User reviews

Ordinarily when the industry tries to turn a short story like Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" (which I haven't read since high school) into a "major motion picture," you can forget about it. The kiss of death. You want to see an example, watch Hollywood's version of "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" sometime, especially the scene in which Gregory Peck receives a message -- that famous floating pregnant italicized first paragraph of Hemingway's -- and reads it aloud between guffaws in a smokey saloon midway through the film.

I wasn't expecting much from this movie either. It has less action than Hemingway so I was prepared to switch channels on impulse. But I was surprised because it turned out to be very well done. Melville is often cited as a forbear of Kafka but I don't know how well deserved that description is. The fact is that after Melville and before Kafka there was an enormous interest in bureaucratization, the "rationality" of labor as Max Weber referred to it. It was the period in which small craftsmen were being replaced by the kind of gigantic corporations that "alienated" the worker. Henry Ford adopted Jackson's "assembly line" methods and -- well, you get the picture. Bureaucracy, as a social problem and as a literary subject, was in the air. Anyway there's a little touch of Ionesco in here too, in addition to Kafka.

Wardrobe is great. Everyone's dress reflects his or her personality but not in any obvious way. Art direction is equally well done. The acting could hardly be improved upon and the script is surprisingly well joined. The latter two points are important because this is hardly more than a staged play and is very dependent on those aspects of production. And, oh, I have to mention the score too. Most of the music is a tinkling solo piano straight out of a silent movie. The rest is most queerly orchestrated: percussion, piano, bowed bass, theramin, trombone and vibes. (It's as if someone had thrown the name of every possible instrument into a hat including the glockenspiel and drawn out half a dozen at random.)

There isn't space enough to get into the rewards this film offers but let me mention two anyway. The performances are fine, but Glenn Headly is outstanding with her hooded eyelids and her gaze which seems to drop unzippingly down a man's body when she speaks to him. Her voice is sultry, mellifluous, insinuating. And her posture! Well, it's easy to get laughs out of a funny walk. Monty Python built a sketch around the idea. But Headly's BELONGS to her character. Her pelvis and belly are thrust forward, her shoulders drawn back, a Venus of Willendorf minus two hundred and fifty pounds.

The script -- except for an overblown plea for something called "humanity" at the end -- is not only engrossing but at times extremely funny if it's listened to. (The director doesn't shove the comedy down your throat.) After Bartleby refuses to work anymore by simply saying, "I prefer not to," half a dozen times, the other three office workers pick up on the word and begin using it unthinkingly. "Would you prefer coffee or tea?" "Your wife is on line three, or line two if you'd prefer." It begins to drive the boss mad. Another line: "Business Park! What kind of address is that? Those two words should never be used together. There's a word for people who do that. Oxymorons." And a delapidated old drunken bum stops the boss on a street and asks him, "Pardon me. Do you happen to have an extra dollar and thirteen cents? I was just xeroxing my dissertation --"

Melville's symbolism could get a bit thin -- the lightening rod salesman -- but Bartleby is more like the white whale. And I hate to say this because I'm sure Meville wouldn't have said it but there's a certain concordance between "Moby Dick" and "Bartleby. Both contrast the instrumental aspect of capitalism (the records room boss and the crew of the Pequod) with a stubborn and apparently spiritless self dermination (Bartleby and Ahab). As for the whale, I frankly don't know what he stands for unless it's the unknowable itself.

This film is really pretty good.

The film touches on some parts of the original story very aptly. I thought the Chaykin-Piscopo match was very close indeed to what Melville intended. As to Crispin Glover, no other movie actor of his stature is creepy enough and palpably slow-witted enough to fit the role -- not even the younger editions of a Brando or Hopper or Walken, who would overact monstrously in one form or another.

Most viewers seem to surrender to the misconception that the story is all about Bartleby. In fact, the narrator undergoes the most profound change within its context. And in that sense this film version fails because the Paymer character is made out to be a complete sap, rather than the seriously introspective and well-educated man of the original.

No one in 1853 knew anything of co-dependency in relation to addictions and other mental disorders, but Melville was prescient in that regard. The apparent despondency of Bartleby (characterized in the original as late of the Dead Letter Office) has no bounds, but it is in his employer's character we are led to see that this relatively new concept involving an excess of identification with the subject person can result in similar debilitation on the part of the caregiver.

