BEING THERE (1979): THE MEANING OF THE FINAL SCENE
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Please consider supporting the work of this channel with a donation.
/ obsessedwithcinema
www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
ko-fi.com/obsessedwithcinema
Now with enhanced closed captioning (cc).
Warning: Spoilers
Over the last few months, a number of subscribers requested that I make a study of the most popular explanations of the final scene in Being There. They wanted to know what the scene ultimately means, in the context of Ashby's film. In this video-essay, I offer a number of different interpretations. I also discuss some of the background and context that lead to the scene's inclusion in the film. I hope that at least one of these interpretations will be to your satisfaction. Please feel free to share your own explanation of this memorable and curious last minute of Being There.
0:00 Pre-Intro
2:57 The Anti-Ebert Interpretation
4:44 Ashby as Auteur
7:23 Chance is the Miracle
8:41 "Life Is A State Of Mind"
11:44 Afterlife
13:45 The Traditional Religious Take
15:25 The Autobiographical Explanation
18:18 Purity of Spirit
20:27 A Cautionary Tale
22:45 The Reverse MacGuffin
23:54 Being There as Phantasmagoria
25:03 The Krylovian Approach
#BeingThere #BeingThereEnding #BeingThere1979 #HalAshby #PeterSellers #TheEnding #walkonwater #endingexplained 
Развлечения
If you want to know more about Being There, below is a link to a video about why everyone has such affinity for Chance.
ruclips.net/video/wxr2hjEsySE/видео.html
Great work as usual. I would suggest one last video on 'Being There' regarding its subtle commentary on Race and Class, which you briefly touched on in this video. There are so many moments that say a lot without the need to force it down the viewers throat. Perhaps the biggest one is the black maid Louise, after a life time of service to her white employer is shuffled off to a cheap looking hotel with other black retired people, to die. Whereas her fellow worker, Chance, despite his obvious mental capabilities is being groomed to be President by the end of the film due to others perceiving him as a well groomed white man, who therefore must have power and wisdom. The other big race encounter is when Chance meets the gang of mainly black kids and tries to switch them over with his remote control. This to me, is Ashby maybe commentating how the Media creates a sense of fear and prejudice against people of colour by demonizing them as criminals and people to be avoided or literally switched off. This is again reinforced in the outtake end credits where Chance is trying to pass the message to Rafael, which despite its comedic overtones, is also commentary on how different races, class and generations communicate with each other.
i will NOT watch this, and i don't think it should have even been posted, for as an artist myself, i feel that NObody has the right to explain the 'meaning' of a piece of art to another! the 'meaning' of ANY art is a wholly subjective experience for each beholder, and if someone perceives only superfluous meaning, well that's their problem & shortcomings, isn't it? i think this was presumptuous, and the only reason i finally clicked on it is that i am rather annoyed that it keeps popping up as i watch other yt vids, it almost makes me want to rethink my subbing your channel...
Ironically, I believe that I have some sympathy for this point of view. That is, I immediately tend to have an opinion as to the meaning of different pieces of art or literature or especially film. In our home, however, my family encouraged me to be seen and not heard and so I usually kept to myself. The last few years, however, I wanted to share thoughts with others and have tried doing this on the channel-I welcome comments and I appreciate your sharing your concern, and more specifically your explanation of why you feel this way. Sadly, not everyone does this. Being able to express my thoughts has been liberating, in a way, but my friends who are social media people, have warned me to never say too much, lest it offend and so on. The reality is that so much of life is just restraining myself and not replying in kind. Still, the meaning of the final scene (that is, the water walking specifically) is indeed personal to many people because it gets into religious faith. It is, ironically, something that did not much interest me, though, at least initially.
It’s meaning, to each individual, reveals more about them, in a way, than it does about either Ashby or (for sure) Kosinski, whose novels generally do not include things that are either other-worldly or inexplicable (unless you include the very basic plot of Being There itself). In my view, people were just really curious about this image and what it meant. In other words, they could not escape their own curiosity. Since it was the first thing that used to come up in any Google search of Being There, it increasingly seemed like something people might actually watch and actually discuss. For some, it might help them either better understand the film or perhaps see how they felt about the image itself. The fact that there are many different possibilities does not preclude other personal interpretations and people have been discussing those at length in the comments section. I have really learned a lot from these comments. My personal view was that they probably saw the film a long, long time ago, so they had years to examine what they personally felt. Seeing what others believed could thus be elucidating on some level. They would have thought what they thought, in any event, but knowing more could enhance their experience, in a way. It is also true that it might stimulate other kinds of explanations and that has also happened.
