User Reviews

Unlike other reviewers I haven't read the book and can't comment on its success as an adaptation.

The story is very, VERY basic. A mysterious young man, Bartleby (John McEnery) applies successfully for the position of audit clerk at a small accountancy firm in London.

At first he works well but doesn't socialise at all with any of his colleagues. Things start to slip when the Accountant (the fabulous Paul Scofield) asks him to do a task and Bartleby replies 'I would prefer not to.' This becomes Bartleby's response to every request from now on and the Accountant becomes increasingly exasperated with his new employee. Instead of dismissing him, the well-meaning accountant shares Bartleby's work amongst his colleagues and hopes to get to the bottom of the problem.

In allowing him to stay, the Accountant sees Bartleby's behaviour become more bizarre as he takes up residence in the office.

Even after dismissing Bartleby, the Accountant is unable to get rid of him and he re-locates the firm to a new office in the hope of getting away from this curious young man.

If The Accountant felt he would have heard the last of Bartleby by this stage, he is sadly mistaken.

A story like this could result in an extremely dull film but the inventive direction from Anthony Friedman (why hasn't he done any other films?) and Scofield's superb performance prevent this from happening.

Scofield is one of the more enigmatic figures in cinema history. Primarily a stage actor, and a highly distinguished one, he has made relatively few feature films, less than 20 in fact.

However his limited filmography has not stopped him from winning an impressive array of screen awards including the Best Actor Oscar and three BAFTA's.

It is very typical of Scofield that, having already won the Oscar, he turned down the Robert Mitchum role in Ryan's Daughter (a part he was better suited for than Mitchum) and opted to do a tiny little film like Bartleby.

Although McEnery is very good in the film, he has fairly little to do and it is Scofield who carries the picture. His portrayal of a kindly yet increasingly bemused employer is excellent and the delivery of his lines e.g.

'You're living here; you're ACTUALLY living in my office!' is superb and adds the humour needed to make this film succeed.

I can't imagine this film getting any kind of publicity when it was first shown, no premiere at Leicester Square and subsequent nationwide release. In many ways it resembles the American Film Theatre productions of the 1970's but with a little more cinematic flair.

Its difficult to see how this film could be expected to turn a profit and although there have been 3 subsequent film adaptations of Melville's story, I doubt very much that movies of this style and small ambition would be given the go-ahead nowadays.

But I'm glad that Bartleby was made and that it is now available on DVD (but not yet in the UK), it's an amusing little curio that deserves to be better known.

A dry and deadpan tragicomedy of nihilism based on a novella by Herman Meville. BARTLEBY demonstrates what happens when, "I would prefer not to", becomes the answer to every action and reaction. A similar motif is also found in the more profound film, VAGABOND, by Agnes Varda. These works seem to critique the capitalist economic model without proposing the usual socialist reply, but offer up something more akin to complete non- acceptance. Although Anthony Friedman, director of BARTLEBY, has chosen a significantly different storyline from that of Melville (the film is set in late 1960's London), the tale does encapsulate his theme of the dehumanization of the modern workplace and presents a whimsical, yet unwise response.

There have been a few un-complimentary reviews for this limited but fine, offbeat film. Most tend to come from book readers who often, unfairly, compare a 'Screenplay' with a 'Novel' (or in this case a Novella) expecting it will be the same as the book. It's rarely possible to transfer a book directly to the screen (although I admit it's good when it happens)

I applaud any film makers who take on subject matter as challenging as the great Herman Melville's, near prophetic story, of "Bartelby the Scriverner". On one level this story can be seen as simple, on another, a character study of immense depth. I've only had the opportunity to see this work once, many years ago. It still haunts me as if it were just weeks ago. It's most unfortunate this film is rarely screened.

From this first time teaming of independent feature film makers, Producer: Rodney Carr-Smith (akf: 'Lolly Madonna War' '73) and Director: Anthony Friedman (ex TV film editor:'The Fugitive') comes this thoughtful adaptation of Melville's study of personal disintegration and loss of identity.

While this movie may have been better as an hour long TV show, these two filmmakers also co-wrote the screenplay, choosing to update the era from the 1800's to a 1970's workplace. This decision I felt offered benefits...it brought the story closer to that interaction destroyer, the Computer - along with the coldness of the modern office cubicle. It also didn't bother me that they transposed the original Wall Street setting to London. Such decisions would obviously have been made for several valid reasons, among them, budget and the difficulty of getting such a non-commercial project off the ground.

Performers don't come much better than Oscar winner Paul Scofield ('The Train' 65, 'Man for all Seasons' 66) His portrayal of Bartelby's sympathetic employer is superb. As much as he tries to help Bartelby, he is challenged to the utmost of emotional distraction. Scofield seems to have been drawn to this role, as he's known for having passed up parts in bigger productions. John McEnery's Bartelby is also well measured and convincing.

