BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Ploydsge just watch it!

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Prismark10 Laurence Olivier reinvented himself in The Entertainer and set to work with the angry young turks of British theatre and film. A new generation of talent like John Osbourne and Tony Richardson who would had regarded Olivier as yesterday's man as this film introduces Albert Finney and Alan Bates, the next generation of great actors.Legend has it that Olivier initially dismissed the new generation of left wing playwrights that emerged in the 1950s. When Olivier was directing The Prince and the Showgirl, Arthur Miller then married to Marilyn Monroe showed up in London and wanted to see the plays by these young up and coming talent. Olivier accompanied Miller to the theatre and after the show asked Osbourne to write something for him, the result was The Entertainer.Olivier plays washed up music hall comedian Archie Rice. He was never as funny as his father. He has evaded paying his taxes for twenty years, an undischarged bankrupt who has not paid his co-workers and worse of all, he is not making his audience laugh.Set during the time of the Suez crisis, the moment Britain realised they were no longer a world power. Archie's son who is in the army is kidnapped out in Egypt. He is in a loveless marriage with second wife Phoebe and as ever he has a wandering eye and at the moment shacked up with the runner up of the Miss Great Britain contest. Archie hopes her family will bankroll his next production.Archie's family wants him to move to Canada to start a new life in the hotel business, but Archie clings on to that next big break that will never come his way. Like Britain, Archie is decaying and in decline, unable to afford the bills.The film has an outstanding performance from Olivier. Despite the plaudits and the Oscar, Olivier knows he is fighting for his legacy by showing the new generation that he still has what it takes to blow everyone off the screen. The film was shot on location Morecambe and Blackpool, two seaside resorts in Lancashire that were still experiencing the glory days in the early 1960s when this film was made. I used to work near the Winter Gardens in Blackpool in the late 1990s, at which time the resort were experiencing mainly day visitors and some of the old backstreet hotels were now residences for people on social security. At least it was in better shape than Morecambe, an area my work also covered. That was in need of the last rites.

barefoot-gal It is amazing to me how many critics and reviewers of this film seem to have missed the subtleties in this story, and in Archie's character. Far from living in a world of futile fantasies, I think, Archie's character is much more accurately expressed by the line "The only thing I know how to do is to keep on keeping on." All available options (Canada, failure, escape, or perhaps, suicide) being unthinkable, what choice has he but to chase another hopeless dream of somehow, finally, nailing a successful show? Perhaps I identify with Archie more strongly than many viewers, having myself been at the helm of a sinking ship (a business.)One unreasonably scathing critic (did he actually watch this film??) commented on Archie's daughter, Joan's, "blind love" for her father. I think it was not "blind love" at all, but a recognition of the (probably useless) courage Archie has to muster to continue to face each day -- a day likely to hold for him only more demoralizing failure and unceasing accusation and blame. And far from being totally selfish, as some commentators have written, Archie really seems to be the only person in the family able to look beyond the extremely small focus on their own interests: he is, in fact, the only person in the Rice tribe making a real effort, despite the pain, to find a path out of the mess to a place of security for them all. Perhaps we have forgotten how dependent families were in that era on the earnings of "the breadwinner," and yet, reviewers seem to have been just as blind as many wives and families of that time to what a man often had to give up in order to be that breadwinner, including, as in Archie's case, any fantasies of greatness or even, finally, his last shreds of self-esteem. Was Archie aware of his utter failure? Oh, I think absolutely so. This is why his admission to his daughter that he was "dead" behind his eyes. All the brightness of hope or illusions of personal excellence have been hammered out of him on the iron-cold anvil of real-world failure. Even so, he found it in him to dredge up the understanding and compassion to alleviate his wife, Phoebe's drunken crash into despair and hostility; and shore up his father's nostalgic dreams. Though, alas, the latter, too, led to yet another "unforgiveable" tragedy (-- or was it?.The most exquisite and poignant tragedy of it all is that maybe, just maybe, Archie might have pulled it off, but for the failure of his clueless family to understand him or the grim realities of his doomed profession. Forget metaphors of Imperial England, this tale has surely played itself out millions of times, whenever a new technology has made an old craft obsolete -- as when the printing press replaced scribes, or when electric lights eliminated the town's lamp lighter, or when automated projectors replaced skilled projectionists. Many of the movie's reviewers, in my opinion, are as blind to what is really going on here as is Archie's family. They assume that Archie's failures are the result of his negligence and selfishness, and that his dalliance with the beauty queen is a real romance (and threat to their security), when, in his eyes, it is just another, necessary, desperate and ultimately demeaning business deal. Joan alone, it seems, finally understands -- far too late to avert the inevitable end. Ultimately, every family member's myopic conception of Archie's reality leads them to take the reflexive steps that seal his doom.Shakespeare would have been completely a home with this tragic tale, and I think it was not such a great leap away from Hamlet for Olivier.The story is richly-detailed, unexpected and though-provoking. And Olivier is superb. A stunning performance from beginning to tragically inevitable end.

