Being There (1980) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2019
- This is the original review of Being There by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1980. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
Развлечения
Just finished watching the film. A supreme achievement of cinema.
Peter Sellers, what a talent. Sad that he died before he had more great performances like this one.
If he lived 10 more years, I could imagine Joe Dante or John Landis directing Sellers in a great movie.
A masterwork of cinema, genius. They'll never be another Peter Sellers.
Zami Adams what's so interesting about Sellers and this film, is that those making it said he wasn't right for the role, but he was obsessive about making the project. The makers said 'how can you play a role like this?? You're a party guy, a womanizer, a wild character?' He said no he wasn't and that he truly was 'Chance the Gardener.' His only 'true' self was a simple mild mannered man who liked gardening with his mother and enjoying lunch
Being There was well ahead of its time.
This video reminded me of how much I love this movie, it's been years since I've seen it last.
This film was a very underrated classic. Sellers is a master at subtle humor that doesn't try to club you over the head but just gently leads you until you realize how funny it is. It was also Melvyn Douglas' last performance as well as Sellers' next-to-last.
Melvyn Douglas made a few more movies after this
what's scary is I find myself becoming more like this character.
I think the film was way ahead if it’s time!
A simple minded gardener ? If so, welcome to the club
That's not scary at all. He is gentle, courtly and kind.
@@alexthompson9516 He is what matters in life. He has no malice, he cares about the earth, he holds no ill will to anyone. He treats everyone with kindness and consideration. He's not burdened by lust, greed, or hatred. He likes his meals on time, and he likes to garden.
This is a very small room
Hey, those Pink Panther movies rocked, man!
Peter Sellers inspiration for his performance was Stan Laurel!
If anyone's wondering about the date given - yes, this episode aired in very early 1980. The film was a December 1979 release.
Sellers' finest role! The screenplay is fascinating at showing Chance's simplistic viewpoint being misinterpreted by all he meets. The ending is sublimely enigmatic. Great film!
I really love watching these S&E blasts from the past but I also like re-reading some of Roger's reviews. He was a very talented writer. I wonder if he ever had aspirations of writing a novel.
He co-wrote a Valley of the Dolls remake.
@@zeltzamer4010 'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls' was definitely NOT a 'remake.'
One thing the hosts didn't mention is that the film is an adaptation of a novel of that same title by Jerzy Kosinski (who also got principal credit for the adapted screenplay).
Pretty clear that the idea for Forrest Gump was ripped from being there.
It’s Candide
Watched for the first time today and what a masterpiece
Are you being sarcastic?
The "sex" scene with Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine is in my top ten funniest film scenes. :-)
"I like to watch"
Shirley Maclaine was brilliant. She was completely believable and really made the film work, as much as Peter Sellers did.
Such an incredibly underrated film.
😂😂😂😂 This movie bites! Incredibly overrated!
I just rented the Criterion DVD version from a library today. I agree with them, great performances from Peter Sellers and good commentary on how people over consume TV rather than reading or writing. Good film.
Sellers should've won the Best Actor Oscar for this. What blew it is running the outtakes during the final credits--it breaks the spell and you don't leave thinking about the ending; instead you think "Ah, that Sellers! What a card! He never has to act!" So they gave the Oscar to Dustin Hoffman because he "acted."
Sellers was robbed of an Oscar for Being There
He certainly was! If I’m not mistaken, Hoffman won for Kramer v. Kramer (ugh).
@@scottmoore1614 Sellers was totally ripped off by the supremely overrated Kramer vs Kramer.
The Oscars don't mean anything.
That's a tough one, both were brilliant performances
The Oscars reward the current political agenda, hence trash like Crash and Million Dollar Baby.
Timeless films are rarely understood in their debut.
The story was based on Jerzy Kosiński’s own life.
The book Being There was ripped off from an earlier Polish novel (Kosiński was Polish).
Check out his bio on Wikipedia to see how he led a charmed existence.
A highly suspect fellow.
I wonder if he faked his death?
Funniest line in the film was Chauncey's black former housekeeper who knows he's an idiot, watching him become a tv star and saying to her family "Mmm hmm. Look at that. All you have to be is white in America to get anything you want!"
I found this line memorable too!
She also claims to have raised him. Yet never taught him to read or write...
That was my favorite line too, because it was funny And true. A white person is given the benefit of the doubt even when he is speaking like an idiot, while a black person has to prove their competence and worth every day, while still being suspected of "faking it"; regardless of their accomplishments.
That was one of the most insightful and true observations of the story, and the writer was brilliant to include it.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 I dunno. That writer was white. I think you're giving him too much credit.
