source: Bartleby

Directed by Anthony Friedman, director of...well nothing else, this is an adaptation of a story by Herman Melville. A firm of accountants takes on an employee, Bartleby, who starts to behave differently to everyone else, mainly by not doing what he is told, often using the phrase, "I prefer not to", which does get rather boring. Eventually the firm moves offices to escape Bartleby and he is carted off to an asylum. Where he dies of something. It is hard to warm to the film because Bartleby is almost a complete blank. No background is suggested, no motives are given and a lot of the time he is either silent or he says something cryptic without context. He wanders around 1970's London (nicely photographed though) in his spare time and looks at things but there is no indication of why or what he feels. John McEnery as Bartleby has a pinched, haunted look but speaks all the time in a quiet monotone that eventually begins to grate. The other main character is the head accountant played by a subdued Paul Scofield who tries to understand and help Bartleby. One is left wondering what the film is about though it does encourage one to perhaps read the original story and compare.

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.

A dry and deadpan tragicomedy of nihilism based on a novella by Herman Meville. BARTLEBY demonstrates what happens when, "I would prefer not to", becomes the answer to every action and reaction. A similar motif is also found in the more profound film, VAGABOND, by Agnes Varda. These works seem to critique the capitalist economic model without proposing the usual socialist reply, but offer up something more akin to complete non- acceptance. Although Anthony Friedman, director of BARTLEBY, has chosen a significantly different storyline from that of Melville (the film is set in late 1960's London), the tale does encapsulate his theme of the dehumanization of the modern workplace and presents a whimsical, yet unwise response.

I loved Melville's Bartleby, The Scrivener as a portrait of a cog in the workplace who is used by his employer until he was disposible. This movie version portrays Bartleby as a crazy person who refuses to retire, and who will not move on in life. At least, that is how this film version came across. It was a horrible experience watching this movie when I could see that it totally misread the message, which is that mundane, repetitive work drains the soul of the worker.

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.

This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.

Other than watching Paul Scofield in one of his rare film performances there is little to justify spending the brief time necessary to watch this film. It is difficult to understand what persuaded the producers to make this film.

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.

The problem with Bartleby is not Paul Scofield or John McEnery, both of whom are fine actors. The problem is the story itself, which cannot really be updated to the present day, regardless of whether that present day be 1970 or 2001. Bartleby is a story written in the 1800s, about the 1800s, and it simply doesn't work in the present day. For example, there is the office in which Bartleby works. He works for a lawyer in a cold and dark office that seems more akin to that of Ebenezer Scrooge than to any bright, airy, modern-day office building. Indeed, the only window in Bartleby's office has no view because it looks out onto an airshaft. Then there is the nature of Bartleby's occupation. He is not, as in this version, an accountant. Indeed, his function is nowhere near so creative as that. He is, in point of fact, a scrivener in a law office. And exactly what is it that a scrivener does? He copies law documents. Bartleby is, in point of fact, nothing more than a human Xerox Machine. Bear in mind that, in the 19th century, there were no such things as word processors, Xerox Machines, carbon paper or even typewriters. A lawyer who needed to produce duplicate copies of legal documents employed scriveners to produce those copies word for word, by hand, with pen and paper. It is impossible to imagine any occupation as stupefyingly dull as that. By the same token, it is also impossible to imagine anyone today performing any occupation even remotely comparable to that of a 19th century scrivener. It simply doesn't, and could't, exist today. And that is precisely the point. The world of Bartleby is as different from the world of a modern office worker as the world inhabited by the whalers in Moby Dick would be from that on board a modern-day whale-catching ship. Both have changed so much since the 19th century as to be as alien as the surface of another planet.