It falls as well into the category of feature-length films based on short stories destroyed by too much padding and extraneous activity we used to call "stage business." It should be as spare as the slowly emptying mind of Bartleby himself.

I found this movie disturbing. Advertised as a comedy, it is no such thing. There is a lot of comedy in there, all right, but overall the themes are heavy, disturbing, even horrific. Crispin Glover's performance is flawless, and his role in the story is to pose a lot of questions that never get answered. The story revolves around the other characters' failure to figure him out. The new employee at the Public Records Office in an unnamed city starts out doing a great job, but he does less and less work as time goes on until he is spending most of his time refusing requests to perform any job tasks, or simply gazing up into the air-conditioning vent. They fire him, but he doesn't leave. It gets worse from there, believe me.

Herman Melville's `Bartleby the Scrivener' has always been one of my all-time favorite short stories, a masterpiece of tone that features one of the most enigmatic characters in literary history. With devastating wit and understated irony – along with a keen appreciation for the absurdist and the surreal - Melville tells the tale of a well meaning though banally efficient pragmatist who is forced to reconsider his values when he runs up against a certified (and perhaps certifiably insane) nonconformist. After he hires Bartleby to be a clerk in his office, the (unnamed) employer quickly discovers that the taciturn, quirky young man has no intention of doing any work - and, even more strangely, that he feels no compulsion to explain his state of self-imposed inertia. What makes Bartleby fascinating is that he is a nonconformist simply by nature and not because he has any real bone to pick with society or the people around him. This lack of explanation frustrates the boss, of course, and some readers as well. But it is Bartleby's defining phrase, `I would prefer not to' - delivered like a refrain throughout the course of the story - that speaks for those in society who question the value and purpose of the myriad irrelevant tasks we are compelled to perform as we make our way through life.

Melville conceived his story as a stinging indictment aimed against the dehumanizing effect of the business world's bureaucratic structure. How appropriate, then, that the makers of this current film version (now called simply `Bartleby') have chosen to set the tale in the present day, when that guiding philosophy has become, if anything, even more pronounced. David Paymer is splendid as the public records office manager who finds himself embroiled in an epic battle of wills against a force he cannot understand yet, in some bizarre fashion, can also not help identifying with and admiring. Crispin Glover is the pasty-faced Bartleby who seems to slip further and further into a state of catatonic madness as the story progresses. In their screenplay, Jonathan Parker (who also directed the film) and Catherine Di Napoli have retained the flavor of the original, combining hilarious and poignant moments in roughly equal measure. For even while we are laughing at the absurdity of both Bartleby and the other eccentric staff members in the office, we are also being made aware – as the boss is – of just how unique and admirable a creature Bartleby truly is.

With its deliberate pacing, its starkly antiseptic, parti-colored sets and its eerily moody musical score (some of it reminiscent of Bernard Herrmann's work for `The Day the Earth Stood Still'), the film takes us to a highly stylized world where the events we see depicted come to make total sense. Only the most blatant realist will be inspired to question the wisdom of the main character's actions concerning Bartleby. All the rest of us will see the boss for the open-minded humanitarian Melville intended him to be.

Parker has pulled together an interestingly offbeat group of actors to serve as his supporting cast, including Dick Martin, Joe Piscopo and Carrie Snodgrass. Glenne Headly is particularly wonderful as a flirtatious office worker who spends most of her time making suggestive comments, gestures and even foodstuffs to lure men her way.

It's the extraordinarily controlled and brilliantly delivered deadpan humor that makes `Bartleby' an adaptation worthy of its source. This movie proves that Melville's nonpareil creation will forever be a timeless tale.

Herman Melville's short story "Bartleby the Scrivener" gets a slightly surreal update in this offbeat comedy drama. The manager (David Paymer) of the city records department in a mid-sized California community decides that his staff of three - flirty chatterbox Vivian (Glenne Headly), sloppy Vietnam vet Ernie (Maury Chaykin), and slick-suited, Don Juan wannabe Rocky (Joe Piscopo) - could use some help, so he places an ad looking for a new employee. The boss ends up hiring the one and only applicant who wants the position, a quiet, pale young man named Bartleby (Crispin Glover).

At first, Bartleby is a model of efficiency, but before long he loses enthusiasm for his job, much to the annoyance of his co-workers, and soon he's spending his days staring at an air conditioning vent. The Boss asks Bartleby to get back to work, but Bartleby's repeated reply to such requests is, "I prefer not to," and the Boss sees little recourse but to fire him.