At conferences and speaking in classrooms, I have sometimes shared your general perception-that is, that explanations of meaning, for books and films and history itself is indeed presumptuous. I have found this is especially true of history. How can I possibly speak for victims of genocide, for example? I have read their memoirs and seen their interviews and read the great historians-about their particular experience (the specific ghetto or camp under discussion), but it does not really give anyone any insight into what their survival actually meant to them, nor its larger consequence in the world. We can debate the meaning of a testimony, for example, but it is never complete and never really gives us the larger picture (since there are frequently other survivors with other experiences-of the exact same concentration camp). Increasingly, I find history texts unsatisfying since they are so limited in what they can impart. And yes, there is a presumptuousness inherent in explanations not just of art, but really of politics, literature or anything. This is true and we must not forget it. The last line of most dissertations is frequently something along the lines of “more research is necessary.”
The final scene will always mean a lot to those people who felt it was transformational to see and not as much to those who didn’t. I feel that Ashby would want his work discussed and might appreciate a discussion like the one we are having here on a nearly daily basis. His movies are full of ideas and the most interesting ones are frequently little asides or things in the background of scenes that make one think.
I guess you could say that I was unsatisfied remaining only seen and not heard. I wanted to start a discussion, because I believe we learn far more from a good question (e.g. why Ashby does something or what he is trying to convey to us) than from even the most articulate answer, since it can never be definitive. Learning from others makes us think in new ways.
To be honest, engaging the viewers to contribute has been revelational in many ways. I am always stunned by the different ways that people see the world. It is never exactly what one might have anticipated. Though I know this was not the purpose of your comment, I nevertheless appreciate your contribution. Your point of view, the learned skeptic, needed to be represented (not just here but in other places throughout society as well). To me, explanations of anything are just a starting point for knowledge, never an ending. There is always room for new ideas and other ways of seeing. On the journey to our deaths, people are said to be works in progress. Dialogues about the meaning of things are no different: just another starting point. Of course whether a particular discussion is presumptuous or not is entirely subjective, in the end. This one might well have crossed a kind of personal line for you, though I could not help wondering if you have similar reactions to something like the Marathon Man video and if not, why not.
ruclips.net/video/9QZ1E4x_J6Q/видео.html
Whether you ultimately unsubscribe or subscribe, is entirely your affair. Still, if you want interaction or dialogue, you may get more here than on most other channels. These Being There people really like to discuss things. Regardless, please know that I feel your thoughts are valuable and that we are better off for your sharing them with us. At an minimum, they are definitely thought-provoking.
@@obsessedwithcinema ahhh, maybe you have somewhat misconstrued my response, i'm not skeptical whatsoever; quite the opposite: as a psychic, old soul, spiritual healer and mystery school student, i appreciate and venerate ALL the spiritual (and even social and political) aspects of this ending, including the pyramid, eye of horus, Ben's statements, the pallbearers' statements, 'life is a state of mind' AND Chance's walking on water (nobody ever told him he couldn't!)
@@jdmagicmusic I don’t think @obsessessedwithcinema intended to explain the meaning of the final scene but rather inspire healthy discussion on what it could mean by offering up a number of interpretations. I see this as different from prescribing a meaning and I imagine that this is in keeping with an artists hope that people consider the meaning more deeply.
Up to you, but I think it’s worth a watch.
When I first saw it, I simply thought of it as the rest of the film's situations...Chauncey simply has no concept of what is or isn't possible, and since he doesn't understand the concept of sinking to the bottom, he simply continues as he does and goes as he has done throughout the film. First he is the beneficiary to everyone else's perception of him, and now he is the beneficiary of nature itself bending to his lack of comprehension/understanding.
I agree
Babies also have no concept of what is or isn’t impossible. Yet if a 2 year old crawled into that lake, the laws of physics would cause it to swiftly sink🤷🏾
This is a brilliant take. Thank you.
Exactly. Because he doesn’t know he can’t.
Spot on. You saved me from writing a lengthy reply.
Peter Sellars brought Chance to reality. Sellars was a genius in his role.
He and Ashby made that film what it was.
I always saw it as a religious parable because he has always been there, cast out of the garden, a truly innocent man without sin meeting Eve who tried to tempt him into carnal sin but he can not be tempted and therefor retains the godhead and remaining free of sin he is light enough to walk on water.
Being There and Bad Boy Bubby tell a similar story touching the same religious undertones.
That is MUCH better than the other theories presented here: Cast out of the garden, hooks up with an "Eve"....Dude, that's brilliant. I don't know if any of these ideas are correct, but yours is a winner.
I never connected Eve with the parable but it makes sense. His life seems to be one long miracle 🙏👏
I saw Chancy very much as Prince Myskin in Dostojevski. Debate about Dostojevski's book has launched theories of Myskin portrais a Jesus figure in his innocence and without sin as you mention. That was my thought
From my first viewing, I felt the end was very clear. Chance never considered he couldn't, he also never considered he could.
This is the essence of being there.
I saw the film's characters thru the eyes of Chance, because he was the only one with an unobstructed view.
Unobstructed…yeah…I have obstructions in my mind. I remember an inspirational 10 year old child I met on the beach. She asked me to use a stop watch. She was going to race a 14 year old boy. I saw it in her eyes. She could do it.
