A redemptive tale

HOLY WEEK would hardly seem the time to urge you to go see a movie about an unmitigated drunk whose only saving grace is that he stands to inherit billions from his humorless mother.

But “Arthur” is a morality tale if ever there was one, and the title character’s redemption is as good an Easter tale as any we might see in the dead days of TV on Holy Week.

British comic Russell Brand plays Arthur Bach, heir to the Bach Worldwide fortune, who bids for his mother’s attention with hi-jinks and drunken binges which may have been cute and sweet when he was a young man but are quickly fading into pathetic exhibitions since he is long past adulthood.

His only saving grace is his nanny Hobson, played with remarkable equanimity by Dame Helen Mirren, who mops up after his messes and tries to guard against his exploitation by the great number of hookers, wastrels and con men that he manages to pick up during his more outrageous moments.

The movie is actually a re-make of the movie of the same name that was a mild hit when it came out in 1981. It starred then-rising British comic Dudley Moore and the still-young and quirky Liza Minnelli. The original “Arthur” even managed to snag two Academy awards, for Best Supporting Actor for Sir John Gielgud who played against type as Hobson; and Best Original Song for the still hummable “Arthur’s theme” by Christopher Cross.

One reviewer comparing the two films sums up the comparison thus: “While the original is hilarious and sweet, the new one is leaden and charmless.” Obviously, I beg to disagree, and here’s why.

* * *

FIRST OFF, with Brand in the title role, I can at least make out what he’s saying, even if, as one child actor commented: “You talk like Harry Potter!” I don’t know if it was Moore’s heavy Cockney accent, or the drunken drawl he was attempting, but I remember watching the original trying to decipher what Arthur was saying and largely failing.

Now, getting what Brand is talking about is no small feat, since he speaks in a rapid-fire manner sprinkled with lots of off-the-cuff asides and witticisms that I suspect were not in the script but were simply left there to preserve the acting “moment.”

Brand has made a name for himself playing addled, drug-addicted rock stars, a reputation he cemented by marrying pop star Katy Perry. But in a recent appearance on the “Today” show, he proved to be so ferociously naughty and sexy he even earned a light-hearted slap on the wrist from Meredith Viera. I became an instant fan.

Fans will get much more than they bargained for in “Arthur,” with Brand in practically every scene and in all manner of dress and undress. The star’s wacky and wacko persona is set off wonderfully by Mirren’s starched formality. She manages to keep her dignity despite being forced to play foil to her mad and rakish ward, and being made to wear a Darth Vader helmet and speak her signature lines with a Darth Vader voice.

* * *

I REMEMBER the original “Arthur” mainly for Minnelli’s cutesy character. My daughter could hardly believe that she played Arthur’s love interest in the original, and I felt with a pang that today’s generation will never know the gamine Minnelli, who captured hearts and awards with her portrayals of underdog dames with unconquerable spirits, and instead only knows her as a parody of her diva self.

New face Greta Gerwig as Naomi, the kooky unlicensed tour guide and would-be children’s book writer with whom Arthur falls madly in love, plays it admirably cool and detached. Her standoffish take is kind of a relief from Brand’s unrelenting manic portrayal, but she hardly endears herself to movie goers.

Jennifer Garner plays Susan, whom Arthur’s mother has chosen as her son’s bride because her presence in the family will reassure investors that the company will fall into mature and capable hands. First off, it’s a wonder that Garner has chosen to play a support role since she already enjoys A-list status. And second, the role she accepted doesn’t exactly cast her in a good light, since she’s written up as a grasping, vicious and pretentious social climber who will literally stop at nothing to ensure her rise through the social and financial ladder.

* * *

THE ORIGINAL was the first and last film of Steve Gordon, its writer and director, and so it’s impossible to say if he feels the sequel or homage does his movie justice.

Maybe it would be fair to say that the two movies express the spirit of the times they were filmed. True to the excessive 1980s, the old “Arthur” celebrated excess, epitomized by Arthur’s ways and his refusal to contemplate a life without money, even as he tries to reconcile this with his love for the poor saleswoman he has fallen for.

True to recessionary 2011, Arthur is taken to task both for his material excesses as for his carelessness. This time around, wasting a lot of money and engaging in drunken hi-jinks are no longer considered endearing. So the re-make’s script calls for some repentance and atonement from the billionaire sot. In other words, even when “caught between the moon and New York City,” Arthur has to grow up.

Maybe that’s why the reviewer thought the new “Arthur” is charmless. This movie ends not on a romantic, devil-may-care note, but with a reminder that even kind-hearted but inept billionaires have to deal with adulthood at some time in their lives.

Technically, Arthur may not have met his comeuppance—he gets to both keep his wealth and his girl—but he also loses his magic. And one lesson here is that the good times may not always last, but coming down to earth has rewards of its own.