Charly

source: Charly

At the risk of revealing my approximate age, I will tell you that forty years ago I considered this movie to be excellent and was greatly impressed with the performances of Cliff Robertson and the beautiful Claire Bloom. Alas, time has gone by and after watching this movie again my opinion has changed. What I once considered to be a sensitive dramatization of the plight of the mentally challenged is today little more than typical simplistic Hollywood hokum. For this movie to be truly effective it has to has some connection to reality, and here the movie fails. This movie asks the audience to believe that a man, who according to the movie is a moron, is transformed into an idiot savant bordering on genius and then mysteriously regresses but while in the genius phase has a relationship with his psychologist who disregards every ethical and legal standard of her profession to act out her counter-transference fantasies. The question here is: who is more maladjusted? The hapless patient who is a victim of a weird experimental procedure, something that a Nazi scientist would have concocted and then goes awry, an experiment conducted apparently without the patient's informed consent, or his pathetic out-of-control psychologist who takes advantage of her patient for her own personal gratification? Also the performances themselves are unconvincing. Even in the "moron" phase Cliff Robertson does not seem mentally slow enough or disabled enough to warrant undergoing a radical experimental procedure and Claire Bloom's performance as the psychologist borders on the laughable. Her behavior is so erratic and irresponsible that I was waiting for the scene where someone calls the state licensing board to demand the revocation of her license. One of the lowest points of the movie is when Ms. Bloom's character asks, no begs, Charly to marry her after they find out that the operation has failed. It would have been better if Charly had said yes so that in the next scene the psychologist could be shown acting out her maternal fantasies with the now post-genius "moronic" Charly who is again babbling like a child but at least now has a surrogate mother to take care of him while they sleep in the same bed as husband and wife. Ugh! The purpose of a therapeutic relationship is to help the patient improve their functioning in society. The clinician is supposed to closely monitor the patient's progress toward achieving certain goals, utilizing the most effective and appropriate therapeutic techniques to achieve these goals - all for the benefit of the patient, not the therapist. However, in this movie the therapist's only goal is to have sex with the patient who has undergone a remarkable intellectual transformation but is still a patient. Ultimately the therapist's self-serving acting out hurts the confused and bewildered patient who is permitted, indeed encouraged to act out his sexual fantasies with his therapist. The movie provides a sensationalistic and completely unfair portrayal of mental health services.

You know, I still haven't quite made up my mind which character I thought Cliff Robertson played the worst - The mentally defective, Charly Gordon? - or - The brilliant genius, Charly Gordon? If I was actually forced to make a decision about either one of Robertson's truly unconvincing portrayals, I guess I would have to go with his impersonation of the mentally defective, Charly Gordon. I mean, Robertson was so "aw-shucks!" bad that it was downright laughable at times. And, with that in mind, I honestly cannot believe that Robertson actually won an Oscar for his performance, portraying the 2 Charly Gordons. And, besides that, at 45, I thought he was way too old for his character. This 1968 picture (no matter how well-meaning its story was meant to be) not only left me quite dissatisfied with its half-baked theories regarding mental retardation, but, below is a list of 3 of my major beefs against it. (1) I think this film deliberately exploited retardation simply for the sake of a really cornball romantic angle. (2) I thought that it was pretty damn-low that therapist, Alice Kinnian, actually had sex with her patient (Charly Gordon), regardless of his progressing intellectual level. (3) When Charly finally transformed into "Mr. Genius", his character was so unable to see beyond his own sneering cynicism towards his fellow man that it left him incapable of offering any sound solutions to many of man's social/global blunders. Anyway - In conclusion - This was one film that I was hoping would be more than just some entertainment "fluff". But, that's all that it was. 'Cause it was certainly a far cry from being a worthwhile exercise into intellectualism, as it might have been.

Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but there are many people who wish they could learn as much as anyone else. It's sad and downright tragic when you realize you're incapable of advancing common knowledge or higher education. Some are gifted, some are slow and some are just plain retarded and will never comprehend what is being taught. But what if there was a way? What if science could remedy what nature restricted in the human brain? That is the premise for the movie " Charly. " It tells the story of an adult retarded man named Charley Gordon (Cliff Robertson, 1968 Academy Award winner) who is mentally incapable of surmounting even simple challenges like spelling the word 'School.' Inside him is a deep desire to learn, but is mentally unable. That all changes when two brilliant scientists conceive of a medical procedure which can transform, first a mouse, then a human being into not only a educated individual, but a mental genius. Based on the novel "Flowers for Algernon" Cliff Robertson gives a brilliant and visually haunting performance of the retarded man who is suddenly transformed into a genius. Not only does he 'see' better than most, he's able to visualize what escapes even the most sophisticated in society. What he also sadly realizes is that 'increased intelligence equals loss of friends.' Beginning with the ability to learn and learn quickly, his advanced knowledge also unfortunately reveals his own future, a future he confronts the two doctors with. This is a must picture for anyone who'd like to see the man beat the mouse and yet have sympathy for both. A superb cast featuring Claire Bloom, Lilia Skala, Leon Janney and Dick Van Patten as Bert makes for a believable Classic movie. ****

Strange little over-achiever has that 1960s psycho-crazed style that seems a bit over the top and sometimes like a lot of overkill. A mentally challenged man (Oscar-winner Cliff Robertson) tries to improve his intelligence with the help of a beautiful doctor (Claire Bloom) and experimental scientists who have successfully increased the thought capabilities of a lab mouse. Soon Robertson is to be their guinea pig, but could it be possible that the treatment might make the titled character too smart? And is the experiment as perfect as it seems on first glance? Robertson's dynamic role is the true key to this tone-deaf curiosity as he literally plays his part as multiple personalities. Everything else, including the direction and the script, is just window-dressing. The movie wants to question the relationship between God and science but its style makes that potential point go flying out the window. The possible romantic connection between Robertson and Bloom feels forced and detrimental to the overall effectiveness of the picture. 4 stars out of 5.

Pretentious Junk! Cliff Robertson (a decent actor) won an Oscar for this foolhardy stab at TV-movie "realism". Even the lovely presence of the talented and intelligent Claire Bloom (once married to Rod Steiger) can elevate this above the mud. Furtive glances, demented futility, and half-baked delusions only produce a turgid and deadening effect on what's left of the senses after an hour. A 2 out of 10. Best performance = Claire Bloom. Maybe in 1958 they could have fobbed this on the movie-going public, but not in the late 60's, and that's why the Oscar win for Mr. Robertson is such a surprise, but playing a mentally challenged person always LOOKS good to Hollywood voters. Check it out if you have issues of taste in 60's movies. Yuck!

I read Daniel Keyes' book, *Flowers for Algernon,* when aged nine and few books before or since have affected me as much. Surgical experimentation is frequently controversial and can be devastating in its consequences. Beyond the ethical issues are Algernon and Charly, one a mouse, the other, human, who are affected by a particular experiment -- Charly, especially, in a multitude of ways. Robertson does extremely well in a particularly complex role. Throughout we see his humanity. His "transformation" is believable, and by the actor's skill, Charly is portrayed as a sympathetic Everyman in an extraordinary situation. I give this film the highest recommendation.

In 1959, a short story was written called Flowers for Algernon. It was about a mentaly retarded man who is a guinea pig in an operation that triples his I.Q. It was written by Daniel Keyes, who won many awards for his short story. In 1968, that story was made into a movie called Charly. The movie pretty much follows the storyline and is very good until one scene when it dosen't go down a hill, but goes down a cliff. From the scene were he stalks his teacher, and then attacks her, thats when it goes, a long long long way down. And can't get back out. From then on it leaves Daniel Keyes story, and turns into something totally different. So different it scares me. It tearns into a hip movie about free love and easy rider. Only see this movie for Cliff and the Boston locales.

