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've always preferred Japanese existentialism to French existentialism. This film dwells more in the latter, but the execution is to die for. An incisive meditation on alcoholism, herd mentality, isolationism, individuality, solipsism, and the ebb and flow of life's absurdity. Themes of sexual frustration also abound, hence the oft-mentioned horn(s). All of this heavy stuff is masterfully leavened with feather to nose doses of well-timed humor. Zero Mostel was a comedic genius and his "transmogrification" into a rhinoceros is one of his greatest performances and also one of his most hilarious. It gave me paroxysms of gale-force laughter. Karen Black was naturally kooky as ever and it really worked well with the palpably absurd material and lines she was fed. Wilder was wildly inconsistent as usual, often annoying and endearing in the same scene. Let's remember what Wilde said about consistency though, it is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Though I believe Wilder was channeling Sartre's epigram of Hell is other people here. In any event, more like a Hippo than a Rhino, he brings specific gravity to the proceedings, though very little gravitas; Mostel more than makes up for Wilder's shortcomings though. If only he were utilized in more scenes. Listen closely and you may catch the name Eugene Ionesco dropped in the dialogue (what a self-congratulatory dandy!). Still, it's one of those films you'll surely get a charge out of. Hard to find, but worth the search.

A hungover Stanley (Gene Wilder) meets his pompous and condescending best friend, John (Zero Mostel), at a restaurant. John's inevitable criticisms about Stanley's drinking and dishevelment are interrupted by a rhinoceros charging through the street outside. This provides the staff and the patrons some amusement until the creature charges through the restaurant and destroys everything. At the office, Stanley arrives late as the boss and the other workers are having an argument about the absurd news reports regarding these animals. The attractive but not overly bright Daisy (Karen Black) insists she saw the rhinoceros with her own eyes. Stanley says the same thing, but it's not until a coworker on the street below changes into a rhinoceros before their eyes that they grasp the importance, and absurdity, of what is happening. Soon, everyone is becoming a rhinoceros, and Stanley is feeling the pressure to conform.

"What you are about to see," reads the introductory title card, "could never take place. Several eminent scientists have assured us of this fact, for, as they are quick to point out... the world is flat."

Are they? That dismal attempt at irony is an omen for the rest of the movie. Whatever value Eugène Ionesco's absurdist play may have had on stage, this film adaptation is a leaden allegory, filled with room-wrecking slapstick, that is exhausting, exasperating and tedious. Zero Mostel, who won a Tony for playing the same role on Broadway in 1961, has a transformation scene that is fascinating for its sweaty excess, but his antics can be better appreciated in "The Producers" (1968) in which he and Gene Wilder are actually funny. In this film, the two play off each other just as well, but it doesn't come to much.

No rhinoceroses appear, which might sound like admirable restraint (if not an impoverished budget), but the movie already opened up the play considerably and added a dream sequence and a lot of Keystone Comedy antics. Not showing us rhinoceroses just seems irritatingly coy.

The Theatre-Of-The-Absurd was a style of experimental play-scripting that was practised in the '50s and '60s by playwrights like Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Jean Genet and Eugene Ionesco. When first devised, the Theatre-Of-The-Absurd movement was rather unpopular because audiences were left bewildered by the intentionally illogical and plot less story lines. A particular rule of absurdist plays is that they have no dramatic conflict, instead dealing with logically impossible situations and having the characters speak about irrational things as if they are perfectly rational. Also, the main character in an absurdist play is usually significantly out of key with everyone and everything around him. Eugene Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" is one of the most famous of all the absurd plays. This film version is set in urban America and is a deliberately subversive, surreal experience with strong comic performances. It is not, however, as multi-layered as the original play (which was set in France and had strong political and historical connotations about the Nazi occupation). This presentation of Rhinoceros is mainly a story about conformity and, in particular, those rare few who refuse to conform.

Depressed, bored accountant Stanley (Gene Wilder) spends his week-days crunching numbers and his weekends drinking himself into a haze. His friend John (Zero Mostel) disapproves, but still meets Stanley every Sunday lunchtime to talk to him about the error of his ways. One particular Sunday, their lunch is interrupted when a stampeding rhinoceros charges down the street outside the restaurant. Soon, more and more rhinoceroses are sighted in town and Stanley gradually begins to realise that the entire population is turning into these huge pachyderms. More alarming still is that everyone that Stanley counts on to "remain" human seems to be switching to rhinoceros form too - his work colleagues (Joe Silver, Robert Weil, Percy Rodriguez), his dream girl Daisy (Karen Black), and even his best friend John. Stanley is determined not to conform, but as the human numbers dwindle and the rhinoceros population soars, will he be able to resist?

One of the main problems with this film version of Rhinoceros is that it doesn't use the possibilities of film to "open-up" the constraints of its stage-bound play origins. For instance, during the scene where Mostel's character transforms into a rhinoceros, Wilder keeps commenting on the bump appearing on his forehead and the greyness of his skin, but there's no bump or greyness visible. Here was an opportunity to use the visual advantages that film has over the theatre stage, but it remains an unused opportunity. In fact, at all points the film refuses to become cinematic and constantly has a feel of "filmed theatre" about it. However, in other ways Rhinoceros is quite well done and credit needs to be given where it is due (Maltin rated this film BOMB, which shows how wide of the mark Maltin is prone to be). Wilder and Mostel interact brilliantly, relishing the play's enigmatic and often self-contradictory dialogue. Mostel's transformation sequence - done without make-up or visual effects, as noted earlier - is almost compensated by the sheer outrageous energy that Mostel invests in it. And, by removing the historical and political subtext of the original play, I think they've actually made it more timeless by focusing more on the themes of conformity (after all, don't we all relate to how it feels to spend our lives conforming, losing more and more of the animal-like freedom that was a characteristic of primitive man?) Transforming into a rhinoceros could be viewed as a metaphor for any type of conformity - doing drugs because all your peers do them; being promiscuous because it's the norm; voting for a particular political party because everyone else on your street is in favour of that party; etc.

Not a complete success, then, but definitely a worthwhile and thought-provoking piece of cinema.