He stops in the middle though and considers matters, using his umbrella to discover how deep the water is. This suggests that on some level he knows how odd the situation is.
I am sad for anyone that considers the ice explanation for more than a second.
@@John_May. Different, yes, possibly not "odd" for me. "Odd" suggests he has expectations. Different just means he has not encountered it before. It was a very brave scene for the filmmaker to make, probably knowing that it might possibly undermine the credibility and popularity of the film with those less open minded. Brilliantly provocative and fun. Shouldn't all such films tell stories and provoke interesting questions?
This is exactly how I saw the ending on first viewing. He is the ultimate innocent character. All through the film we see great things happen to Chance simply because he isn't unaware they shouldn't happen to him. He is unconditioned by the limitations most of us impose on ourselves. When he walks on water it is the ultimate statement of this.
When talking about his success as a first-time filmmaker, Orson Welles seemed to believe he was lucky to be naive. He said something about running/walking recklessly along a precipice that you don't know is there. So you move with greater confidence than you would if you "knew better".
Yes this is a childlike state which is essentially innocent and IMO is part of the artistic process. Otherwise you're judging yourself so much you can't create. It's also about being in a higher state of spirituality of being nonjudgemental and innocent which is also Christlike. that's truly 'being in the moment' and not being an egotist it's aboudt 'being there' and that's what we allow ourselves to do in creative play.
@@deborahcurtis1385 That child-like sense of wonder is beaten into submission by society as we grow older. There is actually something rather wonderful about our youthful innocence, enabling people to wholeheartedly "be there" without societal boundaries. Such courtesies do serve us, but they also restrict us. We often overlook or even miss our options to be polite...
I always thought the ending to be the simple fact the everyone around Chance believes he's something he's not and can do things which he actually can't. And every time he's confronted with a situation he can't do such as read or write or properly understand, he is rescued from discovery by the very people who a challenging him. He never pretends to be anything he's not, everybody just assumes he's a genius tactician who can speak multiple language. The world simply fills in the blanks for him before he can be found out. So as he strolls up the to the lake and proceeds to walk across it, I always felt that it was a real lake with the depth shown by him testing it with his umbrella and the fact that he did that was simply a commentary of how he was viewed by others. In their perception of him, he probably could walk on water, and the stroll across the lake was simply a ironic visual depiction of how people viewed him. And his checking was if to say, pinch me, I must be dreaming, but I guess Maybe I am all the things people think I am.
I first saw this movie as a young adult, maybe 24 years old in 1980 or so. I had just bought my first video cassette player and this was the first movie I rented to watch after hooking the thing up. I was alone at home and when the movie ended, I stood up and cheered, literally. I have never done that before or since with any movie. I didn't know what the ending meant but it was profound and impactful. My first thought was that he was so dumb and naive that he just didn't know he couldn't walk on water so he did. There is no question that he is walking on water because of him testing the depth with the umbrella. Anyway, I love all the different ending theories proposed in this video. I think all of them have something to say about the movie. My favorite is the Life is a state of mind theory. That is a profound statement if you think about it. Thanks.
I think the ending scene is much simpler than most people make it out to be.
I always felt it was a way of explaining Chauncy's ability to effortlessly seem like a genius because he was indeed other-worldly.
I always saw this in the same way... that the character's absolute, child-like innocence makes him angelic.
Thank you, Peter.
Chance has a Zen like empty mind. He has mastered the jhanas which allows him to walk on water.
The most sustained and brilliant performance Sellers ever did on film. Chauncey walking on water is a reflection of how everyone elevated him to the level of genius when he was, in reality, nothing but simple-minded.
Is that like an idiot savant?
The disciples trying to hold back children, and Jesus replies: "Of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Have you seen Lolita? He is basically doing an impression of Stanley Kubrick through the whole thing... the voice is exact.
Agreed! Kubrick allowed Sellers to improvise, fully exploring Peter's ability to create a characterization no one else visualized.@@TheKitchenerLeslie
He's walking on water because he doesn't know he can't.
false, he knows, thus the part where he sticks the umbrella in it
I like to think that art poses questions that we cannot answer, but only speculate about it's meaning. Our interpretation
tells us more about the observer, than the observed.
The way I interpreted the ending.... Chance never considered that he couldn't, so there was never a question, if he could.
Very well said, indeed. No doubt such attempts to create meaning generally stimulate further discussion only, though they rarely created a consensus...and this is probably as it should be. A challenging question can fuel a whole academic career, whereas a facile, dismissive, reductive answer doesn't do much good for anyone. Ironically, humans learn best through questions, and the attempt to tackle them. Putting this video together has allowed me to see what the viewers seem to be concerned about and I have enjoyed reading through their articulate and provocative comments. Thank you for your contribution, Don.
I like that. I think maybe art isn't so much a thing that we possess for a time and decide if we like it or not, but rather a portal to other and maybe higher meanings of being a human of Earth.
