Review of Charly

Introduction

Charly stars Cliff Robertson and Claire Bloom and tells the story of a man with learning difficulties who is accepted into an experimental program to increase the intelligence of people with a low IQ. After a successful operation and the tuition of his teacher (Bloom), Charly (Robertson) slowly becomes a genius. As he further develops, both intellectually and emotionally, he falls in love with her. However, the he soon learns the price of so-called progress.

Video

The video comes in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen and at the start of the film looks pretty good for a 1968 movie. However when the film gets to the first scene where the screen splits into two, a great deal of dirt is evident on the print and from that moment on the image isn`t particularly clean. Some scenes are reproduced better than others and the video is always sharp and colourful.

Visually, the film is quite bland, and the highlight is a tour of 1960`s Boston, aside from that the movie is mainly set indoors, either in the laboratory or in Charly`s bedsit.

Audio

The sound comes in Dolby Digital Mono and is reproduced well throughout the film. Aside from the dialogue, of which there is plenty, the sound consists of a very 1960`s soundtrack, utilising flutes and some monotone early synthesiser sounds – which really date the film.

Features

Extras consist of mini-bios of Cliff Robertson and Claire Bloom, a still image galley and some very brief trivia about the film. These, along with the scene selection, are accessed from an easy to navigate menu system.

Conclusion

Charly is an acclaimed film which gained Cliff Robertson the Best Actor Oscar in 1969, and deservedly so – his portrayal of Charly is quite superb. Watching the film over 30 years after is was made does highlight how politically incorrect the terminology etc is, for example, Charly is continually referred to as a retard (or retarded). It is also noticeable that the Charly we are introduced to at the start of the film follows several stereotypes of people with learning difficulties that are best forgotten in the 21st century.

The film was based on a very good short story, and although very well acted, there isn`t really enough substance in the screenplay to carry it through the 99 minutes running time and hold the interest of the viewer throughout. The film is a little slow and the filmmakers obviously had a problem deciding how to end the film (I`ll not elaborate on this or I’ll spoil for film for those who haven`t seen it).

The video suffers from a lot of dirt at times, but given the age of the movie, it`s not too bad, and apart from a couple of scenes, it isn`t a real problem. The soundtrack performs adequately, with the dialogue very clear throughout. The extras however aren’t very exciting.

Overall, this is reasonably good film, that is a bit on the long side and hasn`t aged all that well.