by Pat Perry
Arthur Bach, Dudley Moore’s perpetually and cheerfully sozzled billionaire man-child – whose mad, inebriated cackle we hear ringing out from his chauffeured Rolls Royce even before we lay eyes on him – is a much-loved film character.
We may cherish Arthur all the more nowadays since his kind has nearly vanished from the entertainment landscape. In the thirty-plus years since Arthur first hit movie screens, the balls-out funny drunk has been become an increasingly rare commodity in film and television. When I was a kid, my family and I laughed ourselves silly over W.C. Fields movies, Foster Brooks slurring his way through Dean Martin’s Celebrity Roasts, and Otis, the Mayberry town drunk who locked himself into a jail cell each night with the key that Sheriff Andy left out for him. These days, pratfalling inebriates are mostly served up for either our scorn or our pity on reality television. (It’s instructive that, in both this film’s 1988 sequel and its 2011 remake, Arthur is forced to make a painful journey into sobriety.)
But then, even in its day, Arthur was a bit of a throwback. Writer-director Steve Gordon grounded his 1981 film firmly in the traditions of classic screwball romantic comedy: rich people behave badly (or, at least, eccentrically), a madcap hero rejects the class-appropriate marriage partner of his family’s choosing to be with his equally madcap soulmate, “a nobody from Queens.” Featuring a hapless, wealthy bachelor who is looked after by a dry-witted, quietly clever manservant (John Gielgud), it also owes a little to the lore of P. Wodehouse’s Bertie Wooster and Jeeves.
At its core, however, Arthur is pure escapist fantasy, conjuring up a swank and sparkly world where no form of rebellion or bad behavior – shoplifting, guzzling scotch at the wheel of a classic convertible, taking a prostitute to the Plaza for dinner, or even refusing to grow up and get a job – carries any real consequences. Released at the dawn of the Reagan administration, it deftly straddles the dividing line between the anti-establishment subversiveness of 1970s comedies like Harold and Maude and the crass materialism of the incipient “Greed is Good” era.
Arthur may be a childlike free spirit who rebels against the unsmiling propriety of his upper-crust family by drinking and bringing hookers home to his toy-filled apartment. He may chafe at the bonds his family imposes on him by making his $750 million dollar inheritance contingent upon his marriage to a business partner’s uptight ninny of a daughter (Jill Eikenberry) and a job in the family business. He may even fall in love with a waitress from Queens (Liza Minnelli) while watching her steal a necktie at Bergdorf’s and imagine himself living happily with her, holding hands on the subway and sharing tuna fish sandwiches. But it’s never seriously suggested that he would be happier – or even sober – without heaps of money. “You’re too old to be poor,” his grandmother lectures him. “You don’t know how.” And in the end, even when he manages to defy his family’s edicts, that same grandmother doesn’t allow him to be. As the closing credits roll, Arthur rides off in the same two-toned, chauffeured Rolls with his dream girl by his side and his fortune intact.
That Arthur’s father, though ostensibly born rich himself, works hard and takes the family business seriously seems quaint and old-fashioned. That Arthur gets to stay rich for doing little more than being the “delightful child” his grandmother dotes on ought to be offensive to recession-era audiences (and those would include the original audiences back in 1981, by the way). But audiences – then and now – love Arthur because his luxurious, responsibility-free life looks like so damn much fun that we’d rather live vicariously through his antics than chastise him. Its enduring popularity is also a testament to the once-in-a-lifetime magic created by Gordon with a witty script and a perfectly cast trio of actors in the leading roles.
The late Dudley Moore was an exquisitely gifted comic actor who rarely found film roles worthy of his considerable talents. But in Arthur, he found his justly iconic, best-remembered role. Moore strikes the perfect balance between the character’s manic sense of fun, cuddly vulnerability and pie-eyed inability to engage in an adult conversation without steady supplies of scotch on the rocks and smart-ass comebacks – all of which is evident in this clip:
Insert video clip: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwZrAamm86Y)
In some grim alternate universe, Moore’s scenes could be played – as written -as lurid outtakes from Days of Wine and Roses; fortunately he takes so much glee in his own inebriated mishaps that it’s impossible to feel pity or revulsion. Even taking a face plant as he exits his Rolls at the Plaza makes him positively exult “I fell outa the goddam car – isn’t that the funniest thing ever?”
