JohnHowardReid RELEASE DETAILS: Copyright 25 June 1964 by Samuel Bronston—Midway Productions. Released through Paramount Pictures. New York opening at Loew's Cinerama: 25 June 1964. U.S. release: 25 June 1964. U.K. release through Rank Film Distributors: 28 December 1964. London opening: 16 July 1964. Australian release through British Empire Films: 4 June 1965. 135 minutes (U.S.); 143 minutes (Australia). U.K. release title: The MAGNIFICENT SHOWMAN.SYNOPSIS: In the early 1900's, an American impresario takes his circus to Europe. COMMENT: "A dismally trite and obvious picture" wrote Bosley Crowther in The New York Times. I would not go anywhere like this far, but yes, the script is undeniably weak. Story issues are introduced which are neither resolved nor developed (particularly those involving Richard Conte character). Much tighter editing would help. We were almost asleep before the climactic fire re-awoke us to the earlier spectacular potential of the script, as in the early boat capsize episode. Both the boat capsize and the fire are particularly well-staged — a seamless collaboration between Hathaway and Talmadge (or did Hathaway stage these eps himself?). Talmadge undoubtedly did the "runaway" horse in the street and all the circus material where the hand of Renoir can be clearly detected in the characteristic use of more muted color than Hildyard is using for the main unit.Certainly Wayne himself is doing some of his own stunts, though a very obvious process screen is often employed. Acting is more creditable than usual under Hathaway's direction, despite the weak and familiar plot, the tedious dialogue and unresolved drama (presumably Conte started the fire and planted the stuff in Claudia Cardinale's dressing room, but after his dramatic impingement into Hayworth's opening shot at trapeze practice, he virtually disappears.Claudia herself is perhaps a little too enthusiastically vivacious and Mr. Smith is far too much of an eager-beaver, but Hayworth's restrained performance holds her scenes together. Wayne is his usual self. Nolan is a liability (admittedly he has the worst of the faithful, trusted sidekick dialogue) but Katherine Kath makes a memorable impression in her scene as Hayworth's former landlady. Kay Walsh has a tiny spot.A great deal of well-deserved footage is given over to the circus acts themselves — the plate sequence with the clowns is most amusingly well-timed, and I enjoyed the introductory act by Conte's double — the clown on the high wire!

Ilpo Hirvonen "Circus World" (1964), a grandiose Cinerama film directed by a Hollywood veteran Henry Hathaway, is a paradoxical case. The film was a big production, it had great stars, an acclaimed director, a highly appreciated screenwriter (Ben Hecht), and an even more celebrated writer behind the story (director Nicholas Ray), but yet the film has been, for the most part, forgotten. This is arguably justified since many do not feel that the film has the quality one might hope for. To my mind, the film's peculiarity is mainly due to its strange nature where the elegiac longing is combined with an extravagant approach. The story is very simple (an untold past tragedy casts its shadow on the present as a circus director, played by John Wayne, tries to create a successful show in Europe where he is reunited by his former lover, played by Rita Hayworth), but there's more than that to the film.By this I do not mean that Hathaway had elaborated a subtle subtext to the film in question or anything like that. I am merely talking about the art of history. First of all, "Circus World" is a film directed, written, and starred by old Hollywood legends. It was also made half a decade after the old studio system started to crumble. Many contemporary critics have later felt that films such as "The Searchers" (1958), "Rio Bravo" (1959), and "North by Northwest" (1959) were the last ones of a kind. "Circus World", on the other hand, is as though a posthumous legacy, in a somewhat similar sense as "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (1961). Moreover, the film takes place in the early 20th century and dives into the nostalgic world of the circus which often represents a carefree existence of play and work (closely studied in the film of Federico Fellini, for one). While the historical setting seems to echo the film's own production time in this sense (reminiscing about the good old days before the world wars, semi-analogous to the good old days of Hollywood), the film's melancholic tone is further enhanced by the fates of its leading stars. It is well-known that "Circus World" was not only the last film John Wayne made before his lung cancer operation but also the first film where Hayworth's alleged Alzheimer's disease started acting up, causing numerous problems with production. It is as if everyone involved had been through their best days, inevitably casting an impact on the quality of the film in question as well, but still came together to perform in the wild circus world. This is why, in my opinion, the film's slow pace, effortlessly simple style, and naive story seem appropriate. It all seems to speak to the spectator on another level, so to speak. The film begins with emptiness and ends with fullness. "Circus World" is a film where an old world is softly breathing with modesty and ambition combined.

