Gleason

Garrett did a fine job recreating Gleason, including his voice -- although his one attempt at singing as Gleason missed the mark. As biopics go, this one was well shot, but loses points for it's chaotic structure (with far too many jarring flashbacks), key storyline omissions and factual errors. Among the omissions: Gleason's film work (all the way back to the '40s and on to the year before his death), his first TV sitcom ("The Life Of Riley" was a 1949-50 Emmy winner!) and what happened to him between 1956 (when the last non-interview scene supposedly takes place) and his death 30 years later (!). Among the goofs: the wrong cue music (his most-used TV theme was also a hit single for him in 1953, "Melancholy Serenade"; after introducing his variety shows, Jackie'd leave the stage to the strains of "That's A-Plenty", etc.) I was surprised to discover halfway through the film that he was still working the more-or-less small-time; too much screen time was devoted to his early years, which could have been greatly condensed. I also agree with another reviewer that the comedy monologues were uniformly terrible; one wonders why ANY of the audiences shown were laughing at all (except during the "Honeymooners" sequences). It's unfortunate that the producers chose to present Gleason in such a relentlessly negative light. Maybe their view was, "Hey, he's dead. He can't answer back and defend himself. He's from another era than we are so who cares? Let's just trash him." Gleason wouldn't have had the career he did is he was really so hopelessly bad and untalented. If he did have any redeeming qualities, the writers of this film chose to leave them out.

Good Bio drama of a bygone era. Brad Garrett inhabits the role of Gleason. A man who's power overshadowed the 50's and 60's television world, without rival. Even Lucille Ball. Very evocative of the times. I highly recommend it. Its a 9 of 10. I rate it so high, because of the production value, and how it portrays the times Gleason lived in. Make no mistake, there are factual inaccuracies here. I am pretty big on historical inaccuracy in movies. But that's as it relates to real history. When it comes to the entertainment business itself though, malleability is part of what they do. Nonetheless, that's why its not a 10 of 10. To me, this was a film about those times. A gone with the wind era, never to return. This was entertainment for entertainment's sake.

I agree that Garrett's performance was amazing, he captured the essence of Gleason perfectly. My biggest issues with the movie were two:

1. Jumping back in forth in time. I got lost after three different levels of flashbacks in the first 5 minutes. Why?

2. Completely ignored his movie career. The movie jumped from his TV work in the mid-1950's to a TV interview in the 90's (probably supposed to be his "60 Minutes" interview in 1991). Why? I hope CBS is not so crass that they mainly wanted to present him in ways having to do with his appearances on CBS! That would be amazing. His movie career occupied a much larger portion of his life than his TV career. Most of us are familiar with his later silly roles, but he did some great movie roles in the 1960s: "The Hustler" (original), "Soldier in the Rain", "Papa's Delicate Condition", etc. You can check IMDB for yourself. All worth seeing.

On the plus side, the cinematography was excellent, and looked very good in HDTV. If you didn't see it in HD, try to next time.

Also Michael Chieffo gives a pretty convincing portrayal (though perhaps a little restrained) of Art Carney, in the few scenes he appears.

Finally, Garrett goes from young and thin to really quite chubby, in both body and face. Either an excellent job of makeup and costuming, or he gained a heck of a lot of weight for the role, or a little of both? If it was done with appliances, it was the best job I've ever seen. Completely convincing, even viewed in HD.

The movie checks in on Gleason's career at a few points and we see that he started out not very good and got better. But we never see how he managed to get better. He seems never to hear criticism, but only to insist that he knows what he's doing.

And where did they get his stand-up material? It sounds like Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, or at best Jack E. Leonard. Was Gleason an insult comic? I don't remember him that way. The material sounds anachronistic to me. Certainly an anachronism is Gleason shouting out "How sweet it is!" on his Stage Show program. He didn't say that until his big TV comeback.

Maybe the comeback would have been a better story to focus on. How Gleason was reduced to taking work as a game-show host, the game show flopped, and he saved the day with a one-man show that in half an hour returned him to the top of the profession.

Might have been better than trying even briefly to recreate the Honeymooners. Everyone did fine, considering. Michael Chieffo was near-perfect as Art Carney, Kristen Dalton was a competent Audrey Meadows though she forgot to stop sounding so aristocratic when Meadows was playing Alice. But the only thing that can possibly stand out in such a recreation is the imperfections. Hey, the chest of drawers is too low.

Brad Garrett did the voice reasonably well, but it was odd seeing him walking down a corridor hunched down to conceal the difference between himself and his average-sized companions. According to the papers, he had wanted very much to do the role. Okay, Brad, it was a fine salute and if they couldn't find a six-foot-four Audrey Meadows to play against you, that's not anybody's fault.

Brad Garrett was outstanding in portraying Gleason, and the director did an expert job in avoiding distractions which would have occurred if his 6'8"+ height had been shown in its true proportion to other cast members.

Jack Benny was noted as perhaps Hollywood's biggest tipper. Vincent Price and Edward G. Robinson were noted art collectors and connoisseurs, not just among entertainment persons, but the entire nation.

There seems often to be a tendency for famous entertainers to possess different personas in real life, and in instances like the above, even to emphasize them when in contrast to either more negative, or less attractive, characterizations in their roles.

Many comedians have also been reputed or shown to be somewhat different in "real life." Certainly one can understand their not wanting to be funny or "on" all the time in their personal lives, and undoubtedly they tire of people often expecting them to be.

But many are simply different from the humorous presences in their performances. Arthur Godfrey, and even Will Rogers, were far from the warm figures they portrayed on-air, on-screen or other professional venues. Jerry Lewis, Johnny Carson and many others have had a sharper edge in private/offstage.

This storyline believably portrayed Jackie Gleason's dominating, egocentric, hard-edged sides, as well as the insecurities he always carried from a childhood far from affluent or very happy.

One might wish the film had included a bit more regarding his movie work, but that aside, it captured not only the Gleason character, but also the flavor of the periods in the past as his success grew to its mammoth proportion..

Since these films don't possess the budgets of Hollywood big-screen offerings, even where well-presented, they can fall short in authenticity and details, like conveying scenes occurring in past times, foreign locales, and the like. But this flick captures the feel of the era portrayed excellently.

Along with Garrett's, all the supporting characters were well-cast, with superior performances