Not surprisingly, the actor’s diminutive stature only highlights the notion that Arthur is eternally a child at heart – a point that Gordon lays on a bit thick. To see this film again after many years is to notice how often Moore is towered over by taller actors in roles of authority or dwarfed by sets with very high ceilings and huge, imposing wood-paneled walls. In one scene he’s even shot from the top of a very long, grand staircase which makes him look truly tiny. (Should you still miss the point, however, the Oscar-winning theme song will spell it out for you: “Deep in his heart, he’s just… he’s just a boy.”)
In Liza Minnelli, Moore gets his ideal partner and playmate. Her Linda Morolla, the “nobody from Queens” who steals Arthur’s heart along with that Bergdorf Goodman necktie, proves a perfect, feisty foil for Moore, despite being seriously cast against type. Let’s face it, Minnelli as a tough-cookie, working-class girl from Queens is a bit of stretch. (And at 35, she was rather long in the tooth to play an aspiring actress still living at home with her father.) But she and Moore have a palpable chemistry together. They’re great fun to watch, precisely because they’re obviously having so much fun together.
Finally there’s John Gielgud – dry, droll and unflappable – providing the perfect fulcrum point in the lead trio as Arthur’s faithful valet and father figure, Hobson. Where Moore and Minnelli are natural-born crowd pleasers, Gielgud seems almost incapable of twinkling at the audience, and his starchy delivery of such bon mots as “One usually has to go to bowling alley to meet someone of your stature” is riotously funny because the nastiness is so unexpected. Gielgud’s scenes with Moore cover a wide range of emotional territory. Early on, we get sharp-witted exchanges like this one:
Arthur: Do you know what I’m going to do, Hobson?
Hobson: No, I don’t.
Arthur: I’m going to take a bath.
Hobson: I’ll alert the media.
Arthur: Do you want to run my bath for me?
Hobson: It’s what I live for. (Arthur exits). Perhaps you’d like me to come in there and wash your dick for you, you little shit.
Later, as Hobson falls ill and Arthur sobers up to take care of him, the film becomes unexpectedly moving. Granted Arthur’s care taking amounts to little more than buying piles of toys for Hobson and having expensive restaurant meals brought to his hospital room, but it’s an honest attempt on his part to grow up and it shows some genuine heart beneath his party-boy facade. And the understated affection between the two men is every bit as palpable as Moore’s playful chemistry with Minnelli. Both actors were nominated for Oscars; Gielgud won.
You don’t have to see the sequel Arthur 2: On the Rocks (in fact, please don’t) to appreciate that this film was lightning in a bottle, a unique moment of comic alchemy that would never be recreated. For many of the participants, it was the kind of career peak from which the only direction was down, and that makes it particularly bittersweet to watch today. Most tragically, Steve Gordon – a seasoned television writer whose first film this was – died suddenly of at the age 44, just one year after Arthur was released. Moore went on to make a string of mediocre, commercially unsuccessful films. His film career eventually petered out completely, and he succumbed to a degenerative brain disease in his mid-sixties. Minnelli’s ferocious talents have since been overshadowed by her personal struggles with addiction, health issues and a short-lived fourth marriage to a human punchline named David Gest. But for a brief, serendipitous time in 1981, when they were all caught between the moon and New York City, they made a little bit of comedy magic.
How Arthur made the Top 100:








Wonderful summation on a film that never seems to grow stale even after all these years since it’s release.
Some of the most memorable lines, best pratfalls and droll humor are threaded into the fabric of Gordon’s film and screenplay and it’s to his benefit that the teaming of the off-the-wall Moore and the stodgey Geilgud couldn’t have been better. Watching those two spar with one another is a master class in timing and professional reserve. I’d imagine that the crew behind the camera were in unroarious laughter most of the time during the making of the film. However, despite Moore giving his finest comic performance, it’s the reserved and often flabberghasted Geilgud that raises the stakes of the film in every scene he’s in. His quick, mature, acidic quips and repremands act as a perfect bucket of ice-water to pour down Moore’s back whenever he reels into man/child behavior.
Little moments, like when Arthur and Hobson are waiting quietly before the meeting with Arthurs father are what really do it for me…
Arthur: “I hate it here!”
Hobson: “Of course you hate it here, people WORK here.”
Arthur: “grumble”
Hobson: “Sit up, behave yourself. Here, look at this magazine for a while. There are many pretty pictures. Now, now, relax. It isn’t so bad. When we’re through, we’ll get Ice Cream.”
