A few months ago I saw the recent “Arthur” remake in the movie theater – the one with Russell Brand as the title character. Only recently was I able to watch the original, with Dudley Moore, on DVD – it was heavily backlogged on Netflix. I’m not the only one who seems to do this. So in any case, a comparison between the two is appropriate.
Story. Arthur is a 30-something playboy with absolutely no responsibility. His family has finally lost patience with him and insists that he marry a rich girl from another wealthy family, or they will cut off his inheritance – all $75 million. With no job skills or clue how to look after himself, this should act as an incentive for him to get with the program. But Arthur finds a simple girl he likes much more than his intended fiancé, and threatens to marry her instead. The rest of the film is simply the resolution of this…issue.
Original. Dudley Moore played Arthur. I never liked his “I’m sloshed!! I’m in NY! I have an English accent and I don’t know why!” shtick. Of course, this was the whole point, but he barely got likeable by the end of the film. John Gielgud played his butler, Hobson (“shall I wipe your butt for you?” he asks out of earshot); Jill Eikenberry plays his intended (not very attractive at all); and Liza Minelli, always with a spectacularly unflattering short haircut, was actually fairly pretty and likeable as the rogue-ish simple girl (father played by Morty Seinfeld actor) who wins Arthur’s heart.
Remake. This time around it’s Russell Brand as Arthur, Hobson has ovaries instead of testicles (Helen Mirren), the intended bride is MUCH hotter (Jennifer Garner – actually not that bad here), and the Liza replacement is fairly dull and oddball Greta Gerwig, snatching a role which should have gone to Zooey Deschanel. She’s actually quite dull compared to Garner, whereas Minelli had easily topped Eikenberry.
Between the two, I MUCH preferred Russell Brand. He was more an overgrown man-child than an annoying lush. Moore’s character hits into this problem I have with the Hollywood depiction of boozers: if you’re drunk on wine, champagne, fancy drinks with paper umbrellas in them, or martinis (e.g. Hawkeye Pierce) that makes you 100x more sophisticated and likeable than the brute who drinks beer and whiskey, right? WRONG. Brand brought something to the role beyond simply “watch me fall over drunk and bring a prostitute to the restaurant”. His irresponsibility (e.g. latemodel Batmobile) was enjoyable and entertaining in its own right, not merely as a contrast to his later sobering and mann-ing up.
What’s odder about this is that before this movie, I really did NOT like Brand. The only role I had seen him in was “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, in which he played Aldous Snow, the doofus rock star who the title character elopes with. Since then I’ve read his book on West Ham FC, Irons in the Fire (no mention, whatsoever, of Steve Harris and Iron Maiden – what’s the deal with that?) but have only scanned through his autobiography. Apparently he was a heroin addict but overcame his addiction. This cuts both ways: he was a bonehead for getting hooked in the first place, but deserves credit for kicking the habit without OD’ing. So far as I can tell, however, this “man-child” role is about as far removed from the real Russell Brand as Charlie Harper is from Charlie Sheen – except that Sheen has yet to fall in front of a Paris Metro train. Anyhow, my preference for Brand in this role is for the simple fact that he made the character endearing even in the early phase of the story, whereas Moore was simply annoying.
As for the rest, I have a slight preference for Mirren: she brought a motherly quality to the role that Gielgud could not. He was more like Benson from “Benson” – mostly (though not only) a nasty smart-ass. Liza was better than Greta, Jennifer was better than Jill.
No comments:
Post a Comment