SCREENnMaterial Wealth andnSpiritual Povertynby Sam KarnicknDown and Out in Beverly Hills; Directednby Paul Mazursky; Screenplaynby Paul Mazursky and Leon Capetanos;nTouchstone Films.nDown and Out in Beverly Hills has anlot going for it. The film was directednand co-written by Paul Mazurskyn(Moscow on the Hudson). It has RichardnDreyfuss, Nick Nolte, and BettenMidler in the lead roles, as well asnTracy Nelson and “Little Richard”nPenniman in supporting roles. Thenfilm was photographed in cheerful colorsnby Don McAlpine, and the sets,nwhile deliberately tasteless, are stillnpleasant. Then why is this film sonempty and depressing?nThe story is based on Jean Renoir’sn1932 film Boudu Sauve des Eaux,nwhich was taken fiom Rene Fauchois’nplay of the same name. This newestnvariation on the theme deals with thentribulations of a wealthy Beverly Hillsnclothes-hanger magnate (RichardnDreyfuss) who saves a bum namednJerry (Nick Nolte) from drowning andngives him a place to stay—for whichnthe latter is oddly ungrateful. Most ofnthe 1932 film’s humor derives fromnthe contrast between Jerry’s grubbinessnand the slick, spiritually poor BeverlynHills surroundings in which we findnhim. Mazursky, however, gets Jerryncleaned up a half-hour into the film,nand thereafter the bum looks likeneveryone else.nRenoir made much more of thencontrast by prolonging Boudu’s transformation.nEven when Boudu consentsnto wear bourgeois finery, hendoesn’t fit in: his posture, gestures, andnmanners clearly mark him as an outsider.nMazursky’s Jerry, by contrast,nVITAL SIGNSn^f^-H-m^nlooks good enough to be mistaken for anHollywood writer as he sits in a BeverlynHills cafe with his new mentor.nAdmittedly, this departure from thenstructure of Renoir’s film sets up anpromising case of class confusion andnmistaken identity: What would happennif Jerry really tried to make it as anwriter? But Mazursky fails to follow itnup and drops the situation.nThe real contrast is between Jerry’sngruflF ingratitude and his savior’s kindnattempts to help him. This is fertilenground for humor, and it worked wellnin Renoir’s original. Mazursky, however,nwants to have it both ways: henwants to show Jerry’s good side as well.nWe see Jerry talking to a lonely Iraniannboy, teaching Mrs. Whiteman how tonrelax, curing both the dog’s and thendaughter’s anorexia, and helping thenson to accept his transvestism andnincipient homosexuality.nRenoir, by contrast, lets Boudu benBoudu. Michel Simon’s tide characternremains genuinely ignorant of what isnexpected of him in his strange newnsurroundings and takes a puckish delightnin seeing how far he can go innbreaking the rules. Boudu is an outsider,nbut he can’t help being the way henis. Nolte’s Jerry, on the other hand,nknows the rules but refuses to follownthem. He is, we are to believe, not justndifferent from this bourgeois family,nbut better. The message — thatn”money isn’t everything”—is obviousnonly to those who have plenty of thenstuff.nThe main difference between Downnand Out in Beverly Hills and Renoir’snoriginal lies in the directors: Boudunwas made by a genial satirist and onenof the best artists the cinema has probablynever known, while the author ofnthe remake is merely clever and derivative.nMazursky has made a career ofnplundering ideas from more originalndirectors. As writer-director, he endednhis first film. Bob and Carol and Tednand Alice (1969), with an absurdlynbotched and out-of-place steal fromnnnFellini’s 8V2: what seems to be thenentire population of Las Vegas streamsnout of Caesar’s Palace behind the titiencharacters, while a group of sopranosnsings “What the World Needs Now IsnLove, Sweet Love” on the sound track.nThe scene was so clumsy and artificialnthat even favorable critics choked onnit.nMazursky’s career provides numerousnexamples of this tendency. Fromnthe further riflings of Fellini in Alex innWonderland (1970)—in which Fellininhimself makes a guest appearance—nand Next Stop, Greenwich Village,nthrough his “hip” updating of 30’snremarriage comedies in Blume in hoven(1973), to the present, Mazursky hasncontinually taken from other filmsnwithout managing to bring any freshninsights to the material. By contrast,nwhen Woody Allen steals from Fellini’snSV2 in Stardust Memories or Bergman’snSmiles of a Summer Night in AnMidsummer Night’s Sex Comedy, henbrings in enough of his own ideas tonrejuvenate the material and make itnhis. While Allen uses other people’snfilms for inspiration, Mazursky usesnthem as a crutch. So in the presentncase, instead of rethinking Renoir’snfilm, he merely combines it withnGregory La Cava’s My Man Godfrey,na 1936 screwball comedy in which an”forgotten man” (William Powell)nmoves in with a decadent rich familynand helps them solve their problemsnwhile they help him solve his. Sincenthe two original films had completelyndifferent attitudes toward wealth andnmiddle-class values, it is small wondernif Down and Out ends up a confusednaffair indeed.nMazursky’s films almost alwaysnpound out the same lifeless message:n”Throw off your chains of bourgeoisnmorality, America. You have nothingnto lose but your inhibitions.” Thisnsimplemindedness forces him to manipulatenhis characters all too obviously.nIn Down and Out, Tracy Nelson,nas the anorexic college-age daughter.nJUNE 1986/37n