However, Bartleby refuses to leave his desk, and it soon becomes obvious that Bartleby has not only stopped doing his work - he's stopped going home and has moved into the office. Bartleby was the first feature film for producer/director Parker. He also wrote the screenplay, in collaboration with Catherine Di Napoli.

There is really not enough material in Melville's story to warrant a feature length film. When "Bartleby" sticks to the text of the story it is interesting and fairly funny, but Parker is forced to add a lot of filler which is simply not very good. Worth a look, but in the end, a bit weak.

My first reaction to "Bartleby" is that this movie is much like a previous Crispin Glover effort, "Rubin and Ed" about a strange, directionless man with little background, who plods his way through life carelessly. Some of the awkward moments and surreal dialogue and movements within Bartleby seem to be forced, trying to hard, to capture a campy feel. The film doesn't quite reach a campy status though because of this. Although Glover captures his quirky behavior perfectly, from staring at the air vent for hours, to endlessly saying "I prefer not to.." to every work request, and the dynamics of the working relationship with his boss are interesting at times. Joe Piscopo and Maury Chaykin have some strange roles as co-workers who are up to no good... how these guys stay employed are a mystery.

Bartleby has two major problems. One is, it just gets boring. A good slow movie can do and say a lot, but Bartleby just seems to be obsessed more with how weird it can be, how far it can push the surrealism of its cast and the corporate buildings on the hills. Another thing is, why does Bartleby's boss take such an interest in him? What is the motivation? Perhaps this is best explained in Herman Melville's book, from which this movie is based. For a Crispin Glover fan, this is even barely worth watching.

I love Melville's work and expected the movie to be better. The screenwriter took too many liberties using modern day references. I thought David Paymer did a great job, but he was definitely miscast. I felt no sympathy for him. The boss was the central character, the narrator of this story. He should have been softer, more likable. No one in that story was likable. The music in the film was horrible, made me want to mute it. The sets were fake looking, too weird and colorful, like a throwback from the sixties. Why not create a little reality for the viewer, then introduce the non-conformist? That might have been more powerful. I also like Glover, I really enjoy his performances, but i think he played this one to harshly, with too much gloom. Melville's Bartleby was simply shut down, not angry in any way. Glover played angry, maybe unintentionally, but still. I'd hoped for better.

If you are looking for humor...avoid! If you are looking for quirky depression....by all means, enjoy.

I am always a fan of finding little known gems in the movie store, but this movie, unfortunately is not one of them. Despite having all of the makings of a delicious find (I believe the description on the jacket even said "side-splitting comedy!")I spent the next hour or so in a trance of 'I thought this was funny..." "Maybe it will get funnier once it is fully set up,' 'maybe it will get funny now,' 'maybe now!' It never got funny. In fact, the only character you can even hope to identify with is the boss, but very thinly. Oh sure, it had some hilarious moments, but they were very short lived and not enough to call this a comedy or sustain you through the rest of the slow and slipping plot towards utter collapse.

I guess that is my main problem with it. The movie is quirky and (dare I say it) 'indy-ish' but NOT a comedy, despite the insistence of the tag-lines. For the most part it was vague and depressing, but it does manage to hold your attention, if only by sheer shock.

I never heard of this movie until couple of weeks ago when I saw it on TV. This brings my question - where do all the good, "small", independent movies go after they've been created and screened on the Sundance Film Festival? How do we learn about their existence? Where do we read about them? And most importantly, where can we see them?

Bartleby, the first film directed and written by Jonathan Parker is a real gem - modern version of the Melville's short story "Bartleby the Scrivener" with absolutely amazing cast.

Crispin Glover plays Bartleby, the man who was hired, but preferred not to work and who was fired, but preferred not to leave. David Paymer is his clueless boss who tries to understand what he is dealing with. Glenne Headly is Vivian, an office secretary, the woman of many adorable talents; Maury Chaykin, and Joe Piscopo are his coworkers in the one of the most boring office ever existed. The office is located in the building that sits on the top of the hill and comes directly from the El Greco's painting "View of Toledo" with its atmosphere of mystery, danger, and loneliness: Would you like to work in the building like that? I'd prefer not to...

