Movie vs. Movie: Arthur
By Tom Houseman
April 22, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
For the inaugural edition of this series, I decided to compare Arthur, the Dudley Moore vehicle that was one of the biggest hits of 1981, won multiple Oscars and is considered one of the greatest American comedies of all time, to Arthur, the 2011 Russell Brand vehicle that was critically reviled and is proving to be a box office dud. Think this one will be a blowout? Actually, it might be closer than you think...
ARTHUR (1981)
Arthur tells the story of alcoholic billionaire Arthur Bach, heir to a fortune, who spends his time wasting his money, boozing, and being driven around New York City by his driver, Bitterman. We first meet Arthur picking up a prostitute, taking her to a fancy restaurant attached to the hotel where he lives, and generally making an ass out of himself. This seems to be de rigueur for our hero, who always has his butler Hobson around to clean up his messes for him. Conflict arises when Arthur's father and grandmother arrange his marriage to a wealthy socialite in whom Arthur has no interest, but upon whom the inheritance of his fortune depends. At the same time, Arthur meets a waitress named Linda, of whom he becomes utterly enamored, and he is forced to choose between the love of his life and $750 million.
Arthur is #53 on the American Film Institute's list of the Greatest American Comedies of all time, and it's not because of the story. The conflict isn't what drives the film, and the resolution feels lazy - which is not to say that this is not a great movie. The greatness of Arthur rests, rather, on three things: the brash appeal of Dudley Moore's Arthur, the deadpan hilarity of John Gielgud's Hobson, and the sassiness of Liza Minelli's Linda. Of course, as the title character, it is up to Dudley Moore to drive the movie, which he does superbly. Yes, he can be an obnoxious ass, but the key is that he always remains likeable. He is good-natured and benign, his jabs light-hearted and never cruel. And in the scenes when he is sober, such as when he first meets Linda, he is downright charming. He also has some truly wonderful one-liners, which he delivers with superb timing (“You're a prostitute? I'd forgotten! I thought I was doing great with you!). Really this is Moore's movie, and everyone else is just helping to lift him up.
And what excellent help they give him. John Gielgud plays the role of scene-stealer, and it is no surprise that he won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance. Hobson's wit is delightfully British, and Gielgud nails every biting line. Hobson is very reserved, but we see through little moments how much he cares about Arthur, and his presence grounds the film during Arthur's more outrageous moments. As for Minelli as the love interest, she matches Arthur beat for beat, challenging him every step of the way. In some romantic comedies you get the sense that the two love interests are only together because the story dictates that they should be, but you really feel the attraction between these two and understand how they grow to love each other. Arthur's relationship with Hobson and Linda is elevates this film above the level of most farces.
And as for the rest of the film? Well, beyond the side-splitting dialogue delivered by these three actors, there isn't much. Every other actor seems content to let either Moore or Gielgud steal the scene, which really isn't too much of a problem. In particular Susan, the dreaded fiancée, is almost entirely defined by her blandness, which gets old fast, and seems like wasted potential. Another notable aspect of the film is the Oscar winning song “Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do).” The song is amiable enough, and it is interwoven into the score, which is rather lovely. Admittedly, I'm rather biased against the song, but if you had to listen to it almost every day for a year while you were waiting tables, you'd grow to hate it too. That, however, is not the song's fault, or the movie's, so I won't deduct any points against it.
By far the weakest part of the film is the ending, which wraps up with a bit of a thud. This isn't terribly surprising, as this is usually the case with films with weak plots. Arthur is forced to choose between Linda and his money, and he of course chooses Linda. But at the last minute his grandmother gives in, her bluff called, and Arthur gets everything with there being no consequences whatsoever for his actions. He and Linda presumably live happily ever after (although I'm told that there was an atrociously bad sequel released in the late '80s) and I am left feeling like the whole affair was rather anti-climactic. However, beyond the film's minor failings of weak plot and undeveloped relationships, it is an absolute delight to watch, and, while not one of the best comedies of all time, is certainly a great one.
ARTHUR (2011)
Arthur is a fairly faithful remake of the original, still set in New York with all of the same characters and the same conflict; Arthur is still a drunken bachelor forced into an engagement in order to collect an inheritance that has grown over the last 30 years to $950 million. The only major change in these basics is the character of Hobson, as Helen Mirren is establishing a reputation playing parts originally written for men. As a result, Hobson is now Arthur's nanny rather than his butler. In addition, Linda has changed professions; she is not a waitress, but rather an aspiring children's book writer who leads unauthorized tours through Grand Central Station, which is a fairly clever conceit.
