Morgan

David Warner is one of my favourite actors. He often appears in minor roles nowadays and gives the leads great support with his excellent performances, and his position down the cast list does enable him to be offered a wide range of characters. However, this has caused him to be one of the most underrated actors around today and unlike his English equivalents (John Hurt, Ian Holm, etc.) he has never been really appreciated enough by those outside the UK. It was with great interest, therefore, that I was given a chance to see one David Warner's first films after "Tom Jones" (1963), "Morgan, A Suitable Case for Treatment," a film adapted from a television play by writer David Mercer, in which Warner takes for the only time in his career, the definite title role in a movie, starring alongside then-first-timer Vanessa Redgrave.

Warner plays Morgan Delt, a barely sane man who has just had a divorce from his beautiful wife, Leonie (Redgrave), much to his secret dismay. As a consequence, Morgan begins to sabotage Leonie's second marriage to his former-best-friend Charles Napier (Robert Stephens), attempting various types of distractions which are characteristic of the man himself. He plays sounds from records to disturb the couple at dinner, re-wires Leonie's house, dresses up as a gorilla, and even plants bombs during a brief visitation from Leonie's mother. Soon he begins to dream, mostly about his obsession with gorillas but also of his mock execution, he believes himself to not only to be insane but also illegal.

This depiction of madness, however, barely works at all, the adaptation of this story from television to screen being probably the main reason for it. The acting is fine, Redgrave is brilliant and Warner, perfectly cast for once in his career, is superb, the supporting cast are also impressive, including a nice cameo from actress Irene Handl as Morgan's mother, it's just that the film doesn't quite work. "A Suitable Case for Treatment" does have some hilariously funny moments which are highly memorable in fact, but the film as a general whole doesn't succeed. See it if you can, but expect some disappointment.

FIRST... Let us FOCUS on the Title´s content and context!

"Movies That Stand the Test of Time" is a list I recently compiled... "MORGAN".... WON'T be on it! Granted, the basic concept is starkly original, with outstanding performances by both David Warner and Vanessa Redgrave (In her first leading screen role!) There are a few savagely funny lines and bits sprinkled throughout here and there. But on the whole, a lot of the film comes across as anachronistically as the hammer and sickle Morgan insists on drawing or carving everywhere!

Also, the constant insertion of Keystone Cop Slapstick bits (Ala "Hard Days Night") gets old really fast, especially since most of them fall flat. And my biggest gripe: I saw this movie 3 times at age 18 and 19, during its theatrical release and I clearly recall footage (1 minute?) where a then VERY HOT Vanessa Redgrave was romping around the bedroom being chased in a state of semi-undress. The scenes managed to be simultaneously humorous and sexy (Very risqué in 1966, but not more than PG by today's standards!) These scenes were about the best in the film and the main reason I rented it. COMPLETELY EDITED OUT!!!

Does anyone else recall them? Ironically, at the beginning, the British Cinema Board announces, "This film is to be viewed only by Adults!" On EXTRAS, watch the Original Trailer and you'll see a couple seconds of snippets of the bedroom romp scene that was edited out of the DVD release! You decide what you want to do with this one!

6******(Perhaps Being a bit generous?) ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA?!?!?

Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en ESPAÑOL, are most Welcome!

There aren't too many whimsical comedies with a Trotskyite sub text, so for that alone let us give thanks, but there's a whole lot more to enjoy here. Vanessa Redgrave for one, looking wonderful as the posh girl who dumps her eccentric husband in favour of stability, shows a real gift for light comedy, Karel Reisz's direction is always inventive and makes good use of inserts from King Kong and Tarzan, and then there's the world's most wonderful couple: Arthur Mullard and Irene Handl.

Warner's performance as Morgan depends how you feel about children who refuse to grow up, though he does become more sympathetic eventually. The Trotsky element comes from writer David Mercer, a renowned playwright and communist of the day and though class figures prominently in the film, it is never didactic. The screenplay is based on a TV play he'd wrote and in a unusual reversal of roles was watered down somewhat for the cinema. The ending turns into the full-blown surrealism that always threatened and there's a great, almost-last line from the Morgan himself: "I've gone all furry".