mark worrell One of the best British films of the sixties, The Entertainer was written as an allegory of Britain's fall from grace by the leading fist-shaker of England's band of Angry Young Men who stormed the London stage with revolutionary new ideas and content, John Osborne. While Look Back In Anger is a more decorated play, this film adaption by Osborne and Nigel Kneale carried the flag of teeth-crunching kicks that the gang of young playwrights hoped to startle the daylights out of England with. Reading the other viewer comments, it is obvious most folks were looking for a Disney story with a Shakespearean performance by Lawrence Olivier. A happier ending? Great Britain forgot to supply one, Andy up there in the mountains somewhere, and the seedy digs were meant to be depressingly seedy, as was the dwindling talent of the family, and its reliance in the end on the grand old name and the grand old accomplishments of the past, as Archie Rice gave his best in replacing his revered father, Billy. Note his offkey performance in singing early on and then the eloquent on key final rendition of "Why Should I Care" as the final performance ends not with a curtain call, but with the hook, as the theater management (those other nations running the world today) angrily demand that Archie get off the stage because he is through, finished, washed up, fired, kaputsky, so long and goodbye. From the direction of Tony Richardson to the selection of grand old places along the sea that Britain once ruled with absolute certainty, everything and every moment of this film are topnotch. The aforementioned slandered scene with Roger Livesey as the Grandfather, Billy Rice, and Brenda de Banzie as Phoebe Rice, involving a misunderstanding over a piece of cake, is one of the most moving and depressingly realistic family arguments ever written. It may not be Olivier's greatest performance ever, but for certain it is the best one ever filmed. It also features the film debut of two actors who would establish themselves among the very best performers Great Britain has offered us, Alan Bates and Albert Finney, along with the introduction of Joan Plowright. As for the unkind comment about Olivier marrying Joan Plowright and this somehow having an ironic similarity to the theme of Archie and his young women; they married in 1961 and REMAINED together until Olivier's death in 1989, which is completely the opposite of the point made in the story. Well anyone is allowed to be in error, but this great film has to rank with our own country's Night of the Hunter as one of the most misunderstood films of all time. Don't miss it,ever, and MGM Vintage Classics has issued an excellent DVD edition.

Andy (film-critic) This was a very strange film developed in the 1960s. The dark themes of love, money, greed, and overall the protagonist's dream of being the next big sensation were chilling. This film was a perfect example of a very depressing story that never had a glimmer of light. Sure, there are several times we think that Archie will taste success, but before he is able to put the symbolic spoon into the bowl, he is shot down harder and faster than before. There is never a big break for Archie. He represents the human in even the smallest entertainer. As I read my local paper and see that Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg stopped at a local DQ earlier in the month, I can't help but realize the fact that this film is trying to show. They are human. While they may have more money and seen by more people, they are still human and have to deal with the human drama that we cope with daily. Archie is no exemption, and his struggles with love, money, family, and success are just stronger realizations of his human element. Add to this mix Archie's father and you see the true element of which I speak. Archie's father represents a dying breed of actors that do not live grandiose lifestyles, but somehow live on just their name alone. They have spent their money and rely on the kindness of strangers for favors. This is where Archie lacks. His kindness is only to women, and they continually hurt him in the long run.Outside of the 'human entertainer' concept, this is a very flat and shallow film. From the opening scene until the end, we are never quite given the big picture of this family or our surroundings. I never quite understood the scenes. Where were we? Why were we here? Who are the people that do visit Archie's shows? This builds a horrible background for our characters to live within. Without the proper structure behind our characters this forces them to crumble with the slightest bit of force. Archie's daughter Jean, the self-appointed narrator of the family, never seems to fit into her role. Plowright never seems comfortable with her character and is constantly giving off the wrong emotion during the scene. There was one part when I swore I saw her laughing. She is a distraction and a downfall for this film. Secondly, Olivier needed to contain his character a bit. I know that he was to portray an entertainer on the edge of reality, but it never showed. He needed more control over his emotions and really build a human element to his character. He was neither believable nor enjoyable to watch.From the beginning of this film I never once felt like he could be successful, and when he is the character we are trying to rejoice over, we need to feel that sensation. I needed to feel like he could really make this show work, instead of constantly being pulled deeper into his depression. This goes with Archie's father as well. It is possible to play too senile, and this is a perfect example. The entire cake scene (when you see it you will see) was laughable instead of emotional. The only character that worked decently well in this film was Phoebe. She had a touch character to grapple with and it felt like Brenda De Banzie was the only one carrying her weight in this film. Her emotion and power made some of the scenes worth watching instead of completely unbearable.Finally, I would like to say that with the background taking second fiddle to the actors, and the actors taking second fiddle to the background, this band needed longer hours practicing. Not only was this film confusing, but it also only allowed us to see one segment of the story. I needed more pre-story information or possibly a better ending to really allow me to connection with Archie. There was nothing forcing me to feel sympathy for the main character. I didn't know enough about him, nor did I really feel comfortable with the family dynamics between him and Phoebe. What was their relationship? Plutonic? Who knows? All I do know is that director Tony Richardson did not have control over this film. He seemed to slip between what his star player of the film (Laurence Olivier) and a developed story. I do not see why Laurence was nominated for an Oscar for this role. There was nothing spectacular.Overall, maybe I missed the boat on this film. Perhaps I was expecting my first Laurence Olivier film to blow me out of the water, but instead all I found was a jumbled mess of papers. I understand that the world of entertainment is not as glamorous as we think it is, but it is not as depressing as Richardson shows in this film. I needed a stronger balance and a better cast to make this film work for me. I needed to see some reason for me to attach myself to Archie, but sadly there was nothing. This film failed for me, but I will not give up on Olivier, I think he can prevail.On a side note, maybe it is just me, but I thought that Olivier in this film resembled Robin Williams in not only the way that he spoke, but also the facial mannerisms. Odd, maybe it is just me…Grade: ** out of *****