MovieChat Forums > Gigot Discussion > Eh.... not so much

Eh.... not so much


I'm generally a big fan of Gleason, but found his performance in Gigot a poor man's Charlie Chaplin (who clearly was a primary influence as the pathos-inducing clown character). I admit, I was impressed with his physicality (some slapstick moments, especially the dancing and pratfalls, are fine) but to me, much of the expression was desperate mugging (almost more a begging for acceptance by Academy voters). I guess that's a bit harsh, though: there are moments of genuine connection in his performance, especially with the little girl, and there are some touching moments, though often these descend into saccharine bathos.

As for the story, I found it generally maudlin and embarrassing to watch, with too many scenes laying it on thick as to how ill-treated Gigot is by the world, and how he selflessly takes it. Some of this can be ascribed to his "innocent" or naïf persona, though I blame Gleason for creating a self-serving vehicle as a pitiful martyr. I was turned off to the heavy-handed religious symbolism and story line (with numerous "heart-tugging" allusions to the much more famous martyr, Christ).

That was one damn cute cat, though! And kudos for the nice score.

reply

I'm with you on this.

Maudlin is a word I would use.

In his world Gleason was superb. This was not his world.

reply

I'd use cringe-inducing.

Give me a bellowing Ralph Kramden (or even cigarette and cocktail Miami Beach Man About Town Jackie Gleason) anyday.

Chaplin really opened up a can of worms with pathos.

reply

[deleted]