The Cinematography is the work of Ian Wilson ~ who gave such a good look to the Award winning small budget film: "The Crying Game". He then went on to give us the Eye Poppingly beautiful "Emma" ~ Here, he and Director Friedman offer the viewer a well designed dose of claustrophobic involvement. The Art Direction of Simon Holland also adds to the feeling of personal separation. Holland, later helped create high class atmospherics for such striking films as "Greystoke" in '84 and "The Emerald Forest" '85. The Music of Roger Webb, while sparse, adds small elements of excitement where possible.

I think many will have felt a little like Bartelby at some stage in life, and been very glad to rise above it. The original writing of Melville --was he a visionary or just highly tuned to the human condition?-- has been given a neat treatment in this film version. And while the Director Anthony Friedman won a 'Special Mention Award' for Bartelby at the San Sebastian International Film Festival, his film won't please everyone...but many could still find it compelling. KenR.

I love Bartleby and this is the reason to see this adaptation of the gem by Melville with serious simpaty.

Because it is not easy to create a proper portrait of the main character and the reasonable solution is only to use a large dose of subjectivity, proposing only your Bartleby. In this case, the result is just a meritous good point, John McEnery suggesting a state not so eccentric of a man refuged under the indifference veil, with, maybe, too clear perspective about life.

The compensation - the accountant , proposed by Paul Scofield. And the clever atmosphere of 1970 ' s.

In short, a seductive adaptation. And a fair portrait of a state of soul.

A somewhat sad and unusual film. John McEnery is marvelous as Bartleby, you cannot help feeling sorry for him even though he does not want to be helped in any way. Paul Scofield is also perefectly cast as the sympathetic boss.

I LOVE Bartleby. This 1970 original is marvellous. Based on Herman Melville's classic novella, it's a work of art. A cold delicate hug of a film. It's slow meandering shots, it's wistful jazz infused score. In the 20 years since I first saw it, I've never seen anything else quite like it. Every frame is a beautiful portrait of London character and mundanity. An ode to 60s design culture, geometric modernity. In the centre of all this is Bartleby (John McEnery), a likeable yet unusual young man looking for work, purpose, meaning. He's painfully polite and good natured, but how shall we say, minimal with his communication skills. Despite this, he gets a job as an audit clerk in a drab office run by the friendly but stuffy Paul Scofield. This first interview between the two is typically awkward, but the boss has no idea what he's let himself in for. Bartleby is like no other employee he's ever had. Certainly nothing like office prankster Robin Askwith, the cheeky cocky chappy famed for his seaside titillation or Tucker (Colin Jeavons) who gives poor Bartleby such a hard time. They don't understand him you see. He has his way of doing things... and not doing things. The first indications of this coming when he's asked to bring some files and responds with the charming "I would rather not, just now", leaving his slightly dumbfounded boss unsure how to deal with him. They think he's being insubordinate, lazy even, "A bit strange". He's not though, Bartleby is focused, inquisitive, in tune with his world, his surroundings, his choices. Despite his boss's patience. Bartleby's "I'd prefer not to" refrain continues to confound his co-workers. He's civil, dignified, utterly magnetic to watch. I know it doesn't sound like it would be, it sounds totally nuts, but there's something completely arresting about it. It's partly down to the gorgeous cinematography of London's concrete vistas, partly the effortlessly cool score that accompanies these interludes to the office scenes. Mostly though it's Bartleby, McEnery is simply perfect with his unassuming poise. The tasks that Bartleby politely refuses to complete increase and his boss discovers that now not only is his employee refusing to work, he's also living in the office. There's no explanation for his behaviour, certainly none offered and the boss' patience eventually runs out, but sacking him isn't really going to work. Fair play to the boss (he really does deserve a name, such is Scofield's lovely performance) he does everything he can to help, but at the end of his tether moves offices, leaving Bartleby completely unanchored and headed only he knows where. It's an odd but captivating study of will, of social standing, of the modern workplace and our reliance on its structures. It's brilliant. Much to my horror and admittedly some intrigue, the story was revisited again in 2001. Now I'm not gonna dig in too deep again, but it's worth noting that where the 1970 film is very much based more loosely on the book, this sticks a little closer. I'm not sure that makes it any better as a film though. It has a very distinct style, a bold colour palate and an almost Lynchian tone in its simplicity... the entire cast is odd. What's most notable of course, is Bartleby, played by none other Crispin Glover. I remember seeing this on release and was really taken by Glover. He's an unusual guy himself, take a look at his Letterman interviews and did you know he release an album? It's on Spotify, have a listen. Anyway he's great here and arguably does more than McEnery in the original. He's not as haunting though. It's funnier, like a Canadian TV skit show in the early 90s. This though for me distracts from Bartleby and his preferring not to. It's almost slapstick in places. It's still worth a watch, but doesn't hold a candle to its predecessor.

