Charly was adapted from a tv play (1961) starring Cliff Robertson. The film release would win him an academy award for best actor. Charlie Gordon has learning disabilities and is selected for an experimental operation which will make him more intelligent. More than that, he becomes a genius polymath. When it is discovered that the change is temporary, he must use his intellect to arrest his tragic decline.
For the first hour, Charly is a rewarding crowd pleaser, following a sort of Rocky story arc. It has a documentary feel, with hand held cameras and a muted colour palette. But as the dream starts to shatter, the film becomes fragmented, telling much of the story through hallucinogenic split screen montages, scored by Ravi Shankar. It all gets very summer-of-love. This method tells the story quickly, but avoids following up any thematic proposals.
The film relates a uniquely human experience. We are educated until we understand the fact of our mortality, and nothing we can learn afterwards can deny this truth. But the film doesn't really dissect the interesting issues it raises. What would it mean if everyone had such an operation? Surely it is more likely that this surgery would be offered to the rich rather than those it would most benefit? What are the ethics of using Charlie as an experiment?
Robertson's performance is a little raw. It helped establish the theory that Oscars go to actors playing disabilities. Charlie is an outsider, someone who sees the world having first experienced its cruelty. There's a very strong scene where he word associates with scientists at a press conference and we glimpse his psychological trauma. It feels credible that one day, something like this could be attempted, and that's what good sci-fi does; it syphons into the almost believable.