When you think about the cast of the movie Arthur, you’re usually thinking about one of two very different eras of Hollywood. Most people immediately go to the 1981 original, a film that somehow turned a wealthy, functional alcoholic into the most lovable guy on the planet. It was lightning in a bottle. Then there’s the 2011 remake with Russell Brand, which—honestly—is a whole different vibe. But whether you’re looking at Dudley Moore’s manic giggling or Helen Mirren taking over for John Gielgud, the DNA of these movies is entirely built on the chemistry of the actors. It’s a masterclass in how casting can make or break a script that, on paper, sounds like a bit of a disaster.
The 1981 Legend: Dudley Moore and the Art of the Giggle
Dudley Moore wasn't even the first choice for Arthur Bach. Can you imagine that? They looked at everyone. John Travolta? Too young. Jeff Bridges? Maybe too rugged. But Moore brought this specific, frantic energy that made the character feel vulnerable rather than just annoying. He was a jazz musician in real life, and you can see that rhythm in his performance. He’s not just playing a drunk; he’s playing a man who is terrified of growing up, and he uses a martini glass as a shield.
Then there’s Sir John Gielgud.
He played Hobson, the butler. This is arguably one of the greatest supporting performances in cinema history. Gielgud was a legendary Shakespearean actor, a titan of the British stage. When he first got the script, he actually turned it down. He thought it was vulgar. Thankfully, he changed his mind because his deadpan delivery is what grounds the movie. He doesn't just serve Arthur; he loves him, even while calling him a "moving feast." The contrast between Moore’s high-pitched chaos and Gielgud’s icy, refined sarcasm is where the magic happens. It’s why Gielgud walked away with an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.
Liza Minnelli as Linda Marolla was the final piece of that 1981 puzzle. She played the working-class girl from Queens who catches Arthur’s eye while she’s shoplifting a tie. Minnelli brought a grounded, gritty warmth that balanced out the high-society nonsense. Without her, Arthur is just a rich guy with problems. With her, the movie becomes a story about choosing soul over money.
📖 Related: Howie Mandel Cupcake Picture: What Really Happened With That Viral Post
The 2011 Reimagining: A Different Kind of Privilege
Fast forward thirty years. Remaking a classic is always a gamble, and the 2011 cast of the movie Arthur had some massive shoes to fill. Russell Brand took on the title role. Brand is essentially a professional version of Arthur in real life—or at least he was at the time—so the casting made sense. He brought a more modern, hyperactive energy to the role. It wasn't about the "happy drunk" trope anymore; it was more about a man-child lost in a world of gadgets and magnetic floating beds.
The biggest shift, though, was Hobson.
The producers decided to swap the gender of the mentor figure, casting Helen Mirren as Lillian Hobson. It was a brilliant move. Mirren didn't try to mimic Gielgud. Instead, she played the role with a stern, maternal affection that felt totally fresh. Watching her interact with Brand was like watching a tired mother deal with a toddler who had found the espresso machine.
Greta Gerwig played the love interest, Naomi. This was before she became the powerhouse director behind Barbie and Lady Bird. She was the "it girl" of indie cinema back then. Her performance was quirky and soft, providing a sharp contrast to Jennifer Garner’s Susan Johnson. Garner played the "villain" role—the woman Arthur is forced to marry—with a cold, calculated perfection that made you actually feel bad for Arthur for the first time.
👉 See also: Austin & Ally Maddie Ziegler Episode: What Really Happened in Homework & Hidden Talents
Why the Supporting Players Matter More Than You Think
In both versions of the film, the smaller roles are what flesh out the world. In 1981, you had Geraldine Fitzgerald as Martha Bach, Arthur’s terrifying grandmother. She represented the cold, hard steel of old money. She was the stakes. If Arthur didn’t marry the girl she picked, she’d cut him off. Fitzgerald played it without a hint of warmth, which made Arthur’s rebellion feel meaningful.
The 2011 version utilized Nick Nolte as the terrifying father of the bride. Nolte is basically a human growl at this point in his career, and he used that to great effect. He provided a physical threat that the original movie didn’t really have. It changed the stakes from purely financial to something slightly more visceral.
- Stephen Elliott (1981): Played Burt Johnson with a quiet, menacing authority.
- Luis Guzmán (2011): As Bitterman, the chauffeur. Guzmán is a scene-stealer in everything he does, and his chemistry with Brand provided some of the remake's best comedic beats.
- Barney Martin (1981): As Linda’s father. You might know him as Morty Seinfeld. He brought that "everyman" quality that highlighted just how out of touch Arthur really was.
The Complexity of the "Drunk" Character
We have to talk about the elephant in the room. Playing a character like Arthur Bach is a tightrope walk. If you play it too "real," the movie becomes a depressing drama about substance abuse. If you play it too "cartoonish," the audience stops caring.
Dudley Moore found the middle ground by focusing on the joy. His Arthur was someone who was genuinely having a great time, which made the moments where he faced reality hit much harder. Russell Brand’s version leaned more into the loneliness. Both actors understood that the cast of the movie Arthur isn't just there for gags; they are there to represent the walls closing in on a man who doesn't want to deal with the real world.
✨ Don't miss: Kiss My Eyes and Lay Me to Sleep: The Dark Folklore of a Viral Lullaby
How to Appreciate the Performances Today
If you're going back to watch these, start with the 1981 version. Pay attention to the silence. Some of the best moments aren't the jokes; they are the quiet looks between Gielgud and Moore. There’s a scene where Hobson is in the hospital, and the shift in tone is jarring but necessary. It’s where the movie earns its heart.
When you move to the 2011 version, look at it as a companion piece rather than a replacement. The world had changed. Wealth looked different in 2011 than it did in 1981. The remake tries to address the irresponsibility of Arthur’s lifestyle in a way the original mostly glossed over.
Actionable Insights for Cinephiles
- Watch for the improvisation: In the 1981 film, many of Dudley Moore’s laughs were genuine reactions to Gielgud’s delivery. The "moving feast" line famously caught him off guard.
- Compare the "Hobson" dynamic: Note how the relationship changes from a father-son surrogate (Gielgud) to a mother-son surrogate (Mirren). It changes the emotional payoff of the final act.
- Check the soundtracks: Burt Bacharach’s score for the original is iconic. "Arthur’s Theme (Best That You Can Do)" won an Oscar and perfectly captures the whimsical, late-night New York atmosphere that the cast inhabited.
- Spot the cameos: The 2011 film is packed with recognizable faces in small roles, including Evander Holyfield.
To truly understand the legacy of these films, look at the career trajectories of the actors involved. For Moore, it was his peak. For Gielgud, it was a late-career reinvention. For Gerwig, it was a stepping stone to becoming one of the most important voices in modern film. The cast of the movie Arthur is a snapshot of Hollywood evolution, showing how comedy can transition from Vaudeville-style timing to modern, improvisational energy while keeping the same basic heart.
If you're looking to dive deeper into 80s comedy or modern remakes, start by identifying the "straight man" in each scene. In Arthur, the protagonist is rarely the straight man; he's the chaos agent. Observing how the supporting cast reacts to that chaos is the key to appreciating the craft behind the laughs. Compare the 1981 and 2011 versions back-to-back on a weekend to see how comedic timing has shifted over thirty years of cinema.