I don't mean to discourage anyone from finding joy or meaning in The Greatest Showman, but as someone who values truthful screen adaptations and authentic intersectional representation in the media, I have some fundamental issues with this film.

The Greatest Showman--even with its big budget, great cast, and good intentions on the surface--fails to come across as genuine to me. If I have to put aside the historical inaccuracies, I will, but not before saying that it was incredibly pointless to have this based on a real person. This film has nothing to do with P.T. Barnum--a man who grossly exploited the "oddities" of marginalized people to make himself rich--and I think it's in extremely poor taste to make a sensationalized, sugar-coated version of his story.

But even after putting all of that aside, on its own, the film is generic and lacking a genuine commitment to it's message of acceptance and inclusivity. This has everything to do with its framing. At it's core, the film frames the white male protagonist as the hero of marginalized people, using the diverse cast of "freak" characters as a collective plot device to further Barnum's development. This is a problem for me because Barnum is framed to be without the prejudice others are so filled with towards the "freaks," but never in the story does he actually defend their humanity or say anything to prove that he sees them as more than meal tickets. This is even more apparent by the fact that he never apologizes for having ignored and abandoned them. Furthermore, the majority of the "freaks" are lumped together as a whole, giving me no impression of their individual characters, their individual motivations, or any real impression that they have a working relationship with Barnum at all.

Because of this, I can't help but feel that the ultimately inclusive message of "be proud of who you are" stems from a purely systematic view of the audience. Or, they wanted to make money, and so they hopped on the "diversity is good" train without really caring about writing a deeper, more meaningful story.

Which begs the question, does this family film have to be more deep and meaningful? I guess not, it could be seen as harmless, but I, for one, have little tolerance for films that glorify reckless men like Barnum. I know its a simple rags-to-riches story, but if we're going to play around with empowering those who feel othered by society, I'd like something that doesn't revolve around a simplistic version of a historically problematic man that does the absolute minimum amount of work to represent people of various minorities.

I think the people who were helming this project thought--maybe even subconsciously--that generic would be fine, relatable, and free of controversy. If you don't think about it too hard, it's a fun movie for the whole family, but I personally find this kind of storytelling irresponsible and in poor taste, especially today.