I’m not exactly sure why, but Arthur is one of my parent’s favorite films. They loved Dudley Moore in the role of a lovable alcoholic with a giant inheritance who just can’t seem to get his life together even with an ultimatum from his successful, overbearing father (specifically, to marry someone he doesn’t love). All manner of hijinks and true love arise, but the heart and soul of the film comes from Arthur himself – no matter how many people and things he buys into his life, they only bring sadness unless affixed with real, selfless love.
But that was the 1980s, folks! We live in more cynical times, and so the story must change to fit those times. Enter Russell Brand as our Arthur Bach, and I would consider Brand surprisingly apt for the role. To wit: Brand was a drug addict and alcoholic himself, and he tends (in film, anyway) to play characters struggling with substance abuse in nearly every film in I remember him. Heck, even Get Him to the Greek was, more often than not, about how substance abuse and poor decisionmaking from a position of unlimited wealth makes you into a selfish, awful person with no friends and no real connections to life. Just a taste of of that life is, really, enough for me:
I cannot accurately convey to you the efficiency of heroin in neutralising pain. It transforms a tight, white fist into a gentle, brown wave. From my first inhalation 15 years ago, it fumigated my private hell and lay me down in its hazy pastures and a bathroom floor in Hackney embraced me like a womb.
This shadow is darkly cast on the retina of my soul and whenever I am dislodged from comfort my focus falls there…The mentality and behaviour of drug addicts and alcoholics is wholly irrational until you understand that they are completely powerless over their addiction and unless they have structured help they have no hope.
In Arthur, though, it does give our protagonist a more measured motivation (as movies are wont to provide) by saying that his dead father of 44 died by being healthy, so why bother taking care of yourself? That fits with the general theme of Arthur in general: people really only want to know him for his money, or they don’t care much for his existence unless he does what they want (in this case, Arthur’s mother). In other words, a PG-13 comedy tries to convey a sad, lonely existence covered by humor and mostly succeeds.
It works because Russell Brand has first hand experience, and the writing’s really sharp. I was surprised to find myself laughing so much in the first ten minutes, and not just from shock. He makes for a pretty entertaining screen presence, although I know many people find him and his Brand (har har) of Farelly-style wit distasteful, but I have no such qualms in indulging. I guess I’m just a simple man at heart who can laugh at a grown dude in a Batmobile who runs into the Charging Bull, then proceeding to make a funny comment about said bull’s testicles. Is it trying too hard? Maybe?
But, this movie can’t be all laughs; our protagonist is an alcholic, after all, and so the funny hijinks eventually become sad displays of a person with too much free time who hasn’t learned much of anything. Love, of course, can solve this problem, since it often requires someone believing in you and what you can become. I honestly haven’t seen Greta Gerwig in a single movie, other than hearing positive feedback on the pretentious-looking Frances Ha, but she nails the right amount of childlike innocence and faith in the world which is just right for this character. She’s also good looking, but not TOO good looking, which turns necessary when you’re trying to relate to a character. And, as per millenials, she’s struggling to survive and wants to write a children’s book, which sounds like a lot of people I know (I’m being somewhat facetious here, but I think you understand what I mean)!
This 2011 version of Arthur also replaces the male butler (who serves Arthur fastidiously and is pretty much the only person who cares for him) with a female nanny, played by Helen Mirren. Am I ever disappointed by Helen Mirren? Not really, and she plays off Brand just like you expect: with quiet, dignified British disdain for him because he just won’t get out of his rut. Heck, she’s responsible for pushing this past comedy territory into a quiet drama for a least a few moments, enough impact to change the story substantially. Unfortunately, the less said about Jennifer Garner (I am struggling to think of a role I liked her playing), the better, and what a giant waste of Nick Nolte, who may as well not even be in the movie except for a big name on the poster.
Of course, it’s really a romantic comedy with some nice little nuances to it, so it ends like you’d expect. Russell Brand can only go so far with understanding the real pain of addiction, so the movie tells us “he got over it”, but you never really get over it. Is a fairy-tale ending a bad thing? No, not necessarily. The problem, then, is that Arthur turns addiction into a bit of a personality quirk, to which we think about alcohol and drug abuse with a bit of a wink and a nod. Would I recommend it? Yeah, sure. I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, and got exactly what I expected. The original Arthur fit much in the same vein, a feel-good movie about addiction. Just don’t go into it expecting a realistic resolution, more an escape from reality for approximately an hour and a half.
Without these fellowships I would take drugs. Because, even now, the condition persists. Drugs and alcohol are not my problem, reality is my problem, drugs and alcohol are my solution.
