This actually reminds me of a story about Tony Blair. Often, he'd be at a party with people of may different political persuasions and opinions. Apparently, to everyone he said the same thing, 'I'm on your side.'
You talked about his wardrobe. I was hoping you would, because this is the most important part. Chance was dressed in the best clothes money could buy,because the old man let him have his old clothes. With his reserved ways and the finely tailored clothes, they all assumed he came from money. If he fhad been in regular clothes or even tattered clothes, no one would have given him a second thought. Eve most likely would have either dropped him off at a hospital or just have someone call him an ambulance.
I had read the novel before the movie came out. Another of Kazinsky's characters, the opposite of Chance, appears in "Cockpit", a disturbing novel about a man who deliberately isolates himself from society in order to manipulate and observe people. The part of the story that has haunted me over the years is the one of the dying Benjamin Rand, a billionaire, a kingmaker, all-powerful, then drained of his energy on his way to death. There is another character, "The Old Man", who bought his handmade suits, a touring car and his leather luggage during the Depression, in the prime of his life, then was struck down during a riding accident and made a cripple. It is interesting to speculate on his relationship with Chance- illegitimate child? A waif? We learn in the book that he tended to his business affairs from his bedroom. Oddly, he made no provisions for Chance or Louise, the devoted housekeeper. Today, at 72, 50 years after I read "Being There", and looking back on my life and on the 15-16 years I have left, I hope that my senior years will be healthy. I have now survived prostate cancer and open-heart surgery. I will die, myself, with only a few regrets and some feelings of satisfaction. What a novel, and what a movie.
About the bastard hypothesis. There was a custom in the old Brasil. When a family had a child who was born with severe anomalies -- physically or mentally -- he or she or it was jailed in a cave or cage in order to impede the interaction with the social community. It was common in the farms (they were called the monster) -- I witnessed one case. It is quite probable that this occurred also in the early big cities. Chance the Gardener was an imbecile from birth. He was isolated due to it. He wasn't a common guy who only has watched TV during all his life. Brasil
@johnpotter8039 - What a comment, Mr. Potter. Especially the part about yourself. RUclips is an interesting place. It's filled with the awful, the fantastic, and everything in between. Comments like yours, from a person I don't know and will (unfortunately) never meet, stick with me. I guess the anonymity allows folks to write freely and the rest of us get to feel like we're reading someone's personal diary. I clicked your screen name and visited your channel. I like your music choices. I wish you well, sir.
I too, have had heart procedures, and also radiation for Prostate cancer!...at 76 now, I just have seen this movie for the first time!...It has me reeling with deep thoughts about the very meaning of "self" and how the "self" views the world we live in. I wish I had read the book!...and I just found out that Kasinski was a suicide death!...even more food for thought.
Of all the examples from the film of Chance being misinterpreted by others as making a joke, there's one that I distinctly remember which isn't mentioned in this video: When he's a guest on a talk show, he is asked what he thinks of the president's plan. He replies, 'Which plan?' -- and the audience immediately laughs, assuming that he's trying to get in a dig at the president.
One similarity between the Chance character and Sellers' most well known character inspector Clouseau is that both are men of limited ability with supernatural luck. Just as incompetent buffoon Clouseau, through this luck, can survive and end up accidentally killing off many of the world's top assassins, Chance lucks out, having the statements of his childlike intellect interpreted as the statements of the visionary genius everyone wants to believe he is.
Yes, my father really loved Sellers, as did our whole family. Slapstick comedy wasn't really our thing, but somehow we made an exception for virtually anything Sellers did. The 1968 film The Party (another collaboration with Blake Edwards) has Sellers playing yet another Clouseau-type protagonist, Hrundi V. Bakshi. It is an odd film, about a shy, awkward man who is invited to a dinner party by accident. That's the whole plot. It is simple and quite light as comedies go, but it's funny and does tend to linger in the viewer's thoughts. In an odd way, Seller's characters are mostly so memorable that you keep wondering what they might be up to, if they were still alive or had existed in the first place. As you said, much of what happens to Chance (and in life) is luck based and somehow Ashby's direction makes this all the more apparent throughout the film. In some ways, Being There ridicules the viewer as well, since so much of what we attempt in our lives tends to fail, yet a bit of Chance-type good fortune might have changed things, to the point that you might be living a different life if not for a shard of luck, thrown in, here or there. Regardless, thanks for reminding me of my dad, who loved Clouseau, and of my childhood, which wasn't as bad in retrospect as it felt like at the time.
@@obsessedwithcinemaI've heard of The Party, but never got around to watching it, I'll have to add it to my watch list. Thanks for your thoughtful response to my comment, I'm happy to have brought back happy memories of your dad.
Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad that you enjoyed the video. I recently posted another which might interest you. ruclips.net/video/RGPCMj0DFbs/видео.html
I'm sorry to hear that you are chronically ill and hope that you're finding ways to relieve any suffering. Your videos are very well made and very clearly spoken. I have indeed enjoyed watching them. Take care.
I find Chance as having the true, or exemplary, attitude towards life of an actual or REAL artist or poet. Not being swayed - but without prejudice taking everything in. Hence becoming a doorway or window for others to perceive their reality.
My parents took me to see this in the theater when I was about 10. It really left a lasting impression on me. Instantly became one of my favorite films. I was so bummed when Peter died not long after.
Goodness, my parents didn't let us see Return of the Jedi until they'd seen it first, and I was about 11 years old. I'm still half convinced they just wanted a night out without the kids. Then again, my dad was a professional worrier. He didn't like that I saw MASH because they were disrespectful of nurse Houlihan. I was eighteen!
@@AshesAshes44 Wow. Did you grow up in a cult? Just kidding. I remember being VERY uncomfortable during that whole scene with Shirley squirming and moaning on the floor in the bedroom scene. I didn’t know what was going on but knew it was “adult” in nature. I’m sure my parents were too. We went to see it because it had been recommended on PBS ‘At The Movies”. They would not have taken me had they known about that scene. Btw, my dad walked out of Cape Fear when DeNiro put his finger in Juliette Lewis’s mouth.
Chauncey Gardiner aka Chance the Gardener is IMO Peter Sellers’ greatest role. He said his performance was inspired by Stan Laurel of the comedy team Laurel and Hardy; both his delivery and his face are so evocative of Laurel that it’s positively eerie, or it would be eerie if Sellers had had any ulterior motive … which he honestly never had. I think that his kindliness as Chance is even more remarkable, once I learned what a mean and nasty person he was irl. Look at Chance’s face - he could never have done the evil things described by family and other friends and acquaintances.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. While watching BT, I have to keep reminding myself that Chance is actually Sellers playing a role, since I do not recognize him while watching this film. It is truly stunning, insofar as Sellers is easily recognizable in his other roles. Somehow he takes it to another level in Ashby's film.
Just finished the video which I very much liked and I hope your doing well in spirte of facing a chronically illness this is really good content I’m now a subscriber
I appreciate your kind wishes and I am pleased that you enjoyed the video. Also, it was most kind of you to subscribe. Thank you for doing that. I hope that you enjoy the latest video, which is a little more speculative than this one. ruclips.net/video/PlUCAM2r2YM/видео.html
Thanks for the insightful and complete overview. I saw this on its initial release and it affected me on many levels. I even adopted some of Chance's mannerisms - for instance, whenever someone is explaining something to me, I listen intently, and after they are finished I say, "I understand".
"I see." (Sorry, couldn't resist...another of Chance's favourites.) In any event, I'm glad that you found the video useful. Thanks for your kind words.
Jerzy Kosinski's novel "Being There" was brilliant in its satire of the vacuousness of American media and culture. Chauncey Gardiner was the perfect embodiment of an empty suit. I cannot recall much about the movie but the book was engrossing and eye-opening to the young person I was at the time. Everything Jerzy ever wrote is well worth reading.
Kosinski was a fraud. The story is taken from a book ,,Career of Nikodem Dyzma,, by Mostowicz, Polish author. Kosinski was a fraud, he was a cruel person, when all his lies started showing he committed suicide. The movie is bad, all the rage and praise undeserved.
Really enjoyed this. Sellers was clearly a troubled soul but a sublime actor. He could be a real diva on a lot of the films he made in his later years but not on this one. He knew full well his time was limited and he knew full well the quality of the script. He succeeded in making one of the best films ever made, so thought provoking on many levels. The fact he didn't win an oscar, which he so coveted, was criminal.
Yes, and it wasn’t just the best actor category that was a difficult choice for voters. The 1980 Academy Awards had a surfeit of iconic titles, so one way or another, many talented people came away disappointed. Some of the films from that year included: Apocalypse Now, Norma Rae, All that Jazz, The China syndrome, …And Justice for All, Kramer vs. Kramer, La Cage aux Folles, Manhattan, Starting Over, Breaking Away, The Tin Drum 10, 1941, The Electric Horseman, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, etc. It isn’t that Dustin Hoffman wasn’t or isn’t a great actor, of course he is, but some of us really were pulling for Mr. Sellers. On the positive side, Melvyn Douglas was born to play Ben. Still and all, Robert Duvall as Lieutenant-Colonel Kilgore was an audacious and memorable character-and I remember feeling sorry for Duvall as well as Sellers. I also recall that Hoffman and Jack Lemon were the only ones who bothered showing up to the awards ceremony. I’m not sure that that’s happened too many times in any category since 1980.
@@obsessedwithcinema Didn't Roy Scheider win the best actor Oscar for his role in all That Jazz? Which you've indicated was in the same year? My comment is based on distant memory, which may or may not be reliable!
