Bartleby

Bartleby is clearly on the autistic spectrum, but was not recognized as such owing to the prevailing attitudes of the time (1970). What should have been a barely watchable curiosity piece is elevated to something more engaging by the fine acting and evocative locations. After a single viewing, I already cherish this film and as a "cult" movie it is a worthy addition to that genre.

There have been a few un-complimentary reviews for this limited but fine, offbeat film. Most tend to come from book readers who often, unfairly, compare a 'Screenplay' with a 'Novel' (or in this case a Novella) expecting it will be the same as the book. It's rarely possible to transfer a book directly to the screen (although I admit it's good when it happens)

I applaud any film makers who take on subject matter as challenging as the great Herman Melville's, near prophetic story, of "Bartelby the Scriverner". On one level this story can be seen as simple, on another, a character study of immense depth. I've only had the opportunity to see this work once, many years ago. It still haunts me as if it were just weeks ago. It's most unfortunate this film is rarely screened.

From this first time teaming of independent feature film makers, Producer: Rodney Carr-Smith (akf: 'Lolly Madonna War' '73) and Director: Anthony Friedman (ex TV film editor:'The Fugitive') comes this thoughtful adaptation of Melville's study of personal disintegration and loss of identity.

While this movie may have been better as an hour long TV show, these two filmmakers also co-wrote the screenplay, choosing to update the era from the 1800's to a 1970's workplace. This decision I felt offered benefits...it brought the story closer to that interaction destroyer, the Computer - along with the coldness of the modern office cubicle. It also didn't bother me that they transposed the original Wall Street setting to London. Such decisions would obviously have been made for several valid reasons, among them, budget and the difficulty of getting such a non-commercial project off the ground.

Performers don't come much better than Oscar winner Paul Scofield ('The Train' 65, 'Man for all Seasons' 66) His portrayal of Bartelby's sympathetic employer is superb. As much as he tries to help Bartelby, he is challenged to the utmost of emotional distraction. Scofield seems to have been drawn to this role, as he's known for having passed up parts in bigger productions. John McEnery's Bartelby is also well measured and convincing.

The Cinematography is the work of Ian Wilson ~ who gave such a good look to the Award winning small budget film: "The Crying Game". He then went on to give us the Eye Poppingly beautiful "Emma" ~ Here, he and Director Friedman offer the viewer a well designed dose of claustrophobic involvement. The Art Direction of Simon Holland also adds to the feeling of personal separation. Holland, later helped create high class atmospherics for such striking films as "Greystoke" in '84 and "The Emerald Forest" '85. The Music of Roger Webb, while sparse, adds small elements of excitement where possible.

I think many will have felt a little like Bartelby at some stage in life, and been very glad to rise above it. The original writing of Melville --was he a visionary or just highly tuned to the human condition?-- has been given a neat treatment in this film version. And while the Director Anthony Friedman won a 'Special Mention Award' for Bartelby at the San Sebastian International Film Festival, his film won't please everyone...but many could still find it compelling. KenR.

The problem with Bartleby is not Paul Scofield or John McEnery, both of whom are fine actors. The problem is the story itself, which cannot really be updated to the present day, regardless of whether that present day be 1970 or 2001. Bartleby is a story written in the 1800s, about the 1800s, and it simply doesn't work in the present day.

For example, there is the office in which Bartleby works. He works for a lawyer in a cold and dark office that seems more akin to that of Ebenezer Scrooge than to any bright, airy, modern-day office building. Indeed, the only window in Bartleby's office has no view because it looks out onto an airshaft.

Then there is the nature of Bartleby's occupation. He is not, as in this version, an accountant. Indeed, his function is nowhere near so creative as that. He is, in point of fact, a scrivener in a law office. And exactly what is it that a scrivener does? He copies law documents. Bartleby is, in point of fact, nothing more than a human Xerox Machine. Bear in mind that, in the 19th century, there were no such things as word processors, Xerox Machines, carbon paper or even typewriters. A lawyer who needed to produce duplicate copies of legal documents employed scriveners to produce those copies word for word, by hand, with pen and paper. It is impossible to imagine any occupation as stupefyingly dull as that.

By the same token, it is also impossible to imagine anyone today performing any occupation even remotely comparable to that of a 19th century scrivener. It simply doesn't, and could't, exist today. And that is precisely the point. The world of Bartleby is as different from the world of a modern office worker as the world inhabited by the whalers in Moby Dick would be from that on board a modern-day whale-catching ship. Both have changed so much since the 19th century as to be as alien as the surface of another planet.

A somewhat sad and unusual film. John McEnery is marvelous as Bartleby, you cannot help feeling sorry for him even though he does not want to be helped in any way. Paul Scofield is also perefectly cast as the sympathetic boss.

I read Herman Melville's story long ago, and this is a modernization of it transferred to modern England, which naturally is a most controversial thing to do. The question is whether it is successful or not. The acting is superb, Paul Scofield has always been reliable, and John McEnery as the very timid clerk who simply can't co-operate because of his burden of complexes, makes a very credible and convincing impression, in all his hopeless disorientation in reality. He is lost in reality like a Kafka figure and can't find his way out, no matter how hard Paul Scofield as his benevolent employer tries to help him. It is a hopeless story of a hopeless case with only one possible kind of end, and it is as far from edifying as any story could be. Still it's nobody's fault. Nobody simply can't help someone who can't even help himself. What Herman Melville meant with his story can be discussed forever without any conclusion ever to be reached, since there simply are no answers, since the predicament is all tied up in a dead end. The film is grey and bleak, there is no cheer anywhere, although you might in the beginning find the situation laughably sabsurd, as Paul Scofield awkwardly learns he is dealing with a black hole of a hopeless case. Herman Melville wrote several stories of a very morbid nature, like as if he enjoyed documenting the destructive sides and elements of man, his great failure "Pierre" is perhaps the best example, and you must wonder why he still is worth reading and making films of.