Having read the original short story (A Hugo winner, I believe) as a youth, and having just missed the US Steel Hour live production (It was on at 10:00, right after my bedtime), I really looked forward to seeing the film version of "Flowers for Algernon". The original short story is brilliantly a brilliantly written "diary," Charly Gordon's chronicle of a man who's IQ is more than tripled by a medical treatment. The film, admittedly captures that spirit, even though it's ends differently.
WARNING: SPOILER
In the short story, Algernon dies and the doctors discover during the autopsy that Algernon's brain has become perfectly smooth. So, Charly doesn't just revert to his former self, he faces dieing as a "vegatable."
END OF SPOILER
Ralph Nelson is clearly the wrong director for "Charly." Nelson can be brilliant ("Lillies of the Field," "Soldier in the Rain," "Requiem for a Heavyweight"), but his color work is, to be generous, less than stellar. Cliff Robertson "created" the role of "Charly Gordon" on the "US Steel Hour," garnering an Emmy nomination in the process. However, I was surprised and disappointed to find this fine actor unconvincing as a mentally challenged individual. His "Charly Gordon" is far too studied and lacks, most importantly, the dullness in the eyes one sees in virtually all mentally challenged individuals. Lon Chaney, Jr. in "Of Mice and Men," Peter Sellers in "Being There," Juliette Lewis in "The Other Sister" and John Mills in "Ryan's Daughter" were far more convincing, just to name a few. Robertson beat Peter O'Toole and Ron Moody for the Oscar, and both were clearly better. Even worse, actress Claire Bloom lacks chemistry as Robertson's love interest. Clearly, she needed to show more passion and sexual tension with Robertson, and Ralph Nelson fails to exploit that angle during the sluggish first two thirds. However, Robertson handles "brilliant" far better than he does "retarded," and his transformation is handled beautifully and profoundly. Unfortunately, Nelson then resorts to the tired, dated split screen effect to summarize much of the final third. What is genuinely praiseworthy in Charly is Lilia Skala's fine performance and Arthur Ornitz's extraordinary cinematography.
I give "Charly" a "6". I just wish it could be a "10".
WARNING: SPOILER
In the short story, Algernon dies and the doctors discover during the autopsy that Algernon's brain has become perfectly smooth. So, Charly doesn't just revert to his former self, he faces dieing as a "vegatable."
END OF SPOILER
Ralph Nelson is clearly the wrong director for "Charly." Nelson can be brilliant ("Lillies of the Field," "Soldier in the Rain," "Requiem for a Heavyweight"), but his color work is, to be generous, less than stellar. Cliff Robertson "created" the role of "Charly Gordon" on the "US Steel Hour," garnering an Emmy nomination in the process. However, I was surprised and disappointed to find this fine actor unconvincing as a mentally challenged individual. His "Charly Gordon" is far too studied and lacks, most importantly, the dullness in the eyes one sees in virtually all mentally challenged individuals. Lon Chaney, Jr. in "Of Mice and Men," Peter Sellers in "Being There," Juliette Lewis in "The Other Sister" and John Mills in "Ryan's Daughter" were far more convincing, just to name a few. Robertson beat Peter O'Toole and Ron Moody for the Oscar, and both were clearly better. Even worse, actress Claire Bloom lacks chemistry as Robertson's love interest. Clearly, she needed to show more passion and sexual tension with Robertson, and Ralph Nelson fails to exploit that angle during the sluggish first two thirds. However, Robertson handles "brilliant" far better than he does "retarded," and his transformation is handled beautifully and profoundly. Unfortunately, Nelson then resorts to the tired, dated split screen effect to summarize much of the final third. What is genuinely praiseworthy in Charly is Lilia Skala's fine performance and Arthur Ornitz's extraordinary cinematography.
I give "Charly" a "6". I just wish it could be a "10".