Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Arthur Bach needs to grow up, but that is unfortunately not the only thing he needs to do. According to his extremely rich father, Arthur has to marry a certain wealthy Susan Johnson or he's cut off from the family money ($750 million dollars worth). The problem is, Arthur doesn't love Susan (though I hear she makes some good chicken) and has just fallen head-over-heels for the waitress and part-time shop-lifter Linda Marolla. Arthur is an interesting fellow. He's really just a big kid, born into riches with at least one person looking after him every second of every day. Working just rubs Arthur the wrong way - he likes to have fun, womanize, and of course, drink. Drinking gives Arthur a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde complex; and while that gets him into all sorts of trouble, it's absolutely hilarious to watch on screen.

Dudley Moore is great here in this film as Arthur, earning an Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for his performance. Moore is fantastic with the comedic aspects of the film, turning the already funny lines into unforgettable comedic gold, but he is also great in bringing Arthur down to a relatable level and making the character likable. Moore has some help in the co-star department - Liza Minnelli is great as Lina, the spirited nobody who Arthur can't get enough of, and John Gielgud is terrific as Arthur's butler Hobson. Gielgud won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance in this film, and there's no doubting why. Hobson has a stone-solid dry wit and stuck up attitude, but he's always looking out for Arthur - and Gielgud is perfect in the role. Steve Gordon's 1981 film Arthur is short and simple, but delivers laughs a-plenty.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: For all its visual delights, how much better Renaissance would have been in live action. The animation is fantastic in the big picture, yes, but the characters are cold and hollow, much like the story and the style of this film. With real actors, perhaps the world of the film would not have felt so lifeless. There is much to admire here, but at the end I found that all I could do was admire. I did not enjoy the movie that much, and it clarifies something that I did not see before: that the visual elements can be the defining positive aspect of a film, but without a good story and strong characters, it can all be for nothing. I will not go so far as to say that this movie comes to nothing, but sometimes it comes dangerously close. I love Dark sci-fi thrillers. Blade Runner and Dark City are two films I thought were wonderful. But Blade Runner had its tragic villain and Dark City had its thought-provoking story arc. Renaissance has shadow and light, but little else. I wish I could have liked this movie more, but the weak story and the empty characters stood in the way of that. The Renaissance was a historical and artistic burst of color and life. How ironic, then, that one of the most bleak and lifeless movies I've seen this year takes its title from the Renaissance.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
George Cukor directs this high quality story of suspense in the theatrical world with his usual sensitive but firm touch. Ronald Colman's performance, which earned him an Oscar, still stands up despite a few overwrought moments it's hard to forget his haunted countenance as he struts aimlessly around social functions and tries to find meaning in his life. There are a number of interesting subtexts and Cukor does an excellent job of making them clear without forcing anything too much. The script by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon is brilliant, mixing the rarified theater world with the seedy world of the streets and comprehensively utilizing elements from Shakespeare's "King Lear" as a reference to both the film's main theme of jealousy and Colman's character's obsession with identity.

Several interesting things about this movie superficially it could be dismissed as too flippant a treatment of the everyday problems of actors. In other words if the art of acting required such complete sublimation of individuality we would soon have a rash of psycho method actors stalking the streets. But I don't really think this story's primary concern is acting or the job/art of acting per se. I think Anthony's struggles represents a broader existential question, a deeply buried uncertainty about identity. There's a key, I feel, in his relationship with his ex-wife Britta (Signe Hasso). He says that he never would have or could have become a good actor without her inspiration. And at another point he explicitly states that his extreme identification with his roles began when he married her. I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems important to me, especially because it's his obsession with her and jealousy of her that ultimately pushes him over the top. Perhaps the implication is that Anthony put himself in danger in the first place by entering into a serious relationship. Marriage implies a "union of the soul" in the traditional conception. It's unusual that the male and female protagonists are divorced at the beginning of the film. It's not completely unprecedented (Hawks' comedy "His Girl Friday" springs to mind, among others), but it is unusual and probably significant, especially in light of the fact that they do not end up resolving their romantic separation. In a way, the film could be implying that jealousy is another form of self-love.