‘Arthur’ retooled for era less enchanted by drunken antics of the rich

NEW YORK — When you get caught between the paparazzi and New York City, the best that you can do is fall in line. So it is that the remake of the 1981 Dudley Moore-Liza Minnelli-John Gielgud comedy “Arthur,” currently filming all over Manhattan and Queens, has uncomplainingly put up with premature overexposure.

Its star, the comedian-actor-writer Russell Brand, has already been photographed on one shooting day sprinting along the street in blue-and-purple briefs and on another day outfitted in a fully be-nippled 1997-style Batman costume.

Helen Mirren, who is playing Gielgud’s role, remarked: “It’s unbelievable. I’m just glad it’s a comedy, because if I had to do dramatic acting with 30 cameras going off, it would be hopeless.” And Greta Gerwig, who plays Arthur’s love interest, had to film her first, largely improvised scene in front of the 42nd Street exit of Grand Central Terminal in the thick of rush hour.

It’s a lot of scrutiny for a remake of a light farce about a constantly inebriated multimillionaire who doesn’t want to sober up or grow up; Hobson, his acerbic butler-surrogate parent; and the working-class woman with whom he improbably falls in love.

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 Brand. 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.

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.

“Arthur” opened modestly but grew into a hit, ultimately winning two Oscars (for Gielgud and the theme song) and nominations for Moore and for Gordon’s screenplay. But not everyone was a fan.

“I just didn’t think a film about a drunken small guy was remotely funny,” Mirren said. “The reality about alcoholics is that they’re boring and tedious, and I’d spent enough nights in pubs with drunken boys to know it was not something I’d ever want to be caught up in. And I particularly objected to the way women were depicted — which was something I felt about most movies I saw back then — as kind of slave-enablers.”

Director Jason Winer shared some of Mirren’s concerns. “When I rewatched it, it was as delightful as I’d remembered, but the character never grows.” As he, Brand and screenwriter Peter Baynham began to explore how a new “Arthur” might unfold, they found themselves in agreement about what had to go.

“People’s attitudes about wealth have changed, and attitudes about alcohol have changed enormously,” Brand said.

So the new “Arthur” will nod toward an unintoxicated future for its hero and also tweak its tone to suit a moment in which the movie audience is disgusted rather than enthralled by the excesses of the overprivileged.

“Arthur, what do you say to people who criticize the way a rich man like you behaves in a recession?” a journalist asks him in Scene 1. “They have a fair point,” replies Arthur. “We must end this recession.”

« Entertainment

Share