Skip to main content

The Smallest Show On Earth (1957)

The Smallest Show On Earth. Feature film. (1957, 80 mins) IMDB

I

only watched this film because Peter Sellers was in it and although his image is prominent on the DVD cover, he doesn't star in this film. It was his second feature film and he was a relative nobody at this point in his career. Now that Peter Sellers is one of the giants of movie comedy, the rights holders want to capitalize on his name. So be it. He is in the film, from Act II on and he's the Peter Sellers we know from The Pink Panther and others.

Nevertheless, the film is a charming little comedy with definite laughs. I don't often laugh out loud when I watch a DVD, but I did with this film. Comedies are best seen in a theatre with a large audience. Back to the film.

There's a young couple living a comfortable, middle-class life. They receive a letter from a solicitor telling them they have inherited all of the estate of some long, lost great uncle. While they dream of wealth and a life of leisure, we know that's not going to happen. (Hitchcock did a variation of that story in 1931 with a film called RICH AND STRANGE.) In fact, his estate isn't much except a run-down cinema that isn't operating and is worth next to nothing.

A business adjacent to the property, The Grand Theatre, has in the past made offers to buy the cinema in order to create space for a parking lot, but the offers then isn't the offer now. Five thousand pounds versus five hundred. If the couple took it, there wouldn't be enough cash to settle the estate's debts. Enter a plan concocted by the lawyer. Pretend to want to get the place operating as a going concern and hope the buyer will up his price. The plan works until he learns they are bluffing and it's back to square one. With no choice, they decide to make a go of operating the place. They clean it up and open the doors to the public. The endeavour is fraught with more failures then successes. The projection machine barely operates. A train runs next to the building rocking the building. Customers pay with tins of meat or chickens. Even after all their efforts, their weekly profit is a few pennies. Their plan to extract a higher buying price has failed. Act II ends.

But this is a comedy after all and it can't end badly for our young couple and their elderly employees.

The janitor of the cinema, Old Tom, overhears the dilemma and decides to take matters into his own hands. He sets fire to the Grand Theatre and eliminates the competition. The buyer is now motivated to pay a great deal more than he ever imagine. Ten thousand pounds. Everybody goes away happy except the owner of the Grand.

It isn't a terribly original or suspenseful plot, but it doesn't have to be for a comedy. It's there to provide space for the characters and comedic moments and it does just that.

They say comedy is in the timing and usually that means the delivery of a line by a stand up comedian or the interactions between players on a stage, but in a movie, a cut can create timing that leads to laughter. There's an example in this film.

In Act II, our hero is desperate to figure out ways to increase revenue in his theatre. He visits the Grand theatre to see how the big boys do it and sees a cigarette girl wandering the aisles. He has an idea. He'll make his beautiful wife that girl and we cut to her walking inside the theatre, dressed in a skimpy costume and holding a tray full of sweets. The teenage boys stampede towards her. They buy the sweets and pinch her butt. She objects but can't stop them. It's funny but it's not the cut I'm referring to because while it's a success, she's making sales, she doesn't want to be degraded. Next comes the cut that is funny. We see Miss Marples walking down the centre aisle. She's half way down and no one is paying any attention to her, let alone buying anything. That's comedy.

Posted 2009/02/08 at 18h45ET in Movie Commentary.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Piece of the Action (1977)

Saturday, March 7, 2009 A Piece of the Action. Feature film. (1977, 135 mins) IMDB ... Who would you have over for dinner? Sidney Poitier or Bill Cosby. ... A PIECE OF THE ACTION is the third film starring Bill Cosby and Sidney Poitier. Poitier also directed the films. (And yes, I would be fascinating to have both them sitting around a table for dinner.) We're in Chicago and I love the setup for this film. It's clever, fun and interesting. It starts during the dark of night. Crosby is a cat burglar robbing a vault in a bank. He's by himself, all the tools he needs, and doesn't speak a word of dialogue for at least the first twenty minutes of the film. It must have been killing him. His robbery goes off successfully. (It includes a jump from a six or seven story window. There was a similar scene in their earlier films.) When the cops arrive during the daylight, they haven't a clue and we catch a glimpse of James Earl Jones as a detect...

If Only We Could Agree

Monday, June 11, 2012 ... have you been accused of misspelling a word you know is correct ... S usanne O’Leary wrote an interesting article on her experience with the variations of the English language in different countries. You know the obvious ones like colour with or without a “u” but less obvious ones like travelled versus traveled. Growing up in Sweden she learnt English in school—the UK variation. In publishing her books, she read reviews where she was criticized for improper spelling. False accusations as it turns out. While I write tire and cozy, it’s not incorrect to write tyre or cosy. Same language. Both accepted. Just different. You can read her write-up here along with the numerous comments posted by readers. I found it interesting, but that’s me. As a Canadian I deal with this issue everyday. I feel her pain when she’s criticized for something based on ignorance. No fun. I was told by a boss that “data are” isn’t correct. It should be “data is.” Read...

No Reservations (2007)

Saturday, May 2, 2009 No Reservations. Feature film. (2007, 104 mins) IMDB ... I so much wanted to like this film but couldn't ... T his film had two things I like a great deal: romance and cooking, but they didn't come together for me in this film. I think I know why. The female lead doesn't strike me as a romantic leading lady. That's just me. I also found the story line stale and uninteresting. Our hero lives in NYC working at a fine dining restaurant where she is the chef and dictator. Everything about her life is about cooking. Nothing else seems to matter. No children. No relationships. Then her life is kicked apart. Her sister and niece travel to visit her but before they arrive, there's an accident. The mother dies and little Zoe has to live with her aunt. Our hero struggles to include a new person into her life but what follows is so predictable as to be boring. To add even more complications to our hero's life, her sous...