Rhinoceros

The main selling points for seeing 'Rhinoceros' were Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. Both immensely gifted and much missed performers and their partnership in 'The Producers' deserves legendary status. The source material that 'Rhinoceros' will never be one of my favourites, but it is interesting and entertaining. That it is one of the films making up the American Film Theatre series was another interest point and did expect a fair bit.

'Rhinoceros' to me is one of the weakest of this inconsistent series of films adapted from plays, one that started off so well but was very mixed from 'A Delicate Balance' onwards. Of the other films in the series, only 'Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris' is worse and the film is a not a patch on the earlier winners 'The Iceman Cometh' and 'The Homecoming'. 'Rhinoceros' definitely has its good things, but it primarily suffers from trying too hard and taking the wrong approach to the source material.

As said, there are things done well. Wilder had always been a very funny and expressive performer and actor, he shows both here beautifully whether verbal or non-verbal. Mostel is larger than life, without dominating too much, and often riotous. His finest being his transformation scene. A very memorable scene, for Mostel's delivery and the very effective use of shadows and POV camera angles. Wilder and Mostel are a dream together, having lost none of what made their chemistry so memorable in 'The Producers'.

Karen Black's honest performance is the standout of the rest of the cast, the overall standard of the rest of the cast being not bad at all. The dialogue is still fun, although there are a number of deviations and changes (most of the adaptations of the American Film Theatre series were actually quite faithful). There is some nice photography, particularly interesting in the transformation.

However, a lot doesn't work. As said, 'Rhinoceros' does try too hard and is very bizarre. Absurdist humour is meant to be strange but usually not this strange, this film goes overboard to beating around the head degrees and like some incredibly weird, increasingly confused and uncomfortable dream that one can't wake up from. Cohesion is lost as a result and the tone felt muddled. Some of the imagery in the more bizarre scenes are pretty cheap and at odds with the dialogue. The pace can be too frantic but it also can be tedious from doing too little with its content. For example what makes the play so relevant and the political references are both too toned down and preachy, as well as now out of date.

It would have been better too if the humour was delivered in a more deadpan way, that way it wouldn't have felt so over the top, strained and vulgar. A consequence of approaching from too farcical an approach and overdoing the farce. The music also dates the film and very of the time. There was a sense to me that 'Rhinoceros' didn't know what it wanted or was trying to be and was instead experimenting the entire time.

Summing up, one-time watchable but the second weakest of this interesting but uneven series of films. 5/10.

The short lived American Film Theater in its few years of existence produced and preserved so many good theatrical works that might never have gotten filmed they deserve the gratitude of all who appreciate the best in plays. One of the best and most interesting preserved work is French playwright Eugene Ionesco's absurdest work, Rhinoceros. It's a very funny work with a strong moral message about individualism.

Ionesco knew a little something about zoology in that he picked of all the creatures in the animal kingdom, the Rhinoceros is the one he chose. Rhinoceros is an animal with a thick hide, a small brain relative to its body, good hearing, great sense of smell, but absolutely limited vision. Their tempers are quick to arouse when they perceive a threat and once charging they're hard creature to stop. It's a good thing they're herbivores, if they were carnivores, they not the lion would be king of the jungle. And they travel in herds, when not in their usual mud habitat, chewing on their cud.

And Rhinos are what people are gradually turning into in this small town which was set in France, but could easily be any small town in the world. They are a great deal more provincial and the chances of finding folks who are individualistic are slimmer. My guess is that Ionesco lived in small towns in his formative years and hated it.

Rhinoceros ran for 240 performances on Broadway in 1961 and starred Zero Mostel and Eli Wallach in the part that Gene Wilder plays in the film. The casting of Wilder was obviously done to exploit the chemistry Mostel and he demonstrated in Mel Brooks's The Producers.

Mostel like in The Producers by dint of his stronger personality tries to get Gene Wilder to change his ways. Wilder is a mousy little man who has a dead end job in a newspaper, can't get to first base with the object of his affection, Karen Black, and likes to drink a little too much more than is good for him.

But while Zero is giving Gene his spiel about straightening out, the first of many Rhinoceros make their appearance outside the café they are lunching at. Gradually one by one the whole cast turns into these creatures, the whole town does except poor Wilder who is left sheepishly alone.

Mostel won a Tony Award for his role in the original Broadway production, but it really is Wilder's film, he definitely has more screen time. Wilder definitely should have gotten more acclaim for what he did in Rhinoceros.

The theater of the absurd is not to everyone's taste, but for those that do appreciate it, this production of Rhinoceros should fill your bill.

I saw this movie thinking it would be a wacky comedy because it had Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder in it (they were both in The Producers so I figured it would be that level of comedy with slapstick and obvious jokes). Instead this movie is not like that at all, it was a complete surprise with a bizarre story line. Gene Wilder plays a guy who starts hallucinating and seeing the people around him in his life and in his town actually turning into rhinoceroses (or is it rhinoceri I have no idea?) It is definitely strange to watch and it is definitely more of a satire and drama and a comment about society at the time in the 1970s than it was a straight up comedy but it's definitely worth watching and good, it will stick with you.

As with others that commented on this film, I first saw Rhinoceros because it starred Gene Wilder. At the time, in the mid 1970's, Wilder was near the peak of his popularity. The film was a complete surprise to me. Very bizarre, nothing that I expected. Years later, I remember that I was quite disappointed with the movie and wondered just what it was that Wilder was doing. Years later, however, I find that the memory of this film has never left me. The premise of the movie, that of all the towns-people turning into Rhino's, escaped me. Today, I relate this film, in some ways to the novel 1984. I see the resemblance of the Rhino to sheep and/or cattle. This Wilder film is not comical. It is, however, a strangely unsettling satire that is difficult to forget. I, for one, am looking to purchase a copy of this film on DVD. I'm sure that it's meaning will be more apparent to me today than it was when first viewed 40 years ago.

OK, this is one weird film that I caught very late one night, I only decided to see it because it had Gene Wilder in it, who is one of the funniest men in history. I was totally surprised by how bizarre it was. The plot is about Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder talking and all these people turn into (unseen) rhinoceros'. Later on the story goes from zany comedy to mild horror as our 'heroes' try to stop themselves from turning into rhinoceros'...If you're in a good mood you could find some enjoyment out of this, but if you like your films straightforward then avoid this like the plague.