'Charly' (1968), Cliff Robertson's Adaptation of the Short Story, "Flowers for Algernon"

Charly Gordon (Cliff Robertson) is a mentally-challenged man who lives on his own and works as a custodian in a bakery. He starts taking intelligence tests at a local research clinic to determine if he is a good candidate for an experimental treatment to increase intelligence. He must race against a mouse, named Algernon, in a maze (Algernon in a wooden maze, Charly on paper) and repeatedly fails but his teacher, Alice Kinian (Claire Bloom), convinces the clinic to treat Charly anyway. The treatment is successful and Charly becomes smarter and smarter until he reaches a genius level, surpassing that of his doctors and he even takes a role in the treatment program himself. He later develops a relationship with Alice.

"Charly" (1968) is a film adaptation of Daniel Keyes' popular short story, "Flowers for Algernon." Cliff Robertson had starred in the 1961 production of "The Two Worlds of Charlie Gordon," based on the novel and purchased the rights to have it adapted into this film.

I first encountered the story, "Flowers for Algernon," in middle school during the late 80s and we were later shown "Charly" (1968) on VHS. It just stuck with me all these years and I read the story and watched the film several times since then. It has special meaning to me because I am physically-challenged and, with the exception of it not being mental, fall into the same boat as Charly Gordon -- if an experimental treatment were being tested that might allow me to walk again, even if just temporarily, I would not hesitate to take it. When Charly Gordon takes the treatment, becomes a genius, only to have it lost once again (like the Bible's story of Job) makes me very sad because it's difficult to regress to a "lesser" time after experiencing a much "greater" time. But, I would still take the chance myself.

"Charly" is categorized as drama and sci-fi but I really only place it in drama. I can see why some believe it's sci-fi but that just gives me images of robots and aliens when this movie is just about the human condition and accepting one's limitations. The jarring waves of change create some very dramatic and emotional scenes that are powerful enough to keep you contemplating your own life and what you would do in Charly's position before and after his treatment. What would you do if you were given a great life with unlimited opportunities and it was suddenly taken away again? This is the question I ask myself whenever I watch this movie.

"Charly" does a terrific job of conveying the story's main concepts and scenes. The story is in an easy-to-follow, chronological order that really conveys the essence of the messages being shown to us.

Charly starts out a clumsy, mentally-challenged man, who doesn't know when his co-workers and so-called friends are ridiculing him with practical jokes. There are people like this almost everywhere but it is a fact of life for innocent people who don't know any better. After the treatment begins making him smarter, his co-workers see it now and view him as a threat, making them do a 368 in the way they treat him.

Some critics say that Charly's intelligence matures while his emotional maturity lags. This might be true at first but by the end of the movie, I think he has grown well beyond the emotional maturity of even that of the medical and scientific community, which pretty much sees him as only a lab specimen to be studied but not to be viewed as their equals. The question and answer session Charly has with researchers is very powerful and profound, still sounding relevant with modern society and current events. It shows an intelligent man coming to terms with his past life while maintaining an intelligent and honest, if not somewhat and understandably jaded, view of the world in the face of knowing he will soon be returning to his previous level of existence. His doctors cover up the regression and demise of Algernon which only angers Charly more.

The movie has a runtime of 103 minutes and I think that very little of it is wasted on unnecessary scenes. In fact, I think this movie would have been much better if another hour was added to it in order to sufficiently cover the source material which really has a lot more story and character development. Much of the short story is shown in the movie but basically most plot points are watered down and others are implied not as explicitly. It does have a PG rating, so obviously some of the more explicit scenes/plots were not going to be done but some of it makes the written version much more powerful and realistic. One of the key points is the fact that the short story shows Charly first discovering his own sexuality and "discovering" women for the first time. I don't really recall the finer details but I do know the movie just skims over it in a few scenes while the story delved into this subject for a few chapters.

Some scenes could have been edited in some ways. I'm talking about some of the scenes that are supposed to convey Charly's sexual awakening and experimentation with women in biker gangs -- nothing is explicitly shown. This is the part where his emotional maturity has not yet caught up to his intelligence. These scenes are shown with psychedelic and kaleidoscopic camera techniques that are very distracting and unnecessary. These are about the only scenes I really have problems with but I am sure there are others that could be tightened up a bit as well.

Cliff Robertson's acting as Charly Gordon is simply superb and rivaling the role of Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man" (1988). But the highlight of the movie for me is his Q & A session with the researchers near the end of the movie. His delivery of the answers is simply amazing and whoever wrote this dialogue profoundly contemplated current and future society almost spot on, almost eerily accurate.

Claire Bloom is beautiful and gives a good performance as Alice Kinian, Charley's love interest. Her character goes from feeling pity for Charly's low intelligence to feeling anger toward him for his growing romantic feelings toward her to finally accepting and returning his love only after he developed his genius. It kind of makes me wonder if she only loves him because he might be her future meal ticket as a wealthy, world-famous scientist. Their romantic is strained by Charly's persistent memories of his lower-intelligent past.

Conclusion

"Charly" (1968) might not be the truest adaptation of the short story, "Flowers for Algernon," but it has a lot going for it. It shows the main plot lines of the short story while giving us a powerful performance by Cliff Robertson. It is well worth a view for viewers of all ages -- it is PG, after all, and most of the sexual awakening is only implied.

Rating: 4/5

Quotes

[Alice slaps Charly on the face after been hardly kissed by him]
Alice Kinnian: You - you think anyone would ever want you, you stupid moron!
[Charly leaves Alice crying]

Convention speaker #5: Modern science.
Charly Gordon: Rampant technology, conscience by computer.
Convention speaker #1: Modern art.
Charly Gordon: Dispassionate draftsmen.
Convention speaker #4: Foreign policy.
Charly Gordon: Brave new weapons.
Convention speaker #1: Today's youth.
Charly Gordon: Joyless, guideless.
Convention speaker #6: Today's religion.
Charly Gordon: Preachment by popularity polls.
Convention speaker #3: Standard of living.
Charly Gordon: A TV in every room.
Convention speaker #4: Education.
Charly Gordon: [agitated] A TV in every room.
Convention speaker #1: The world's future, Mr. Gordon.
Charly Gordon: Brave new hates, brave new bombs, brave new wars.
Convention speaker #7: The coming generation.
Charly Gordon: Test-tube conception, laboratory birth, TV education, brave new dreams, brave new hates, brave new wars; a beautifully purposeless process of society suicide. Any more questions?