There is no point in trying to explain humour: you laugh or you don't. I didn't laugh at Harvey but if you did then nothing I have to say is of any relevance.
Harvey is basically a farce, so I know I shouldn't be taking it too seriously. But I find I do take it seriously and it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
The premise is dubious where it is not actually odious. It is proposing that it is better to live with childish delusions than to become a responsible adult. Fine, if you are cushioned by a large independent income, like Elwood, but what if you aren't? Even more deplorable is the revelation that forms the climax of the movie: the mentally ill are better and happier than sane people. This is not only rubbish; it is offensive to anyone with the slightest acquaintance with mental illness
Then again, how happy is Elwood supposed to be? He is genial and harmless and he grins a lot, but he cannot relate to people and has no real friends. Most people avoid him like the plague and even he acknowledges that most of his casual barroom acquaintances don't come back a second time.
He may be living a completely care-free life, but what a life! He is just frittering away his time, drinking in bars. The implication is that he is a happy alcoholic, but this is a blatant cheat, since we never see him really drunk.
The part is atrociously written and poorly played. Whatever was intended to be the case, Elwood is clearly a ponderous bore. It is no wonder that sober people can't stand him. Stewart tries to redeem the character with his own natural likability, but his stuttering performance only intensifies the problem. And don't believe those people who claim that Stewart almost convinces them that they can see Harvey for themselves. Stewart's mime is both minimal and unconvincing.
The other characters are similarly misconceived. His sister is a shrieking hysteric; his niece is a desperate man-eater who throws herself at the first thing in pants that shows any interest in her; Dr Sanderson is an arrogant blustering bully, etc. etc. They are all supposed to become better people through their encounters with Elwood, but these transformations are declared rather than dramatised. For example, Dr Clumpson's improbable 'volt face' occurs off-screen, in a scene that is inexplicably missing from the movie, probably because even Mary Chase could not find a way to make it work.
Whatever faint wisp of plot the movie contains is entirely driven by a series of farcical misconceptions that arise because nobody is able to speak coherently and nobody listens to what anybody else is saying. As a result, people continually leap to unjustified conclusions, over-react and then launch into scarcely-motivated hyper-activity. Most disturbingly, they are constantly being rounded up and bundled in and out of the asylum with scant excuse and no due process.
As the movie jumps from one random improbability to another it is hardly worth mentioning that Harvey is seldom even supposed to be present.
The movie suggests that there is actually a serious question peeking out from behind the façade of frantic farce: 'who is mad and who is sane?' However, it can only make this bogus question seem even faintly pertinent by having everyone act at least as crazily as Elwood. The final intimation that Harvey may actually be real (at least metaphorically) is simply the last straw. The pretence that this movie has an underlying seriousness is just monumental self-deception, fully on a par with Elwood's own delusion.
The play apparently won a Pulitzer Prize. This would have left me boggling in disbelief, had I not once read the posthumous Pulitzer Prize-winning novel: 'A Confederacy of Dunces'. Its rickety structure and elephantine 'humour' is wholly consistent with this laughter-free travesty.
Like another IMDb reviewer, I could undertake a scene-by-scene analysis of why I think this picture is such a monumental failure, but why bother? It would only give me high blood pressure.
Harvey is basically a farce, so I know I shouldn't be taking it too seriously. But I find I do take it seriously and it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
The premise is dubious where it is not actually odious. It is proposing that it is better to live with childish delusions than to become a responsible adult. Fine, if you are cushioned by a large independent income, like Elwood, but what if you aren't? Even more deplorable is the revelation that forms the climax of the movie: the mentally ill are better and happier than sane people. This is not only rubbish; it is offensive to anyone with the slightest acquaintance with mental illness
Then again, how happy is Elwood supposed to be? He is genial and harmless and he grins a lot, but he cannot relate to people and has no real friends. Most people avoid him like the plague and even he acknowledges that most of his casual barroom acquaintances don't come back a second time.
He may be living a completely care-free life, but what a life! He is just frittering away his time, drinking in bars. The implication is that he is a happy alcoholic, but this is a blatant cheat, since we never see him really drunk.
The part is atrociously written and poorly played. Whatever was intended to be the case, Elwood is clearly a ponderous bore. It is no wonder that sober people can't stand him. Stewart tries to redeem the character with his own natural likability, but his stuttering performance only intensifies the problem. And don't believe those people who claim that Stewart almost convinces them that they can see Harvey for themselves. Stewart's mime is both minimal and unconvincing.
The other characters are similarly misconceived. His sister is a shrieking hysteric; his niece is a desperate man-eater who throws herself at the first thing in pants that shows any interest in her; Dr Sanderson is an arrogant blustering bully, etc. etc. They are all supposed to become better people through their encounters with Elwood, but these transformations are declared rather than dramatised. For example, Dr Clumpson's improbable 'volt face' occurs off-screen, in a scene that is inexplicably missing from the movie, probably because even Mary Chase could not find a way to make it work.
Whatever faint wisp of plot the movie contains is entirely driven by a series of farcical misconceptions that arise because nobody is able to speak coherently and nobody listens to what anybody else is saying. As a result, people continually leap to unjustified conclusions, over-react and then launch into scarcely-motivated hyper-activity. Most disturbingly, they are constantly being rounded up and bundled in and out of the asylum with scant excuse and no due process.
As the movie jumps from one random improbability to another it is hardly worth mentioning that Harvey is seldom even supposed to be present.
The movie suggests that there is actually a serious question peeking out from behind the façade of frantic farce: 'who is mad and who is sane?' However, it can only make this bogus question seem even faintly pertinent by having everyone act at least as crazily as Elwood. The final intimation that Harvey may actually be real (at least metaphorically) is simply the last straw. The pretence that this movie has an underlying seriousness is just monumental self-deception, fully on a par with Elwood's own delusion.
The play apparently won a Pulitzer Prize. This would have left me boggling in disbelief, had I not once read the posthumous Pulitzer Prize-winning novel: 'A Confederacy of Dunces'. Its rickety structure and elephantine 'humour' is wholly consistent with this laughter-free travesty.
Like another IMDb reviewer, I could undertake a scene-by-scene analysis of why I think this picture is such a monumental failure, but why bother? It would only give me high blood pressure.