@@stephaniegormley9982 , I'm sensing......irony.
Maybe even sarcasm.
The last scene of this movie, amazing!
amazing isn't it?
It's open to interpretation. I see it as all of his 'luck' was actually calculated. They weren't overestimating him. Chauncey was truly a genius disguised as a simpleton. Kinda like Forrest Gump but with a touch of the supernatural.
I like to watch!
The ending shows how truly and completely innocent the character actually was, as he walks on the water. (No, they're not saying he's Jesus). Very subtle and slow moving, but a great movie nonetheless.
@trha2222 Not really, just so perfectly innocent that he could do that. ruclips.net/video/G-W0jrxyf-8/видео.html
Sellers was furious about the outtakes shown with the end credits and I don't blame him. Cheapens the movie.
He should have been furious. There apparently are two versions in distribution: one version with the out-of-sync TV screen behind "The End" and then the "bloopers" behind the credit roll, and another version with the out-of-sync TV screen behind the "The End" but also continuing behind the credit roll. This latter one was on the version I watched when I saw this movie for the first time. I was shocked to see the "bloopers" version on a subsequent viewing. I doubt Hal Ashby was behind this. It sounds like something the distributor would have thought would let them "clouseau" it up to somehow boost revenue or some crazy idea like that. I agree with you that the atmosphere and state of mind one is in at the end of the film is instantly destroyed when the "bloopers" are played. You feel like your two-hour investment in the movie was just snatched away from you. I'll just turn it off when it gets to that in the future. But that Biltmore House is really something, isn't it? "Benjamin Rand" defines the term "living high on the hog."
Charlie's Angel's also included a blooper reel in the credits. It's really stupid to put that in the film itself. Leonard Nimoy once got really annoyed when he found out that Star Trek bloopers were being shown at art houses. Leonard Nimoy:"How would Gene Roddenberry like it if I published all his rejected story ideas as ",Gene Roddenberry's bloopers?!" So yeah
Hmmmm. Well Sellers was known mainly as a funnyman so the bloopers were probably included in the film itself, as the producers were no doubt leery of Sellers carrying on a part dramatic role and thought it would be a good idea to show some comedic Sellers scenes.
Spot-on adaptation of Jerzy Kosinski's very short novella (a quick read, btw). Interestingly, extrapolating some prescience from this film, we now have a president who doesn't read and only watches TV and speaks in platitudes. The idea of people projecting their own fantasy overlay over what they want a spokesman/leader to be or represent is right where we are now. This film predicted the future idiocracy, unfortunately.
In other words, this film predicted Trump.
Lots of people will read this and think, “Trump!” But anyone who lived through Reagan will see there’s a greater truth, not so much about Presidents, but about everything else.
Great observation
I always liked this much better than Forrest Gump (even though that’s a good film too).
Do you have their review of The Shining?
They didn't review it on the show because they took the whole summer of 1980 off from television. Gene didn't like The Shining and neither did Roger until he changed his mind and wrote a Great Movies essay in 2006.
When I saw this movie as a kid I didn't like it because I didn't get it. As an adult I really appreciate it though. The ending of the movie, I thought as a kid, meant that he was Jesus who had returned (finally). As an adult I _think_ it means that he was just so completely and truly innocent as a human being that he was practically sinless. I don't know if that's what the creators of the movie were shooting for, but that's how I see it.
I saw it as a kid and thought it was okay. Now I know that it sucks.
@@joelesser2550It's certainly not for everybody and is quite a departure from Peter Sellers' normal work.
It was a film that was trying to make a statement about the things we naively read into empty slogans, politicians and other people in general but that felt very repetitive after the halfway point. It needed a more fleshed out script.
I felt no repetition. What I saw was a progression of absurdity that clearly reflected our society.
This movie bites. Highly overrated
What lovely movie i watch, sometime very wholesome. I adore love the ending.
He’s a very clean
So is Paul’s grandfather in a hard Days night
Brilliant movie and Peter is wonderful in it. I couldn't stop laughing at his guru like puns he throws out there that people take way too seriously and refuse to hear the truth of what he's actually saying. We need more Chanceys in a world full of nihilism.
The "pre-Thumbs-Up" Era
I love that movie
I saw this movie in the theater when it came out. I was maybe 14 or 15 years old. It bored me. I gave it another chance a few years ago and it still bored me. The performances were excellent and the premise was good, but it just moves so slowly. Just my opinion.
Because you are dumb... it's far from boring.
how sad that you never progressed in life............................. I was also 14 or 15 when first seeing it and it bored me. Now? It is an utter masterpiece. What would not bore you? Rambo shooting and blowing up 100 people?