Sadly, Mr. Scheider never did manage to win the Oscar. He was nominated twice...for All That Jazz (1979), but lost out to Dustin Hoffman for Kramer vs. Kramer, and Mr. Scheider was also nominated for best supporting actor in 1971 for The French Connection, but lost out to Ben Johnson for The Last Picture Show.
@@obsessedwithcinema Thank you, and apologies for having doubted you! I suppose it was lazy of me for not having just googled it, but I still prefer directly asking someone who is both informed and passionate. And it has had the side effect of making me realize that I haven't watched All That Jazz for at least five years, and it's definitely "showtime".
This is an excellent analysis, thank you for making it. I only watched it for the first time a couple nights ago, after learning about it due to Rob Ager's video about a connection between Being There and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I was really caught up throughout the viewing and actually feel a bit changed by it. About the reasons for Dr. Allenby not revealing Chance's true identity to the others, I think he was definitely going to tell Ben Rand in the scene where Ben was dictating stock trades, and it was only when Ben told Allenby how much more at peace he was with dying due to Chance's presence that he decided to keep it to himself. The other factors you mentioned surely could have contributed, but I think he ultimately kept the secret for Ben's peace.
Thank you for your thoughtful note. Seeing this film for the first time is always an intense experience and quite fun-I envy you being able to view it with fresh eyes. I think Ashby managed to create something entirely unique…and also distinct from Kosinski’s 1970 novella. The fact that we can still debate the motivation of one of the characters some four decades later is an illustration of the complexity and nuance of the work. A number of years back, I recall discussing Dr. Allenby’s motivations with my brother. It was only when I started breaking down the reasons that the doctor was behaving the way he was that I realized there was far, far more going on (off camera so to speak) than I first realized. On a first viewing, I didn’t immediately pick up on the point that you mentioned, that Dr. Allenby was about to turn Chance in, and it was only Ben’s words about Chance easing the realization of his own impending death, which gave the doctor pause. This particular interpretation always struck me as an adult’s interpretation and because I saw this film as a child, I guess I continue to trust my child’s point of view. At that time, I remember that I really felt differently. I believed that Dr. Allenby’s reticence to ‘end’ Chance was more related to the fact that he wasn’t certain of much, that he only had a vague series of suspicions and assumptions, but that he couldn’t be totally certain (since he seemed to inherently acknowledge that he himself was human and fallible and could well have misinterpreted something Chance had done or said). As a result, so my child’s brain conceived it, he decided not to share his suspicions with anyone (including Ben) because he was not really 100% certain of anything. I have often found physicians to be an overtly and exceedingly judgmental lot, so I have always sought out doctors who I felt were more like (my child’s perception) of who Dr. Allenby was…someone who didn’t want to waste effort judging my personal life and instead felt it was his job to help me live a better life, despite my being debilitated by illness. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
The only other movie that still occasionally haunts me, even after over 50 years, is the film "Blow-Up", by Antonioni...a similar theme about individuality, and its relationship to perceived Reality, but also commenting on the turbulent societal changes going on in the late 1960s. I love films that stimulate thinking!...Not many do, these days.
I rarely watch clips like this but I, as an old guy who is to this day mesmerized by 'Chauncy Gardiner' appreciate your take and commentary on this classic, and sadly/gladly accurate commentary on our world. Let us all walk upon water before our ends.
Thank you for coming out as a chronically ill person. I am as well and up until very recently I have been reluctant to speak of it even though it has been true for many years. Well done video as well.
I am sorry to hear you deal with chronic illness yourself and I wish you the best. As for the movie - Peter Sellers being known for more over the top comic performances, makes this performance stand out even more in its brilliance. The only comparison I can think of right away is seeing Jim Carrey in The Truman Show - so poignant and subtle compared to his earlier smash successes. This is my favorite performance of Peter's and the cast is perfection. One of my all time favorite movies and really does not seem any less relevant today.
Thank you for your best wishes. It's always heartening to know that people care. I recall The Truman Show and all the publicity surrounding it. In June 1998, it was the subject of a Time Magazine cover story under the headline "Jim Carrey Breaks Out." They don't do that for just any film. Some 18 years earlier, in March 1980, Peter Sellers also made the Time cover, under the headline "Who is This Man? The Many Faces of Peter Sellers." He passed way only five months after that cover. I often think of his astonishing body of work. It was incredible how much he achieved in so relatively short a time. I know that people continue to have strongly held feelings about Being There. I am working on another video which I hope you will enjoy.
Sellers was a jewel of an qctor!...it is interesting to me though, that like quite a few other fine actors, he was very self-destructive, arrogant, mean to his ladies, etc. He was quoted as saying that "I am only whatever character I am portraying...there is no "me" otherwise". Wow!...very powerful statement, and it indicates extreme self-loathing...I think I have a lesser case of that problem too!
I’ve found this movie to be my overlaying reminder of every aspect of the spiritual journey. Everything about Chance reflects the journey of the master. All eventually comes down to the simple. ‘Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.’ The simplicity of Chance mirrors the effect Chance has on others, unbeknownst to him. However, the master knows that the energy of allowance mirrors to the person with identity and determination and boundaries and defences their own need to go beyond those stopping points, either consciously or subconsciously. This is the effect Chance has on others… Again unbeknownst to him. As spiritual simplicity is based in caring, compassion, acceptance, being in the moment, and the power of love. That’s why I believe that the final scene of his walking on water is the establishment of that simplicity of the evolved spiritual life. And the prerequisite to that scene with the quote from Ben of “Life is a state of mind.’
@@obsessedwithcinema Please, what is the word you used before 'masturbation' at 6:14? Closed captioning renders it as 'vanilla,' but I don't think that's it.
Hi, Ron- Yeah, vanilla is correct. I guess I was trying to connote something run-of-the-mill, as opposed to some kind of more elaborate ritual. Anyway, thanks for your notes. I agree with your earlier comments, regarding Chance's relationship to the Old Man. From the outset, though, I should also concede that Being There 'reads' a lot bigger than its small size. There is a lot going on and much of it is in the reader's or viewer's mind. Kosinski puts us in mind of many different aspects of our own lives (you know, assumptions we all make about others and so forth). I have been fairly stunned by the number of comments and compliments and even the number of 'likes' this video has tended to get each day. It turns out that not all surprises are unpleasant. Anyway, I guess I'll just answer the other query here--you are right that the relationship between Chance and the Old Man is rather a key to the novel and the film. We aren’t given much information to go on, even including the novella, though there is much that can be inferred. In both the book and the film, Chance’s subdued reaction to the Old Man’s death does stand out (even to Louise in the film) as kind of strange. Juxtaposed against Chance’s restrained but still emotional reaction to Ben’s death, I feel that we get about all we need to know. Like any great author, Kosinski gives us nuggets and not much more. We have a great deal to fill in for ourselves. I see the relationship between the two men (even though we never actually see Chance and the Old Man alive in the same time and space) as a little more fraught than some, I suppose. The novel gets into why this might be so, but basically it feels like Chance's life may have been usurped by the Old Man. The Old Man's motivations are unclear and I know that many readers/viewers feel that Chance may have been the Old Man's son out of wedlock, but this kind of makes it worse, in a way, especially because of how Chance describes what he was told about himself in the novel (he is informed that his prospects for living a full life are very grim and he had better accept his sad, limited fate---because his mind is damaged or flawed in some way that is never definitively diagnosed). The reader might suspect that this was all a cover story created by the Old Man to keep Chance from desiring more from life, and we see that Chance might well be capable of more. To me, Chance is kind of liberated by the death of the Old Man. He doesn't know it yet, but he is about to begin an entirely new and more enjoyable life. As to the Strauss 'god is dead' connection, I am a little unsure of myself. To me, it always felt like the god figure in Being There was clearly Mr. Rand, who really does control the destiny of men and nations too, for that matter. The Old Man didn't mean much to anyone, except maybe Louise. The two lawyers (Thomas Franklin and Ms. Hayes) don't appear to be too broken up about his passing, though he was a partner in their firm. To be honest, the Old Man seemed so creepy that leaving his domain didn't really feel much like Adam's eviction from Eden. To me it was more like Chance being liberated from a truly stultifying dinner party--it's true he was safe, in a way, but a cage is a cage and he really was not permitted to leave, during the Old Man's lifetime, in any event. I hope this answered some of your concerns. Thanks for your interest in this channel. It is appreciated and your other comments throughout the channel are also appreciated. Best regards.
@@obsessedwithcinema I appreciate your response. I can see your point about Ben Rand being more the god figure than the Old Man. Come to think of it, it is puzzling for someone, on the one hand, to have let Chance wear his suits, while apparently never bothering to teach him how to read a clock on the other. Also, even if the playing of 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' weren't meant to convey a sense of 'god is dead,' it definitely fits with the sense of liberation for Chance that you mentioned.
Thanks for your kind words. Hearing that you enjoyed the work makes it much easier to keep putting in the hours (editing always eats time). In any event, there should be some new videos shortly. Thank you for your support. 😀
@@obsessedwithcinema chance embodies what matters in life, gardening and being friendly to everyone. Chance is so likeable and loved because he's harmless. That combined with his attire let's him inadvertently dupe the whole world. Sellers was beyond exceptional in this his Magnum opus
@@patriceaqa288 - Yes, very well said. Sellers is a genius in realizing that less was more for this particular role. The remarkable thing is how little Sellers is actually doing in most scenes. He mostly allows the other actors to carry things. They have to do the really heavy lifting and they are so professional and experienced that they do a truly marvellous job. Not every movie has supporting players who are of this calibre. Apropos of the credit sequence, I imagine that Sellers would have had trouble keeping a straight face through many of the scenes. I hope you find this new video to be of interest. ruclips.net/video/RGPCMj0DFbs/видео.html
I loved that film "Being There" and that character Chance. I didn't fully understand why I liked him so much this short film demonstrated things I wasn't conscious of. Honestly one former United States president, Ronald Reagan, was liked by everyone.
