Watch Bartleby For Free

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Best movie ever!

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Bartleby is one of my favorite Melville stories. However, like a lot of 19th century stories, it really does not translate well into a present-day setting. First of all, the office in which Bartleby worked in the story was nothing like the light, airy, spacious and colorful workplace depicted in this film. Nor, needless to say, were there any female characters, as depicted in the film, present to brighten up the office atmosphere. In the story Bartleby worked in an office of, by today's standards, almost inconceivable dreariness, provided with only one window, and that opening onto an air shaft. In addition there was the question of Bartleby's occupation, one which does not even exist today. As the title of the story indicated, Bartleby was a 'scrivener". That meant that Bartleby was employed in a law office to copy legal documents. In other words, Bartleby was nothing more than a living Xerox Machine. The reader must bear in mind that Melville wrote this story in the mid 1800s, long before the introduction of carbon paper or even of typewriters, let alone telephones, copy machines and computers. The only tools of the trade required by a scrivener were a quill with which to write, a penknife with which to sharpen it and a bottle of ink. In addition, as can be imagined, the people who performed that sort of work in those long-gone days were paid the merest pittance, barely enough upon which to subsist. Small wonder Bartleby took to living in the office, he probably couldn't afford to live anywhere else. Thereby one comes to the biggest flaw in the movie. Today, a character like Bartleby simply wouldn't be treated in the way in which he would have been treated during the mid 19th century. Under similar circumstances today, the employer would call the police, who would then take Bartleby way for psychiatric observation, after which he would either be put on suitable medication or committed for further psychiatric treatment. That, of course, would not have occurred in the mid 19th century, nor does it occur in the original story. One cannot watch the film version without feeling that the story simply doesn't ring true, that the story simply wound't play out the way ti does. And, of course, one would be correct, because this is essentially a 19th century story played out in a modern setting, one in which it simply doesn't quite fit. It bothers one much the same way as seeing a Wagnerian Opera in which mythical Gods and heroes are depicted wearing business suits and ties. One cannot escape the uneasy feeling that, while it all may be very fashionable, it simply doesn't fit.

I loved this film and I cannot believe how so few critics liked it. What were they thinking? Apparently one critic thought since it was based on a short story that the film should be shorter. Of course, once one critic says its too long, every other critic has to agree. I guess David Mamet is an exception to the rule. Bartleby is not too long. It deserves it's running time so that we can absorb the story more closely. When we hear Bartleby repeat the same words: "I'd prefer not to" we are not given any explanation for the comment but yet it becomes extremely poignant. Eventually everyone in the office begins to use the word "prefer" and we see how Bartleby has affected the workplace like a disease. The film is very bizarre particularly because of the way the boss reacts to Bartleby. Instead of just firing the guy for not doing his job, he tries to reason with him. Eventually Barlteby gets in an even more bizarre predicament that has even more to do with just "prefering not to" work. The boss is obsessed with Bartleby and the film turns very Kafkaesque. We see a capitalist scenario where people topple on another for greed, power and respect. The film is based on the short story "Bartleby the Scrivener" by Herman Melville. It was appropriate to mention the source because the story seems very relevant not only to our modern culture but also to what Melville went after writing Moby Dick. The film also has a wonderful score with a Theramin instrument and a brilliant cinematography.

Herman Melville was a pessimist, which should be unsurprising to anyone who has read him. Taken from his short, "Bartelby the Scrivener", this is the second of two-attempts to translate this story to film. The first was a good British-version (1972) that is much-closer to the original story, but suffers from being placed outside of its American-context. "Bartelby" is about America, and is Pre-Marxist in its criticisms of American-capitalism. What is remarkable is that it was written in the 1850s (unlikely to have been influenced by Marx in any way), when we were gradually becoming a business-run nation, and moving-away from being a purely-agricultural one. This process would commence more-fully after the Civil War, but for someone like Melville, living in New York City was the writing-on-the-wall.But what makes "Bartelby" so amazing and chilling is that it resonates so strongly today. The problems we face now, due to the distortions inherent in our economic system, are still with us.If Melville said anything in his short-story, it was this: "What will become of the Bartelbys of the world?" Not everyone fits-into this job-system, and this should be no-surprise regarding an economy of "winner-takes-all", money-Godism. Under our profit-motive economy, people are simply left-behind, and Melville challenges our indifference to the needy.This was a very small-production, so I can understand why it is almost unknown. These are often the best films.The character Bartelby is more than just a non-conformist--he represents everyone who is neglected by our culture and economy. He reminds-us of the inhumanity in our daily-lives. Melville enjoins-us to help the next Bartelby we see, and acknowledge our responsibility for the way things are. The office-boss character feels he isn't responsible for Bartelby and his "I would prefer not to" difficulties, but Melville is really saying that he IS. There is an implied collective-guilt in the story that would not be addressed adequately until the Holocaust, which helps it retain a sense of the contemporary. Melville even prefigures Kafka and the school of absurdism in his story, it is genius. This film is an expert updating of this story, and it works well! It's both funny and pitch-black in its despair regarding modern life. Crispin Glover is inspired, with the qualities of a silent-film actor (Lon Chaney, or Conrad Veidt from Caligari) in his expressiveness, and there are some great slapstick-gags. This is film-making at its best, it's what you need. You will feel vindicated.

I found this movie disturbing. Advertised as a comedy, it is no such thing. There is a lot of comedy in there, all right, but overall the themes are heavy, disturbing, even horrific. Crispin Glover's performance is flawless, and his role in the story is to pose a lot of questions that never get answered. The story revolves around the other characters' failure to figure him out. The new employee at the Public Records Office in an unnamed city starts out doing a great job, but he does less and less work as time goes on until he is spending most of his time refusing requests to perform any job tasks, or simply gazing up into the air-conditioning vent. They fire him, but he doesn't leave. It gets worse from there, believe me.