The 1981 comedy “Arthur” remains essential viewing even if it doesn’t follow modern PC rules.
Dudley Moore’s drunken playboy is forever etched in comedy lore, from his staccato laughter to his transformation into adulthood when his loyal butler (Sir John Gielgud) falls ill. But the mind behind the movie, Steve Gordon, never got the chance to relish his film’s legacy.
Gordon, who cut his teeth writing for quality TV shows like “Barney Miller” and “The Practice,” died of a heart attack shortly after “Arthur” hit theaters.
It’s a tragedy for film fans given Gordon’s promise. Watch “Arthur” again and marvel at the meticulously crafted dialogue and direction. It should be required viewing for today’s crop of young comic directors.
The new “Arthur” starring Russell Brand as a sadly sober man child, will have a devil of a time measuring up to the original. So let’s raise a toast to Gordon’s unique comic vision and, as Arthur himself would say, “Isn’t this fun? Isn’t fun the best thing to have?”
(Photo art: Dudley Moore plays a boozy playboy searching for love in “Arthur,” a classic comedy from the ’80s)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I loved the original Athur, but I have to say I find the trailers for the new one quite promising. Yes, the new Arthur’s antics are less alcohol-driven, but he seems to be pulling off the same child-life quality without having to be drunk to do it.
Putting the sexy Jennifer Garner in as Susan is inspired and who doesn’t love Helen Mirren.
Plus there’s no Liza Minnelli which is a plus.
Helen Mirren is great, (would have preferred a father figure), but I don’t like anything about the dynamic of this reboot. Brand doesn’t have the child like innocence, he just comes off as spoiled brat. I’m not a big Liza fan, but her odd quirkiness was a major factor in the original. Jennifer Garner is a little too “stick up the bum” for this role. I’d love to be proven wrong, just don’t think I will be.
Aside from John Gielgud’s withering putdowns, I never cared much for “Arthur”. I like Dudley Moore in other movies, but his character in this one annoyed me no end.
Just re-watched Arthur last night and loved it … the new “Arthur” looks awful. I dig Brand, but the jokes are weak and you barely see the ‘real’ love interest in question.
Swapping in Helen Mirren is just smart, though.
I’ve never been a Liza fan, but she’s excellent in “Arthur.” She reminded me of Anne Hathaway, oddly enough.
Brand comes off as the same rich English twat that he always has even when he was poor and drugged out. People genuinely liked Dudley Moore and had so for years, Brand doesnt have that type of following.
Well, if the existence of the “Straight Edge” subculture is any indication, you can definitely be a vapid, self-indulgent twit without alcohol being involved. Don’t know if these writers have the chops to make the requisite changes (doubt it), but it can be done.
That said, though, seriously, why remake this film? I mean, sure, the basic plot’s probably as old as the existence of rich, self-indulgent idiots (or in other words, probably significantly older than civilization), and there’s no reason not to re-use it—but why the name?
Is it just that thing about marketers calling all the shots in modern Hollywood?
Well, they are remaking it for two reasons. One, Hollywood is lazy – why do something original when you can just remake something – and, two, it’s really a good story that, if properly done, would engage a generation (or two) who never saw the original.
True Grit comes to mind.