Of course, 30 years since the original, everything has to be bigger and zanier, and this new Arthur goes for broke. It begins with Arthur and Bitterman driving a Batmobile wildly through the city, getting chased by the cops and eventually crashing spectacularly before buying his way out of trouble. Other lavish additions to Arthur's already lascivious lifestyle include a bed with a magnet at the bottom that makes it float.
Much like the original, this movie is all about its lead, and Russell Brand has no problems carrying the film on his shoulders. While he was clearly typecast, Brand's Arthur is much softer and sweeter than his Aldous Snow, and he seems to be channeling Dudley Moore, even slightly affecting his voice to more closely mimic his predecessor. This Arthur, unlike the original's, is drunk all the time, which gets a bit tiresome, but Brand's boyish charm is easier to swallow than a shot of Maker's Mark. Of course Brand's best skill is his crack comic timing, which he utilizes perfectly; while Aldous Snow is a more interesting character than Arthur Bach, Brand might be even better here than he was in Get Him to the Greek.
Surprisingly, the remake focuses much more on the supporting characters and their relationship to Arthur, which is both one of the movie's best qualities and its biggest stumbling block. The relationship between Hobson and Arthur is much more of a focus here, and it gets a bit tiring to have the idea that Hobson is Arthur's true parental figure beaten into your skull the entire time. Mirren is great, of course, although she really doesn't hold a candle to John Gielgud, and while her rapport with Brand is delightful, it never adds much to the film. Bitterman is also much more developed, with the original character being barely more than an extra. I don't think I'd ever found Luis Guzman funny before this film, but I'll admit that he was utterly charming, and brought his own energy to a few scenes.
The most welcome development in the film is Susan, played by the always hilarious Jennifer Garner. Garner carried, pushed and pulled 13 Going on 30 from what could have been a terrible movie to being genuinely enjoyable, and here once again she shows off her comedic chops, which are as hot as she is. Unlike 1981's bland heiress, Garner's Susan is fiery and a bit insane, the only character who can really challenge Arthur in that department (although Gary Busey does his shtick, which never works in his moments on screen). She attacks Arthur like a whirlwind in more than one scene, and their back and forth is hilarious. She is also a fairly complex character with her own desires and needs; considering that most evil women in these kind of movies are flatter than cardboard, Garner's Susan is a welcome appearance.
But, sadly, all of this additional character development, and the focus on the plot and conflict of the story, makes the film drag in its second half. There is so much that needs to be done in service of the story that there is a lot of energy cost in covering all of the bases. While the first hour fires on all cylinders, this Arthur runs nearly two hours but feels even longer, using up most of the good will it earned from me with the great moments - comedic, romantic, and sentimental - in the early scenes.
That being said, the ending of this new Arthur is vastly superior to the original's, because it understands the main flaws of its protagonist. Arthur's alcoholism and his childishness are tied to each other, and in order to deal with one he has to deal with the other. At the end of the original, Moore's Arthur is still a childish drunk, just one who is willing to give up money for love (although he doesn't have to). Brand's Arthur actually tackles his issues at the end of the new film; we see him in AA, and learn that he is running the charitable arm of his mother's business. It is not until he has sobered up, and grown up, that he attempts to win Linda back, which makes for a much more satisfying ending.
Shockingly, the biggest disappointment in the remake is Linda, played by indie darling Greta Gerwig in her first Hollywood role (and one of the only reasons I actually wanted to see this movie). In 1981, Linda was sassy and called Arthur on his shit, but she is rewritten as a gentler, more innocent love interest. Gerwig's sweet insecurity works very well in her various mumblecore roles, as well as in Greenberg, but here she is just blown off the screen by Brand. She fails to capitalize on the comedic bones thrown to her, never nailing her quips, and even her more sentimental moments fall flat. When she tells Arthur that she used to think that the moon followed her, she shrugs it off awkwardly; when Liza Minelli said the same thing 30 years before she had conviction behind it, and you knew she could handle Arthur's craziness. As big a fan as I am of Gerwig, she wasn't right for the part, and every moment she is on screen slows the pace of the film, which is a death kiss for a comedy like Arthur.
Writer Peter Baynham and director Jason Winer clearly have a lot of love for their source material, as there are several references to Steve Gordon's original film that I probably would have missed had I not seen it only a few weeks before. And as far as the level of comedy, they do a very good job of matching the original in a few scenes, although some others don't come close, most notably Arthur's first meeting with Susan's father (has any prop been used better than that moose head that Moore chats with?). Ironically, the main flaws of both films are the opposite sides of the same issue, which leads to a catch-22 of sorts: 1981's Arthur felt shallow, while 2011's dragged through its plot and character development. Could there ever be a happy middle ground? Maybe we'll find out in 30 years. In the meantime, it is safe to say that while the new Arthur is not the classic that the original was, it at least did not embarrass itself, and it is certainly fun. After all, isn't fun the best thing to have?