Sincerest thanks for your note, John. It was helpful to me in an interesting way. To be honest, I simply decided to make this video, but I cannot really remember ever knowing why I did so and honestly, I was also unaware where the topic came from. That is, I decided to write it and edit it and all the rest-but I wasn’t sure exactly what I was thinking at the time. All I knew was that I wanted it to exist, so I kept working. When I published it on YT, it just sat there for around 100 days and only garnered about 145 views. Then, in February 2022, it began to move a little on its own and now it gets viewed by many people each day--perhaps 1000 every 40 days or so. I am used to really small audiences and don’t really do much social media-wise, so I wasn't exactly sure what to make of all this. It has been fun to read people’s comments and to interact with viewers. Most people have been very encouraging, complimentary and supportive, as I try to get back into the swing of day to day life after a very long period of extreme illness. I’m glad that you wrote because I now know why I made this video: to explain why viewers invariably liked Chance so much, perhaps even despite themselves. As you stated, this video is actually about some of the stuff of which people weren’t always immediately “conscious.”
I saw this movie when it came out. I was riveted to the screen. I thought, "What brilliance". I waited for his next line with robust interest. This one is a "10". Brilliant.
One of 'small' great movies. Not the kind of movies of roman, exploration, adventure, etc. to enjoy but it is rather something to make us 'think'. I got to know about the novel when my sister in Korea asked me to send for a copy of the book to use in her class (English literature) long time ago (in mid 70's). The last scene reminded me of 'walking on water' supposedly miracle by Jesus. Actually the Bible does not same he walked on water. He was walking on the shore of the sea (Galilee) in the stormy night with the disciples - fishermen - roaring their fishing boat along the shore of the lake. [Fishing was a work in the night].
Thank you so much for sharing your recollection. I always enjoy hearing how much Kosinski's work means to people--and why. I agree with your description of Being There as a great 'smaller' film. So much happens, mostly in a single place: the Biltmore Estate....and yet none of it is particularly earth shattering. There are no battle sequences, no angry invading aliens, no great mystery to solved, no bank heists, no dinosaurs and no car chases. Chance just visits with the Rands---that's about it. Nothing much happens while he's there, except that Ben becomes his 'dear' friend, Eve falls for and sleeps with him, he meets the current American President, is offered a book contract, appears on the Gary Burns television program, and hangs out with the Soviet ambassador. Not a bad few days for an illiterate gardener. Oh yes, and Ben's pals decide to make him the next president. That is Kosinski's particular genius: he somehow achieves both. Nothing happens, while everything is happening. I am always heartened that Being There and JK's other novels somehow continue to have resonance and speak to people today. I read Being There as a young child and was captivated by it. Though I found it really funny, I also worried about Chance. I instinctively felt sorry for him. What if he were discovered? The novel effectively permits the reader to see exactly what Chance thinks and why he does things the way he does. It is apparent that the novel and movie continue to mean a great deal to people, yet (fascinatingly) often for entirely different reasons. Some people see current or past American history in it. Some see it as being reminiscent of other works of literature (Candide by Voltaire for example). Some see it as a critique of the mass media's fascination with surfaces only (never getting into things too deeply). Some feel it is related to religion, while others feel that it is more about American culture generally (e.g. the particularly American phenomenon of being famous solely for being famous). In some ways, Being There taunts us with the gigantic part that luck (or chance) plays in what occurs during our lives. Watching or reading Being There always makes me reexamine my life. No doubt this is the intent of most authors, but Kosinski seems to be able to truly make me think about things that I otherwise might not have. I often wonder what it would have been like to take one of his humanities courses at Princeton or Yale in the 1970s. A mind so nimble and proactive perhaps could not help producing a novel as unique, resonant and thought-provoking as Being There.
Apparently Peter Sellers wanted to make Being There after he read the book I'm glad that he did before his final heart attack took him away from us. Sellers was an amazing actor not just a comedian it's such a shame that we lost him so early in his life.
Yes, he really did try to get to know Kosinski after reading Being There in 1970. Remarkably, Kosinski wasn't totally sure that Sellers was right for the role, since Chance was described as being much younger and better looking than Mr. Sellers, but Kosinski eventually realized that Sellers' talent and box office magnetism would carry the day and that it would be too great a risk to put the film into the hands of an unknown actor. A restrained performance was called for, and Sellers was an accomplished comic actor by this point. He knew how he wanted to play this role. Despite being a huge fan of Sellers, I too had my doubts, when I heard they were making Being There into a film. Sellers wasn't the Chance that I had pictured in my imagination. Ultimately, what was needed for a film like this was an actor disciplined enough to realize that he could only do too much as Chance, never too little. As a result, Sellers understood that he had to restrain himself throughout the film and permit the other actors to flesh out the scene. This role required Sellers' most nuanced performance and a minimalism with which he wasn't associated at that time. As you say, it was truly shocking when he died so suddenly in 1980. Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for your note. Seeing Being There in a large theatre with my sister and brother remains a pleasant memory of my childhood. It's nice to know that people still feel a personal connection to the the subject matter and the characters. I think I was so captivated by the unfolding plot, I honestly don't recall seeing anyone walking out that day, so long ago, but then again.... In any event, the film has gotten the last laugh, since it continues to be well thought of and remains an unusual and compelling comedy, quite unlike any other film I've watched.
Thank you for your kind note and warm sentiments. I'm glad that you found the video to be useful. Please feel free to check out the other Being There videos.😊
This was outstanding. The use of the word failsafe was a nice humorous touch and tribute. I also always believed that the final scene on water tended to confirm that Ben Rand sensed the presence of a messenger granted with purpose from a higher power which Chance himself couldn't know or see in his own role explicitly. It's as if we don't always understand or are allowed to know our own role in a greater purpose. Everything for a reason. A truly wonderful analysis.
You are really too kind. I was working on another video when you wrote this and I thank you for your comments--they somehow crystallized my own thoughts on what I was trying to convey. (This was a marvellous and unexpected gift.) I had felt some of what you had written since childhood--about Ben--but I had never had the courage to say it out loud, in a way. (You know, it's all the stuff we inexplicably jam down deep inside ourselves, without knowing exactly why.) In any event, I'm glad that you enjoyed the video.
@@obsessedwithcinema Just watched your analysis again and thought I would add this w.r.t. your failsafe choice of words: Just what was is it about Fail Safe that had people rolling their eyes with derision while praising Dr. Strangelove for the masterpiece that it is? Thanks again.
Peter: Like you, I was moved by Lumet’s Fail Safe. I don’t recall much about Red Alert (the novel upon which Dr. Strangelove is based), but Fail Safe (one of the few co-written novels, incidentally) seemed to be a properly somber wakeup call about the dangers of having adopted Mutual Assured Destruction as a basic tenet of how to fight the Cold War. Fail Safe makes you feel small and vulnerable and weak, as we all would be in such a nuclear exchange. It is at such moments that you wonder what it is all for, what the point is of anything, how easily society could be destroyed, all progress halted-and in this case by a mistake. The strength of Fall Safe is surely Henry Fonda’s memorable role as President. To me, choosing between the two films was always a difficult, even false choice. They are fascinating films made by talented directors, trying to tell similar stories with similar themes, but using two different methods: documentary-style vs. turning armageddon into farce. It is like Montreal and Toronto. I know most people prefer one and not the other city, but I feel that they both enhance one another by our being able to compare and contrast their distinctness as cities. If these two films had come out at different times, not within a few months, they would be seen differently today. To be sure, Strangelove overshadowed Fail Safe and kind of blew it away, but precisely because of Strangelove’s enduring popularity since 1964, it has also resurrected Fail Safe, which was even remade in 2000. People still think about both films and are moved by Lumet’s work and still marvel at Kubrick’s capacity to have characters doing and saying such outrageous nonsense, but within an otherwise dour topic. The answer to your query is that anything in the 1960s starring Peter Sellers and (future) Oscar Winner George C. Scott and directed by Stanley Kubrick, was always going to win the contest between the two films (though the combo of Lumet and Fonda with Walter Matthau, in a non-comedic role for once, is nearly equal to the task). Most people remember Lumet as the director of Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico and the Pawnbroker, but his direction of Fail Safe always flies under the radar (pun intended…sorry). I know everyone loves Kubrick’s comic take on the material, and I am a huge fan of Kubrick and (obviously) Sellers, but Fail-Safe always seemed to have the right tone for me, though I acknowledge and concede that most people do not share this view. It is possible that contemplating the end of existence is something so overwhelming and inconceivable (like contemplating the world without you in it) that people can’t take it too seriously (or don’t want to) and so they prefer to treat the matter with some levity. The thought does occur that the limitless inventiveness and capacity for self-destructiveness of humanity (the insanity which created MAD in the first place) is somewhat better represented by Kubrick than by Lumet.
When it comes to his name, 'Chance,' I don't think of it just in relation to Chance's being a beneficiary of luck. I'm surprised (even apart from it not being the topic of this video) not to hear more about his origins, and his relation to the 'old man' - a man who had taken him in and let him live in his home, and work in his garden...even letting him wear his suits. This leads me to think of Chance as likely an illegitimate son of the 'old man,' conceived and born by accident, or by 'chance,' who was kept hidden away, albeit with some paternal kindness shown to him. The video does make reference to parallels to Eden. But in this case, it isn't the acquisition of knowledge that leads to Chance's expulsion from the garden -- heaven's no! -- but rather the death of the 'god' figure (not long after, we hear a modern version of Richard Strauss' 'Thus Spake Zarathustra,' a composition which took its title from a philosophical work which had, of course, proclaimed the death of God).
