Review of Arthur

Arthur (1981)
Warm, Hilarious Alcoholic Fun
6 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
If you consider that Arthur is basically a character study of an eccentric alcoholic and lacks much by way of a third act plot structure, it's a wonderfully successful movie. It's fairly easy to ignore the fact that even at 97 minutes, the film is running on pure charm for more than half that time. Wonderfully performances and a uniquely droll script (in 1939, it wouldn't have seemed unique, but in the past few decades, it has very little competition in its screwball genre) make Arthur well worth returning to.

Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore) is a funny alcoholic. As such, we'd hardly care about him. He wouldn't get into the finest restaurants. He wouldn't go on elaborate shopping sprees. And we wouldn't get the girls. However, Arthur is also the heir to a fortune approaching a billion dollars. He's never worked a day in his life and he has two servants, Hobson and Bitterman, who have been with him forever. But his father finally makes an ultimatum -- either Arthur marries the devoted (and rich) Susan Johnson (well pre-LA Law Jill Eikenberry), or he'll be cut off. And wouldn't you know it? This happens just as Arthur is falling in love (perhaps for the very first time) with waitress/aspiring actress Linda (Liza Minnelli). Will Arthur choose the money or the girl? You've seen this kind of movie before, so you know where it's going.

Steve Gordon's script is so wonderful that you forget that as a director he's basically standing as far back as possible and letting the cast kick the great dialogue up a notch.

Arthur is about Dudley Moore's laugh. It's the first thing we hear and it rings through the whole film. It's a manic uncontrollable thing and probably if your neighbor laughed like that, you'd get sick of him within an hour. For some reason, Moore makes sure that we never get sick of Arthur. We don't get sick of his life of privilege, of his demands, of his embarrassing himself and the people who love him. We don't get sick of his silly rationalizing for his drunken state. And these are remarkable facts. Moore also gets to play the piano (a brilliant skill), fall over things (one of Moore's best), and kiss a horse (no comment required). Moore also has terrific chemistry with Minnelli, who certainly hasn't been better since. Minnelli's character's major flaw is that you never really get the minute she stops liking Arthur for his money and starts loving the man. I don't blame her for that.

The first two thirds of the movie, though, completely belong to John Gielgud. One of the three greatest Shakespearean actors of his generation and this is what most filmgoers remember him for. Playing a butler! And yet the amazement of his performance is that you never feel that he's slumming, even when he's sitting in bed wearing a cowboy hat. Beyond just being the moral center of the film, nobody does better service to Gordon's dialogue. Gielgud's Hobson may be quick to tell people off, but you never doubt he cares.

As I said earlier, the film doesn't really make it all the way to the end. It's not a spoiler to observe that the ending feels arbitrary and unmotivated. You would also be correct in wondering if this film's depiction of alcoholics is troublingly frivolous, even for a light comedy. But honestly, see how long you're troubled for. I suspect it won't last through Arthur's first dinner date with hooker in stretch pants.

This is a 7.5/10, I think. And I'll alert the media.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed