reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/18/84)
<is this line still being eaten?>
"The Razor's Edge", based on Somerset Maugham's novel, is
the story of a man's search for the meaning of life. Heavy
stuff. Throw in some "war is hell" experiences and a little per-
sonal tragedy, and it could get really depressing. If nothing
else, though, the new film version of "The Razor's Edge" isn't
depressing, due solely to the fact that Bill Murray is playing
the lead.
Obviously, the big question about this film is, can Bill
Murray play a straight part? "The Razor's Edge" doesn't quite
answer that question. Murray's performance is a qualified suc-
cess. The character is still presented with many serious prob-
lems and still has an overwhelming desire to find meaning in his
life, but Murray also infuses him with a lively sense of humor.
Doing so could be regarded as an inability to completely let go
of his comedy background, or a daring attempt to play the charac-
ter against type. Probably it's a little of both. Larry Durrell
is a difficult part, and Murray gives a respectable interpreta-
tion. His performance does not, however, provide the touch of
genius that would be necessary to make "The Razor's Edge" really
work. (I suspect that the performance will look better to those
who have never seen Murray do any comedy.)
The film's title refers to the difficulty of leading a good
life, likening it to walking on a path as narrow as a razor's
edge. (The title eventually takes on a grim second meaning.)
Larry Durrell is a young American who goes to France as an ambu-
lance driver during World War I. When he returns to America, his
war experiences make him unable to settle into the comfortable,
steady life awaiting him. He goes back to France, where he be-
gins to study philosophy while working as a common laborer. His
fiancee eventually leaves him because he is unwilling to return
to a life based on an ambition to have a big house and a new car
every year. On the suggestion of a particularly erudite coal
miner, he travels to India. There, a sojourn in a monastery
brings him some understanding. His return to France is followed
by reacquaintance with his former friends, including his now-
married fiancee and a widowed childhood sweetheart. These con-
nections lead to further problems and further enlightenment.
Durrell finally seems to have gained enough insight to live his
life in peace, if not in happiness.
The above may sound a bit scattered. So is the film. The
script has taken liberties with the novel, as might be expected.
The major loss has been a real understanding of Durrell's spiri-
tual journey. We are only given occasional bits of wisdom picked
up here and there rather than a sense of a continuing search for
a personal philosophy. One would have thought they could have
fit more of that into two hours and ten minutes.
John Byrum, the director, does not do very much to pull it
all together. He doesn't have any real vision, it seems, of how
"The Razor's Edge" should progress. Some sequences are rather
well done, others less so. A bit in the war sequences about
denigrating lost comrades to ease the pain falls completely flat
on a combination of writing, directing, and acting, the collec-
tive responsibility for which is totally Byrum's and Murray's,
since they also wrote the script. Other sequences fail in other
manners. The pacing of the first two thirds of the film is rath-
er slow, as well, though it picks up a little towards the end.
Paris looks unextraordinary and India far less beautiful and in-
teresting than many other filmmakers have made it. Partial blame
goes to the cinematographer, whose name I do not have before me
at the moment, but who, under the circumstances, would surely not
mind anonymity. (He did, however, come up with one fine shot of
sunrise on a battlefield.)
The supporting cast is competent, but unextraordinary.
Denholm Elliot and Theresa Russell have both been much better in
other films. James Keach has one good moment as Murray's best
friend, but otherwise his character serves as mere plot con-
trivance. Catherine Hicks comes off best as the fiancee unwil-
ling to sacrifice her comfort for Murray's quest, but equally
unwilling to let go of him. Brian Doyle-Murray, like his broth-
er, seems to be skirting between a comic and a dramatic portrayal
in his role as the chief ambulance driver, though he angles a bit
more towards the serious side.
"The Razor's Edge" is curiously unengaging for a film for
which so many of the people involved expressed deep feelings.
The producer went to great lengths to obtain the rights to the
novel, Byrum and Murray practically committed economic blackmail
to get in on it, and Murray made production of the film a precon-
dition for selling "Ghostbusters" to Columbia. Only Murray's
contribution seems to show any real interest for the material,
and then only his acting. Even that is not totally on target.
I had my doubts about this picture since first hearing of
it, and it's turned out to be much what I expected. "The Razor's
Edge" proves to be another case of a noble attempt to film the
unfilmable, following in the footsteps of such misguided efforts
as "Ulysses", "The Sound and the Fury" (starring Yul Brynner,
would you believe?), and "Steppenwolf". Tracing spiritual and
philosophical matters in a film calls for genius. Enthusiasm
isn't enough.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherbass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (10/21/84)
We almost went to see "The Razor's Edge" tonight ... but saw the sneek "American Dreamer" instead ... this is bound to become THE winter hit. This is a VERY funny movie that kept the entire theater rolling from start to finish. Action, romance, humor, and the dreams we all wish were reality. Given the review for Razor the folks who didn't switch lines tonight lost more than the $5.50 ... they lost a memorable night at the movies. See it!!!!
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (10/23/84)
I haven't seen the new movie. My comments are based on having heard or read about it in magazines and the original posted article, having read the book, and having seen the earlier version of the movie with Gene Tierney and Tyrone Power. If, in fact, the movie is going to attempt to probe "man's search for meaning" or anything of the sort, it's doomed from the start regardless of the casting of the leading man: they chose the wrong book. The philosophical trappings as well as the other traces of exoticism (the opium den, the general description of Larry's India trip) are actually only "atmosphere" for what is actually a story no different from any of Maugham's other writing. That is, the plot deals essentially with very real, everyday type people and situations with their humor, flaws, foibles and what are generally depicted as rather pathetic efforts to attain something "higher". The eccentricity of Larry (which is what Maugham actually reduces his quest to) and the colorful Paris backdrop only serve to reinforce this. I think that it's significant that Larry's actual change of lifestyle and the events leading up to it are, in the book, not part of the main action and are, in fact, revealed in a single (long) narrative as having taken place in the past. From that point on, Larry seems to undergo very little actual development but serves, rather, as a pivot point. The interest in the plot is in how the other characters are influenced by him without his trying to wield an influence and how they react to and around him. The discussion of actual eastern philosophy is superficial and dated to the point of being laughable. Obviously the real "meat" of the story is the gossip, bitchiness, greed, affection and loneliness suffered by everyone BUT Larry. If the movie attempted to use this to provide some sort of philosphical revelation (which I'm ready to believe, based on this article and other reviews) it can't possibly succeed. - Greg Paley