CHARLY Explained: Unjustly Forgotten Science Fiction Gem

Two films premiered that year, which permanently changed the face of the genre – 2001: A Space Odyssey and Planet of the Apes. However, the popularity of these titles usually overshadows the achievements of smaller productions, also released in 1968. Among them is a true gem – Charly. This film also provided historians with a substantial reason to permanently record it in the annals of cinematography.

The uniqueness of 1968 in the context of the history of science fiction can be verified based on the results of the Oscars at the time. During the ceremony, the award went to Stanley Kubrick for his work on 2001: A Space Odyssey. Notably, this single Oscar awarded to Kubrick was for his work on special effects. Interestingly, Kubrick was not responsible for the visual tricks in this case, but the outstanding specialist in this field, Douglas Trumbull. During that ceremony, the makeup in the equally famous Planet of the Apes was also awarded. However, as it turns out, the Academy did not stop there, adding another award to the science fiction genre, this time not in a technical category, but stemming from the Oscar “poker” (best picture, screenplay, actor, actress, direction).

In the entire history of the Oscars – which, despite everything, remains the most prestigious award in the world of film – only twice has a science fiction film won an Oscar for best actor (not to mention that there has never been a pure science fiction film with an Oscar in the most important category, as it is difficult to consider The Shape of Water a groundbreaking science fiction film). Even before the war, in 1931, the golden statue was awarded to Frederic March for his performance in the famous Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In 1968, this happened for the second and last time. Cliff Robertson received the Oscar for his outstanding role in Charly.

After this rather long introduction, aimed at emphasizing the fact that Charly premiered under important circumstances for the genre, achieving success that immediately secured its place in the history of cinema, there is nothing left for me but to present what this film actually is and what it is about. Because the biggest paradox of this spectacle is that it is a science fiction film, although it doesn’t resemble one at all. It does not follow the usual plot clichés, it doesn’t fit the convention, yet at the same time, because of the chosen theme, it fits within the genre’s framework. Perhaps because of this lack of clear belonging, Charly has been somewhat forgotten by science fiction fans. Unjustly.

It is worth paying attention to it, not only because of the outstanding acting performance, which you already know about, but also due to its interesting, very down-to-earth theme. The titular Charly is a developmentally delayed, mature man who struggles to find his place in the world of “normal” people. He has a place to live but is lonely. He has a job, but he is constantly ridiculed in it. He attends evening school, but he cannot learn to read and write. Finally, his teacher takes him to a clinic that specializes in pioneering experiments in manipulating IQ. Charly himself will undergo one of these experiments. The result of the experiment surprises everyone, including the hero, because from one day to the next, the developmentally delayed boy becomes a genius.

The screenplay for the film would not be ashamed of Stanisław Lem himself, because in fact, it has a close connection with so-called sociological science fiction. For the creators, more important than the technological aspects of the future was the human being and his functioning in society. The first candidate to write the screenplay for Charly was William Goldman himself, the outstanding American writer. Soon, the producers decided on a cheaper option, hiring Stirling Silliphant. It is worth noting that the script for the film was based on the book Flowers for Algernon, written a decade earlier by Daniel Keyes.

The leading role in the film went to Cliff Robertson, whom we know better from Three Days of the Condor. For those who prefer pure entertainment cinema, I will point out that Cliff Robertson also played Ben Parker, the main character’s uncle in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy. How did he handle the role of a developmentally delayed person struggling to adapt to society? And finally, did Cliff Robertson deserve the Oscar for this performance? Yes and no. At times, the actor uses somewhat clichéd methods, assuming that if his character is stupid, he must immediately look and behave stupidly. This reeks of stereotypes. However, his transformation into an intelligent person occurs gradually and credibly in the film, which makes me feel that the earlier performances were meant to outline the differences between the two states. Robertson has something innocent in his eyes, which simultaneously emphasizes his character’s sensitivity and reveals the sadness that lies dormant within him. I think, therefore, that although this role is not particularly brilliant, it deserved recognition.

Let’s not deceive ourselves. The main value of this film, which in its own way also affects our perception of the entire work, as well as Robertson’s performance, is the fact that it effectively influences our emotions by addressing the theme of excluded individuals. In recent years, our culture has been changing, and with it, the perception of socially sensitive issues. Minorities are coming out of hiding, and much is being done to ensure greater accessibility for people with special needs. If Charly were made today, it would certainly be more widely discussed, as it would perfectly fit the current trends. As we can see, the issue that the film highlights, using the science fiction costume, was already noticed decades ago.

One of the most important moments in Charly is when the main character manages to outpace the rat in solving the puzzle hidden in the maze. What was, at the beginning, an impossible Everest to him, finally becomes a real skill. At that moment, something happens in the main character that could be called an illumination. In a sense, Charly works well as a metaphor. It subtly tells the story of how, for most of our lives, we look at things in a way limited by the abilities of our minds, which act as a kind of prison. Reality, however, is much richer, concealing far more mysteries than we realize. Reaching a higher level of enlightenment naturally expands our horizons. However, with knowledge comes also a greater awareness of the end of the road, and with it… even greater existential sadness.

So, was it worth racing against the rat?