LOLOLOLOL
Gordons screenplay and his visual presentation act like a melding of the work of Lubitsch, Sturges and Hawkes and a throwback to the kinds of smart upper-class shenanigans that were the heart of films like LaCava’s MY MAN GODFREY, Sturges’s THE LADY EVE and UNFAITHFULLY YOURS, Lubitsch’s TO BE OR NOT TO BE and Hawke’s immortal BRINGING UP BABY. You get the feeling that the simple intelligence of the film is working on such overtime that it cares not whether every viewer gets it, but revels in the light of those viewers that get it almost immediately. I cannot really write more on this classic of the genre because, quite frankly, there’s so much to admire and fawn over that you know someone else has already, probably, already mentioned it all.
I can honestly say that this one gets better with every repeat viewing and is one of the rare films that I am blind in love and devotion for.
Thanks, Dennis -and wow! I think you should have done this post – you said it far better than I did.
And I agree tha ARHTUR just gets better with age. I watched it twice in preparation for this post, probably at least the 25-26th vieiwings in my lifetime, and it still made me laugh out loud. What you say about Gielgud and Moore together is true, but the chemistry between Moore and Minnelli is what struck me most this time around. Their obvious enjoyment of each other is infectious.
I’m in TOTAL agreement with you about the Minelli/Moore fomula, but the secret weapon was Gordon’s casting of Gielgud who all but steals the movie whenever he’s on screen. That Gordon shot his first entrance in the film like Darth Vader turning to his officers for the first time in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK makes it even more hysterical because the audience almost instantly knows, even before he has spoken, that the deadpan, the foil, this ancient old man, has come to iron out the lunacy.
“PLEASE, STOP THAT!”
And, Whaa-Laa!!!!! A classic character was born.
I would give anything to see out-takes of the cast and crew, obviously, breaking down every time Geilgud is forced to use profanity or bellow one of his razor sharp bizarro insults at Moore.
And, BTW, regardless to what we think about Oscar, Geilgud absolutely deserved the statue he took home for the film…
Oh ablsolutely Dennis – Gielgud is brilliant. I don’t think the movie could have been as great without him. You need his gravitas and his droll delivery to balance out Arthur’s manic side. I have no quibbles with his Oscar win, either.
Yes Pat I agree that this will always be the role Moore is best-known for, and rightly so. Gielgud is blessed with some of the film’s best lines, and added to his iconic stature and delivery it’s a win-win situation. No comedy countdown could possibly be without this film, and I was happy to be one of those that elevated it. You’ve done a great job of qualification Pat.
Thanks, Peter!
This is the “reel” thing Pat, and you’ve impressively stated why. Minelli, Gielgud and Moore all fantastic, and dialogue that’s remembered as a stand alone. That 2011 re-make was really dire.
Thanks, Frank. Yes that remake was a mess from start to finish, horribly unfunny save for a handful of good one-liners from Russell Brand.
This has placed over many films that are better than it, but alas I did vote for it (even if it was in my 55-60 range that I reserved for several personal odd-ball low brow picks), so I’m happy to read this energetic piece by Pat. It’s a good one, showing the complete and utter buffoonery of the upper crust ‘job creators’ of American society that have no real pressing needs or objectives to accomplish on a day to day level (a fact that several years later Trading Places—that’s a better and funnier film than this one—would take to a whole other, necessary level).
Plus, Dudley Moore was one of the great lushes, a real drunk’s drunk. A shame that most know this film as the mirror of that side of his personality when in fact it’s his three albums as ‘Derek’ in the seminal Derek and Clive that best show this. Now those, as Allan and I have been trading thoughts on the past several weeks, are something timeless and special (not to paint this film as a total waste obviously).
Jamie -
I understand your feelings with regard to how ARTHUR portrays the upper class, which is why I felt I had to address it. But, honestly, I don’t think this film has any pretensions whatsoever to commenting on job creation or the inequities of society – it’s about comedy and laughter first and foremost, and at that it more than succeeds.
I know of the Derek and Clive routines, although I haven’t seen many of them. But I am quite familiar with the work that Moore did with Peter Cook, onstage, in films and on TV in general. (There are lots of great representative clips on YouTube – plus a compilation video of the best of their BBC TV shows was released several years back.) I ageree, they were deliriously funny together.
Oh yeah the film doesn’t concern itself much with commentary, that was me bringing that to the table from our current political climate in America. One that paints the rich as beacons and elite, when most are in fact wasteful and turgid.
Dozens of great lines in the film, many with Gielgud’s Hobson causing the belly-laughs!
Hobson: Thrilling to meet you, Gloria.
Gloria: Hi.
Hobson: You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.
Hobson: Thank you for a memorable afternoon. Usually one must go to a bowling alley to meet a woman of your stature.