@@jazzman1904 The film ends with political operatives planning among themselves to back him for president, before any primaries or nomination has taken place.
Delightful video your breakdown of this stunning film is wonderful and heartwarming, Being There is on my top ten list of the greteatest movies ,Peter Sellers is outstanding in the role of Chance , sheer genius Thank you for this
I greatly appreciate your analysis with one exception. I was hoping you would talk about this in your assessment but it appears that you, like most people, have either missed it or you do not give it the same weight that I find in its meaning. At the end of the movie, Chance walks on the water and shows he is doing so by standing in place and dipping his cane all the way into the water next to his feet. This act turns the entire premise of the film on its head. My take on this is that Chance indeed knows exactly what he is doing all along. He is having everyone on and having an internal laugh about everything. He is like a yogi who is both outwardly innocent and fully enlightened. He is full of the wisdom of the world but is at the same time transcendent to it. For me, that is a more brilliant interpretation of what the whole film is about. But that is my opinion and you, of course, have yours. That last scene informs me that Chance is not empty-headed at all but rather a fully enlightened being who is making his way through the world while dispensing his wisdom in an easily digestible manner for us mere mortals both by his words and his behavior.
Thank you for your comments. It was not so much that I felt the ending was not consequential enough to comment on, it was just that I did not see it as germane to the topic of this particular video. I must admit that your approach is much more holistic and thus it would tend to fit in better with the topic. To me, the ending felt more like a separate YT video, which I was working on for way, way too long. Clearly the viewers tended to side with you, though, judging by the number of comments. I had different ideas about Chance, some of which kind of leaned in your direction, though I saw them less about the ending of the film and more about the film as a totality and about the other characters to a degree. I'm considering something else on this, but can’t quite decide what it will look like just yet. To be sure, I come at some of this from a much different angle than others. Having said that, I hope that you enjoy the latest video, which presents various interpretations of the final 60 seconds of Ashby’s Being There. ruclips.net/video/VmP84__gCbk/видео.html
As I was thinking about it a little more I kind of get the idea that the wonder and ambiguity of the ending is also part of the charm. It lends to what Alfred Hitchcock called "the refrigerator talk" or as my girlfriend and I preferred discussing the movie on our walk home. Some movies would cause us to sit on the porch for another half an hour after the walk from the theater...Amadeus, Dark City , Blade Runner etc.
Describing my video-essay as being a stroke of luck is truly too kind of you. To return the compliment, your note felt like a ray of sunshine and really made my day. Thanks.
I recently watched "Being There" for the first time (I'm 54, so have no excuse - I grew up loving Peter Sellers) and it was one of those movies that staked a claim in my brain, and is on the list of movies I will return to again. Your analysis was very inciteful, and I saved it to my RUclips playlist so I can rewatch it as well. I wish I knew someone in my small circle of friends with whom I could share gems like these. I've subscribed, and look forward to watching some of your other posts. Thank you!
Superb work! I hope you don't mind if I will just say a few things about it, I'm not religious at all, just to clear the air. I think he is an angle stuck in a human body, he was there to help the old man, people you would never think that could need help, they maybe lost a child in a typical situation and then they got Chance and realized he was not right in the head for the big world and hid him. So he became the Gardener. Chance is bigger than that! In all cases he takes time to process the situation and in mostly getting it wrong he shows a bizarre sort of kindness moving forward. In the end he is the only being that looks Ben in the eyes honestly when he dies. I think the Umbrella scene is an angle walking in the park!
Thank you for your note. It was thoughtful and appreciated. The angel paradigm is a particularly intriguing approach, especially when applied to the final scene of the film. Thank you for this. Yours is a quite helpful and well-reasoned insight. In addition, it fits in quite comfortably with the other video. ruclips.net/video/VmP84__gCbk/видео.html
I feel like that key scene in point 10 is very key, Chance for once doesn't just smile and nod with no agency or make a convinient non-sequitur, he goes out of his way to say something genuinely and effectively empathetic, as simplistic as it may be. It is with this that his and Ben's bond feels very real. This is something that adds stakes to these sort of plots, and why everyone DREADS the whole 'liar revealed' climax most of them besides this film eventually get to, when something sincere and heartfelt has came out of it and is at risk. It is no longer all just a farce. Not to just parrot Chance here but I give my sympathy to your own sickness.
Thank you very much for your kind wishes and for sharing your thoughts on the significance of Chance's kindness to Ben. It truly is a key scene and really sets the tone for the last hour of the movie. Thank you again for your best wishes. It is most kind of you.
@@obsessedwithcinema No problem. I'm glad it was meaningful. In hindsight, Chance is almost wish fulfilment in that regard, he can say anything and it hits the spot, even when he doesn't mean it to. We spend so much time thinking over our choice of words and what impact they could have positive or negative.
Thanks for your kind note. BT is really a novella. Hard to believe they made it into a two hour movie. Complex, yes (a lot of different ideas are explored), but it kind of goes down like candy. Somehow Kosinski is able to make a single joke really last and last. You can easily read BT in a day, but I recommend reading it very slowly--it kind of sticks with you a little more and makes it more fun, wondering what comes next.
Yes, it could not have been easy to keep playing everything so straight and humourless for an entire film. It truly is amongst Sellers most brilliant stuff (up there with Clare Quilty in Lolita, Dr. Strangelove and Hrundi V. Bakshi in The Party). What I always marvel at in Being There is that Mr. Sellers is completely subsumed into his role. I truly do not see him on the screen: I see Chance only. Sellers feels unrecognizable-as though the character he’s playing has somehow come to exist independently of him.
I love your comments on this movie. I have not seen it since it first came out, I believe I would like to see it again. Thank you for such an intelligent video.
Sellers was ROBBED of his best actor Oscar for this amazing portrayal. Who won? In a completely forgettable movie and average performance, Dustin Hoffman won in a story about a divorce in Kramer vs. Kramer. It's just ROTTEN!
Yes, I kind of wanted to say that, but somehow it feels way more satisfying when the viewers say it. And if academy voters couldn't bring themselves to cast a ballot for Sellers, then Al Pacino and Roy Scheider seemed like much better choices for the Oscar (on that particular year). In addition, Kramer vs. Kramer was awarded best picture and best director, over Mr. Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Ugh.
@@obsessedwithcinema I remember it did not receive favorable reviews when it came out. So I didn't see it in a theater and instead saw it, by 'chance,' on DVD at a friend's house one evening. I was amazed at what a fantastic movie it was. Hollywood conspiracy much?
Was watching this, thinking it has some interesting insights, but then you get to the bit about being cronically ill and how it feels to have someone recognize the suffering, and I'm like, oh dear. That's special.
Peter Sellers was furious when the studio had the end credits roll over scenes of the real Peter Sellers telling jokes! He felt the end credits took away all the mystique from the character. But you have to remember: 1. Back in 1979 Sellers was known mainly as a funny man and not much else. Sellers was Inspector Couseau. So the studio probably was leery of Sellers carrying a more dramatic part and decided to bring in more of his comedy fans. 2. Sellers was at a low point in his career in 1978 being he hadn't a hit for a long time, so the studio again probably thought they better throw in more of Sellers's comedic talent.
I like your interpretation of Dr. Allenby much better than my own. Ive always thought of him as a potentially sinister character who is suspicious of Chance from the beginning because of how close he is to ben. I think the Dr. intended to find the truth about Chance so he could expose him as a charlatan before he had the chance to harm the Rands. The fact he sits on the truth of Chance’s identity however always made me assume he intended to use that information at a later date when he needed leverage.
Thank you for your nice note. I am glad that you found the video to be enlightening. One of the reasons that this film remains engaging many decades after it was released is that it is mostly an internal, introspective journey. No matter how many times I see the film, I am always fascinated by all the major and even some of the minor characters. I wish to know more about them. What might they be experiencing at various points? There are so very many curious things taking place within this film. I have always been impressed by Kosinski’s capacity to find ways to reflect the world around us on paper (e.g. how much of what we think and do is related to our perceptions, rather than things we know for certain). What is truly extraordinary, in a way, is that we still don’t really know what motivated Dr. Allenby-though we can speculate on it endlessly. We accept this so readily in life: the unknowableness of others. The reasons people do different things and behave in different ways probably isn’t always obvious, even to them…sometimes it might just be something uniquely related to one incident or one moment in time.
@@obsessedwithcinema Fitting that I was first introduced to this film in my high school epistemology class. We were shown it with no notice or preconditioning and told to try and just figure out what it all meant. It was such an engaging exercise which has stayed with me to this day.
Thank you so much for your Being Thete videos, the one on Chance, the doctor, and the various theoriesabout the ending wrre all excellent and engaging. I saw the movie and then read the book back when the movie came out. It remains one of my favorite movies. Your videos have added depth, enhanced appreciation, and even a greater love for this movie, even after all these years. Thank you.
Thanks for reviewing my favorite movie of all time. I'm sorry you missed the underlying theme of it. His seeming simplicity and lack of guile can be understood as naivete or ignorance, but it's not. His career in horticulture is a clue. He gives everyone he encounters a sense of well-being. Eve can orgasm in his presence without being penetrated. Finally, his name, Chance, is the give away. He is the embodiment of the Holy Spirit. There is only one way to walk on water - living with no doubt.