For such behavior aftermath of the viewers, ant director could post random meaningless, but sudden ending of his film, and rumors would spread after just to invite new viewers
Chance can walk on water because he is not weighed down by any animosity or any hate or any agenda. The Christian parallel for Chance would not be to Jesus but to Peter. Peter walked on water until he was afraid and then he sank. Chance has no fear.
i love it ludovico!!!!
@@DonCarlosHormozi chance understands what matters in life, despite not really understanding anything. Gardening kindness and just being decent in daily life. That's what matters. Chance walks on water because he is devoid of sin, hate or malice. He got where he did through a combination of luck and basic decency. His walking on water sympolizes his purity
@@patriceaqa288 yes nicely put. Totally agree. 💜
@@limakay9266 thank you. I think it was, and remains, one of the finest films ever made. A powerful political satire, and a genuinely moving commentary on the nature of "the meaning of life" ingeniously disguised as a funny Peter seller's comedy
I believe it’s not Christ or Peter, but actually Tom Cat or Wile E Coyote: They too stand on water or float in the air, until they realize they are and gravity suddenly works. The Road Runner is Chauncey, who defies gravity and stays afloat / aloft.
Thank you for a great analysis. Chance is everyman and no man.
He is that because we see the other characters "project" their own interpretations of his behaviour onto him.
And this is what people do in all theur relationships.. No-one has the full story of who anyone really is, because we perceive another through our own particular coloured lenses / projections.
I'm glad that you found the work enlightening.
I've always adhered to the Wylie Coyote theory. The difference being in that Wylie Coyote was soon able to realize his defiance of physics but Chance, in his innocence, was unable to.
Thanks for collecting this variety of theories. They are thought provoking. I'm the type person who all too often takes movies at their literal imaging and I accept the suspense of reality and belief which they show as part of the process.
Yet Chance KNEW how to garden and do it successfully? Something is missing in the "was unable to" category and size-up of his abilities?
I like the "Life is a state of mind" interpretation. It's a hard argument to beat and makes a lot of sense. But I also think the "warning" interpretation applies to our current political culture and was indeed a warning. Perhaps there were multiple meanings? Thank you for your work. It's excellent as always.
Thank you for your kind words. Judging by the comments, there are indeed multiple meanings, which I think is a major reason that this movie continues to live on in people's thoughts...in a way that some other films do not manage to.
@@obsessedwithcinema Exactly. It's a bit of a masterpiece to be honest and it's quietly amusing which is probably much more powerful than relentless belly laughs.
Absolutely wonderful treatment of a strange scene that stays with us so many years later.
Allegedly the idea for the ending came about when Ashby joked about Sellers' flexibility on stage, saying he "could have this guy walking on water at the end of it".
Thank you for this. I did not come across this particular vignette in my research.
@@obsessedwithcinema Yeah , it's in the Special Feature disc on the Criterion double DVD . I think Hal Ashby tells the story when he's talking about the alternate ending and how it wasn't all planned out or he wasn't sure how to end it . Anyway , the audio only part from a Movie School lecture with a student Q & A .
I thought (and I'm not totally sure) , but I thought I remembered Ashby talking about a lighting guy or something talking about making him look better than Jesus - but you're probably right . Maybe both , like Ashby heard that and then went HEY !! 💡 It's from that audio part Film School thing off the Criterion DVD Special Feature's , right ?
@@JoshuaCraigStrain I dunno, I just see that anecdote on several info sites for the film, hence why I said allegedly.
I saw Chauncey as an angel, sent to help people, live, die, etc, and when he was done he went back to heaven, across the water, and into the sky
In my opinion, Chance's walking on water in the final scene is a symbolic commentary on how his whole life had unfolded up to that point, and a foreshadowing that the same would be true for the rest of his life.
Chance's innocence and lack of ego form a kind of impermeable bubble around him that have protected him from all of the pitfalls he somehow manages to, improbably, avoid throughout the film. The final scene is a manifestation of that bubble.
He can walk on water because nobody has told him you cant....
Life is a state of mind...
Such a mysterious ending. Today we can’t cope with mystery and strangeness. We require data. I love this era of filmmaking- questions not answers.
Throughout the entire film, i considered Chance to be one of the "innocents." Someone who could charm the fates, by simply existing! This, of course, was confirmed at the end of the film!
I was a film student when It was released. I thought immediately at the time I saw the ending that it made perfect sense. Chance was just as terribly ignorant of ponds as he was of everything else but pruning and watering, and was also ignorant of his own lack of wisdom because of the success of his treatment of people and his clear opinions and how they landed with others. Ashby knew this and found a perfect tacet visual example of this to place at the conclusion. Also, Peter Sellars’ creation of an unlocalized accent couldn’t have been more perfect.