I believe Parker made a very impressive debut - the film is creatively shot, the use of music is amazing - Beethoven's sonata turns into a creepy, quirky and moody Bartleby's theme for which Parker used theremin - very interesting and unique musical instrument. Parker and his co -writer transported 'Bartleby the Scrivener' into a surreal and absurd black comedy - satire on bureaucracy and alienation in the insane and cruel modern world.

Franz Kafka's name came to my mind more than once while watching the film - he would've loved that absurd, funny but dark and sad story. Also, if ever a good movie is made about one of the greatest and tragic writers of 20th Century, Crispin Glover should play him. Just compare their pictures...

Bartleby is one of my favorite Melville stories. However, like a lot of 19th century stories, it really does not translate well into a present-day setting. First of all, the office in which Bartleby worked in the story was nothing like the light, airy, spacious and colorful workplace depicted in this film. Nor, needless to say, were there any female characters, as depicted in the film, present to brighten up the office atmosphere. In the story Bartleby worked in an office of, by today's standards, almost inconceivable dreariness, provided with only one window, and that opening onto an air shaft. In addition there was the question of Bartleby's occupation, one which does not even exist today. As the title of the story indicated, Bartleby was a 'scrivener". That meant that Bartleby was employed in a law office to copy legal documents. In other words, Bartleby was nothing more than a living Xerox Machine. The reader must bear in mind that Melville wrote this story in the mid 1800s, long before the introduction of carbon paper or even of typewriters, let alone telephones, copy machines and computers. The only tools of the trade required by a scrivener were a quill with which to write, a penknife with which to sharpen it and a bottle of ink.

In addition, as can be imagined, the people who performed that sort of work in those long-gone days were paid the merest pittance, barely enough upon which to subsist. Small wonder Bartleby took to living in the office, he probably couldn't afford to live anywhere else. Thereby one comes to the biggest flaw in the movie. Today, a character like Bartleby simply wouldn't be treated in the way in which he would have been treated during the mid 19th century. Under similar circumstances today, the employer would call the police, who would then take Bartleby way for psychiatric observation, after which he would either be put on suitable medication or committed for further psychiatric treatment. That, of course, would not have occurred in the mid 19th century, nor does it occur in the original story. One cannot watch the film version without feeling that the story simply doesn't ring true, that the story simply wound't play out the way ti does. And, of course, one would be correct, because this is essentially a 19th century story played out in a modern setting, one in which it simply doesn't quite fit. It bothers one much the same way as seeing a Wagnerian Opera in which mythical Gods and heroes are depicted wearing business suits and ties. One cannot escape the uneasy feeling that, while it all may be very fashionable, it simply doesn't fit.

This doesn't work. I've seen centuries old literature translated into a modern story that is great, but this flops. Bartleby comes off as clearly mentally ill, almost catatonic. I'm sure others imagine there is some great message here about something, but come on, you know this is dumb.

This is not funny, deep, or entertaining. The actors are fine, but the script is awful.

Have you ever felt stuck in a dead end job or wondered what or why we do the things we do at work? Bartleby is one of the wittiest, enthralling movies I have seen. I never even heard of this release, but I had to see Crispin Glover in action. Plus, the whole cast works wonders in this one. Bartleby draws your attention in almost any scene he is in with his bizarre mannerisms, befuddling dialogue, and his ability to break away from the norm. Credit Crispin in a really Glover type performance here (and Crispin says he never worked an office job before!!). David Paymer is really great as has the overseer role down pat with clichéd business talk, employee interaction (ugh), and his crossings with Bartleby are fun to watch. He reminds me so much of previous managers I've worked with, so David got this down pat. I have a guy named Dennis at work who is our local office eccentric and Ernie reminds me so much of him. Maury Chaykin spews the most random, dull pointless drivel, but it makes him hilarious to watch. Want to know how not to come up with a rebuttal, just watch Maury in action in this one. Joe and Glenne are great in creating this real-like public records dept.

The film itself is a delightful psy-treat. Look at the surreal angles, lively colors, and that spooky theremin playing in the background. Mix this in with a unique story, subtle satire on corporate life, and the driving attempts to right deviance outside of the norm, and Bartleby is a thrill to watch. It makes me look at the daily grind a whole other way.

Hey, Crispin is in this: that's reason enough!