Other than watching Paul Scofield in one of his rare film performances there is little to justify spending the brief time necessary to watch this film. It is difficult to understand what persuaded the producers to make this film.

Bartleby is clearly on the autistic spectrum, but was not recognized as such owing to the prevailing attitudes of the time (1970). What should have been a barely watchable curiosity piece is elevated to something more engaging by the fine acting and evocative locations. After a single viewing, I already cherish this film and as a "cult" movie it is a worthy addition to that genre.

The problem with Bartleby is not Paul Scofield or John McEnery, both of whom are fine actors. The problem is the story itself, which cannot really be updated to the present day, regardless of whether that present day be 1970 or 2001. Bartleby is a story written in the 1800s, about the 1800s, and it simply doesn't work in the present day.

For example, there is the office in which Bartleby works. He works for a lawyer in a cold and dark office that seems more akin to that of Ebenezer Scrooge than to any bright, airy, modern-day office building. Indeed, the only window in Bartleby's office has no view because it looks out onto an airshaft.

Then there is the nature of Bartleby's occupation. He is not, as in this version, an accountant. Indeed, his function is nowhere near so creative as that. He is, in point of fact, a scrivener in a law office. And exactly what is it that a scrivener does? He copies law documents. Bartleby is, in point of fact, nothing more than a human Xerox Machine. Bear in mind that, in the 19th century, there were no such things as word processors, Xerox Machines, carbon paper or even typewriters. A lawyer who needed to produce duplicate copies of legal documents employed scriveners to produce those copies word for word, by hand, with pen and paper. It is impossible to imagine any occupation as stupefyingly dull as that.

By the same token, it is also impossible to imagine anyone today performing any occupation even remotely comparable to that of a 19th century scrivener. It simply doesn't, and could't, exist today. And that is precisely the point. The world of Bartleby is as different from the world of a modern office worker as the world inhabited by the whalers in Moby Dick would be from that on board a modern-day whale-catching ship. Both have changed so much since the 19th century as to be as alien as the surface of another planet.

An odd but interesting updating of Melville short story that has a superb cast. Colin Jeavons (Inspector Lestrade to Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes) does his best Tom Courtenay impression. Thorley Walters is his typically distracted self (though he hasn't much to do). Paul Scofield has one of the greatest challenges of his career: playing an ordinary employer, and he rises to the challenge with a superb performance.

The weak link is John McEnery. A fine actor, he was a stand-out as Kerensky in "Nicholas and Alexandra" (and perhaps the only actor who wasn't swamped by the affair) and his Mercutio in "Romeo and Juliet" was more interesting than either Romeo or Juliet. But his Bartleby is too soft-spoken. I don't read Melville's Bartleby as being so apologetic when he says "I prefer not to." McEnery seems to want to strip any sort of emoting at all from his performance -- and that he comes so close proves that he is a fine actor -- and he comes off as merely bland, and Scofield acts him off the screen.

Gratuitous scenes of '60s folk on the street PERHAPS try to tie Bartleby in with the spirit of revolt, in his own way. But it that's what they meant, it doesn't seep through. The growing weirdness and sadness of Bartleby is diluted (for instance, by putting the dead letter office gag up front). McEnery's Bartleby is sad throughout and there's no explanation offered.

Though it doesn't quite capture the essence of Melville, it's worth watching for Scofield alone.

I read Herman Melville's story long ago, and this is a modernization of it transferred to modern England, which naturally is a most controversial thing to do. The question is whether it is successful or not. The acting is superb, Paul Scofield has always been reliable, and John McEnery as the very timid clerk who simply can't co-operate because of his burden of complexes, makes a very credible and convincing impression, in all his hopeless disorientation in reality. He is lost in reality like a Kafka figure and can't find his way out, no matter how hard Paul Scofield as his benevolent employer tries to help him. It is a hopeless story of a hopeless case with only one possible kind of end, and it is as far from edifying as any story could be. Still it's nobody's fault. Nobody simply can't help someone who can't even help himself. What Herman Melville meant with his story can be discussed forever without any conclusion ever to be reached, since there simply are no answers, since the predicament is all tied up in a dead end. The film is grey and bleak, there is no cheer anywhere, although you might in the beginning find the situation laughably sabsurd, as Paul Scofield awkwardly learns he is dealing with a black hole of a hopeless case. Herman Melville wrote several stories of a very morbid nature, like as if he enjoyed documenting the destructive sides and elements of man, his great failure "Pierre" is perhaps the best example, and you must wonder why he still is worth reading and making films of.

I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.

A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt "Bartleby, The Scrivener" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.

This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.