Thanks so much for this brillant and comprehensive review shedding light on deep and important substantial issues of our human state of perception and even further ! I have always been intrigued by this movie and I find it sad that it´s so rare to be played on TV or the internet. Good to see, that it´s not completely forgotten.
I'm so happy I found your channel and this video. Being There is in my top 5 comedy films, alongside another Ashby classic Harold & Maude. Both share a common theme of being tragically sad and yet are possibly two of the most uplifting films I've seen. They embody cinema at its very best.
Thank you for your analysis of the film. My own, from first watch and to this day, is something of the "state of mind" and "Krylovian". We impose limits on what we are capable of by the conditioning society imposes on us. Chance is innocent and knows nothing of these limits, so achieves unlikely successes and ultimately walks on water.
I am very much looking forward to looking at the other videos you've made.
A masterful and sensitive analysis. Subscribed!
Excellent analysis of this film and breakdown of the final scene. I saw the movie in 1979 and read the book around the same time. Never got a handle on that final sequence, but your last take on its meaning is convincing.
He askes for food but he hardly eats. The walled in garden, his luck the old mans wealth. How he never needed a doctor or dentist. How everything seems to have stopped in the old mans life after the mid 30's. Every garden Chance enters he improves. I think he found or captured Chance and he is like Peter Pan or Puck.
I saw this at age 10 or 11. My parents said it was a comedy, but I didn't find it funny. Even at that age, I thought Chance was a fool but less of one than those who saw him as something more. So, years later his walking on water finally made sense to me. He had fooled the fools and would continue to do so (for awhile anyway). It's the cautionary tale. Thanks for your video!
Chauncey is like any real artist/poet ... you just keep moving forward seeing where life takes you. Never submitting to what others, OR THE SOCIETY OR ZEITGEIST, expect of you.
To me, it was very simple. Everyone treated him as though he could. Everyone so very much wanted him to be able to. Why are we surprised he can! I got a good laugh at the scene. I especially liked when he bends over and checks the depth thereby proving we are seeing what we think we are seeing. It doesn't require much thought beyond that - although - because of your video; and being here; looking back on it these years later; I am 'chancing' upon several "profound" thoughts about the movie... :) Great job on the video. I enjoyed it.
P.S. I paused my audiobook to watch your video. That's worth something.
Lovely tour of the possibilities, thanks. I like the last theory best - but ultimately for me Being There remains an object of projection, just beyond the logical and the definite.
Like all others in Chance's life, we see what we want to see.
We need to learn again how to keep things simple. When I saw this for the first time and after seeing the end scene, I knew instantly why he was able to walk on water. It was that he was a complete innocent and allowed by grace to be able to do this.
Thats it. He was a total innocent. As simple as that. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I always loved this book and movie. Also, it came out near the time we lost John Lennon and when Elton John wrote Empty Garden it always tied both events together for me. It would have been a great song for the end of the movie as well. I was as much a fan of Kosinski as I was this movie. His life story is very interesting and informed his books as well. I think this was Peter Sellers finest work.
Yes!
This was a most interesting analysis. My interpretation always centered on a simple physical explanation (stones or a pier underwater) coming face-to-face with the spiritual possibility that Chance was born without original sin, which of course informs a number of the interpretations presented in the video. That a physical reality can exist concurrently with an other-worldly phenomenon does not - in my mind - negate either. Life IS a state of mind.
I always just thought that Chance was able to walk on the water because he never thought that the water was as simple as rain on a pavement. He didn’t know the facts therefore had no awareness of them. What a great delve into the end of that film which has stuck with me since I saw it on screen when it premiered. Also, remember that after that Ashby decided to do credits as Sellers broke character over and over again during the filming of one scene, not what one would have expected from this wonderful film. Thank you for doing this.
The umbrella into the water - same trick was never 'pulled' on wet pavement?
"Life is a state of mind", for me, means that every see life differently. Chancy's story shows us how different the understanding of life can be, depanding of past experience, upbringing, genetics and etc.
This is pure poesy, Chance walking on water, is like a tv image. A profound reflexion about the nature of reality depicted by tv: it has no substance, no meaning, it floats into the world, carried by electromagnetic waves, a force that cannot be seen, and with no purpose identifiable, except made to be watched, Chance like to watch, and with no personality, Chance himself, and thus cannot be named. It is not the " medium is the message" but the medium without any message.
Marshal McLuhan approves this massage
Wonderful work, thank you.
And Chance Gardiner is still today walking on the surface of the lake...
Symbolic of the man's innocence.
amazing decoding!
you posit many good theories about the meanings inside this film, and you elegantly add some relevance to the meaning of life. There is one thing I try to apply to my life which is “Humans put meanings on things that need no meaning”. It’s like GUILT, BLAME and HATERS among other feelings, we make these meanings up, where they cripple us and do no good. Example: someone cuts us off in traffic which may lead some to road rage, or others to just accept it. Hate for that driver is not felt by that driver, so why be angry ever. I think Being There may have shaped my plilosophy and helped me achieve outrageous good things by adopting the ability to overcome obstacles in life.