Let me just start off by saying that I absolutely loved the book "Flowers for Algernon", which we read in my lit class at school. It was probably the best book I've ever been forced to read. Also at our school, they made us watch this movie after finishing it. I found this film at best a poor adaption of a great novel and at worst, a disastrous attempt at surrealist film-making. First, the positives: The actors, especially male and female leads are excellent and have a definite chemistry together on screen, however they seem a bit confined by the material they are given to perform. Now, the far more lengthly section of my review: the negatives. 1. Cinematography. The whole movie seems to have been shot in a style to suggest being on a bad acid-trip (not that I would know the feeling.). Many scenes are an endless, ridiculously over metaphorical montage where it would have been much simpler and more effective to use a more straight forward approach. For some odd reason, the director also decided to use a split screen effect at certain arbitrary points in the film for no apparent reason other than possibly the notion that it looked cool. 2. Writing. This is probably my biggest problem with the film. The writing in the movie is simply incredulous, seeing as it not only departs from the book in unnecessary ways, which I will detail later, but it also changes the plot in ways that make no logical sense, such as changing it so that the doctors don't tell Charlie that the effects of the operation may not be permanent, not something a 20th century medical professional is likely to do given that a patient must give informed consent before undergoing an operation. The beginning portion drags on, filled with scenes of Charlie doing childish activities such as playing on a slide or driving bumper cars to the point where one feels like jumping up on one's chair and screaming "We get it! He's retarded!". The most nonsensical plot twist is the series of scenes in which Charlie, not being emotionally developed, tries to force himself on Ms. Kinnian and is, as a result, slapped and called "A stupid moron", then departs on a motorcycle trip for no readily apparent reason and comes back and is suddenly sleeping with Ms. Kinnian, whose fiancée just magically disappears, which leaves the audience scratching its head and saying "Didn't she just slap and insult him two scenes ago? I wish my life worked like that." 3. The Ending. I have given this it's own section because I feel it deserves special attention. At the end of the novel, the reader basically has two ways of interpreting it: Relocation or Suicide (the latter being my preferred interpretation). However, this version removes all of the guesswork by simply giving you no clues as to what happens after he regresses back to his former state. Instead, you get a long, stretched out scene in which he is chased by his former self through long, white hallways for about five minutes, and one is left with a similar reaction I mentioned having during the beginning portion. This is one of the few movies in which I have been shocked to see the end credits, as it just ends with a freeze-frame of Charlie on the teeter-totter and leaves the story completely unresolved. I'm sorry if the above review seems a bit rantish, however these are simply my criticisms of the film. If you enjoyed it, then that's all well and good. To each his own.

After having done The Days Of Wine And Roses On the small screen and seeing Jack Lemmon get the part for the big screen, Cliff Robertson pulled a Katharine Hepburn. Like Kate the great who bought the screen rights to The Philadelphia Story and dictated the making of it to MGM, Robertson did the same for Charly which he had done on the US Steel Hour almost a decade earlier on television. He did better than Lemmon who only was nominated for Best Actor for Days Of Wine And Roses. Charly is the story of an amiable mildly retarded man who works and supports himself in a job at a bakery, but also has agreed to become an experimental subject to scientists, Claire Bloom, Leon Janney, and Lilia Skala. Janney has a theory in which he feels that the proper enzyme given and an operation and Robertson could start to function like a normal person. The operation has some foreseen and unforeseen consequences. One of them is that Robertson is one fully functioning male, but still lacks a whole lot of social skills. He forms an attachment to Bloom which is something she saw coming, but not necessarily her. More important he becomes far more aware of the world around him and how badly treated he was by a lot of people. One role I very much liked was that of his landlady Ruth White who was a woman with a big heart who does value Robertson as a person and gives him the respect any of us is due. Still the film belongs to Cliff Robertson who won an Oscar for Best Actor in 1968. Robertson had some stiff competition that year, but probably was helped by the fact that three of his competitors were British, Alan Bates for The Fixer, Ron Moody for Oliver, and Peter O'Toole for The Lion In Winter who if memory serves was the betting favorite. The other nominee was Alan Arkin for The Heart Is The Lonely Hunter. How he manages to go from a mildly retarded man to a person of no mean erudition is a wonderful process unfolding on the screen. Personally I think it ought to be required viewing in every acting class on the globe, the subtleties are something to behold. I don't claim to be any kind of scientific expert on this or any other scientific matter, but I would love to hear from those who know more as to whether the whole theory is feasible or not. In any event though Charly is a fine picture with both a message and a heart.