WORLD TOUR Day 26 - New York, NY
BEFORE: You may be wondering why I picked the films that I did to represent New York - well, I already did a New York-themed chain back in 2009, which included "Wall Street", "City Hall", "The Pope of Greenwich Village", "Harlem Nights", "Gangs of New York", and "Bright Lights, Big City", and a few others. The films this week are sort of the NYC-centric films that have entered the list since then, and which I've otherwise avoided up until now. I'm sure I still must have left some off, but what can I do? At least this one has that great Oscar-winning theme song about New York City.
Linking from "Changing Lanes", character actors save me once again, as Ben Affleck was also in "Daredevil" with Mark Margolis, who appears in "Arthur" as a wedding guest.
THE PLOT: Arthur is a happy drunk and also the heir to a vast fortune which he is told will only be his if he marries Susan. Arthur proposes but then meets a girl with no money who he could easily fall in love with.
AFTER: Well, I went from a movie with two characters acting like spoiled children to one where the main character never grew up. From a character who attends A.A. meetings to one who probably should.
The other day I used a common expression in the office, saying that someone's "elevator didn't reach the top floor". (I could have said "wasn't playing with a full deck" or "was a few sandwiches shy of a picnic lunch", but I went with that) Several co-workers younger than me apparently hadn't heard that metaphor before, so it was regarded as clever and innovative, but I said it thinking it was common and overused. You can't always tell what people will regard as clever.
That said, I didn't really get why people have raved about this movie - all of the bits where Arthur was stumbling drunk or being disruptive in a public place, I just didn't find that to be clever. Driving his car while intoxicated? I sure didn't see the humor in that. Worse, he laughed at all of his own jokes or said "That's FUNNY!" after each one. I've found that the more a person says how funny their own statements are, the less that turns out to be the case. I don't know if just saying something's funny makes me feel it's not funny, or whether it demonstrates that the speaker knows it's not funny and is trying to cover that fact up, but either way, it doesn't work for me.
What am I supposed to admire about Arthur? The fact that he's super-rich and still aimless? That he doesn't have a solid direction in his life, other than what people suggest for him? OK, so he's capable of falling in love - so are a lot of people. And not for nothing, but since he tends to pick up street hookers when he's drunk, proving that he doesn't act responsibly, maybe he should sober up before proposing, I'm just sayin'.
New York is a great drinking town, with tons of bars, delis and liquor stores - then there are social events where alcohol is served, and on top of that you've got your beer festivals and special tasting events. And the subway and cabs are always there to get you home safely. I've been known to imbibe a bit too much at beer gatherings, but then I go home and I go to sleep, preferably in that order. I don't drive around, I don't pick up hookers, I don't crash other public events while blitzed. OK, I've eaten in a couple of diners to sober up a bit, but I'd like to think I didn't cause trouble while doing so.
So, I didn't really get what makes Arthur a "lovable" drunk, or endearing at all for that matter.
Still, some solid NYC scenery tonight, from the Oak Room at the Plaza Hotel to Bergdorf-Goodman's mens department, a church on Park Avenue and the Carnegie Hill mansion on 91st St. The other mansions were filmed out on Long Island, in Manhasset and Glen Cove.
Starring Dudley Moore (last seen in "Bedazzled"), Liza Minnelli (last seen in "New York, New York"), John Gielgud (last seen in "Elizabeth"), Jill Eikenberry (last seen in "Butch and Sundance: The Early Days"), Barney Martin, with cameos from Paul Gleason, Lou Jacobi (last seen in "Avalon").
RATING: 4 out of 10 martinis
Hi,
ReplyDeleteWritten and directed by Steve Gordon,Arthur is a comedy film and the movie stars with Dudley Moore.
Thanks
Javier Bardem
You read the capsule summary of a movie like this and you wonder "How the hell could this story even work? Why in God's name would we find this character sympathetic, or even interesting?" and the answer is "The star playing the role was uniquely qualified to make it work." Your affection for Dudley Moore, or the characters he tends to portray, carries over to Arthur...who as you say is almost reprehensively irresponsible and entitled.
ReplyDeleteThe movie sets two heavies against Arthur, and either one of them would make you feel some sympathy for just about anybody.
The real "save" that the writers put into the story was Hobson. You see Arthur truly care for someone, lovingly and unselfishly, and be affected by loss. You also see Hobson airing the audience's contempt for Arthur's lifestyle. When he slaps Arthur around for being a self-pitying manboy without a lick of self-awareness or appreciation for everything he has, the audience relaxes a little bit. "Okay," I thought. "The writers get it."
Another great scene:
ARTHUR (to clerk): I'll take a dozen of these sweaters, in assorted colors.
ARTHUR (to Hobson): I hate my father.
HOBSON: Then purchase five dozen.
ARTHUR (to clerk): Five dozen.
It's a subtle laying-down of characterization. Arthur uses his wealth as a way of avoiding confronting his own emotional issues. Hobson sees through it, and thinks this behavior is pathetic. But at this point in the story, Arthur's still too dense to look at his own behavior.
Overall, yeah, it's the Dudley Moore Show. The remake proved it. What a conceptual misfire! What's required for a successful modern remake? The producers' answer: "We need to get rid of the drunk driving and any other behavior that hurts other people. He needs to do a successful rehab during the movie. And: he needs a big 'despite being a screwup, he alone was perceptive enough to remove a threat to the family empire' bit, to make him a hero in the eyes of the audience."
Yikes. No. The original "Arthur" worked because you had a star who brought his own likeability to the role. The remake cast a real-life Arthur instead.
I thought the original was a funny movie. It was the end of the era in which the lead character could drive drunk and swerve all over the road and still be considered Funny and Charming, as opposed to a case of vehicular manslaughter waiting to happen. Streetwalkers were just standard characters of comedy, as opposed to carriers of HIV. The enclaves of the super-wealthy still had a fairytale quality about them, instead of immediately inspiring an angry tirade about upper classes gaming the system to pull greater and greater percentages of the nation's wealth away from the middle and lower-income groups, and then pissing that money away on stupid, frivolous indulgences.
It's a nice little time capsule. It's as nostalgic as those movies from the 30s and 40s in which you see a husband reacting to the news that he's about to become a father by mixing his expectant wife a celebratory highball.