It's Grock, the great circus clown! He's a poor street performer in a provincial town. He gets a letter saying he's inherited a fortune, goes to Paris to collect with his dog and his monkey, loses the letter, gets back the letter, loses the monkey, gets discovered twice, because people say he's so funny. Every once in a while, one of his two catchphrases pops up.
Clearly Grock was a Wild and Crazy Guy in the 1920s, a superstar of the circus, so they made a movie about him! Yeah! Unfortunately, they decided on the Wise Fool for the story, the guy who is not too bright, but his heart is good and he has the pure wisdom of children. Then they figured that Grock would do some funny stuff, because there's nothing in the way of a plot here, no progression of states, just the occasional catchphrases tossed on the screen.
It ends with Grock having been discovered (for the second time, as I noted above), a triumph at the Palais. We see him doing bits of his act. We see crowds roaring. He's Grock!
He's Grock, but it's not a very good film, and it doesn't showcase Grock very well. Had the film makers just recorded Grock's act, that would have been more interesting. It wouldn't have been film, but circus.
However, that's what the film makers were selling. Looking at Grock, I can state this very clearly: Movies are not the Circus. That may seem an obvious and trite thing to say, but here were these experienced film makers who didn't get it.
If you want to see this movie for the famous circus clown and bits of his act, you'll see those. What you won't see is a good movie.
Clearly Grock was a Wild and Crazy Guy in the 1920s, a superstar of the circus, so they made a movie about him! Yeah! Unfortunately, they decided on the Wise Fool for the story, the guy who is not too bright, but his heart is good and he has the pure wisdom of children. Then they figured that Grock would do some funny stuff, because there's nothing in the way of a plot here, no progression of states, just the occasional catchphrases tossed on the screen.
It ends with Grock having been discovered (for the second time, as I noted above), a triumph at the Palais. We see him doing bits of his act. We see crowds roaring. He's Grock!
He's Grock, but it's not a very good film, and it doesn't showcase Grock very well. Had the film makers just recorded Grock's act, that would have been more interesting. It wouldn't have been film, but circus.
However, that's what the film makers were selling. Looking at Grock, I can state this very clearly: Movies are not the Circus. That may seem an obvious and trite thing to say, but here were these experienced film makers who didn't get it.
If you want to see this movie for the famous circus clown and bits of his act, you'll see those. What you won't see is a good movie.
