Being There (1979)

Subtle and Sublime Masterpiece!

It's been nearly three decades (ugh!) since I saw this film in the theater and always remembered it as being one of the great movies of all time - intelligent, witty, satirical, and thought-provoking. Sadly, I hadn't had a chance (no pun intended) to see it since and, while browsing for something to watch that would transport me to another place (something that all good movies should do), I remembered "Being There." To my great delight, I was surprised to find a copy.

Needless to say, I was absolutely thrilled with my decision to buy this movie. The wit and humor remain as powerful today as it was when the movie was first shown. The only part that seemed "dated" where the 70's clothes and styles but that only ads to the movie's "character."

Granted, the movie may appear "slow" to some but, like a good piece of music, every moment needs to be savored in order to fully appreciate every nuance of the magnificent script and brilliant performance of each actor; without question, this was Peter Sellers' finest performance, Shirley McLaine was magnificent, Melvyn Douglas was brilliant, and Richard Dysart was superlative.

The film is fraught with all kinds of unanswered (but intriguing) questions which leave intelligent audiences with countless topics for discussion. For example, just who (or what) was Chauncey Gardner? Other reviews (rather disturbingly) refer to Sellers' character as "learning disabled," "retarded," a "simpleton," and other epithets and yet, other than the hilarious comments by the maid that Gardner "has no brains at all. Stuffed with rice pudding between the ears. Short-changed by the Lord and dumb as a jackass" we really don't know why he led such a bizarrely sheltered life that centered on his need to watch TV and his childlike behavior that exuded strength and confidence to so many others. Why was "Chancy" left alone? By whom? Why did the maid leave Chauncey after having taken care of him for so many years?

Of course, that's all part of the mystery that makes this such a sublime masterpiece - there are a lot of questions for which answers are not needed in order for the genius of this film to succeed. People will continue to debate the mysteries of the film including such things as who stated ""I understand" at the death bed of one of the characters, or the meaning of very last scene, forever. Obviously, there are no real answers to these and trying to answer them is simply futile. I would strongly suspect that that was exactly what this film was trying to accomplish - to get people to argue over something that really doesn't exist (or doesn't matter) - while, at the same time, ignoring more important issues. The real brilliance of the movie; however, is found with the amount of satire - almost nothing is sacred in this movie if one has that courage to really take a good look at exactly what is being said. Every word (especially those uttered by Sellers) is spoken with precisely the right amount of meaning, nuance, and inflection required. Some may feel that this movie is "slow" but the slothfulness of the main character and his careful, yet simplistic, dialog with others (in contrast to the constant cacophony of a blaring TV which he surrounds himself with), is precisely what makes this movie so great.
July 13, 2008

Prize turkey with all the trimmings

The word 'awful' doesn't even get near to describing how bad this movie is. 'Appalling' or 'crass' would be more apt, but even then I would be tempted to use an expletive intensifier with it. The idea itself has some sort of value, there is some satire in the motiff of a pure simpleton becoming the most listened to man in any major political regime, never mind the White House. And yet...! And yet the outcome here is a terribly contrived, horrendously artificial, and maddeningly overwritten piece of cliche. 'Fascile' - that might be it, I'm getting closer to describing it.

The thing is, I like some of the actors in it. The actor who plays the pres - sorry, I can't remember his name - is a pretty good character actor who adds a bit of colour to films he's in, and Ms McClaine is a fine female foil and always entertaining. Then there is Sellers - the man is a bona fide genius, I love him as an actor, there is no one who quite shares his gift for characterisation, not Sim, not even Guinness. But his judgment was way off when he took on this preposterously OTT role. A screenplay like that should have gone straight in the bin, and his agent should have been sacked for giving it to him. The whole thing is just so painful to watch, a blatant and totally predictable narrative is so slowly, so uninterestingly constructed and there is hardly any dramatic tension in it, even at the points where the screenwriter has demanded their should be some, but it is just lifelessly directed, so flatly played by everyone, seemingly concentrating so hard on playing it straight, including Sellers, that it just comes across as flat, one dimensional, and artificial. A TRULY awful project from beginning to end, no way at all to be remembering one of the greatest comedy actors of cinema. And I don't at agree with the consensus that this was a great performance. To me, this seriously overworked and privately troubled man looked in dire need of a complete rest. People, I HATE it. May 25, 2008

The second coming

The final scene of the movie belies the rest of the movie. Suppose the final scene denotes truly what Chauncy Gardner was. Then all that went before was truly profound and not the ramblings of a mentally challenged person.

There was no identification associated with Chauncy, maybe he did just appear. Maybe heaven sent. May 15, 2008

such a nice movie....

I get such a warm feeling just thinking of this movie. Chauncy Gardner is the original Forrest Gump. April 29, 2008

A Little Disappointed

A caller to the Rush Limbaugh show recommended the movie. Rush had seen it. I suppose I read more into their comments than was there. It is a rather slow movie, but then they needed to develope the theme which did hang together. I believe they were trying to demonstrate how absurdities in public life and politics become accepted and no one challenges them because of who accepts them. I do think they succeeded. But I kept thinkig about where I would have gone with the theme and they did not go there. The ending was one more absurdity on top of the rest with Gardener walking across the surface of the lake. He even demonstrates for the audience that the lake is deep by dipping his umbrella into it. But the meaning of this last action was lost on me. Sorry.
April 16, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...