Get taste..... Its not slow. Slow means nothing happens, not the case....
The bigger themes escape you obviously.
@@chriswesterfield4818 Hey, different strokes for different folks. Sad that you would think that life progression depends on someone liking a movie. It's just a movie. Maybe you haven't progressed in life if you think a movie is that important.
Just a friendly FYI: I believe Being There actually came out in 1979, but I think maybe you mean this episode of Sneak Previews was early 1980? Love your uploads, Eric!
I like to watch
The end credits to this film are a bit odd.
Sellers HATED the ending and thought it destroyed the entire illusion of the movie... He fought hard to have it not included, and I think he was right in a way, but it's one of the funniest 2 mins in film history too--and that scene had to be cut because he literally couldn't make it through the delivery without cracking up, so we'd never have heard that dialogue if it hadn't been tacked on at the end. I'd bet it was a tough call for Hal Ashby too.
That crap should have been removed.
Sellers was a nutter.
This character reminds me of Forrest Gump.
😊good movie
What almost ruined the movie were the outtakes during the credits.
I think that was the original ending. It was so funny they should have kept it.
Steven D. Bennett Sellers was not aware that they had tacked on the outtakes until he saw it in a theatre. He was outraged and fought to get them removed but for whatever reason it didn't happen.
Chance has more sense than Jay Powell.
Kubrick's lost film
Funny you say this, because it has so much Kubrick-like qualities. The ending is the biggest similarity.
@@johnbailey2850 From the cinematic aspects to the characters and right down to having Peter Sellers in a wheelchair. Also, the playing of Thus Spoke Zarathustra to the moon landing "set" in the store is pretty intriguing.
Never heard of this movie 🍿
Which should tell you something
these two reviewers didn't even notice the obvious freemasonic symbolism at the end, as well as the jesus motif of walking on water. see robert w. sullivan iv for his take on movie symbolism and this film.
🤮 Ugh...shut up with the Freemason B.S
Funniest scene was in the generic. I think that was the actual ending of the movie but I bet they thought it was too jokey and removed it(that would never happen today lol). But it was so good and funny I bet Sellers said "screw that, we're putting it in" and they do it via blooper. I wish it would have been their ending. Anyway I think the film is about popularity, how powerful it is and at the same time it is absolutely nothing, It is make-believe.
The most overlooked and BEST aspect of this film is its' closing shot: Sellers leaves the funeral service to walk alone, mends a small plant in the ground, then walks out ONTO the lake, revealing to the audience that he was JESUS all along! BRILLIANT!
incorrect. he was too stupid to sink.
Chance walked on water because, unlike the rest of the single minded people who craved power, he was truly free.
@ericanderson2152 That's the best interpretation that I've ever heard!!! This movie bites and the ending invalidates everything that happened in the 2 preceeding hours.
This is by far Peter Sellers' greatest performance.
Did you ever see Dr. Strangelove????
I can't read, I can't write....👍😅
Sellers actually died in 1980, the same year this film came out.
The film came out in December of 1979; Sellers died in July, 1980.
Seems like the atrocious Forrest Gump ripped this off
Not exactly. Everyone knew Forrest was retarded, but didn't lay some pretentious trip on him. Chancy is simple, but his self-centered, delusional acquaintances, who are the true dumb asses, think he's the second-coming and by Jove he might be thanks to the gloriously wicked final shot.
Holy crap, it's Elon Musk
“The land of platitudes”. Truer words were never spoken, .... and then we had Trump
Hillary in a landslide
I didn’t particularly like Being There, but I thought Sellers was magnificent.
Just how I felt. I watched Sellers and his performance, but by the end of the movie, I really didn't like it. Left me feeling like crap, for some reason. Didn't work for me. Too strange, didn't really make sense, not at all realistic, and I thought the whole time that this guy was an idiot and no matter what anyone else thought, he was just a poor idiot. I felt bad for him. And that made me not like the movie. And the ending just stunk. What the......That was like the movie giving me a middle finger. Totally out of left field and made no sense at all.
@@porcupinecraig The film was a satire, it wasn't meant to be realistic. Second, why feel bad for him ? He seized a great deal of celebrity and even power without breaking a sweat. Lastly, the way I see ending is it's the act of defiance of those in power. He is truly free hence his ability to defy reality itself.
For once, Siskel and Ebert completely miss the message of a movie.
Being There SUCKS!!! I love movies, but this bites. Overlong, over-rated, and heavy-handed. I love movies and Peter Sellers, but this movie is dumb.
McLain almost ruins this film like she does all films she’s in!
This movie was awful
It’s still highly regarded.
Boring as hell