I have often said that there is no era of filmmaking more dated than that of the late 60's. There literally are silent movies that I think seem more contemporary better than a lot of the films representing the counter culture movement. One of the geeky amusements I share as a film pseudo film scholar is reading contemporary accounts of the new 60's cinema, and reading critics drool over how incredibly "in touch" movies like Easy Rider or Bonnie and Clyde are with the real America, man.
However, for every real artistic achievement from the period, like The Graduate or Midnight Cowboy, there are five overrated and sometimes laughable period pieces, such as Medium Cool, M*A*S*H, and Charly.
Granted, there are problems with the movie that go beyond its now antiquated sty style. For one thing, it's based on a novel that I have never really liked even the idea of. I was required to read in high school and you probably were too- Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes. (Spoilers! Ending Revealed!). Both book and film are about a mentally retarded man named Charly Gordon (Cliff Robertson), who works as a custodian at a bakery. He takes night classes with a doctoral candidate named Miss Kenyon (Claire Bloom), who luckily for him, has a connection to an experiment designed to make people smarter. Charly is named as their first human candidate, and the experiment works beyond their wildest dreams, making him a genius. Developing intellectually faster than he does emotionally, he tries to rape Miss Kenyon but she gets over that (score one for feminism) and they decide to marry. But then of course, tragedy sets in- the experiment is revealed to be only temporary and Charly will quickly revert to his old, child-like self.
The book is certainly readable, but I have always felt that the ending was unnecessary and melodramatic, something manipulative added only to make us cry. I felt that neither Keyes or director Ralph Nelson every really exploited some of the obvious and interesting ideas in this project- how would somebody in Charly's situation REALLY adapt to being "cured"? Instead, the movie's "themes" consists of a horribly clichéd speech Charly gives at a psychology convention about, how the times really need to be a changing.
Nelson's visual style does not help, much. He uses a lot of split screens that just become distracting and there is an unforgivable sequence (not in the book) where Charly joins a motorcycle gang after the attempted rape, going off to see America and find himself. To quote the Angry Video Game Nerd, "What were they THINKING??"
Cliff Robertson won an Oscar for his role as Charly, but honestly, I don't feel it's deserved, even though the actor liked the part so much he bought the rights to the book to make sure that only he could play the role in the movie version. He is okay as the genius, but I never really bought him as a mentally retarded person. The performance seems to much like somebody pretending to be retarded than someone with an actual disability.
But Charly does have some positive qualities- the premise of the movie is interesting even if the movie never exploits it well, and Bloom is very good in her part as the psychologist, maybe a little too well, considering how shallow the characters are written. But in the end, the movie, like the book, is a good idea locked inside bad execution.
Charly (1968)