"Up in Arms," "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty," and "White Christmas" are actually all quite subdued performances from Danny Kaye. His performance here is basically untempered and unfiltered. He was allowed to be as manic as he wanted to be because as someone else stated, it's a broad farce--or, probably more accurately, it's a spoof.
The point of "The Court Jester" is that it's spoofing movies and books like "The Three Musketeers," "The Man in the Iron Mask," "The Scarlet Pimpernel," "Robin Hood," and "Ivanhoe" among others. The opening title sequence is meant to explain this with it's tongue-in-cheek jabs at Shakespeare, Basil Rathbone, and the way movies are made in general. It's a set up not unlike the opening number of "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum." At no point in time are you ever supposed to take this movie seriously.
As to the first two musical numbers being hokey, well, the first one (the title sequence) is setting the tone for the rest of the movie, and the second one (which as I recall is "Never Outfox the Fox") is setting up the character of Hubert Hawkins, as well as giving us the vocabulary of the film. Hawkins is pretty incompetent, but he's good at pretending to be other people, and he's heroic and has a good heart underneath his ineptitude. The song also sets the film's vocabulary in that it lets you know that while the characters might speak like something out of a high drama, or something Shakespearean, the whole thing is a big inside joke with the audience about how ridiculous those types of movies can become.
The art direction in this film is pretty standard for Paramount studios, and to me the general quality of the film stock and the costumes, sets, and props doesn't look that different from "White Christmas." Something I've noticed throws people off is that this is a period film, which is not something Danny Kaye did often (or ever again, that I recall), and it looks very different in that respect, because it's set in the middle ages.
Not to be rude or too blunt, but I think the OP's problem mostly stems from a bad association with Latin Class. Something like that can ruin an otherwise perfectly good film. I have the same problem with "Ben Hur." We watched it in school once, sandwiched between a badly produced miniseries about gladiators and the opera "Amal and the Night Visitors," and ever since I haven't been able to enjoy it like I should and want to. :P
reply
share
shandy8
11 years ago
Very nice reply. 'The Court Jester' is not for everyone, but it is one of my favorite movies.
"What do you want me to do, draw a picture? Spell it out!"
reply
share
boxerrebellion
11 years ago
Your second paragraph was an 'a-ha' moment for me. I love both films, but never really thought to deeply about it, although I was thinking 'it's just for entertainment, it's not high literature'. The thing is, it's done so much BETTER than a 'beach read' would be. The dialogue is tight, and goes so fast, the viewer is in danger of missing jokes. I love the music, and the lyrics are just wonderful.
reply
share
dailyshampoo48
11 years ago
Up In Arms, subdued? Did we watch the same movie?
I've never been too impressed by Frank and Panama's dialogue. On my screenwriters-who-do-good-writing rating scale, I would call them 'competent'. Which is sure a whole lot better than the dialogue you hear in movies these days, but that's neither here nor there.
I think, viewing the other Danny Kaye movies, you start to expect a certain standard and this one left me disappointed. Both Kaye and his wife were both incredibly talented and you start to wonder whether they could have done something really amazing had they just managed to stay more focussed. Or something like that, I'm not really sure what it is. The midget scene particular seems sloppy and not well planned-out, which bothers me. You'd never see something like that in a Gene Kelly movie, for instance.
There's are many film from the 50's where the set pieces and costumes and props don't seem 'fake' or 'cheap'. Ben-Hur is actually a good example of this. Quo Vadis and Demetrius are not.
A lot of the reviews praising this film give a great deal of analysis, which makes me think that I'm being a little too dismissive of Kaye and co.'s efforts. About a week ago, I realized that On the Riviera was actually a pretty clever movie and that I was right to like it as much as I did. It's easy to overlook these things because Kaye tends to downplay himself on screen. I'm hoping the same will happen with Court Jester.
reply
share
grizzledgeezer
10 years ago
"I've never been too impressed by Frank and Panama's dialogue."
I'm an unproduced screenwriter, and am curious as to what standard you judge P&F by? This is not a Mankiewicz or Hecht film! It's a comedy!
If you're looking for a "modern" comedy (such as Frasier) in which almost all the humor is generated by character interaction, then you'll never be happy by Panama & Frank, because that isn't what this comedy is "about". It's a farce, and it isn't supposed to be realistic, on any level.
Please don't tell me you like the Farrelly brothers films...
reply
share
dailyshampoo48
8 years ago
billy wilder, a contemporary, manages to be witty and quotable and very funny.
this has nothing to do with genre
they had some witty lines in white christmas. their stuff isn't terrible, but hardly legendary (i've seen all the great classics and now i'm spoiled).
reply
share