Running Time: 129 minutes
Directed By: Hal Ashby
Written By: Jerzy Kosinski, from his novel
Main Cast: Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine, Melvyn Douglas, Jack Warden
"LIFE IS A STATE OF MIND"
With no Hitchcock movies to watch, I once again spun the imaginary wheel of randomization and decided to watch "Being There" (which is currently streaming on Netflix, if you're interested). I've wanted to see "Being There" ever since I saw "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" starring Geoffrey Rush, back in 2004. In the end, I wasn't disappointed.
The tagline to the film is "A story of Chance" and that's exactly what this is. The story tells of a man named Chance (Sellers), who works as a gardener for the "old man", and is basically retarded. One morning, as Chance awakens and goes about his morning routine, which mostly consists of watching television (a device of which he is obsessed with) and tending the garden, he is soon informed by the maid, Louise, that the "old man" has died. Later, some lawyers come by and inform chance that he must leave so that the estate can be settled. Chance doesn't really know the concept of "leave" as he has never been outside the house, and thus his only knowledge of the outside world, is that of which he's seen on t.v. After wandering the streets for the entire day, Chance's leg is accidentally run over by Eve Rand (MacLaine), wife of millionaire Benjamin Rand (Douglas). Instead of taking Chance to the hospital, Eve invites him to her home, where doctor's are on hand to look after the dying Mr. Rand. When asking Chance's name, Eve mistakenly hears "Chauncey Gardiner" instead of "Chance the gardener". What follows is really just a story of chance...as the tagline says. Through a series of misunderstandings and people taking Chance's simple mutterings for much more than he means them, Chance is quickly befriended by Ben Rand, later meets the President of the United States (Warden) and by the end of the film is a high candidate to become the President himself. Really the plot is so screwball and out there, that explaining it isn't the easiest of tasks, so I'll leave it at that.
As I was watching the film, my impressions of it weren't that high. In my opinion, the film didn't know whether it wanted to be taken seriously or taken as a comedy and not in that good way where it could be interpreted as both. While the plot certainly drew me in and interested me, I just felt that the film didn't really have a voice and thus wasn't making too much of an impact on me, outside of the average experience. In fact, the plot was kind of silly, and it seemed I had seen this before in a cheaply made comedy, although I couldn't put my finger on which one. The device of misunderstanding the main character until he is drummed up as something powerful and great, seemed to me like it had been done and just seemed cheap. The characters were certainly interesting enough, although I certainly didn't buy Jack Warden as the President. I thoroughly enjoyed Sellers', MacLaine's and Douglas' performances, but there was just something missing and the total appeal wasn't there.
I believe that appeal came at the end of the film. I believe that the end of the film was saying "In case you didn't realize, this WAS a serious film and here's something serious for you to chew on!". Let's take care of some business first...
SPOILER ALERT!
Okay, now that we're alone...The ending of the film sees the death of Benjamin Rand. At the funeral, as Benjamin is being carried to his final resting place, Chance begins to scour the grounds of the Rand estate, where Ben is being buried. He stops to tend to a failing little tree and then continues to mosey around. He comes to a small lake and walks across, right on top of the water. He stops for a moment to dip his umbrella in, to test the depth of the lake, and then continues to walk away from us, as we hear the President, who is giving the eulogy say: "Life is a state of mind".
I really didn't have any initial interpretations and all I kept thinking was "Damn, this movie is gonna' stick with me for a long time", not that that's a bad thing. I took a little time before writing the review to pop into IMDB and read some other people's opinions on the ending. Of course, the Jesus Christ interpretation came up and that certainly is possible. Maybe the film is saying you don't have to be brilliant to be great, or you don't have to be a genius to make an impact. Or maybe the film is saying that the key to life is simplicity, a characteristic that Chance unknowingly had. Or maybe, as one IMDB user wrote, Chance simply didn't know that he couldn't walk on water, and because of that he was able to. Since Chance had absolutely no knowledge of the outside world, maybe water was just another surface and in his head HE COULD walk on it. I'm just not sure guys and that's okay. It's okay to not understand every little aspect of every film you watch, because it gives you something to discuss with your fellow movie heathens and something for you to toss around in your head. Certainly if anyone has any interpretations of the ending, feel free to post them in comment form.
In the end, I did enjoy this movie. I know that there was something deeper there and I think the film not having a voice through the entire film, was almost a good thing, because it made the ending that much more powerful. After reading the story of Peter Sellers' and how he wanted to get this movie made to show off his acting chops, I'm happy for him and really, this is a great movie to go out on. I think that image of Sellers walking across the water and out of our lives is symbolic of Peter Sellers' walking out of our life, the life of the film lover.
RATING: 8/10 Yes only an '8' after all that babbling, but I'm sure I'll toss this film around in my head until I'm forced to up that to a '10'.
