Bartleby

I LOVE Bartleby. This 1970 original is marvellous. Based on Herman Melville's classic novella, it's a work of art. A cold delicate hug of a film. It's slow meandering shots, it's wistful jazz infused score. In the 20 years since I first saw it, I've never seen anything else quite like it. Every frame is a beautiful portrait of London character and mundanity. An ode to 60s design culture, geometric modernity. In the centre of all this is Bartleby (John McEnery), a likeable yet unusual young man looking for work, purpose, meaning. He's painfully polite and good natured, but how shall we say, minimal with his communication skills. Despite this, he gets a job as an audit clerk in a drab office run by the friendly but stuffy Paul Scofield. This first interview between the two is typically awkward, but the boss has no idea what he's let himself in for. Bartleby is like no other employee he's ever had. Certainly nothing like office prankster Robin Askwith, the cheeky cocky chappy famed for his seaside titillation or Tucker (Colin Jeavons) who gives poor Bartleby such a hard time. They don't understand him you see. He has his way of doing things... and not doing things. The first indications of this coming when he's asked to bring some files and responds with the charming "I would rather not, just now", leaving his slightly dumbfounded boss unsure how to deal with him. They think he's being insubordinate, lazy even, "A bit strange". He's not though, Bartleby is focused, inquisitive, in tune with his world, his surroundings, his choices. Despite his boss's patience. Bartleby's "I'd prefer not to" refrain continues to confound his co-workers. He's civil, dignified, utterly magnetic to watch. I know it doesn't sound like it would be, it sounds totally nuts, but there's something completely arresting about it. It's partly down to the gorgeous cinematography of London's concrete vistas, partly the effortlessly cool score that accompanies these interludes to the office scenes. Mostly though it's Bartleby, McEnery is simply perfect with his unassuming poise. The tasks that Bartleby politely refuses to complete increase and his boss discovers that now not only is his employee refusing to work, he's also living in the office. There's no explanation for his behaviour, certainly none offered and the boss' patience eventually runs out, but sacking him isn't really going to work. Fair play to the boss (he really does deserve a name, such is Scofield's lovely performance) he does everything he can to help, but at the end of his tether moves offices, leaving Bartleby completely unanchored and headed only he knows where. It's an odd but captivating study of will, of social standing, of the modern workplace and our reliance on its structures. It's brilliant. Much to my horror and admittedly some intrigue, the story was revisited again in 2001. Now I'm not gonna dig in too deep again, but it's worth noting that where the 1970 film is very much based more loosely on the book, this sticks a little closer. I'm not sure that makes it any better as a film though. It has a very distinct style, a bold colour palate and an almost Lynchian tone in its simplicity... the entire cast is odd. What's most notable of course, is Bartleby, played by none other Crispin Glover. I remember seeing this on release and was really taken by Glover. He's an unusual guy himself, take a look at his Letterman interviews and did you know he release an album? It's on Spotify, have a listen. Anyway he's great here and arguably does more than McEnery in the original. He's not as haunting though. It's funnier, like a Canadian TV skit show in the early 90s. This though for me distracts from Bartleby and his preferring not to. It's almost slapstick in places. It's still worth a watch, but doesn't hold a candle to its predecessor.

Unlike other reviewers I haven't read the book and can't comment on its success as an adaptation.

The story is very, VERY basic. A mysterious young man, Bartleby (John McEnery) applies successfully for the position of audit clerk at a small accountancy firm in London.

At first he works well but doesn't socialise at all with any of his colleagues. Things start to slip when the Accountant (the fabulous Paul Scofield) asks him to do a task and Bartleby replies 'I would prefer not to.' This becomes Bartleby's response to every request from now on and the Accountant becomes increasingly exasperated with his new employee. Instead of dismissing him, the well-meaning accountant shares Bartleby's work amongst his colleagues and hopes to get to the bottom of the problem.

In allowing him to stay, the Accountant sees Bartleby's behaviour become more bizarre as he takes up residence in the office.

Even after dismissing Bartleby, the Accountant is unable to get rid of him and he re-locates the firm to a new office in the hope of getting away from this curious young man.

If The Accountant felt he would have heard the last of Bartleby by this stage, he is sadly mistaken.

A story like this could result in an extremely dull film but the inventive direction from Anthony Friedman (why hasn't he done any other films?) and Scofield's superb performance prevent this from happening.

Scofield is one of the more enigmatic figures in cinema history. Primarily a stage actor, and a highly distinguished one, he has made relatively few feature films, less than 20 in fact.

However his limited filmography has not stopped him from winning an impressive array of screen awards including the Best Actor Oscar and three BAFTA's.

It is very typical of Scofield that, having already won the Oscar, he turned down the Robert Mitchum role in Ryan's Daughter (a part he was better suited for than Mitchum) and opted to do a tiny little film like Bartleby.

Although McEnery is very good in the film, he has fairly little to do and it is Scofield who carries the picture. His portrayal of a kindly yet increasingly bemused employer is excellent and the delivery of his lines e.g.

'You're living here; you're ACTUALLY living in my office!' is superb and adds the humour needed to make this film succeed.

I can't imagine this film getting any kind of publicity when it was first shown, no premiere at Leicester Square and subsequent nationwide release. In many ways it resembles the American Film Theatre productions of the 1970's but with a little more cinematic flair.

Its difficult to see how this film could be expected to turn a profit and although there have been 3 subsequent film adaptations of Melville's story, I doubt very much that movies of this style and small ambition would be given the go-ahead nowadays.

But I'm glad that Bartleby was made and that it is now available on DVD (but not yet in the UK), it's an amusing little curio that deserves to be better known.

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.

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.