Arthur
I resisted seeing this movie for nearly 20 years because it stars Dudley Moore as a drunk, spoiled millionaire. Two things (Dudley Moore specifically and drunk, spoiled millionaires in general) I loathe. I was wrong. John Gielgud is the real star of the movie -- as Arthur's long suffering and very intelligent butler (and de facto social father) he owns every scene he's in. Every line of Gielgud's dialog is fresh, original and often hysterically funny. It's an old story: Arthur must choose between his fortune and a woman he truly loves. Liza Minnelli stars as the love interest.
What is a review of a 1981 comedy doing on an activist web site?! The movie uses comedy to explore the American experience with class. Some ideologues deny that class exists in the United States, or at least deny its most pernicious aspects. But without the obvious reality of class relationships this movie could not exist, or at least not its most humorous aspects. Although lacking the intellectual rigor of Marx or Malthus, the script nonetheless dissects class relationships with some interesting insights. We find that the servants actually have a better handle on reality and on the power of class than the rich characters. Arthur, first and foremost, is a comedy of manners. And the dialog reveals manners as a key attribute of class, as well as one of its more powerful weapons. As you watch the film, notice Guilgud's use and abuse of "good" manners to manipulate and also to intimidate others. Notice also how Arthur's bad manners constitute an act of rebellion. He angers his family and other wealthy people not as much for the insult of his rudeness but more from his refusal to act in his "proper" role.
Envy and the equation of wealth with self-worth also come into play. In my favorite scene Arthur sends his working class girlfriend (Minnelli) home in the Rolls Royce. Bitterman, his chauffeur (Ted Ross), stops the car but she does not want to leave. She explains that this once in a lifetime opportunity (to arrive home in a Rolls) will go to waste if no one sees her. They both wait, Bitterman showing well-mannered patience. When an acquaintance draws close she exclaims "Oh! There's Mrs. Nesbitt!" and almost jumps out. Bitterman stops her. "Wait," the chauffeur explains with a smile, "Let me get out and open the door for you. Mrs. Nesbitt deserves the full treatment." I am sure the choice of the name "Bitterman" for the chauffeur has an intentional ironic twist. He's the most happy and contented character in the movie, quietly going about his life and work with good-natured good humor. Almost all of the wealthy characters look incredibly bitter and discontented but "Bitterman" silently laughs at them all.
The script introduces the element of class mobility (or lack thereof for women) in the form of a sub-plot involving a wealthy heiress throwing herself at the childish, spoiled, alcoholic twerp. Susan (Jill Eikenberry) comes from a wealthy family, but she would lose her social standing if she married a man from the same working class background as Minnelli's. The humor of the dialog saves one key scene from inflicting unendurable pathos on the audience. Over dinner with a disgustingly drunken Arthur Susan pathetically tries to convince him to accept her. "The right woman could stop you from drinking," she pleads. From his alcohol-induced haze he delivers a comeback of remarkable clarity (but sadly for Susan not the kind of clarity she wants). The movie also makes clear that neither his boorish behavior nor his decision to marry beneath his class could damage his standing much. At least not as much as Susan could damage hers by the same actions.
Through the comedy we can see the pernicious nature of class, the conflicts it causes and the damage they do. Starting with the Reagan administration ideologues have tried to deny that class conflict exist or denounce people (such as Jimmy Carter) for using phrases such as "class war" as somehow attempting to instigate a problem, rather than discussing one that obviously exists. If one defines ideology as the practice of making the obvious invisible, then comedy more effectively than any other method has the best prospects for stating the obvious in a way no one can avoid acknowledging. If a person dismisses the importance of class in the United States I would ask him "If class doesn't matter, why is the movie Arthur so funny?"
