Those who were incensed by the movie's lack of historical accuracy should take a chill pill. It's not meant to be a documentary; it's a fanciful, almost dreamlike look at how P. T. Barnum would probably like to have presented his story: full of exaggerations, "humbuggery" and most of all great entertainment. I've seen the movie twice and each time I noticed people exiting with happy faces. The songs are eminently hummable, the performances heartfelt and the film is beautiful to look at. It's a fantasy rendering of the guy who wrote three "autobiographies," happily changing the events in each one.
As a friend reminded me, when watching the much-loved YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, did anyone deride the film because it doesn't show the nasty side of George M. Cohan including his questionable business practices, refusal to join Actors Equity, opposition to their strike or especially his reported antisemitism? Of course not. Regarding OKLAHOMA!, does anyone refuse to see this classic which declares "we know we belong to the land" although it was taken from Native Americans? What, no dustbowl depiction? What a historical inaccuracy.
You can and should accuse a documentary that lacks the salient facts of whitewashing--but not a grand entertainment whose only aim is to entertain. Lighten up, people.
I could go on and on. The critics who gave SHOWMAN a thumbs-down were basically reviewing its non-adherence to historical fact. I don't count those reviews. If they dissuade people from having a wonderful, happy experience seeing this film, that would be a shame.
Updated On: 12/25/17 at 09:06 AM