- It's still an open question whether in this day of increased concerns about alcoholism and health you can do a remake of 1981's "Arthur," a comedy about a lovable drunk.
The new "Arthur," with Russell Brand playing the Dudley Moore role, is a mere burlesque riffing off the old "Arthur" rather than an actual remake that has reconceived or rethought the original film.
The story hasn't changed much, nor have the characters. But the comedy is now crude instead of whimsical and its characters overblown caricatures instead of screwball personalities. A movie has been reduced to a sketch.
One's enjoyment of "Arthur" -- and its box office chances -- may depend on a new audience having little if any knowledge of the earlier work. As a Russell Brand Show, fans and followers may enjoy his extravagant mugging and nuttiness.
The original film -- let's call it Old "Arthur" -- came out of nowhere. TV veteran Steve Gordon created an ineffable, charming comedy that defied movie traditions even of that time. Comic intoxication was usually reserved for the "Animal House" kind of comedies, and rich guys were seldom heroes. Gordon insisted that his incredibly rich and drunk protagonist was a gentle soul, looking for love but willing to accept a night of fun if that didn't pan out.
Moore, who had just hit it big as a leading man in Blake Edwards' "10," gave "Arthur" a sweetness to go along with his prankster personality. It was a knowing performance, full of wit and grace and savvy observation.
Brand shares a British heritage with Moore, but his comedy is much different. The guy is a talent, no doubt. Only last week, he put an undeniable comic jolt into Universal's animation/live-action mix Hop. But there is edginess to Brand's humor, even an aggressiveness. His Arthur creates scenes, not laughs. He's a pathetic, bratty little boy who refuses to grow up rather than a genial alcoholic who wouldn't harm a fly.
Peter Baynham's new script has done even more damage to the key relationship in Arthur's life. Perhaps the filmmakers thought it was very clever to turn Hobson (John Gielgud), Arthur's fatherly butler, into a nanny, played by Helen Mirren. It certainly does further emphasize Arthur's infantilism. But unlike Gielgud's character, Mirren's Hobson is in constant conflict with her aging charge. She prods sharply where the butler steered with the gentlest of touches. Old "Arthur's" butler was subtle and unflappable, while Mirren's nanny has a bit of Mary Poppins in her.
The story again revolves around a billionaire parent (Geraldine James) demanding Arthur grow up enough to enter into a loveless marriage to a rich WASP (Jennifer Garner), mostly for business purposes, or he'll be disinherited. (Here again the New "Arthur" insists on a gender change from a male to female parent.) At the same time, Arthur meets the love of his life in unlicensed Grand Central Station tour guide Naomi (indie film stalwart Greta Gerwig).
So both "Arthurs" present a thoroughly conventional romantic-comedy about love vs. money with a predicable outcome. This humdrum story line therefore allows, or at least it should, a completely unpredictable and outlandish character to take over.
Neophyte feature director Jason Winer turns things over to Brand all right, but it's a rough, out-of-focus performance. Not helping matters, the movie relies on its props far too much -- from an incongruous Batmobile, borrowed from a fellow Warner Bros. movie, to a magnetic floating bed. These tend of underscore showiness over comedy, brashness over subtlety.
Perhaps encouraged by his props and toys, Brand goes full bore in every scene, almost as if the movie isn't so much about a drunk as an eccentric billionaire, who would be loopy if he drank only lemonade. In fact, no one working on New "Arthur" seems completely comfortable with this protagonist. So you get AA meetings and lines tsk-tsking over "free spending during a recession." The movie keeps throwing up PC signs along the way to demonstrate how shocked everyone is, to borrow from Casablanca, that gambling is taking place in a casino.
Guys, your character was always going to be a profligate drunk if you remake "Arthur," so get over it. And Hobson's admonition to Arthur to scrub his private parts to prevent disease following unprotected sex just blows your mind. This is the advice of his sagacious nanny?
When tragedy overtakes Arthur as Hobson falls fatally ill, the film becomes cloying rather than touching. There's no heart in any of this as the tenacious bond between the man-child and his governess has never been convincingly established.
In Old "Arthur," all supporting players had great moments; in New "Arthur," everyone hits his marks, and that's about it. The spontaneity and gentle whimsy is missing. And so is the luxurious wit of Gordon's original screenplay. Baynham's script prods along without memorable lines or scenes even when it imitates Old "Arthur" as closely as it can.
