Hitchhiking to Nirvana

Does a Cactus Flower by any other name still smell...?

I know it's been a while since I've posted a blog, and my apologies to my follower. It's not that I haven't had material lately (Hi, Charlie Sheen) but, to be honest, I just haven't felt sufficient motivation to delve into the inner depths of my psychic pool.

And then, today, I was driving up La Cienega Blvd and found my muse.

As I sat at the traffic light, I glanced up to one of the ubiquitous billboards that pepper the Hollywood Hills like so many pimples on a high school cheerleader, and I saw it looming above me: the towering advertisement for the Russell Brand remake of the 1981 classic, Arthur. As a feeling began to overtake me that can best be described as "vomity" (yes, I did co-author a book), my mind began to reel with the plague of remakes that has polluted the cineplexes of the world these past few years. The most recent offender that caught my attention was the Adam Sandler opus, Just Go With It. Considering that an Adam Sandler film rarely requires substantive reflection, you can be forgiven for not knowing that the pithily titled comedy is actually a remake of the 1969 comedy, Cactus Flower, which starred Walter Matthau and Ingrid Bergman. Now, here's the thing: although it starred two of the greatest screen personalities of their generations, Cactus Flower is not a great movie. Or even a good one. The fact that the film is primarily known today as Goldie Hawn's Oscar-winning film debut should tell you something right there. So, why in the world would Hollywood go back to the same shallow well?

Remakes have been around almost as long as movies themselves (some historians date the first to 1904 - a remake of The Great Train Robbery, the first narrative film which had been filmed the year before). Movie-making is a "crap-shoot", and one of the few ways to hedge the bet of the box office is to utilize to a proven commodity. Unfortunately, what constitutes a good business decision doesn't always guarantee a good artistic one, and too often the term "crap-shoot" takes on a literal meaning.

This is not, by any means, always the case. Two of the greatest film comedies of all time, The Awful Truth (1937) and His Girl Friday (1940), were remakes of previously filmed material. In both cases, however, they were more "re-imaginings" than "re-makes"; they took very strong source material and re-interpreted it. In this spirit, Cactus Flower is actually a very good candidate for remaking. Adapted from a French comedy by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Abe Burrows, the resulting play not only featured Lauren Bacall in her Broadway debut, it was a smash hit that ran 1,234 performances (although the current Broadway revival is not faring nearly as well). It was, however, very much a reflection of its era (the "swinging 60s"), and by the time the movie version was released in 1969, it already seemed dated. Plus, the miscasting of Bergman in the Bacall role didn't help matters. So, all these factors would make it seem a good candidate for a second chance in a contemporary film re-imagining. Just Go With It, unfortunately, is just not that film.

Which brings us back to my muse: the remake of Arthur, a classic film which meets NONE of the criteria listed above. The original Arthur was that rarest of Hollywood occurrences: the result of a magical amalgamation of perfect cast, perfect script, and perfect director all meeting in the perfect era and creating...well...perfection. Even its theme song, the lilting The Best That You Can Do, is perfectly wedded to the film. But in case you still are not convinced, I would rest my case against a remake in four little words: Dudley Moore and John Gielgud. (OK, that's five little words).

In short, Arthur is Dudley Moore and John Gielgud. The relationship between these two men is the heart and soul of the film; its true romantic core. This does not in any way slight the contributions of Steve Gordon (directing his own wonderfully witty screenplay), the hysterical Jill Eikenberg, or most of all, Liza Minnelli --who shines in a refreshingly restrained and understated performance. But even Minnelli admitted that she was little more than a prop in the love story of the billionaire playboy and his devoted valet. The shared history that is communicated through the slightest droop of an eyelid (Gielgud), turn of a smile (Moore), or glint in an eye (both) is recognizably human, hysterically funny and profoundly moving. So much so, that the emotional climax of the film is NOT the anticipated wedding of Moore and Minnelli, but the death of Gielgud and the resulting effect on Moore--the chemistry between the two men is that powerful. Anyone who doubts this assertion should refer to the dismal 1988 sequel, Arthur 2: On the Rocks, for verification.

It may seem as if I am taking this all a bit too personally, and perhaps this is true. However, I believe that film can be (and should be) an intensely personal experience. For me, Arthur was one of a triumvirate of films that formed a tight bond between myself and my college friends during the first frightening weeks of freshman year. It was through Arthur (What's Up, Doc? (1972) and High Anxiety (1977) were the other two) that a band of lonely misfits found a common bond, and through this bond found each other... and eventually themselves. In an awkward moment of adolescent angst, all it took was one of us to utter: "Usually, one must go to a bowling alley to meet a woman of your stature", or "Don't you hate Perry's wife?", to shift the mood, and a stranger slowly became a friend. This is one of the true wonders of film, isn't it? It can not only take a room full of strangers and, in a few hours, make them a family, it can reach beyond - and make these strangers recognize themselves in each other. That's what Arthur did for me.

So, there, I guess I am not feeling too "vomity" anymore. I wish you luck in your endeavor, Mr. Brand and company. I even wish you a huge opening weekend. Perhaps it will prompt the brain trusts who came up with the idea of this remake to go all the way and put you in a remake of Arthur 2. That should fix you.

For me, I am content because I know that you will never touch the magic that I felt the first time I got caught between the Moon and New York City.