the people in charge of making the movie failed to accurately portray P.T. Barnum's life and how, frankly put, he took advantage of others to make money. Rozsa also brings up what he thinks would be common audience reactions in order to spice up the review a little bit. Overall, he keeps digging at the blandness and simplicity of the film, saying that it is a true "step backward" in the movie industry, especially "at a time where social justice politics have encouraged many artists to become more thoughtful in their depictions of historical figures." At the end of his review, he does remember to mention the parts of the movie that he thought were good. However, Rozsa never budges from his view that "The Greatest Showman" did not accurately represent neither the circus entrepreneur Barnum, nor the "circus freaks," nor the interracial relationship between the characters played by popular celebrities Zac Efron and Zendaya.
I definitely got the gist that it was because of the plot that this movie was not necessarily emotionally captivating or historically accurate, and for those reasons was considered by the critic to be bland. However, the acting and the choreography were supposedly actually really good, and if one weren't interested in the morality or honesty of the film, then it could be considered a good movie to watch.
Review of Review By: Alyssa Pilecki
I interpreted the article differently–I think Rozsa is taking issue with "Showman" depicting an adulterated and untrue version of history. It features Barnum's obviously problematic exploitation of the "freaks" of the 19th century, even including a moment of self-awareness by a character, but doesn't do much about it with a dialogue/plot that had a perfect opportunity to do so. The writers of the film were certainly satisfied with taking artistic license in the way onlookers responded to an interracial relationship (the racists are caricatured, heroes are more mild do-gooders than blatant anti-racists). The "simplistic" blemish on the film he talks about is a dig at the glossed-over, let's-include-complex-chaarcters-for-diversity points, but-not-realistically-convey/address-the-struggles-they-faced, or only do so in a self-congratulatory, look-what-I've-done way, as Rozsa says, so as to appear insightful and socially aware (but not really-only at the surface). There is no "social commentary" that the screenplay writers probably intended on presenting through Zac Efron and Zendaya's characters, or the freaks. Specifically in Zac and Zednaya's case, the purification of history was completely counter effective: prejudiced members of an audience would be much more likely to leave the theater patting themselves on the back for not reaching the levels of racism perpetuated by characters in the movie than thinking critically about the evil and effects of racism in that era, which Rozsa proposed as the goal of the storyline.
ReplyDelete