Hobson: Yes, I see no reason for prolonging this conversation, unless you are planning to knock over a fruit stand later in the evening.
Pat, splendid defense of this comedy classic, which richly dserves placement on this countdown. In fact I think it should have even been a bit highler. As Frank notes, the re-make was terrible, but it doesn’t diminish the luster of this drop-dead funny film, fueled by the great acting, and timing. You obviously have a long-standing affection.
Sam: And here are some of my favorite exchanges:
Burt Johnson: No one in my family drinks.
Athur: Oh, that’s great – you’ll probably never run out of ice your whole life!
Susan: A real woman could stop your drinking, Arthur.
Arthur: She’d have to be real big woman.
Arhtur: A bath is wonderful! Girls are wonderful!
Hobson: Yes, imagine how wonderful a girl who bathes would be.
I could go on and on, of course. Yes, I do love this movie,Sam, and thanks for the kind words. I will also admit to having quite a crush on Dudley Moore – I could watch him forever, even in bad movies (which is fortunate, since he made so many bad ones after this – although I’m probably alone in my complete enjoyment of the UNFAITHFULLY YOURS remake.)
A good piece about one of my very favorite comedies. When it was a staple on cable back in 83 or so, I must have watched it a zillion times. I have a number of fave scenes: Arthur comes into Linda’s apartment, late at night and drunk, and destroys some sort of plastic object by accident (he spend a hilarious minute trying to fix the thing, puzzling over it, then gives up and hands it to her with the line “This is a goner”); the scene directly previous to this, where Arthur mistakes a next door neighbor’s door for Linda’s (“Perry, you’re a dead man”); Arthur playing the piano at his engagement party (a jazzy version of “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”, then “If you knew Susan like I knew Susan, oh, oh. (sees Linda)…I need a drink.”); and the scene where he visits Susan’s dad and can’t help but comment on the moose head on the wall. So many great scenes….it’s one of those movies I practically have committed to memory. About my only problem with the film is that I don’t find Liza Minnelli believably appealing. But the film is so funny, I can easily forget that.
Dean – I remember those days of heavy cable rotation for this film and how many times I watched it. It really never does get old. I think that whole sequence with Perry’s wife, the late night visit to Linda where he destroys that plastic thingamajig, his itermittent attempts to balance a glass of scotch of the fender of his car, the hedge he apologizes to for tripping over it – then, irritated when he realizes what he’s done, snarls dismissively “Oh, your’e a hedge!” – that’s a master class in how to play drunk for laughs. Liza’s performance works for me, but I know several people who annoyed by her in the role.
You know your essay here makes me look back at ‘Arthur’ with a certain wistfulness — Moore gone, Gielgud gone, Minnelli’s too-short career long gone, 2011′s abominable remake. Thirty years goes up the waterspout in a heartbeat.
Mark – How true that is. I watch ARTHUR with a bit of wistfulness nowadays myself. Everyone was so wonderful and had so much promise. Gielgud, of course, continued in his already distinguished career till his death many years later, but the others never did this caliber of work again.
(And that remake – gaaaah! What a bad idea that was!)
I have seen this film once…..but it made no impression whatsoever with me. I have seen some comments here about people seeing this film many times and I wonder if it’s one of those that you need to see at the right time….and then rewatch it over and over. That’s like me and Dumb and Dumber. Everytime I am flipping channels and I see it….I have to watch it cause it just kills me. I also think maybe I’m not a fan of Dudley Moore. Nice job with the essay though Pat and I believe you capture many things here that are accurate.
Thanks, Jon. I can imagine that if you’re not a Dudley Moore fan, this movie may well leave you cold, although I would encourage you to give it another try if you’re so inclined. And,you know, if I’m flipping channels and find DUMB AND DUMBER, I’m pretty likely to stop and watch it myself – it’s so ridiculous that it’s hilarious!
Pat, like Jon above, I’m another one who has only seen this once or maybe twice – I know I saw it on release and think I probably saw it again on TV somewhere along the line, and have definitely seen loads of clips over the years. I’m not too sure about Dudley Moore as an actor though I love Not Only But Also – anyway, Gielgud’s brilliant performance as the butler is the thing that sticks in my mind the most about it. Enjoyed your review a lot.
Thanks, Judy. I think everyone is in agreement on Gielgud’s brilliance in ARTHUR – of course, he was pretty brilliant in everything.
I’ve seen some clips from Not Only… But Also that made me laugh myself silly. I do love Dudley, but I think Peter Cook was probably one of the funniest men who ever lived.