The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
-Robert Heinllein
29:29 "You see, in essence, Chance was walking on water the whole time. We just didn't see it that way, ..."
I certainly did. I saw it that way from early on in my first watching of this film, my FAVORITE Peter Sellers film.
C'mon. Give us some credit for recognizing what's happening.
I grew up in Washington DC and I saw Being There when it was first released in 1979. It was an accurate depiction of the city at that time. It showed my city as I knew it, deserted by whites, decaying and black. Recently, things have changed and DC has become fashionable and fancy. I used to drive by the house on M Street where they shot the movie. It's gone now.
It would not surprise me that Peter and Kosiński/Jones/Ashby created the water scene, in part, as not only a emphasis of of the story's characterization of Chance, but also autobiographical view of Peter. Recall how Peters felt about himself in some of his well-known quotes: "“If you ask me to play myself, I will not know what to do. I do not know who or what I am.”" and so forth. Yet he was "successful". Being There was at the end of his career and he knew everything had sprialed well out of control. He felt like an imposter and that guilt and surprise played out until one of his last scenes. RIP Peter - you were a tormented but genius soul who hurt a lot of people along the way.
Chance was nothing if not extremely lucky. The final scene conveys that his luck will continue; even as he walks across the water he manages to step on a rock every time.
One of my very favourite movies!!
There is a saying somebody taught me years ago."God looks out for fools and idiots." I think it applies to this movies ending very well.
One of my favorite books as a teen-it still is-and one of the few film adaptions that is as good as the novel. For me, the "walking on water" scene was him walking through life as if he were watching the garden growing. What is under the water is not important, so how can he do anything but walk on top.
well done
its the film that leaves your own imagination to work through all the conceptual possibilities that leaves you with the most interesting aftertaste
The first time I saw being there I actually walked out before the end. I couldn't believe the audience. This was one of the saddest films I'd ever seen and they laughed at everything. Imagine my surprise years later when I saw it again including the ending. I didn't find it sad after that I still ponder the relativity of things. Everyone sees/experiences things differently. And btw, I assumed, when I saw Chance walk on the water, that he was an enlightened being.
Question: Peter in the Bible - enlightened being? He was noted to have walked on water, until he could not ...
@@uploadJ Better ask a christian.
@@mellow5123
Ahhhh .... no, the point was to ask you. I think I now have my answer. Thanks for playing.
The name is pronounced 'Chawn see' but spelt as 'chance' and this is the key to understanding the movie including the end scene. 'Chance' performs miracles every day in who gets promoted or famous and who doesn't, "chance' makes the right things happen at the right time for the right people...ie there is a hidden order in chance or seeming randomness or is there? This is what we are forced to contemplate from this movie.
Yes, as one asks, "what's in a name?" well...sometimes, it is everything.
I assumed the walking on water was a statement about how we project our hopes and dreams on an unworthy hero and start pretending they are special or magical.
Gosh, this film escaped me - never seen it but will venture to find it now!
An excellent choice, which you will not regret. Glad to know you enjoyed the video. 😊
@@obsessedwithcinema I did indeed. Complete and utter film freak myself and yet, I'm till finding gems, daily....thank you :)
@@tad2936 Another happy ending. 😊
While it's been decades since I saw the movie I'd come away thinking that his walking on water spoke to his innocence and purity of spirit, that everyone read into this untainted man the nobility and grace that they wished they saw around them. Some in the movie interpreted that as a quiet power or perhaps gnosis, while we the audience, saw them as fools beguiled by a tabula rasa, simply seeing what they wanted. But after watching your video I am very taken with the idea of the director subverting and reframing his movie with the last scene and was in fact challenging the audience's own cynicism and perhaps foolishness. Thank you. I found your video most intriguing.
Chance was Forrest Gump before Forrest Gump was Forrest Gump.
That is a nice collection of - what it really means - review of the ending. I guess I always took it at what I considered face value, that Chance was a sort of angel, a guardian angel of sorts.
The page 5/6 buoyancy reflects one of the key directives of storytelling: show, don't tell.
The ending of "Being There" where Chance is walking across the thawing ice was so meaningful given the Ronald Regan era, where an aging actor is installed in the White House indicating America was walking on thin ice when a simpleton could become the commander in chief.
He simply didn’t know you can’t walk on water.
