Monday 30 January 2012
Mum's quote of the day
"You know that 'One Show'. It's on for half an hour. It feels like it's on for one hour."
Sunday 29 January 2012
Friday 27 January 2012
Monday 9 January 2012
Arthur Vs. Arthur
I first saw the 1981 version of Arthur when I was, quite frankly, too young to understand it. But I always had fond memories of it, and its sequel which I saw when I was a little older. So much so, that when I found out my boyfriend hadn't seen it, I immediately insisted he witness the legend that is Arthur.
As you can imagine, when I heard they were re-making it, my ears pricked up with cat-like distrust. What were they going to do to my Arthur? Many Dudley Moore fans the world over had the same reaction as me, confidently declaring that no matter who played the role, they would never fill the shoes of a man who is as synonymous with the lovable drunk as Sean Connery is as James Bond. Moore was nominated for Best Actor at the Oscars and Arthur won 2 of its 4 Oscar nominations in 1982.
I had mixed emotions when I finally found out that Russell Brand would be playing Arthur. I have a love/hate relationship with Brand's public identity. I find him funny, pleasant to listen to and have enjoyed his films. They'll never win Oscar's, but they're a good example of 'Films for Friends'. I was on his and Ross' side during Sachgate for reasons too long winded to go into here. On the other hand, I sometimes find him arrogant and self-involved, and there are times when he really over does it. Nevertheless I decided to watch it, if only to satisfy my curiosity. First impressions were not good. I had worked myself up so much that I was determined I would hate it. In actual fact I was a little indifferent. I knew there was something wrong with the film but I couldn't quite work out what it was. Upon inspecting many of the reviews of the film, I don't think anyone else knew quite what was wrong with it either. To call them mixed reviews would be an understatement – all with seemingly legitimate criticisms and praise.
Well, one bored afternoon I decided to re-watch it – easy viewing to occupy my wandering mind. Something odd happened. I actually enjoyed it. Had I been younger I think I might have really loved it. One of the things often overlooked about the 2011 remake of Arthur is its certification. It's 12A in the UK. The original was 15 and for good reason. Right from the first scene Arthur is seen picking up a prostitute in the most unapologetic and sexist manner short of misogyny possible, before making light of incestuous rape. The Batman scene in the remake just doesn't resonate in the same way. And this is the by far the biggest difference between the two films. The character and the story maybe similar on the surface but they are different films, with different attitudes made in very different times.
So where do Arthur (1981) and Arthur (2011) differ?
The most obvious change is in Hobson, who in 1981 was played by Sir John Gielgud and received an Oscar for his performance. Possibly in order to make up for the small number of women in the original film, Hobson goes from being a butler to a female nanny, played by the slightly overrated Helen Mirren. Its not that I don't like her as an actress, its just that I sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about. Most professional critics seem to unquestionably praise her performance, unlike amateurs tapping out a few words on IMDb. Either way, the dynamic between Hobson and Arthur changes significantly. Hobson's sincere love for Arthur is revealed much later in the original, making his passing all the more intense. Also, butlers are less responsible for a child's behaviour than a nanny might be. It is even pointed out in the 2011 film by Arthur's mother that Hobson should have better cared for him. Once the idea had been presented to me it kept me a little distracted for the rest of the film.
Arthur's would be arranged wife Susan who barely appears in the original is played in the remake by the annoying and abysmal actress Jennifer Garner. The woman cannot act. I can't make it any clearer or more concise. She seems to be type cast into these horrible, irritating roles where it's incredibly difficult to sympathise with her even when she is in the right. No danger of that here though. She is painted as an absolute monster, rather than the innocent victim of the 1981 version. Perhaps her character is an insight into how threatened Hollywood feels about unfeeling, driven women. Or perhaps they think an audience is unlikely to buy into the idea that a woman could be as naïve and stupid as Susan was in 1981.
The love interest, famously played by Liza Minnelli in the original, Linda undertakes a odd transformation. First, for reasons I can only imagine to be personal to the director or screen-writer, her name is changed to Naomi. She goes from being a bolshie, sarcastic load-mouth New Yorker to a childlike girl next door. Her new character was a little too wet for me. I loved Minnelli as the quick witted Linda. Her one-liners were hilarious. However, her change in personality was probably unavoidable to match Brand's more childlike Arthur. However, there is one change in her that is clearly a sign of the times. A nod towards the idea that women are stronger now and more independent. In the original, for all of Linda's huffing and puffing, she forgives Arthur on more than one occasion almost instantaneously and never asks him to get his act together, instead accepts him as the drunk, flawed man that he is. If the remake had any reason to exist, and redeemed itself in any way, it was show this social change. She won't take him back unless he grows up – something women nowadays can relate to and agree with more than they might have in the early eighties.
Finally, Arthur himself becomes not only a different actor but an entirely different man. Moore was commended in 1981 for his performance, while Brand was criticized for even thinking about talking on the role. One of the biggest issues with Brand is his public persona. He is the personification of Marmite and some people would have been ready to lambaste him no matter how well he played the part. Many scorned his acting ability. Although its not the best, the only real trouble that I had believing he was a drunken millionaire was that he doesn't actually come across as drunk. Brand is a recovering alcoholic, you'd think he'd have enough experience to draw on. I can only assume that he has forgotten how to be a drunk. Moore's drunk was spot on. Everything from the slurred speech, posture, lack of balance and the brilliant delivery of crap jokes with the self-rewarding single honk of laughter that followed. As funny as being drunk appears to be, often the truth is that no one is laughing but the person who's drunk and Moore captures that in Arthur so wonderfully. Tool helps to show just how much Linda loves him. Laughing even though he's making a fool of himself. Brand, on the other hand, is too busy trying to look witty and clever than actually portray how a real drunk person really behaves. He portrays Arthur the way Arthur assumes he appears, although its unlikely that Brand is aware of this. It doesn't really work and its not really all that funny.
All in all, while the original had its draw backs the current film has lost the essence with which the original was made. The acting is far poorer, the cinematography more friendly than the harsh reality portrayed in 1981 and New York's beauty is lost to Brand's ego, to the detriment of the film. Many elements of the original are preserved, some scenes word for word but those words are said in an entirely different world. One where women no longer see looking after men as a duty and alcoholism is no longer a forgiveable vice. One word that comes up time and time again for this remake is 'pointless'. Worth a watch, if only to see Jennifer Garner almost get splattered under a magnetic bed and but nothing worth getting excited about.
Dudely remains the one and only Arthur Bach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)