Charly (1968)

Director:

Ralph Nelson

Writers:

Daniel Keyes (short story "Flowers for Algernon")
Stirling Silliphant (screenplay)

Release Date:

23 September 1968 (USA)

Genre:

Drama | Sci-Fi

Tagline:

A less than ordinary man is turned into a genius. He awakens to an exquisite love experience, but at an impossible price for CHARLY

Plot:

A retarded man undergoes an experiment that gives him the intelligence of a genius.

Plot Keywords:

Experiment | Genius | Mouse | Intelligence | Scientist

Awards:

Won Oscar. Another 4 wins & 4 nominations

Cast

Cliff Robertson	...	Charly Gordon
Claire Bloom	...	Alice Kinian
Lilia Skala	...	Dr. Anna Straus
Leon Janney	...	Dr. Richard Nemur
Ruth White	...	Mrs. Apple
Dick Van Patten	...	Bert (as Richard Van Patten)
Edward McNally	...	Gimpy (as Skipper McNally)
Barney Martin	...	Hank
William Dwyer	...	Joey
Dan Morgan	...	Paddy

Also Known As:

The Two Worlds of Charly Gordon (USA) (working title)

Runtime:

103 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono | Mono (Westrex Recording System)

Certification:

Iceland:L | Australia:PG | UK:PG | Finland:K-8 | Sweden:15 | USA:PG

Filming Locations:

Boston City Hospital - 818 Harrison Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Company:

ABC Pictures

Trivia:

Cliff Robertson saw more than one TV production he'd starred in turned into hit movies with other actors (such as Days of Wine and Roses (1962)), so when he starred in the 1961 "The United States Steel Hour" (1953) production of "The Two Worlds of Charlie Gordon," based on the novel "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes, he bought the rights and later was responsible for turning that story into this film.

Goofs:

Continuity: When Charly comes back to his room, disgusted that he had been beaten by a mouse one too many times, he throws his hat onto the dresser where it falls to the floor. Moments later he leaves, and the hat is back on top of the dresser.

Quotes:

Charly Gordon: Are there any questions? Did you enjoy the film?
Convention speaker #1: Mr. Gordon... how do you feel at the present moment, about your development?
Charly Gordon: Grateful, sir.
Convention speaker #1: You are happy about it?
Charly Gordon: Yes.
Convention speaker #2: Why?
Charly Gordon: Because it has allowed me to... see.
Convention speaker #3: To see what?
Charly Gordon: The world.
Convention speaker #4: And what do you see in that world?
[...]

Movie Connections:

Referenced in Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)

Trivializes the Book and Its Purpose

Before watching Charly I had been told to avoid watching this film having just read the book. Of course I didn't do myself justice and decided to watch the film anyway. The film simply rushes through the whole storyline trying to fit too many themes in a minimum amount of opportunities in a mere hour and forty minutes.

As stated before the length of the film was much too short in order to get across the message in an efficient way let alone in a strong manner. This had a large indirect or maybe direct effect on the performance of that of Cliff Robertson who plays Charly. The transformation of his happens at lightning quick speed which undermines the book in not displaying the long and grueling process Charly had to face in which he was constantly being treated like a lab experiment. Also the way he deals with his feeling on loneliness and lack or respect is in no way the same as he did in the book which was much more understandable and seemingly much more realistic in the way Charly would have reacted. Instead in the movie he drives off and becomes wild and crazy without a second thought. A rushed script here leads easily to a rushed movie with glaring problems, even more so then the leading character.

Ralph Nelson, the director of this film, took the wrong approach here trying to have Charly change so drastically at such a fast pace. The transformation in itself is shocking enough. There is no need to further try and make the lead character undergo this rapid change because it takes away from the substance of the film and ultimately the rest of the film with it. The entire film rests on this one leading character and the director certainly displayed that challenge here, unfortunately it was not displayed in the way that it should have been.

I would not recommend this film especially if you read the book because it is filled with just to many contradictions throughout and faces its own themes in a overly simplistic way and method. The film fails miserably in trying to describe such a complex problem effectively and certainly doesn't give any answers in a precise or convincing manner. Sadly this film becomes a parody of itself.