I love your commentaries. I think they are brilliant. Absolutely brilliant... Here, I do think it is a bit iffy to encourage modern audiences, who, let's face it, aren't anywhere near as sophisticated as '70s audiences, to evade the opportunity for quiet contemplation of what is best described as "a simple allegory". The end of the movie is poetic and allegorical and that's all there is to it. There's no real value to explaining jokes, or poems, or the Blues... Their mechanics are rooted in a principle that consists in tripping up the mental mind to get it to another level where things can be experienced intuitively. In a case like Being There, reading some of the intellectual dissections that have pored over this film can be a bit nauseating. Some people are just mental! Poetic moves are meant to bring them to the dance floor and help them get out of their head... These moves challenge us to rise up to them, and not to bring them down with our words. The impact of the ending on audiences is a bet on proposition that by this time, the film has brought us where it wants us to be. If it has failed by the credit roll, nothing more we can do will reach the viewer. I saw the movie in 1980 as a young man, and I recall every gratifying emotion I felt, especially at the end... it was transcendent. It was mind-blowing to feel the filmmakers winking at us, and trusting us to share in this intuitive burst of joy, when Chance walks on water... It never occurred to me that this could possibly require an explanation. I cannot forget the satisfaction of joining in this secret, non-intellectualized covenant with the artists who had just made this presentation... It's literally poetry.
He looks back...the only real acknowledgement that he knows he is not alone....
Excellent
I agree with the observation that Chance the gardener was walking on water for the entire movie.
One interpretation, that belief in (well named) 'Chance' is sufficient to visualizing him walking on water has many of us thinking that Trmp has that capacity because so many of his followers (wish to) see it in him.
The book and the movie also imply the narrow line between Faith and Ignorance.
You overlooked the point that early in the film Chance's maid commented about his lack of physical sexual maturity and certainly was significant later in the film in his relationship with Eve. Overall, your video is quite insightful and comprehensive about my favorite Peter Sellers film. PS: The comments by the actors as the end credits rolled are worthy of another video.
This was one of my favorite films from my freshman college days. "I like to watch.", is something I still say to this day. All these theories are interesting, "anti-ebert" is so great, but I have always thought as you state, "Chance is unaware" is what explains his walking on water. He is just so oblivious it escapes him that he should be all wet.
Chance in my mind reminds me of the state we go through the moment we fall into sleep and it's opposite the moment we awake it's a powerful realization and transformative moment of consciousness. The film starts with Chance awaking out of sleep his action of re standing the fallen tree at the waters edge and then his gaze at the dying tree in the water and his walk on water to touch it is a metaphor of our existence on earth between life and death.
Your comments are thought-provoking and insightful, and I really appreciate this discussion.
My take on the meaning of film’s ending has always been that what we are seeing is actually happening-Chance is able to walk on water. To this point in the film, society, swayed far too much by powerful but foolish political and media leaders, has lauded Chance as a brilliant political strategist and charming media personality when, in truth, he knows almost nothing and has absolutely no gifts-other than, perhaps, simple-minded innocence-beyond anyone else’s.
If people feel that way about him when he is practically nothing, what’s going to happen when they realize he can do the miraculous? Answer: they will worship him, sending him even higher on his seemingly limitless upward trajectory.
I take it as Kosiński’s gentle swipe at religion, implying that those who believe in the miraculous are as easily duped as are politicians and media stars. It’s a knowing wink from the director and writer: “See this? See what he can do? Weren’t expecting that, were you? _What do you think is going to happen now!?_”
Subscribed ❤
When I originally watched the movie and experienced its end, I found my self being awestruck by the pure innocence of the man as he seemed to not be aware of himself, so much so that he that not being aware of gravity allowed him to walk upon water. Innocence is what struck me as the key ingredient for what ever meaning might be found in the last scene of the movie.
The ending, which may have been well thought through or a whim changes the nature of the film as evidenced by this discussion. The story becomes what you wish or perceive it to be. With so many interpretations the movie is elevated as an art form.
Remember the maid in one scene who see’s Chance being interviewed on TV? She clearly spent the most time with him and announced to the group watching the interview with her, that boy is dumb as a rock! Or something to that effect. Everything he knows about the world outside he learned from TV, and we all know that TV is a fantasy land. Perhaps Chance is so simple in mind that he just doesn’t know a person cannot walk on water. And it’s his innocence and his not knowing that it isn’t possible to do so which allows him to walk on water. Since he doesn’t know it can’t be done, he does it. Which brings us back to the message of the movie, how much happier we could all be if we just accept the fact of what is, is.
I always saw the scene as the final instance of Chance being misinterpreted as something he isn't.
When he walks on water, it's now YOU as the viewer who is forced to recognize that you've also formed your own beliefs about who Chance is . . .and now the joke is on you, so no more laughing at the other characters.
Chance is kind of close to "nature" man, where as others are so used to pretending, lying, intrigues, looking for second meanings and etc, that they can not even think someone can be just a simple, honest man
Ending may underline that Chance is as unique, as a saint in modern world. He might be the only man in the world, who is not spoiled in any way.
Not having experienced something bad from others, love failiurs and etc, he is not afraid of it. Being children we all are much less afraid of the world, we make friends much easier and etc.
He easily can see the beauty of simple things (like flowers around us) and can enjoy
them, while others (being busy with something) will pass and not notice.
The theory of Chance death is possible. It seams like a TV dream life.
