It is a bit surprising that Hollywood ever made a film out of Somerset Maugham's novel "The Razor's Edge". This is because the story has a lot of existential elements and is far from the typical fare coming from the studios. Despite this, they made a 1946 version with Tyrone Power and a 1984 version with Bill Murray. Of the two, I prefer the 1946 version--some of which because it generally sticks closer to the novel. However, being 1946, the sexual elements were sanitized a bit....though it still is superior for several reasons...most notably Bill Murray's odd performance.
The story begins just before the US entered WWI. Some friends are gathered for a party before several of them head to Europe as volunteer ambulance drivers. Not surprisingly, this experience transformed Larry (Murray) and instead of coming home after the war, he stays in France. At first, his girlfriend (Catherine Hicks) supports this bohemian lifestyle for him, but after it's clear he's never returning home to his old patrician life, she marries another man. During the rest of the film, Larry works many low-paying jobs...enough to survive and enough to travel. He's on a journey to explore himself and life and eventually it takes him to India and the East.
At the same time, the film focuses on the folks Larry left behind back in Illinois. While they are all rich, they aren't necessarily happy. Some are a bit screwed up, others are totally out of control. The parallel between these shallow, stagnant rich folks and the poor but happy Larry is the gist of the film.
Bill Murray can be a very funny man and has made some wonderful films. That being said, he's all wrong for the film for two main reasons. Sometimes (particularly earlier in the movie) he seems a lot like Bill Murray, not the character in the novel. He is a bit of a smart aleck and his reactions seem like Murray in "Meatballs" or "Ghostbusters". However, a bit later, he often is 100% deadpan...much like he later did in "Broken Flowers" and "Lost in Translation". But then, oddly, some of the earlier personality and sarcasm still occasionally pokes through...which is not consistent with the story or character. As a result, it definitely blunts the impact of the story...a very important story since it focuses on the meaning of life and is supposed to be a story with great depth.
Another problem, though much less important, is that sometimes the film didn't try very hard to capture the era in which it was supposed to be set. In particular, the lovely Catherine Hicks looks great...and much like a woman who is living during 1984. Her hairstyle is wrong for 1916-1920. Fortunately, when the film got to 1929, her hair was period appropriate.
Overall, an interesting experiment that ultimately fell a bit flat. I appreciate the risk Murray took but ultimately it's a story that just doesn't quite hit the mark. This apparently was the prevailing attitude back in 1984 and the movie lost a lot of money....earning back less than half of its costs.
By the way, I wouldn't mind seeing a third version of this story. The basic story idea by Maugham is laudable...man's search for meaning. But the first film was a bit too tame and the second was just a bit of a mess. I'd love to see one that would correct this as well as sticking very close to the source material.
The story begins just before the US entered WWI. Some friends are gathered for a party before several of them head to Europe as volunteer ambulance drivers. Not surprisingly, this experience transformed Larry (Murray) and instead of coming home after the war, he stays in France. At first, his girlfriend (Catherine Hicks) supports this bohemian lifestyle for him, but after it's clear he's never returning home to his old patrician life, she marries another man. During the rest of the film, Larry works many low-paying jobs...enough to survive and enough to travel. He's on a journey to explore himself and life and eventually it takes him to India and the East.
At the same time, the film focuses on the folks Larry left behind back in Illinois. While they are all rich, they aren't necessarily happy. Some are a bit screwed up, others are totally out of control. The parallel between these shallow, stagnant rich folks and the poor but happy Larry is the gist of the film.
Bill Murray can be a very funny man and has made some wonderful films. That being said, he's all wrong for the film for two main reasons. Sometimes (particularly earlier in the movie) he seems a lot like Bill Murray, not the character in the novel. He is a bit of a smart aleck and his reactions seem like Murray in "Meatballs" or "Ghostbusters". However, a bit later, he often is 100% deadpan...much like he later did in "Broken Flowers" and "Lost in Translation". But then, oddly, some of the earlier personality and sarcasm still occasionally pokes through...which is not consistent with the story or character. As a result, it definitely blunts the impact of the story...a very important story since it focuses on the meaning of life and is supposed to be a story with great depth.
Another problem, though much less important, is that sometimes the film didn't try very hard to capture the era in which it was supposed to be set. In particular, the lovely Catherine Hicks looks great...and much like a woman who is living during 1984. Her hairstyle is wrong for 1916-1920. Fortunately, when the film got to 1929, her hair was period appropriate.
Overall, an interesting experiment that ultimately fell a bit flat. I appreciate the risk Murray took but ultimately it's a story that just doesn't quite hit the mark. This apparently was the prevailing attitude back in 1984 and the movie lost a lot of money....earning back less than half of its costs.
By the way, I wouldn't mind seeing a third version of this story. The basic story idea by Maugham is laudable...man's search for meaning. But the first film was a bit too tame and the second was just a bit of a mess. I'd love to see one that would correct this as well as sticking very close to the source material.