I saw this movie last night at MOMA, and thoroughly enjoyed it; a wonderful, well thought out film with a winning cast. Glover is wonderful in the title role, Paymer is excellent at his boss, and the supporting cast (especially Snodgress and Cassel) provides a solid foundation from which this film can fly. However, I think the real strength of this film is its design--sets, costumes, and music--which give it a delicious surreal reality. I hope this sees some sort of national release, it deserves it.

This is not a particularly; good film. It's full of itself and not of the story. The acting is dismal. The directing poor.

Even the writing sucks.

And how on Earth does Crispen Glover get work? He cannot act.

The movie's short length feels twice as long.

Don't know if Melville would even recognize his marvelous short story as translated into this film, or even if he'd approve...although I think he might...because the spirit of the original is here.

The satire of office shenanigans as presented by Jonathan Parker brings humor to this rather sad tale of a man determined to bring his intransigent self to the workplace and even to life itself... in the extreme. The overall effect is humane and even when the laughter comes we know something poignant is going on. David Paymer is superb as the frustrated, distraught but empathetic boss who tries to get Bartleby to be a responsive, reasonable worker/person, to no avail. Crispin Glover is a rather ghostly looking Bartleby, in a performance that demands withholding, a difficult task, but one he meets quite well.

This is good entertainment and food for thought...not often the case in movies these days.

Bartleby is an excellent film. It was on HBO 2 days after I read Melville's "Bartleby" short story for college. This movie is a modernized version of Melville's tale but it keeps to the main purpose of the story very well without too much drastic changes and I think even Melville would approve of this movie. Do not see this movie without first carefully reading Melville's story first or it will not make sense to you and you won't enjoy it. This movie has some comedy to keep it light at times but the overall message that the viewer is supposed to get remains the same, I won't tell you the message so I don't spoil this movie for you. If you enjoy social comedies with depth in them this is your movie, if you only like comedies with cheesy humor than this is not the film for you. Personally, I will watch this movie again and I was pleasantly surprised, I highly recommend this "undiscovered" film.

For people expecting an exact remake of Bartleby by Melville, this isn't the movie for you (especially if you don't appreciate awkward humor). The characters are all hilarious in their unique ways. Glover was perfect playing Bartleby. This was a great movie and I'm surprised people are complaining about it.

"Bartleby" is a pathetic indie comedy about a man, the title character (Glover), who is hired to work in a public records office and whenever asked to perform the only two functions in the office, verifying and filing, simply states "I'd prefer not to". A boss and three coworkers provide what meager comic relief is to be found in this flick in which Glover stands around catatonically taking up space while frustrating his boss. A feeble and amateurish attempt at film making, this bottom of the barrel flick is just another in a long line of junk indies; typically pictures on which some fledgling auteur cut his teeth before fading into the industry woodwork leaving his artifacts to circulate endlessly on tv. (D)

The head of a public records office advertises for a new employee. Only one person responds--Bartleby, a former postal worker who at first files like a demon then lapses into apathy. Bartleby stands all day looking at an air vent in the ceiling, responding to every request from his boss and coworkers with, "I would prefer not to." Eventually the boss retaliates with passive-aggressive acts aimed at getting rid of the man. Till the very end, however, Bartleby remains an enigma, a human cipher who refuses to give up his secrets.

Hardly an engaging story premise? That's what I thought when I trudged through Herman Melville's mid-nineteenth century story "Bartleby the Scrivener" in college lit class. Sure, the story has an important theme and some interesting symbolism, but it's also dull, dull, dull. However, director Jonathan Parker has taken the best sort of revenge on this canonical work of American literature; he's turned it into a zany, low-budget, laugh fest--getting across many of the essential ideas while also entertaining his audience. Parker has approached the sort of exaggerated, stale, depressing office atmosphere seen at the beginning of "Joe Versus the Volcano" and turned it inside out, covering it with a colorful, kitschy facade to inflate the absurdity of modern information mills.

Essential to the success of the film is the fine ensemble cast. Crispin Glover deserves more lead roles, and though with Bartleby he does spend most of his time immobile and silent, perhaps no other actor can accomplish more with simple posture, well-manipulated expressions, and quirky movement. Glenne Headly is a scream in her exaggerated seduction attempts aimed at Seymour Cassel. Joe Piscopo is also in fine form as the office macho man, though he has aged dramatically since we saw him last in, what--"Wise Guys"? Maury Chaykin gives the overweight and nerve-racked Ernie a comic flair, playing with his desktop windup toys only to flinch every time they jump, and pulling off an impressive physical comedy scene involving a sandwich, a photocopier, and a watercooler. Finally, David Paymer as "The Boss" provides a solid focus for the film with his adaptive performance of a complex character.