Timothy, thank you for your thoughtful note. I'm not sure I missed it exactly, but chose to put some of what you have said in another video. Link below. On the other hand, your have stated the case quite a bit more succinctly and eloquently and no doubt more subtly than I ultimately managed to. I appreciate this note and a number of others that see BT and Chance in particular in more spiritual and thus more uplifting terms. ruclips.net/video/VmP84__gCbk/видео.html
Most office employees in corporate america are like Chancey. The only thing holding our society together are blue collar men and women, still un-aware that there is nothing left in the building.
He perdido la cuenta de todas las veces que he visto este film. No puedo decir algo que no me guste, me gustan hasta las escenas fallidas que aparecen en los creditos del film. Peter Seller era un genio, sin ser un actor de comedia hacia de sus actuaciones una comedia. Gracias por el resumen y explicacion.
Yes! Talk show! This classic movie up n my top 10. The humor,and the bloopers @ end let's audience no there's bad things happening n world outside of Gov. I love euphemisms!!!! My fav! This movie is hilarious cause everything is interpretated through euphemisms! What is said n conversations are using words (dialogue) that doesn't answer guestions but all is euphemisms. Meaning 1 thing n answers using euphemisms! ❤😂
thank you for this insightful analyses of one of my all time fave films, this has earned you a new subscriber (moi), and of course thumbs up, #643 ... this reminds me that it's been awhile since i've seen it, gonna watch this as soon as this is over!
One of my favourite movies - thankyou for such an insightful discussion. The ending of the movie is also hugely significant, since there's an allusion to Christ walking on water with the inference that people have projected so much upon him, as well. Both Chance and Christ are essentially simple (i.e. undivided) folk who, though outcasts from society, lived in harmony with Nature and with themselves.
It really makes you wonder how much of these stories of the ominous figures like St. Germain throughout history were actually just like Chance Gardner.
Such a great film, unfortunately it is one that you have to insist to people to watch. Peter Sellers was my father's favorite. So I paid attention when his name was mentioned.
I have yet to see this film - indeed, I didn't remember it at all until I stumbled across your essay here. My first question is to ask if you see a through line between Chance and Forrest Gump?
Though Chance and Forrest have a lot in common as characters, the tone of the two books and the two movies are profoundly different. In general, the characters in Being There overestimate Chance and treat him with great reverence. Being There plays out like a comedy, despite Ben’s death and then the startling, sober moment (in the film only) when we see that Chance may have powers that we as viewers were unaware of. Conversely and despite having many comic scenes, Forrest Gump feels much more serious, since Forrest is often mistreated and denigrated and badly underestimated by other characters, including Lieutenant Dan Taylor (whose life Forrest saves). Chance kind of floats through life, whereas Forrest’s journey is often difficult, seeing action in Vietnam and watching his very best friend, Bubba and later his true love, Jenny, die painful deaths in front of him. Through it all, Forrest keeps a stiff upper lip, a little like Chance, but in the end, the two characters (and the works themselves) diverge more than they converge. For example, the two works interact with the world of politics in ways that feel quite different. Good things seem to find Chance (though he is not looking for them), whereas Forrest is more of an All-American spirit: diligence, hard work, patience, courage and stoicism. There is luck too, for Forrest, but it still had to do with hard work. e.g. His shrimping business was about to fail until an act of god destroys most of his competitor’s boats, but he still had to have invested in a failing shrimping business in order to then be in a position for it to succeed. Being There is different: Chance (after leaving the Old Man's house and being taken in by the Rands) doesn’t really have to do much heavy lifting: everyone else sees something in him which doesn’t actually exist and then they kind of do everything for him (e.g. Ben, Eve, the President, Ben’s pals, Ben's servants and the press). Forrest is kind of apolitical with regard to: 1) the civil rights movement (he crosses into the schoolhouse barred by Governor Wallace in 1963, primarily to return Vivian Malone’s book to her, not to make a political statement), 2) the Vietnam war (we never hear what Forrest had to say to Abbie Hoffman and everyone else at the anti-war march), 3) the women’s movement, 4) the student movement, etc. -In contrast and despite not really having a political preference that we can discern, Chance is perceived as being highly political by others and thus a potential candidate to replace the President. For its time, the CGI used in Forrest Gump was really impressive (seeing him with LBJ and John Lennon, etc.), but somehow I found Chance’s story more compelling perhaps because it felt more like a fable and has a certain timelessness. Despite similar starting points--protagonists who have certain challenges to overcome--the two works end up in really different places and evoke very different feelings in the viewer.
Indeed, I greatly appreciate your "documentary". Just two further interesting points: 1) Naturally you were aware that Peter Sellers "was dying" in his real life while playing in this film... 2) What do you think about the ending, where Chance "seems" to be walking on water, I would love to know your impressions. I have seen this part countless times hoping to grasp some new insight into it; naturally I've read the novel too. Thank you for your video and cheers!
For me, I just think of it as another example (though a striking one) of Chance doing or saying something that seems amazing to those who aren't aware of a very simple, unamazing explanation: In this case, there was probably a pier that had been flooded over with an inch or so of water -- Chance walks out on it, then back again, completely oblivious of how miraculous it would appear to anyone watching.
@@ronmackinnon9374 Don't you remember when he sinks his closed umbrella completely into the water up to the handle...? I like to entertain another kind of thought... The Native Americans (and also other ancient cultures in the world) believed that the simpleton was a person touched by the spirit of God, was a "pure" person, who could perform what some people would call "miracles", because he was also part of the other life... Everybody defines Chance for something "other" than what he seems to be, yet there might be some hidden truth even in that... Thanks again for the sharing.
Chance was very much a precursor to Forrest Gump but I feel that Peter Sellers' character felt like even more of an innocent than Tom Hanks' persona. Chance comes from within a literal walled garden out into the real World. A place he has zero experience nor understanding of and has only known through what he has seen on television. Forrest has experience of the world and is able to navigate much of it but has no understanding of the people within it. Each character appears on television in an important situation and is observed by someone who is aware of his disability, the Doctor observing chance and the woman who raised him seeing Forrest, and each realizes the absurdity of the situation. It is someone in the film viewing the television appearance in the same manner as the viewer. Almost a silent narrator whom we can all identify with in the piece. In the end, Chance is proven to be an innocent on a completely different level from Forrest when he walks out onto the surface of the lake. Forrest understands the world well enough to have understood that such a feat would be impossible while such a thing doesn't begin to occur to Chance. They are in different worlds. Different realities.
I have very much enjoyed all three of your videos on 'Being There'. One little plot point still haunts me though. I know it's a 'fable' and not a 'naturalistic' movie but why does Chance just leave his house at the appointed time and head out onto the DC streets, simply because the lawyer has 'instructed' him? It doesn't make sense to me. Surely he would just stay put until forced out of the house, given that it's the only life that he has ever known. Or maybe he is forced out by hunger, ie. Louise not making his food? Ideas welcome.
This actually reminds me of a story about Tony Blair. Often, he'd be at a party with people of may different political persuasions and opinions. Apparently, to everyone he said the same thing, 'I'm on your side.'
You talked about his wardrobe. I was hoping you would, because this is the most important part. Chance was dressed in the best clothes money could buy,because the old man let him have his old clothes. With his reserved ways and the finely tailored clothes, they all assumed he came from money. If he fhad been in regular clothes or even tattered clothes, no one would have given him a second thought. Eve most likely would have either dropped him off at a hospital or just have someone call him an ambulance.
This truly was Sellers' best movie ever. And no one could have played this role any better.
Didn't he do three roles in Strangelove, though? pretty impressive
I had read the novel before the movie came out. Another of Kazinsky's characters, the opposite of Chance, appears in "Cockpit", a disturbing novel about a man who deliberately isolates himself from society in order to manipulate and observe people. The part of the story that has haunted me over the years is the one of the dying Benjamin Rand, a billionaire, a kingmaker, all-powerful, then drained of his energy on his way to death. There is another character, "The Old Man", who bought his handmade suits, a touring car and his leather luggage during the Depression, in the prime of his life, then was struck down during a riding accident and made a cripple. It is interesting to speculate on his relationship with Chance- illegitimate child? A waif? We learn in the book that he tended to his business affairs from his bedroom. Oddly, he made no provisions for Chance or Louise, the devoted housekeeper. Today, at 72, 50 years after I read "Being There", and looking back on my life and on the 15-16 years I have left, I hope that my senior years will be healthy. I have now survived prostate cancer and open-heart surgery. I will die, myself, with only a few regrets and some feelings of satisfaction. What a novel, and what a movie.
i also had read the novel before i saw the film! and it is one of my all time fave films, a true masterpiece!
About the bastard hypothesis.
There was a custom in the old Brasil. When a family had a child who was born with severe anomalies -- physically or mentally -- he or she or it was jailed in a cave or cage in order to impede the interaction with the social community. It was common in the farms (they were called the monster) -- I witnessed one case. It is quite probable that this occurred also in the early big cities. Chance the Gardener was an imbecile from birth. He was isolated due to it. He wasn't a common guy who only has watched TV during all his life.
Brasil
@johnpotter8039 - What a comment, Mr. Potter. Especially the part about yourself. RUclips is an interesting place. It's filled with the awful, the fantastic, and everything in between. Comments like yours, from a person I don't know and will (unfortunately) never meet, stick with me. I guess the anonymity allows folks to write freely and the rest of us get to feel like we're reading someone's personal diary. I clicked your screen name and visited your channel. I like your music choices. I wish you well, sir.
