Goodbye Charlie

by George Axelrod

Paperback

First published January 1, 1959

Reviews

[William Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve not seen the film version, which is mostly reviled and, I understand, much changed. And yes it’s a dated view and sense pf humor about women, men, and sex. Bit it’s a decently written, well set up comedy. Maybe being a gay man, this dated hetero-ness doesn’t bug me as it might others… though I am aware of its backwardness (though the incel and manosphere crowds are worse, if in this vein). I was struck by how the straight 1950s mindset is able to see the absurd sitcom results of the conceit, there’s all kinds of unexamined—and for a modern reader, rife and funnily unsettled—about implications the play doesn’t explore. Bodiedness, gender and gender identity, trans identity, and more. This would be a great play to read in a class alongside Judith Butler or similar.

The final scene felt abrupt and the situation could have been taken further.

[Joe Marino · Rating 3 out of 5]

A silly "womanizer becomes a woman" story. We start the play at the lightly-attended memorial service for a Hollywood writer who went through the ladies like Kleenex. And then,... surprise... she comes back to life.... as a good looking woman! Hilarity (?) ensues. A modest comedy with modest laughs. This is a nice, safe, middle of the road comedy.

[Erik Hanberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sadly meh. Wish this had the original ending.

[Carol · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

George Axelrod really has a thing about pairing sad-sack middle-aged men with beautiful young women (the most famous of these plays being The Seven-Year Itch).

There are parts of Goodbye Charlie I enjoyed. The story of a washed-up screenwriter who dies after being caught in flagrante delicto by a cuckolded husband with a gun, only to reappear as a beautiful young woman, has amusing insights and some strong character beats. It’s easy to imagine Lauren Bacall – who originated the role on Broadway – mining the humor of the play and using her strong features to the play’s advantage. But the play doesn’t wear its age well, and it’s not shocking it’s mostly forgotten today.

As for the movie, which also wallows in semi-obscurity, well, the less said the better. Vincente Minnelli directed it, and if you’re thinking ‘hey, that’s a weird choice for a comedy,’ well, you’d be right. Let’s just say some changes were made between the screen and stage to make the movie more serious but instead made it more ridiculous. That they totally altered the ending – which I considered one of the strongest parts of the play and one of the reasons I could see a theatre company deciding to stage it today – might, however, be the most nonsensical of a series of odd choices. Quasi-recommended, mostly because it’s just so weird that it’s a somewhat entertaining train wreck.