The title is Bartleby but the real focus of the story as well as this film is David Paymer and his portrayal as the nameless office manager. He really is excellent in this and generally I think the entire cast does well. Crispin Glover is good in the title role but he gets a little buried in all that's going on(more on that later) Glenne Headley is very memorable as Vivian. I always get sad when I see her now. Partly because she's gone now and partly because she reminds me of someone who is gone from my life forever. It's not so much just this role but all of hers. Here she is hilarious in a quiet way. Maury Chaykin and Joe Piscopo play two very different workers. Both hilarious in different ways. I think the problem with this movie is that it leans a little to hard into the humor and it doesn't feel like a darkly comic story anymore. Kind of lost in the goofy humor is the dynamic between the office manager and Bartleby. Purists would be bothered by that but I rank the movie 7/10 as a stand alone.

The visuals are different, and it tries to tell a story about corporate America (sort of). Kudos to the director for getting a theramin into the music score.

The movie is acted okay and shot okay for a sitcom. But the movie has to be the most frustrating movie, almost ever, to watch. He makes no sense and will hurt your insides. I didn't read the short story by Melville but this is an indication as to why he flopped and died penniless and unknown. It also says where we are today re - "watching" this junk and the rich (money rich) country we live in that we have nothing better to do or want to do. Like watching people make food, REALLY!!

I am short of characters and again we are where we are in society, reward DINGYS or the best of the DINGYS and in turn reward mediocrity.

GOD BLESS!!

Herman Melville was a pessimist, which should be unsurprising to anyone who has read him. Taken from his short, "Bartelby the Scrivener", this is the second of two-attempts to translate this story to film. The first was a good British-version (1972) that is much-closer to the original story, but suffers from being placed outside of its American-context. "Bartelby" is about America, and is Pre-Marxist in its criticisms of American-capitalism. What is remarkable is that it was written in the 1850s (unlikely to have been influenced by Marx in any way), when we were gradually becoming a business-run nation, and moving-away from being a purely-agricultural one. This process would commence more-fully after the Civil War, but for someone like Melville, living in New York City was the writing-on-the-wall.

But what makes "Bartelby" so amazing and chilling is that it resonates so strongly today. The problems we face now, due to the distortions inherent in our economic system, are still with us.If Melville said anything in his short-story, it was this: "What will become of the Bartelbys of the world?" Not everyone fits-into this job-system, and this should be no-surprise regarding an economy of "winner-takes-all", money-Godism. Under our profit-motive economy, people are simply left-behind, and Melville challenges our indifference to the needy.This was a very small-production, so I can understand why it is almost unknown. These are often the best films.

The character Bartelby is more than just a non-conformist--he represents everyone who is neglected by our culture and economy. He reminds-us of the inhumanity in our daily-lives. Melville enjoins-us to help the next Bartelby we see, and acknowledge our responsibility for the way things are. The office-boss character feels he isn't responsible for Bartelby and his "I would prefer not to" difficulties, but Melville is really saying that he IS. There is an implied collective-guilt in the story that would not be addressed adequately until the Holocaust, which helps it retain a sense of the contemporary. Melville even prefigures Kafka and the school of absurdism in his story, it is genius. This film is an expert updating of this story, and it works well! It's both funny and pitch-black in its despair regarding modern life. Crispin Glover is inspired, with the qualities of a silent-film actor (Lon Chaney, or Conrad Veidt from Caligari) in his expressiveness, and there are some great slapstick-gags. This is film-making at its best, it's what you need. You will feel vindicated.

This is the kind of movie that is a "love it or hate it" proposition. I don't believe there is much ground for neutrality. I found it to be original, with sharp dialog, and enough quirky characters to qualify as minimalist entertainment. This is not a bad thing, because the office setting maintains focus on the fine acting and keeps you involved. Bartleby is an enigma for sure, both sad and fascinating. Though not an outrageous black comedy, at it's heart is a dark premise, and that is how Bartleby affects his coworkers in different, and sometimes destructive ways. Their diverse reactions are what drives the film. For something memorable and different, I recommend "Bartleby" - MERK

Wow, really disappointed, all around. Great cast just does not carry a poor script and direction. It feels like a homework assignment. Skip it...