I too, have had heart procedures, and also radiation for Prostate cancer!...at 76 now, I just have seen this movie for the first time!...It has me reeling with deep thoughts about the very meaning of "self" and how the "self" views the world we live in. I wish I had read the book!...and I just found out that Kasinski was a suicide death!...even more food for thought.
Thank you for your comment you’ve given me something new I would like to read
Of all the examples from the film of Chance being misinterpreted by others as making a joke, there's one that I distinctly remember which isn't mentioned in this video: When he's a guest on a talk show, he is asked what he thinks of the president's plan. He replies, 'Which plan?' -- and the audience immediately laughs, assuming that he's trying to get in a dig at the president.
One similarity between the Chance character and Sellers' most well known character inspector Clouseau is that both are men of limited ability with supernatural luck. Just as incompetent buffoon Clouseau, through this luck, can survive and end up accidentally killing off many of the world's top assassins, Chance lucks out, having the statements of his childlike intellect interpreted as the statements of the visionary genius everyone wants to believe he is.
Yes, my father really loved Sellers, as did our whole family. Slapstick comedy wasn't really our thing, but somehow we made an exception for virtually anything Sellers did. The 1968 film The Party (another collaboration with Blake Edwards) has Sellers playing yet another Clouseau-type protagonist, Hrundi V. Bakshi. It is an odd film, about a shy, awkward man who is invited to a dinner party by accident. That's the whole plot. It is simple and quite light as comedies go, but it's funny and does tend to linger in the viewer's thoughts. In an odd way, Seller's characters are mostly so memorable that you keep wondering what they might be up to, if they were still alive or had existed in the first place. As you said, much of what happens to Chance (and in life) is luck based and somehow Ashby's direction makes this all the more apparent throughout the film. In some ways, Being There ridicules the viewer as well, since so much of what we attempt in our lives tends to fail, yet a bit of Chance-type good fortune might have changed things, to the point that you might be living a different life if not for a shard of luck, thrown in, here or there. Regardless, thanks for reminding me of my dad, who loved Clouseau, and of my childhood, which wasn't as bad in retrospect as it felt like at the time.
@@obsessedwithcinemaI've heard of The Party, but never got around to watching it, I'll have to add it to my watch list. Thanks for your thoughtful response to my comment, I'm happy to have brought back happy memories of your dad.
The ending makes it clear that it isn’t luck.
Wonderful recollection. This is one of the best movies ever made.
Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad that you enjoyed the video. I recently posted another which might interest you.
ruclips.net/video/RGPCMj0DFbs/видео.html
Indeed...
One of the greatest philosophical works of film ever made.
He speaks so clearly. Who would think he’s so empty? He’s whatever they want him to be.
In other words, he's the perfect candidate.
Sellers truly related to that character!...He felt like an empty vessel, when not acting! No wonder he did such a great job!
I'm sorry to hear that you are chronically ill and hope that you're finding ways to relieve any suffering. Your videos are very well made and very clearly spoken. I have indeed enjoyed watching them. Take care.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your kind words.
A masterpiece. One of my favorite films alongside Network and The Producers.
Absolutely fantastic. My favorite movie ever is now even better. Thank you for the wonderfully insightful piece.
Most kind of you to say so. Congratulations on the success of your channel.
I find Chance as having the true, or exemplary, attitude towards life of an actual or REAL artist or poet.
Not being swayed - but without prejudice taking everything in. Hence becoming a doorway or window for others to perceive their reality.
My parents took me to see this in the theater when I was about 10. It really left a lasting impression on me. Instantly became one of my favorite films. I was so bummed when Peter died not long after.
at least Peter Sellers will remain immortalized in his work and recordings of his art and life, as have many who have passed away.
Goodness, my parents didn't let us see Return of the Jedi until they'd seen it first, and I was about 11 years old. I'm still half convinced they just wanted a night out without the kids.
Then again, my dad was a professional worrier. He didn't like that I saw MASH because they were disrespectful of nurse Houlihan. I was eighteen!
@@AshesAshes44 Wow. Did you grow up in a cult? Just kidding. I remember being VERY uncomfortable during that whole scene with Shirley squirming and moaning on the floor in the bedroom scene. I didn’t know what was going on but knew it was “adult” in nature. I’m sure my parents were too. We went to see it because it had been recommended on PBS ‘At The Movies”. They would not have taken me had they known about that scene. Btw, my dad walked out of Cape Fear when DeNiro put his finger in Juliette Lewis’s mouth.
Chauncey Gardiner aka Chance the Gardener is IMO Peter Sellers’ greatest role. He said his performance was inspired by Stan Laurel of the comedy team Laurel and Hardy; both his delivery and his face are so evocative of Laurel that it’s positively eerie, or it would be eerie if Sellers had had any ulterior motive … which he honestly never had. I think that his kindliness as Chance is even more remarkable, once I learned what a mean and nasty person he was irl. Look at Chance’s face - he could never have done the evil things described by family and other friends and acquaintances.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. While watching BT, I have to keep reminding myself that Chance is actually Sellers playing a role, since I do not recognize him while watching this film. It is truly stunning, insofar as Sellers is easily recognizable in his other roles. Somehow he takes it to another level in Ashby's film.
I really enjoyed this movie and I’m thankful someone finally made a video essay about it
Just finished the video which I very much liked and I hope your doing well in spirte of facing a chronically illness this is really good content I’m now a subscriber
I appreciate your kind wishes and I am pleased that you enjoyed the video. Also, it was most kind of you to subscribe. Thank you for doing that. I hope that you enjoy the latest video, which is a little more speculative than this one.
ruclips.net/video/PlUCAM2r2YM/видео.html
This film was wa-a-y ahead of its time. One of my very top favourites. 😎
Thanks for the insightful and complete overview. I saw this on its initial release and it affected me on many levels. I even adopted some of Chance's mannerisms - for instance, whenever someone is explaining something to me, I listen intently, and after they are finished I say, "I understand".
"I see." (Sorry, couldn't resist...another of Chance's favourites.) In any event, I'm glad that you found the video useful. Thanks for your kind words.
Nice!!! I understand!!!
Me too. It's very disarming. Some might say passive aggressive. I use it to my full advantage ;).
Funny. I sometimes say 'Yes, Ben' under my breath to people who give me instruction.
"I understand".
Jerzy Kosinski's novel "Being There" was brilliant in its satire of the vacuousness of American media and culture. Chauncey Gardiner was the perfect embodiment of an empty suit. I cannot recall much about the movie but the book was engrossing and eye-opening to the young person I was at the time. Everything Jerzy ever wrote is well worth reading.
Kosinski was a fraud. The story is taken from a book ,,Career of Nikodem Dyzma,, by Mostowicz, Polish author. Kosinski was a fraud, he was a cruel person, when all his lies started showing he committed suicide. The movie is bad, all the rage and praise undeserved.
Really enjoyed this. Sellers was clearly a troubled soul but a sublime actor. He could be a real diva on a lot of the films he made in his later years but not on this one. He knew full well his time was limited and he knew full well the quality of the script. He succeeded in making one of the best films ever made, so thought provoking on many levels. The fact he didn't win an oscar, which he so coveted, was criminal.
Yes, and it wasn’t just the best actor category that was a difficult choice for voters. The 1980 Academy Awards had a surfeit of iconic titles, so one way or another, many talented people came away disappointed. Some of the films from that year included: Apocalypse Now, Norma Rae, All that Jazz, The China syndrome, …And Justice for All, Kramer vs. Kramer, La Cage aux Folles, Manhattan, Starting Over, Breaking Away, The Tin Drum 10, 1941, The Electric Horseman, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, etc. It isn’t that Dustin Hoffman wasn’t or isn’t a great actor, of course he is, but some of us really were pulling for Mr. Sellers. On the positive side, Melvyn Douglas was born to play Ben. Still and all, Robert Duvall as Lieutenant-Colonel Kilgore was an audacious and memorable character-and I remember feeling sorry for Duvall as well as Sellers. I also recall that Hoffman and Jack Lemon were the only ones who bothered showing up to the awards ceremony. I’m not sure that that’s happened too many times in any category since 1980.
@@obsessedwithcinema Didn't Roy Scheider win the best actor Oscar for his role in all That Jazz? Which you've indicated was in the same year? My comment is based on distant memory, which may or may not be reliable!
Sadly, Mr. Scheider never did manage to win the Oscar. He was nominated twice...for All That Jazz (1979), but lost out to Dustin Hoffman for Kramer vs. Kramer, and Mr. Scheider was also nominated for best supporting actor in 1971 for The French Connection, but lost out to Ben Johnson for The Last Picture Show.
@@obsessedwithcinema Thank you, and apologies for having doubted you! I suppose it was lazy of me for not having just googled it, but I still prefer directly asking someone who is both informed and passionate. And it has had the side effect of making me realize that I haven't watched All That Jazz for at least five years, and it's definitely "showtime".
This is an excellent analysis, thank you for making it. I only watched it for the first time a couple nights ago, after learning about it due to Rob Ager's video about a connection between Being There and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I was really caught up throughout the viewing and actually feel a bit changed by it.
About the reasons for Dr. Allenby not revealing Chance's true identity to the others, I think he was definitely going to tell Ben Rand in the scene where Ben was dictating stock trades, and it was only when Ben told Allenby how much more at peace he was with dying due to Chance's presence that he decided to keep it to himself. The other factors you mentioned surely could have contributed, but I think he ultimately kept the secret for Ben's peace.