In the end, it isn't so much that the "New Arthur" isn't the Old "Arthur." Rather it's the anti-Arthur.
The new "Arthur," with Russell Brand playing the Dudley Moore role, is a mere burlesque riffing off the old "Arthur" rather than an actual remake that has reconceived or rethought the original film.
The story hasn't changed much, nor have the characters. But the comedy is now crude instead of whimsical and its characters overblown caricatures instead of screwball personalities. A movie has been reduced to a sketch.
One's enjoyment of "Arthur" -- and its box office chances -- may depend on a new audience having little if any knowledge of the earlier work. As a Russell Brand Show, fans and followers may enjoy his extravagant mugging and nuttiness.
The original film -- let's call it Old "Arthur" -- came out of nowhere. TV veteran Steve Gordon created an ineffable, charming comedy that defied movie traditions even of that time. Comic intoxication was usually reserved for the "Animal House" kind of comedies, and rich guys were seldom heroes. Gordon insisted that his incredibly rich and drunk protagonist was a gentle soul, looking for love but willing to accept a night of fun if that didn't pan out.
Moore, who had just hit it big as a leading man in Blake Edwards' "10," gave "Arthur" a sweetness to go along with his prankster personality. It was a knowing performance, full of wit and grace and savvy observation.
Brand shares a British heritage with Moore, but his comedy is much different. The guy is a talent, no doubt. Only last week, he put an undeniable comic jolt into Universal's animation/live-action mix Hop. But there is edginess to Brand's humor, even an aggressiveness. His Arthur creates scenes, not laughs. He's a pathetic, bratty little boy who refuses to grow up rather than a genial alcoholic who wouldn't harm a fly.
Peter Baynham's new script has done even more damage to the key relationship in Arthur's life. Perhaps the filmmakers thought it was very clever to turn Hobson (John Gielgud), Arthur's fatherly butler, into a nanny, played by Helen Mirren. It certainly does further emphasize Arthur's infantilism. But unlike Gielgud's character, Mirren's Hobson is in constant conflict with her aging charge. She prods sharply where the butler steered with the gentlest of touches. Old "Arthur's" butler was subtle and unflappable, while Mirren's nanny has a bit of Mary Poppins in her.
The story again revolves around a billionaire parent (Geraldine James) demanding Arthur grow up enough to enter into a loveless marriage to a rich WASP (Jennifer Garner), mostly for business purposes, or he'll be disinherited. (Here again the New "Arthur" insists on a gender change from a male to female parent.) At the same time, Arthur meets the love of his life in unlicensed Grand Central Station tour guide Naomi (indie film stalwart Greta Gerwig).
So both "Arthurs" present a thoroughly conventional romantic-comedy about love vs. money with a predicable outcome. This humdrum story line therefore allows, or at least it should, a completely unpredictable and outlandish character to take over.
Neophyte feature director Jason Winer turns things over to Brand all right, but it's a rough, out-of-focus performance. Not helping matters, the movie relies on its props far too much -- from an incongruous Batmobile, borrowed from a fellow Warner Bros. movie, to a magnetic floating bed. These tend of underscore showiness over comedy, brashness over subtlety.
Perhaps encouraged by his props and toys, Brand goes full bore in every scene, almost as if the movie isn't so much about a drunk as an eccentric billionaire, who would be loopy if he drank only lemonade. In fact, no one working on New "Arthur" seems completely comfortable with this protagonist. So you get AA meetings and lines tsk-tsking over "free spending during a recession." The movie keeps throwing up PC signs along the way to demonstrate how shocked everyone is, to borrow from Casablanca, that gambling is taking place in a casino.
Guys, your character was always going to be a profligate drunk if you remake "Arthur," so get over it. And Hobson's admonition to Arthur to scrub his private parts to prevent disease following unprotected sex just blows your mind. This is the advice of his sagacious nanny?
When tragedy overtakes Arthur as Hobson falls fatally ill, the film becomes cloying rather than touching. There's no heart in any of this as the tenacious bond between the man-child and his governess has never been convincingly established.
In Old "Arthur," all supporting players had great moments; in New "Arthur," everyone hits his marks, and that's about it. The spontaneity and gentle whimsy is missing. And so is the luxurious wit of Gordon's original screenplay. Baynham's script prods along without memorable lines or scenes even when it imitates Old "Arthur" as closely as it can.
In the end, it isn't so much that the "New Arthur" isn't the Old "Arthur." Rather it's the anti-Arthur.
No comments:
Post a Comment