The remake of “Arthur:” “Much Taller, Still Plastered”
In this era of Hollywood’s obsession with remakes, it was inevitable that they would eventually hit on a redo of the 1980s comedy hit Arthur. For those who don’t remember the movie, here is a plot summary from IMDB:
Arthur is a happy drunk with no pretensions at any ambition. He is also the heir to a vast fortune which he is told will only be his if he marries Susan. He does not love Susan, but she will make something of him the family expects. Arthur proposes but then meets a girl with no money who he could easily fall in love with.
A classic high-concept with Dudley Moore as Arthur and Sir John Gielgud as the millionaire’s butler and the story’s sharp-tongued Mentor figure.
This time around, Arthur is being played by
Russell Brand, while Gielgud’s role is taken by Helen Mirren. In this NYT’s article, we get a glimpse of the project’s screenwriting process:
But if the fragile charms of “Arthur,” three decades later, feel hard to recapture, the team behind the remake, due for release next year, has come up with several shrewd twists, including changing Hobson’s gender and profession (from butler to nanny) and retailoring the title role to suit the lanky renegade swagger of Mr. Brand — who, unlike his predecessor, will never be called “pixie-ish” or “elfin.” Even so, certain elements remain the same: Arthur is still very rich and very drunk; and a lush, gilded version of New York City serves as his personal playpen.
To add to the degree of difficulty, the movie’s creators are to some extent making it up as they go along. The “Arthur” script has gone through an unusual circular rewriting process: It was drafted by Peter Baynham, who won an Academy Award nomination for his work on the similarly rewritten-on-the-fly “Borat.” Mr. Baynham’s script then went to another writer, Jared Stern, for a structural polish. Last year Jason Winer, a compact 37-year-old who served as the primary director for the first season of ABC’s acclaimed “Modern Family,” signed on to make his feature directorial debut and rerouted the script to seven of his colleagues in the “Modern Family” writing room for a line-by-line dialogue tuneup.
But in a movie-business rarity the script was then returned to the hands of Mr. Baynham, who arrives on the set every day ready to rewrite. “Whatever makes the film better,” he said cheerfully, as he perched in a chair on 42nd Street one morning, scribbling new lines on the backs of script pages. “You’d be crazy, as a writer, to have someone like Russell and not take the opportunity to revise and improve on the spot, given his improvisational skills.”
Mr. Baynham’s seat is next to Mr. Winer’s, and their collaboration is close and constant. “I want input,” said Mr. Winer, who earned an Emmy nomination for the “Modern Family” pilot. “When you direct TV, everybody feels completely free to tell you what you should do differently, and I welcome that.”
First writer cracked the story. Second writer handled structure. Next group of writers worked on dialogue and scenes. Then back to the original writer to sit on the set and dash off additional lines of dialogue for the actors to improvise with.
The article is also notable because it gets into the unique challenge facing filmmakers who are working with a movie originally produced in another era and trying to make it mesh per modern sensibilities:
The original “Arthur” — the working title was “The Richest Man in the World” — opened six months after the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan and the television premiere of “Dynasty.” The poster featured Moore hoisting a cocktail while lounging in a preposterously luxe bubble bath under the slogan “Don’t you wish you were Arthur?”
In many ways the film was the first true Reagan-era comedy, the harbinger of a more-is-more era in movie romance that stretched all the way to 1990’s “Pretty Woman.” The pleasures of materialism were displayed as ostentatiously as possible, and the answer to choosing immense riches or true love was, “I’ll take both, please.”
The first film originally ended with Arthur giving up a nine-figure inheritance in exchange for wedded bliss. “We tested it, and it was clear the audience would have had our heads,” recalled Larry Brezner, that film’s presenting producer. A new ending was quickly shot in which Arthur lived not only happily but also wealthily ever after.
“The idea,” Mr. Brezner said, “was: Give Arthur the money, bring up the music loud and get the audience the hell out of the theater happy, before they have time to think about it. The trick to an irrational ending is speed.”
The movie is, after all, as screenwriter Baynham notes, “a fairy tale,” an obvious choice for the ol’ Hollywood “give ’em what they expect, then give ’em what they want” ending.
This is one remake that doesn’t give me heartburn. While I liked Arthur, I thought it was a pretty routine movie, apart from Gielgud’s performance which was absolutely brilliant. Those are the kind of remakes I like: when the original movie had a great concept, but wasn’t terribly well done, so there’s room for a new interpretation and hopefully a better one.
How about you? Any interest in the new Arthur?
Comment Archive