Thank you for your thoughtful note. Seeing this film for the first time is always an intense experience and quite fun-I envy you being able to view it with fresh eyes. I think Ashby managed to create something entirely unique…and also distinct from Kosinski’s 1970 novella. The fact that we can still debate the motivation of one of the characters some four decades later is an illustration of the complexity and nuance of the work. A number of years back, I recall discussing Dr. Allenby’s motivations with my brother. It was only when I started breaking down the reasons that the doctor was behaving the way he was that I realized there was far, far more going on (off camera so to speak) than I first realized. On a first viewing, I didn’t immediately pick up on the point that you mentioned, that Dr. Allenby was about to turn Chance in, and it was only Ben’s words about Chance easing the realization of his own impending death, which gave the doctor pause. This particular interpretation always struck me as an adult’s interpretation and because I saw this film as a child, I guess I continue to trust my child’s point of view. At that time, I remember that I really felt differently. I believed that Dr. Allenby’s reticence to ‘end’ Chance was more related to the fact that he wasn’t certain of much, that he only had a vague series of suspicions and assumptions, but that he couldn’t be totally certain (since he seemed to inherently acknowledge that he himself was human and fallible and could well have misinterpreted something Chance had done or said). As a result, so my child’s brain conceived it, he decided not to share his suspicions with anyone (including Ben) because he was not really 100% certain of anything.
I have often found physicians to be an overtly and exceedingly judgmental lot, so I have always sought out doctors who I felt were more like (my child’s perception) of who Dr. Allenby was…someone who didn’t want to waste effort judging my personal life and instead felt it was his job to help me live a better life, despite my being debilitated by illness.
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
I didn't see Rob Ager's video on the subject yet, thank you for mentioning it!
The only other movie that still occasionally haunts me, even after over 50 years, is the film "Blow-Up", by Antonioni...a similar theme about individuality, and its relationship to perceived Reality, but also commenting on the turbulent societal changes going on in the late 1960s. I love films that stimulate thinking!...Not many do, these days.
I rarely watch clips like this but I, as an old guy who is to this day mesmerized by 'Chauncy Gardiner' appreciate your take and commentary on this classic, and sadly/gladly accurate commentary on our world.
Let us all walk upon water before our ends.
I really love a great film like that. Peter Sellers is sublime. I'm sorry that you are not well. Thanks for sharing Obsessed With Cinema.
Thank you for your thoughtful note and best wishes. It is most kind of you.
@@obsessedwithcinema you're welcome.
Thank you for coming out as a chronically ill person. I am as well and up until very recently I have been reluctant to speak of it even though it has been true for many years. Well done video as well.
I am sorry to hear you deal with chronic illness yourself and I wish you the best.
As for the movie - Peter Sellers being known for more over the top comic performances, makes this performance stand out even more in its brilliance. The only comparison I can think of right away is seeing Jim Carrey in The Truman Show - so poignant and subtle compared to his earlier smash successes. This is my favorite performance of Peter's and the cast is perfection. One of my all time favorite movies and really does not seem any less relevant today.
Thank you for your best wishes. It's always heartening to know that people care. I recall The Truman Show and all the publicity surrounding it. In June 1998, it was the subject of a Time Magazine cover story under the headline "Jim Carrey Breaks Out." They don't do that for just any film. Some 18 years earlier, in March 1980, Peter Sellers also made the Time cover, under the headline "Who is This Man? The Many Faces of Peter Sellers." He passed way only five months after that cover. I often think of his astonishing body of work. It was incredible how much he achieved in so relatively short a time. I know that people continue to have strongly held feelings about Being There. I am working on another video which I hope you will enjoy.
Sellers was a jewel of an qctor!...it is interesting to me though, that like quite a few other fine actors, he was very self-destructive, arrogant, mean to his ladies, etc. He was quoted as saying that "I am only whatever character I am portraying...there is no "me" otherwise". Wow!...very powerful statement, and it indicates extreme self-loathing...I think I have a lesser case of that problem too!
I’ve found this movie to be my overlaying reminder of every aspect of the spiritual journey. Everything about Chance reflects the journey of the master. All eventually comes down to the simple. ‘Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.’
The simplicity of Chance mirrors the effect Chance has on others, unbeknownst to him. However, the master knows that the energy of allowance mirrors to the person with identity and determination and boundaries and defences their own need to go beyond those stopping points, either consciously or subconsciously. This is the effect Chance has on others… Again unbeknownst to him. As spiritual simplicity is based in caring, compassion, acceptance, being in the moment, and the power of love.
That’s why I believe that the final scene of his walking on water is the establishment of that simplicity of the evolved spiritual life.
And the prerequisite to that scene with the quote from Ben of “Life is a state of mind.’
Great analysis of one of my favorite films. Thank you for posting.
Thank you for watching. I appreciate your time and your kind note.
@@obsessedwithcinema Please, what is the word you used before 'masturbation' at 6:14? Closed captioning renders it as 'vanilla,' but I don't think that's it.
Hi, Ron-
Yeah, vanilla is correct. I guess I was trying to connote something run-of-the-mill, as opposed to some kind of more elaborate ritual. Anyway, thanks for your notes. I agree with your earlier comments, regarding Chance's relationship to the Old Man. From the outset, though, I should also concede that Being There 'reads' a lot bigger than its small size. There is a lot going on and much of it is in the reader's or viewer's mind. Kosinski puts us in mind of many different aspects of our own lives (you know, assumptions we all make about others and so forth). I have been fairly stunned by the number of comments and compliments and even the number of 'likes' this video has tended to get each day. It turns out that not all surprises are unpleasant.
Anyway, I guess I'll just answer the other query here--you are right that the relationship between Chance and the Old Man is rather a key to the novel and the film. We aren’t given much information to go on, even including the novella, though there is much that can be inferred. In both the book and the film, Chance’s subdued reaction to the Old Man’s death does stand out (even to Louise in the film) as kind of strange. Juxtaposed against Chance’s restrained but still emotional reaction to Ben’s death, I feel that we get about all we need to know. Like any great author, Kosinski gives us nuggets and not much more. We have a great deal to fill in for ourselves. I see the relationship between the two men (even though we never actually see Chance and the Old Man alive in the same time and space) as a little more fraught than some, I suppose. The novel gets into why this might be so, but basically it feels like Chance's life may have been usurped by the Old Man. The Old Man's motivations are unclear and I know that many readers/viewers feel that Chance may have been the Old Man's son out of wedlock, but this kind of makes it worse, in a way, especially because of how Chance describes what he was told about himself in the novel (he is informed that his prospects for living a full life are very grim and he had better accept his sad, limited fate---because his mind is damaged or flawed in some way that is never definitively diagnosed). The reader might suspect that this was all a cover story created by the Old Man to keep Chance from desiring more from life, and we see that Chance might well be capable of more. To me, Chance is kind of liberated by the death of the Old Man. He doesn't know it yet, but he is about to begin an entirely new and more enjoyable life. As to the Strauss 'god is dead' connection, I am a little unsure of myself. To me, it always felt like the god figure in Being There was clearly Mr. Rand, who really does control the destiny of men and nations too, for that matter. The Old Man didn't mean much to anyone, except maybe Louise. The two lawyers (Thomas Franklin and Ms. Hayes) don't appear to be too broken up about his passing, though he was a partner in their firm. To be honest, the Old Man seemed so creepy that leaving his domain didn't really feel much like Adam's eviction from Eden. To me it was more like Chance being liberated from a truly stultifying dinner party--it's true he was safe, in a way, but a cage is a cage and he really was not permitted to leave, during the Old Man's lifetime, in any event.
I hope this answered some of your concerns. Thanks for your interest in this channel. It is appreciated and your other comments throughout the channel are also appreciated. Best regards.
@@obsessedwithcinema I appreciate your response. I can see your point about Ben Rand being more the god figure than the Old Man. Come to think of it, it is puzzling for someone, on the one hand, to have let Chance wear his suits, while apparently never bothering to teach him how to read a clock on the other. Also, even if the playing of 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' weren't meant to convey a sense of 'god is dead,' it definitely fits with the sense of liberation for Chance that you mentioned.
good job. it makes me want to watch the movie again.
A lazy afternoon spent with Chance, Ben, Eve and Dr. Allenby is never wasted.
(Thank you for your pleasant note.)
It's early Sunday morning, I'm sitting here with my tea, thanks to this vid, getting ready to watch it, so I know exactly what you mean.
Thanks for your note. Hope you had some fun.
Love the analysis of this great film and character
I have to agree with the other comments - that was a really superb analysis of one of my all time favourite movies. I look forward to more.
Thanks for your kind words. Hearing that you enjoyed the work makes it much easier to keep putting in the hours (editing always eats time). In any event, there should be some new videos shortly. Thank you for your support. 😀
@@obsessedwithcinema chance embodies what matters in life, gardening and being friendly to everyone. Chance is so likeable and loved because he's harmless. That combined with his attire let's him inadvertently dupe the whole world. Sellers was beyond exceptional in this his Magnum opus
@@patriceaqa288 - Yes, very well said. Sellers is a genius in realizing that less was more for this particular role. The remarkable thing is how little Sellers is actually doing in most scenes. He mostly allows the other actors to carry things. They have to do the really heavy lifting and they are so professional and experienced that they do a truly marvellous job. Not every movie has supporting players who are of this calibre. Apropos of the credit sequence, I imagine that Sellers would have had trouble keeping a straight face through many of the scenes.
I hope you find this new video to be of interest.
ruclips.net/video/RGPCMj0DFbs/видео.html
I loved that film "Being There" and that character Chance. I didn't fully understand why I liked him so much this short film demonstrated things I wasn't conscious of. Honestly one former United States president, Ronald Reagan, was liked by everyone.
