While he is mostly known for his towering tome Moby-Dick, which is appropriately considered possibly the greatest American novel ever written, Herman Melville was a much more varied writer and someone who composed several tremendous stories, many of which have gone on to become incredibly influential in their way. One of the more prominent is his short story “Bartleby the Scrivener”, a peculiar tale of a worker who starts as a promising employee, but soon becomes the bane of the existence of his superiors, his constant refrain of “I would prefer not to” becoming a problem that leads to quite a bleak and harrowing conclusion. The story has been adapted into different works over the years, and one that stands out is the more recent retelling, in which writer and director Jonathan Parker takes the general story and brings it forward in time, reconfiguring it to take place in a contemporary setting and therefore as a result managing to not only modernize the narrative but also add unique and intriguing insights in the process. Not a film that is particularly well-remembered or acclaimed in the traditional sense, but rather one that is discovered more than it is recommended, Bartleby is a bizarre curio of a film, and which has developed a small but passionate following, particularly amongst those with a penchant for the absurd and surreal, both of which are very important in guiding the director’s style as he attempts to rework this unique story into a film that pays tribute to Melville while also still offering some degree of social commentary directly related to the present day, the two seemingly attempting to exist in dialogue with one another. It’s not always immune to some more questionable elements, and it can sometimes veer towards being too abstract to be entirely worthwhile, but it is otherwise a very daring adaptation that takes a unique stance on a very unique story.

Parker expends quite a bit of energy adapting the short story to fit into the 21st century, and Bartleby proves to be one of the most peculiar but oddly resonant depictions of the early 2000s produced during that era, functioning as a wonderful time capsule in not only the interior design, city planning and fashion, but also the technology and more abstract socio-cultural sensibilities that were so prominent at the time. Changing the setting from Melville’s original story seemed like a gamble, but it was by far the smarter decision, both because this was an independent production made on a shoestring budget and thus didn’t need to expend too many resources on replicating the original era, and the fact that having it take place in a recognizable environment gives it a sense of familiarity, which Parker uses to his advantage, particularly in cobbling together a very unique tone that persists throughout the film. Not only does the film bear a resemblance to many real-life elements, but it also has a distinct mood that evokes endearing but peculiar sitcoms that were very popular at the time, the awkward and often strange comedies-of-errors that were widely consumed, particularly the workplace comedies that drew on clashes of personality and mistaken identities as their fundamental method of communicating their major ideas. Onto this, Parker layers a sense of off-the-wall surrealism, which amplifies the awkwardness and drives in the unnerving nature of the narrative, being a perfect marriage between the ambition of Melville’s story and the director’s artistic curiosities. It may not work for everyone, especially as the plot begins to unravel into something even more unconventional, but taken for what it is, and based on the overarching themes being explored throughout, it makes for quite a unique experience, and one that draws us into a bit of a haze as we navigate this very disquieting but wickedly funny narrative that is as much about Melville’s original themes as it is critiquing the American Dream and its place in 21st-century society, which has always been a point of major contention for many filmmakers at the time.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Bartleby, and perhaps its main attraction, is the cast of the film. Parker enlists quite a diverse range of talented actors to play the central roles, with the two main characters being portrayed by David Paymer, one of the great character actors of his generation and someone who rarely is given the chance to play leading roles such as the one in this film, and the iconic Crispin Glover, right at the peak of his steady ascent towards acclaim. Paymer as the unnamed employer and Glover as the indecisive titular character is a perfect match, not only because they fit the roles perfectly – Paymer’s slightly awkward but well-meaning everyman qualities and Glover’s masterful ability to be the right blend of endearing and sinister being integral to the film – but through the chemistry that they develop, and which becomes the cornerstone of the film. This film is a solid example of how archetypes can very effectively be implemented into a narrative in a manner that is intriguing and daring. Absolutely every role in this film is formed from some common stock character, but they all feel extremely natural based on both how they are written and how they function within the narrative. Beyond Paymer and Glover (both of whom have their best qualities amplified), we have the likes of Maury Chaykin, Glenne Heady and Joe Piscopo in major supporting parts, as well as Seymour Cassel, Dick Martin and Carrie Snodgress in smaller but still pivotal roles. They each fit in perfectly with the tone of the film, being the precise combination of unnerving and deeply entertaining, which is interesting considering how every actor plays it completely straight, never winking back at the audience in a way that makes it clear that they know that they are making a comedy. This aligns directly with the underlying stiffness that persists throughout the film, and which eventually and methodically contributes a very compelling sense of sinister charm that becomes vital to the tone and atmosphere of this adaptation.

However, as intriguing as it may be in terms of the approach it takes to the adaptation, and the terrific work by the actors, Bartleby is a film that does slowly begin to lose momentum after some time, which is a result of it not being entirely clear what it intended to be outside of the surface-level premise. Melville’s original story is a layered, complex character study that has an abundance of depth and speaks to themes much more profound than its relatively short length would lead you to believe. Conversely, this film only begins to touch on the same themes before it deviates and goes in another direction, which leads to it becoming quite distracted and losing sight of its central concept, after which point the plot becomes repetitive and somewhat tedious, which is never a good approach for a film that had this much potential, or was at least adapted from a work that is known for its complexity. There are many elements in the original story that Parker ultimately seems incapable of finding a way to implement into the adaptation, which makes it quite hollow after a while, especially when the initial novelty has worn off and we begin to grow weary of the constant return to the fundamental themes, which is arguably part of the appeal of Melville’s story, but which doesn’t have the cumulative value that we would likely find would carry much more weight in this film had it been executed properly. There are a few moments where we wonder whether Parker comprehended the full scope of the narrative and how it functions, but he does have enough of a handle on the material to earn the benefit of the doubt, he just struggles to follow through in a way that would have ultimately been most effective, evoking the underlying ideas and carefully placing them throughout the film in a manner that feels authentic and captivating, instead settling for a mildly amusing but otherwise middling adaptation.

Even though the filmmakers seemed to slightly overlook some of the more important aspects that made Melville’s original story such a foreboding and daring parable, Bartleby is still a very entertaining film, albeit one that takes its time to develop some of its ideas, which is not entirely facilitated by its paltry 80-minute running time (although any longer and it would run the risk of overstaying its welcome – it is already taking a few too many liberties in condensing the story into a feature-length format), but which still offers some degree of consistency where it was required. It is by no means the definitive version of this story (although there has yet to be one that actually can be considered as such – it is much more a story that is appealing to philosophers and academics than it is to artists, mainly because of its existential underpinnings), but it remains entertaining in the way that we would expect, particularly in the quietly compounding sense of dread that accompanies the off-the-wall humour. Parker has not made many films since this one and has mainly stayed relatively obscure, but his clear knack for capturing a specific kind of atmosphere, as well as his unique approach to adapting this story, proves that he is a director with talent, and someone whose vision could have been sharpened to form something truly special. It doesn’t do a disservice to Melville so much as it tends to neglect some of the more important details, focusing on the premise more than its underlying themes. This is not too egregious, since the film itself is very entertaining and carries a lot of merit, it simply just requires more work than usual to get there, which can be frustrating when we realize it is not interested in giving us the answers we crave. Ultimately, Bartleby is exactly what we would expect, doing precisely what it intended, just not going as far as it perhaps could have gone, which is the main reason it falls just short of greatness, and why it will be seen as nothing more than an obscure cult comedy with a small but dedicated group of supporters, rather than a misunderstood and overlooked future classic.