This movie was funny as hell. David Warner is an ace-- a great comedic actor, and the entire cast should have received awards. All the ingredients for a great comedy were there-- gorilla suits, slapstick comedy at a wedding celebration involving a gorilla, the main character being insane-- what more could you ask for. I saw the movie on late night t.v. and I rolled out of bed laughing.

An uncredited actor who also did an outstanding job in this movie was Billy Reil, playing the part of inspector Kowalski. It was especially funny when he thought the bad guy was heading for his office and he ended up konking his secretary over the head with a flower pot.

I thought the movie hilarious in '66 and still do. Of course, I can see why social conservatives take offense since the movie basically mocks settled convention. For example, when a gorilla-clad Morgan crashes the wedding party, it's like the intrusion of primal instinct on all that's refined and holy. But even more troubling, movie communists are portrayed as almost likably human, instead of the usual weasels or monsters of Hollywood lore. For Americans, that took real getting used to then, and I expect still does.

Reviewer screaminmimi is, I think, spot-on in her commentary. Still, I want to venture a perspective on Morgan's weird behavior since he's such a fascinating character, for me, at least. He's like a believer who's lost faith—he keeps the Marxist icons on his car, but in his heart no longer believes in the revolution. Instead, as the dialog indicates, the weight of mindless convention is crushing his sensitive nature. What's more, despair is really rubbed in when Leonie leaves him for the asinine Napier, the epitome of the unworthy, in Morgan's eyes, at least.

So, having given up on politics and despising the conventional, he retreats into the fantastic, non-human world of the gorilla by taking on the alter-ego of the primitive, which he then uses to pursue his ex-wife. In Morgan's mind maybe Leonie will respond to the magnetism of the primitive by bellowing out his call. So he conducts his wacky efforts at winning her back by donning a gorilla costume, and we get some of the movie's loonier comedic set-ups.

Consider also that great scene at Marx's bust in Highgate when the camera plays up the over-hanging brow and ape-like visage. Morgan responds with an ape-like grunt, which Mom construes as disrespect. It's not. In fact, with that grunt he's incorporated the political into his new primitive fantasy. It's only later on, atop the trash heap, when he's lost Leonie and given up his gorilla alter-ego, that the political suddenly reasserts itself and with a vengeance. At that point, he imagines himself executed by Marxist guerrillas, perhaps in guilt over not fulfilling the Leninist expectations others had for the young Morgan. Defeated in so many ways, he's now ready to be carted off to the loony bin, but not without a lingering spark.

Of course, there's also Leonie, the trigger of his desperation. She's really torn since she responds to Morgan's rebellious nature, on one hand, but is used to the conventional comforts of her prosperous class, on the other. It's clear that she's attracted to him, but can't take living with such an unpredictable cuss. So she retreats back to the prospect of the conventional with Napier. Asked by Morgan, at one point, why she prefers the conventional, she's perplexed and can't really answer, as if she's never actually thought about it. So, not only does Morgan lose out to convention, he loses out to a bunch of rules for which there's no apparent reason.

The movie itself is very much in the emerging hip style of the day. Director Reisz films in brash, take no prisoners fashion, unafraid of breaking the rules. His cast of Warner and Redgrave are perfect for their roles. She looks every inch the well-kept daughter and wife who occasionally likes to let her hair down, while he manages a complex role in persuasive fashion.

To me, the comedy set-ups are funny as heck, though one might question the explosive set- up under the bed. Still, I take Morgan's assault on the upper-class as akin to the Marx Bros. irreverent brand of humor in the 1930's. In fact, some of his antics could be likened to Harpo Marx's absurd stage props at a time when the brothers wreaked havoc among that day's well upholstered.

Sure, some of the cinematic style may look outdated. But neither the laughs nor the targets are. To me, they endure. After fifty years, Morgan is still an exceptional movie.