James Hitchcock "Circus World", generally known in Britain as "The Magnificent Showman" was one of a number of films on a circus theme made during the fifties and sixties as filmmakers sought to cash in on the spectacle and drama of the Big Top. DeMille's "The Greatest Show on Earth" is possibly the best-known, but "The Big Circus" is another well-known example. All three films are large-scale spectaculars and all three have for their central character the figure of the circus owner or manager, played in "The Greatest Show..." by Charlton Heston, in "The Big Circus" by Victor Mature and here by John Wayne. In each case this individual is played as tough but fair, with a deep love of the circus and its traditions. Although the film was made in 1964, the action takes place at some unspecified date in the earlier part of the twentieth century. Most circus dramas involve the company touring America by train, but here Wayne's character, Matt Masters, decides to take his circus on a tour of Europe. Part of the reason is that he hopes to be reunited with his former lover, Lili Alfredo. This plot is perhaps a measure of the way in which the cinema was becoming more permissive in the sixties; it turns out that Lili was the wife of another man, one of the circus acrobats, who was killed in a fall which (it is hinted) may really have been suicide prompted by his wife's infidelity. At one time it would have been unthinkable for the clean-cut John Wayne to have been cast as a man involved in an adulterous affair, let alone an adulterous affair which led to the death of the cuckolded husband. Another important character is Toni, Lili's daughter whom she abandoned after her husband's death and whom Masters has raised as his own daughter. The circus genre had its own conventions and clichés, and a number of these are recycled here. The European setting means that a shipwreck can replace the more traditional train crash as the disaster which threatens the business, and we also get the fall from the high wire or trapeze, the glamorous female acrobat whose love-life forms a mainspring of the plot, the dangerous wild beasts on the loose, a fire and the clown whose make-up hides some unexpected secret. (In this case that he is the brother of the dead acrobat. The script, however, does not make much of this disclosure. There is a vague implication have started the fire deliberately in revenge for his brother's death, but this implication is never followed through so we do not discover the truth of the matter). Wayne is not bad as Masters, but this is not really one of his great films. His image was very much that of the strong man of physical action; he normally would play the cavalry officer leading his troops into action rather than the general back at the base, or the cowboy on the trail rather than the rancher back at the ranch. "The Magnificent Showman" is therefore a departure from his normal style, as Masters is the man on the ground giving the orders rather than the performer in the air entertaining the crowds. Heston, who could play both types of role, is rather better as the equivalent character in "The Greatest Show...". Rita Hayworth as Lili was still strikingly attractive for a woman in her mid-forties, but again this is not one of her better films. I was rather surprised to learn that she was nominated for a "Best Actress" Golden Globe award. There is certainly little chemistry between her and Wayne, which suggests that the rumours about their off-screen clashes may have been true. (He was apparently angered by her heavy drinking). Claudia Cardinale looks gorgeous as Toni, but her foreign accent seemed wrong for the part; Toni may be Italian, or of Italian ancestry, on her father's side, but she has spent all, or most of, her life in America, so should really have an American accent. Overall, "The Magnificent Showman" (I will use the British title with which I am more familiar) has some entertaining and exciting passages, but does not really say anything new about its circus theme which had not already been said in similar films. This lack of originality may have been one reason why the circus genre fell from favour in the seventies and eighties, although there have been occasional revivals since in films like "Water for Elephants". 6/10

TheLittleSongbird Is The Magnificent Showman a good movie? Not really. Is it entertaining? In some ways, yes, but it also has a number of problems. As far as John Wayne go, The Magnificent Showman is not among the best like The Searchers, Fort Apache and The Quiet Man. But he has also done worse in his career as seen(in my opinion that is) with The Conqueror, Brannigan and The Green Berets. In fact, it probably belongs somewhere in the middle.I did very much like how The Magnificent Showman looked. The cinematography, effects, costumes and sets/scenery are amazingly effective. There are also some scenes that hold up well and entertain, particularly worth of note are the climatic fire and the capsizing of the circus ship, both scenes are full of excitement and tension.The Magnificent Showman was begun as Circus World, directed by Frank Capra. As much as I very much like Capra and his films, Henry Hathaway, who the film was later entrusted to, in my view was much more suitable for the job. And while there are some assets that don't work as well as they should, Hathaway does deserve credit for directing as solidly as he did.Aside from the cinematography, effects and set pieces, the other outstanding asset is Dmitri Tiomkin's score, which is energetic, beautiful, haunting and rousing as it should be. And while I wasn't that impressed really with the acting, two performances do stand out- Rita Hayworth and Claudia Cardinale. Hayworth is captivating and Cardinale is a sheer delight. Together they are even better, here they seem to be having a contest at who's the best at upstaging the other, and it is a lot of fun to watch. Just for the record, I think Cardinale just about wins the contest.These aside, I was divided personally on the performance of John Wayne. I do like Wayne a lot, but I wasn't sure about him here. What I did like was his charisma, Wayne was a very charismatic actor and that comes loud and clear here. However, for my liking his delivery of the lines seemed rather stiff and there were times where I couldn't help thinking he was too old for the role.The film is too long, at 133 minutes it is very lengthy. This wouldn't have mattered so much if the pace and story were good, sadly neither were as solid as I would have liked. There are a fair number of exciting scenes that do elevate the story, but the more talky and slower moments are rather sluggish. The story had a great concept to work from, but the final result seemed rather over-stuffed and cobbled together, also some plot points could have been better developed. But my main gripe was the dialogue, some of which was really quite bad being very clichéd and silly.All in all, entertaining enough but has a lot of flaws that stop it from being any more than that. 6/10 Bethany Cox