"Life is a State of Mind" has 2 important contributions to Chance and the movie ending:
1. Our entire lives takes place in our minds. Even the most basic physical perceptions are meaningless until processed by the brain into concepts. Despite the idea that there might be an objective reality, still 2 people might construct reality differently (in their mind).
2. A common philosophical belief is that "Life (or reality) is an illusion" Reality is not at all how we construct it. Or, there are multiple/infinite realities. Along with this idea is usually the idea that we are constantly creating our reality. Chance, being immune from common programming, can create a world where he can walk on water.
In addition to the above, but consistent with them: The Religious idea of Faith. Among other things, Faith is an absence of doubt. There is an expression: "Faith can move mountains". Chance is unaware he cannot walk onto the water. He has Faith/lack of doubt. The question never enters his mind. Thus, he just does it.
The poking of the umbrella into the water is just the Director's affirmation that Chance really is walking on water, and also happens captures Chance's childlike fascination.
This story reminds me a lot of how Siddhartha reached understanding by reducing himself to the simplest state.
I always saw it as a nod to Chance being raised on television and an allusion to Wile E. Coyote's ability to hang in mid-air indefinitely... until the Roadrunner teaches him about gravity -- then he drops like a rock, so the Life is a State of Mind section sort of dovetails with that. Chance doesn't know it's impossible to walk on water, so he can.
I am not a movie buff, rarely watch them… or am
I an intellect…. but this movie is one of my favorites. I just love Chauncey the Gardeners and his simplistic views of life and events, they were so refreshing.
Life is a state of mind.
Afterlife is a state of Spirit.
In the last scene Chance pokes his umbrella into the water and realizes his life is not a TV like dream rather his real life headed towards the Mansion on the Hill full of safety and hope.
Much to do about nothing... Chance was simply an empty shell of a person full of perfect innocence; less than that of a child not knowing the laws of nature or of anything else in particular and not hung up on the things we know we cannot or should not do ourselves... Chance's walking on water was simply that, he walked on water simply because he did not know better not to try; he simply did not know he could not. And by not knowing he could not, he could... to the viewer, it is a miracle. To Chance, it was not even a thought, it was just simply an act without thought.
Incredible movie!!
To me it depicted how disconnected the rich are to a man of simplicity. Great movie.
The juxtaposition of the first and second degree of interpretatation of Chance's every word is that people see him in their world and not his. What Chance says means something very simple in his world and becomes a poetic metaphor in the world of others. There is nothing real in the interpretation of Chance's words, only projection. His image in all of their minds is unreal. The walk on water is a metaphor of the fact that the vision of him in so many minds (except the black maid who recognizes him on tv} is that of an imagined person. He is not what they see, only what they imagine him to be. He would not be conscious of the miraculous aspect of walking on water, because like a child, he lives only in the present and his intuitive and completely non analytical grasp of it. Things simply are there, part of being there. It is his acceptance of the miraculous surface tension that holds him up, something the others cannot see. Chance is not an idiot savant, simply an innocent child in the world of a child. The simplicity of his words are like balm in a fucked up world, presnting us with the sad reflection that the respect of the earthly garden is what we need to know and practice, and even this complete idiot understands it.
I agree with the comments suggesting he can walk on water because no one ever told him he couldn’t. He is truly pure of information. His innocence and ignorance allow him to defy normal expectations. In other words, he doesn’t know any better.
We were all in on the joke until that final scene. There was a reason Sellers wanted so badly to do this
exactly right; the final scene puts us in the movie (story) challenging us to explain what we just saw. will we make him Jesus or simply run the credits with the Benny Hill theme?
This question reminds me of interpretation of a poem, what is the meaning of the poem. Sometimes it is simple and sometimes it’s complexed and sometimes it is who knows but in the end, let it be whatever you you want it to be.
When he sank his umbrella in the middle of the body of water he was standing in,
told the viewers that it would be easy to assume that one more step would have
him sinking straight down and drowning.
The image of the final scene illuminates the archetype of the divine fool.
The ending caused the viewer to have the same experience as the characters around Chance…We project our internal tendencies, beliefs and desires onto the ending. The philosophy that is close to Chance’s personal is Client Centered Therapy.
When we are looking for answers, we will find them.
I saw “Being There” in my late teens in the theater. I understood that the ending was a Christ allegory, but it just seemed surreal to me. It’s really fun to get an interesting analysis so many years later.
I’m very tempted to watch it again. At the time, it just seemed impossible that Chance would be elevated to the corridors of power, but the film wasn’t really supposed to be realistic - even though it didn’t cop out with cinematic hints that it wasn’t meant to be realistic - except the enigmatic and wonderful ending.
I’m sure I watched “Being There” because I was (and am) a fan of Peter Sellers. It was TOTALLY worth it though! Richard Basehart as a Russian?? How cool is THAT??
Also, I assume that the title “Being There” is an allusion to the adage: “90 percent of success is being there (showing up)”.
He achieved enlightenment.