MOVIES WATCHED: 169
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 832
October 23, 2010 11:43pm
EDIT October 24, 2010 2:19am
After thinking about the film for most of the night, I felt compelled to pop back in here and add some more thoughts on “Being There” and more specifically the ending. In my opinion, the ending can be interpreted in two different ways, the interpretation inside Chance’s mind and the interpretation of everyone else (ie. The people that drummed him up to be something he wasn’t and even the viewer’s supposed interpretation, after witnessing chance get away with all the misunderstandings that he did). In Chance’s mind he could walk on water because he didn’t know he couldn’t (I mentioned that above). Maybe Chance saw someone on television walking on water and in his mind it was something that could be done, because he didn’t know any better. In fact, I think this idea explains a lot of the film. Chance got away with everything that he got away with because he was ignorant as to the ways of the world. He really had no emotions, therefore he could go on a television talk show and pull it off, because he didn’t have any idea why he was going on the talk show and thus didn’t have a story to come up with…he was just going on television because someone said “We want you to come on television.” I think another reason Chance could walk on water (within the terms of the movie) is because the only thing that he fully understood in life was gardening…or nature. Gardening/nature gave him a reason for being for his entire life, right up until the point when the “old man” died. He understood and respected nature so much, that he could become one with it. I think that’s why, right before he walks on water, he takes a moment to pamper a little tree that looks frumpy. He cared so deeply about nature and thus could connect with it like no one else…ie. The way Rain Man understood numbers and could do amazing things with them.
The other interpretation, is that of everyone else (including us, who were lead to believe Chance could build himself up, through essentially nothing but mutterings). He was built up so much that everything about him was appealing. He went from being a simple, retarded, almost invalid, gardener to being the object of women’s (and men’s) desires, befriends millionaires and presidents, speaking six different languages and having intellect beyond belief. He was built up to something he wasn’t and people saw him almost as the second coming of Christ. Now some people might take that as an atheist-like quote, but I think even a Christians from a Christian’s perspective, we could see that he surely wasn’t Jesus Christ, he was just built up to be God-like.
Maybe I’m wrong…maybe Chance was, in fact, Jesus Christ. Maybe the “old man” was symbolic of God. I don’t know. But that’s the fun thing about ambiguous endings…the discussions are endless and the interpretations are to.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sins of Omission - Entry #94: ZODIAC (2007)
Running Time: 157 minutes Directed By: David Fincher Written By: James Vanderbilt, based on the book by Robert Graysmith Main Cast : Jake...
-
Running Time: 118 minutes Directed By: Louis Malle Written By: Louis Malle Main Cast: Benoit Ferreux, Lea Massari, Daniel Gelin, Fa...
-
Running Time: 157 minutes Directed By: David Fincher Written By: James Vanderbilt, based on the book by Robert Graysmith Main Cast : Jake...
-
Running Time: 142 minutes Directed By: Volker Schlondorff Written By: Jean-Claude Carriere, Gunter Grass, Franz Seitz, Volker Schlondor...
I like your interpretations of the film's meaning and think all could be argued to apply.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, could not stop thinking, especially as the film finshed up, about the prospect of Chance having a certain Christ-like quality to his character. If you think about it, most of the film he speaks in what could be taken as parables, much like Christ did.
Also, Chance never gives in to lust during the several times that Eve (who could be so named for the Bible's greatest temptress) comes onto him. He never gives in because he knows nothing of lust or sex, much like one would have expected Christ to have been.
All that said, I still don't know if I think the film is some grand allegory of Christ's life. I've got to think that there may be another message hidden there somewhere. But certainly there are some elements of Christ/The Bible present.
Your thoughts?
I agree and I actually like that interpretation. However, I did read somewhere that the author of the book that the film is based on, Jerzy Kosinski (who also wrote the script) was an athiest. The interpretation is that Chance was really not a great man, but simply a mentally challenged man and I guess he was trying to say the same thing about Jesus. I dont know though, I also heard that it has been said (by people who worked on the film, maybe Hal Ashby) that the film is meant to be interpreted in the viewers own way.
ReplyDeleteI re=watched this for the first time in...oohh about 30 years the other week.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how much I hate and lothe 'Frest Gump', I loved this one. So much so, I am loath to consider there is any connection between the two...
My take on the end... Chance is an innocent, maybe a little simple, but certainly over sheltered from the big bad world. He misses all references to sin, because he has never know of such a thing.
Whilst the end is meant to have multi meaning 'He can walk on water because he dosen't know he cannot' has some truth, I saw more that there is a simple explanation.. he walked out on a submerged pier, - by chance. Notice how even he notices something is odd.. he pokes the water with his umbrella, and it goes in. It is us, the audience, who chooses to see him (as those around him in the film did) as somehow Christlike. We are shown that we can be as bad at (miss) interpretation as the film characters...
Maybe.
Ray
Well, yes, the explanation that he's merely walking on a submerged pier, isn't quite as fun, but it certainly allows us to look at our own pre-conceived notions about the character of Chance and how we, as movie goers, like to trump everything up and make the most fantastical hidden meanings into a full fledged theory.
ReplyDelete