Sincerest thanks for your note, John. It was helpful to me in an interesting way. To be honest, I simply decided to make this video, but I cannot really remember ever knowing why I did so and honestly, I was also unaware where the topic came from. That is, I decided to write it and edit it and all the rest-but I wasn’t sure exactly what I was thinking at the time. All I knew was that I wanted it to exist, so I kept working. When I published it on YT, it just sat there for around 100 days and only garnered about 145 views. Then, in February 2022, it began to move a little on its own and now it gets viewed by many people each day--perhaps 1000 every 40 days or so. I am used to really small audiences and don’t really do much social media-wise, so I wasn't exactly sure what to make of all this. It has been fun to read people’s comments and to interact with viewers. Most people have been very encouraging, complimentary and supportive, as I try to get back into the swing of day to day life after a very long period of extreme illness. I’m glad that you wrote because I now know why I made this video: to explain why viewers invariably liked Chance so much, perhaps even despite themselves. As you stated, this video is actually about some of the stuff of which people weren’t always immediately “conscious.”
Excellent point, I thought of that president when I saw Being There too
@@HowardPhillips Thank you, Chancey has charisma. Take care.
I can understand how he could HATE all those Pink Panther things. This should have been worth an Oscar for him.
Never has satire had such timely and universal affinity for the audience. 'Being There' exceeds Shakespeare in this regard.
I saw this movie when it came out. I was riveted to the screen. I thought, "What brilliance". I waited for his next line with robust interest. This one is a "10". Brilliant.
One of 'small' great movies. Not the kind of movies of roman, exploration, adventure, etc. to enjoy but it is rather something to make us 'think'. I got to know about the novel when my sister in Korea asked me to send for a copy of the book to use in her class (English literature) long time ago (in mid 70's). The last scene reminded me of 'walking on water' supposedly miracle by Jesus. Actually the Bible does not same he walked on water. He was walking on the shore of the sea (Galilee) in the stormy night with the disciples - fishermen - roaring their fishing boat along the shore of the lake. [Fishing was a work in the night].
Thank you so much for sharing your recollection. I always enjoy hearing how much Kosinski's work means to people--and why.
I agree with your description of Being There as a great 'smaller' film. So much happens, mostly in a single place: the Biltmore Estate....and yet none of it is particularly earth shattering. There are no battle sequences, no angry invading aliens, no great mystery to solved, no bank heists, no dinosaurs and no car chases. Chance just visits with the Rands---that's about it. Nothing much happens while he's there, except that Ben becomes his 'dear' friend, Eve falls for and sleeps with him, he meets the current American President, is offered a book contract, appears on the Gary Burns television program, and hangs out with the Soviet ambassador. Not a bad few days for an illiterate gardener. Oh yes, and Ben's pals decide to make him the next president. That is Kosinski's particular genius: he somehow achieves both. Nothing happens, while everything is happening.
I am always heartened that Being There and JK's other novels somehow continue to have resonance and speak to people today. I read Being There as a young child and was captivated by it. Though I found it really funny, I also worried about Chance. I instinctively felt sorry for him. What if he were discovered? The novel effectively permits the reader to see exactly what Chance thinks and why he does things the way he does.
It is apparent that the novel and movie continue to mean a great deal to people, yet (fascinatingly) often for entirely different reasons. Some people see current or past American history in it. Some see it as being reminiscent of other works of literature (Candide by Voltaire for example). Some see it as a critique of the mass media's fascination with surfaces only (never getting into things too deeply). Some feel it is related to religion, while others feel that it is more about American culture generally (e.g. the particularly American phenomenon of being famous solely for being famous). In some ways, Being There taunts us with the gigantic part that luck (or chance) plays in what occurs during our lives.
Watching or reading Being There always makes me reexamine my life. No doubt this is the intent of most authors, but Kosinski seems to be able to truly make me think about things that I otherwise might not have. I often wonder what it would have been like to take one of his humanities courses at Princeton or Yale in the 1970s. A mind so nimble and proactive perhaps could not help producing a novel as unique, resonant and thought-provoking as Being There.
Apparently Peter Sellers wanted to make Being There after he read the book I'm glad that he did before his final heart attack took him away from us. Sellers was an amazing actor not just a comedian it's such a shame that we lost him so early in his life.
Yes, he really did try to get to know Kosinski after reading Being There in 1970. Remarkably, Kosinski wasn't totally sure that Sellers was right for the role, since Chance was described as being much younger and better looking than Mr. Sellers, but Kosinski eventually realized that Sellers' talent and box office magnetism would carry the day and that it would be too great a risk to put the film into the hands of an unknown actor. A restrained performance was called for, and Sellers was an accomplished comic actor by this point. He knew how he wanted to play this role. Despite being a huge fan of Sellers, I too had my doubts, when I heard they were making Being There into a film. Sellers wasn't the Chance that I had pictured in my imagination. Ultimately, what was needed for a film like this was an actor disciplined enough to realize that he could only do too much as Chance, never too little. As a result, Sellers understood that he had to restrain himself throughout the film and permit the other actors to flesh out the scene. This role required Sellers' most nuanced performance and a minimalism with which he wasn't associated at that time. As you say, it was truly shocking when he died so suddenly in 1980. Thanks for your comments.
So many patrons walked out of the movie well before the end, not understanding the wit and wisdom
Thanks for your note. Seeing Being There in a large theatre with my sister and brother remains a pleasant memory of my childhood. It's nice to know that people still feel a personal connection to the the subject matter and the characters. I think I was so captivated by the unfolding plot, I honestly don't recall seeing anyone walking out that day, so long ago, but then again.... In any event, the film has gotten the last laugh, since it continues to be well thought of and remains an unusual and compelling comedy, quite unlike any other film I've watched.
***
... WHAT PHIL NMDG SAID: "Wonderful recollection. This is one of the best movies ever made."
'BEING THERE' is a Revelation, an Inspiration!
Thanks, I am pleased that you enjoyed the video.
One of my favorite movies….thank you for your “spot on” comments
Thank you for your kind note and warm sentiments. I'm glad that you found the video to be useful. Please feel free to check out the other Being There videos.😊
This was outstanding. The use of the word failsafe was a nice humorous touch and tribute. I also always believed that the final scene on water tended to confirm that Ben Rand sensed the presence of a messenger granted with purpose from a higher power which Chance himself couldn't know or see in his own role explicitly. It's as if we don't always understand or are allowed to know our own role in a greater purpose. Everything for a reason. A truly wonderful analysis.
You are really too kind. I was working on another video when you wrote this and I thank you for your comments--they somehow crystallized my own thoughts on what I was trying to convey. (This was a marvellous and unexpected gift.) I had felt some of what you had written since childhood--about Ben--but I had never had the courage to say it out loud, in a way. (You know, it's all the stuff we inexplicably jam down deep inside ourselves, without knowing exactly why.) In any event, I'm glad that you enjoyed the video.
I never heard of that. Thanks
@@obsessedwithcinema Just watched your analysis again and thought I would add this w.r.t. your failsafe choice of words:
Just what was is it about Fail Safe that had people rolling their eyes with derision while praising Dr. Strangelove for the masterpiece that it is?
Thanks again.
Peter:
Like you, I was moved by Lumet’s Fail Safe. I don’t recall much about Red Alert (the novel upon which Dr. Strangelove is based), but Fail Safe (one of the few co-written novels, incidentally) seemed to be a properly somber wakeup call about the dangers of having adopted Mutual Assured Destruction as a basic tenet of how to fight the Cold War. Fail Safe makes you feel small and vulnerable and weak, as we all would be in such a nuclear exchange. It is at such moments that you wonder what it is all for, what the point is of anything, how easily society could be destroyed, all progress halted-and in this case by a mistake. The strength of Fall Safe is surely Henry Fonda’s memorable role as President.
To me, choosing between the two films was always a difficult, even false choice. They are fascinating films made by talented directors, trying to tell similar stories with similar themes, but using two different methods: documentary-style vs. turning armageddon into farce. It is like Montreal and Toronto. I know most people prefer one and not the other city, but I feel that they both enhance one another by our being able to compare and contrast their distinctness as cities. If these two films had come out at different times, not within a few months, they would be seen differently today. To be sure, Strangelove overshadowed Fail Safe and kind of blew it away, but precisely because of Strangelove’s enduring popularity since 1964, it has also resurrected Fail Safe, which was even remade in 2000. People still think about both films and are moved by Lumet’s work and still marvel at Kubrick’s capacity to have characters doing and saying such outrageous nonsense, but within an otherwise dour topic.
The answer to your query is that anything in the 1960s starring Peter Sellers and (future) Oscar Winner George C. Scott and directed by Stanley Kubrick, was always going to win the contest between the two films (though the combo of Lumet and Fonda with Walter Matthau, in a non-comedic role for once, is nearly equal to the task). Most people remember Lumet as the director of Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico and the Pawnbroker, but his direction of Fail Safe always flies under the radar (pun intended…sorry).
I know everyone loves Kubrick’s comic take on the material, and I am a huge fan of Kubrick and (obviously) Sellers, but Fail-Safe always seemed to have the right tone for me, though I acknowledge and concede that most people do not share this view. It is possible that contemplating the end of existence is something so overwhelming and inconceivable (like contemplating the world without you in it) that people can’t take it too seriously (or don’t want to) and so they prefer to treat the matter with some levity.
The thought does occur that the limitless inventiveness and capacity for self-destructiveness of humanity (the insanity which created MAD in the first place) is somewhat better represented by Kubrick than by Lumet.
When it comes to his name, 'Chance,' I don't think of it just in relation to Chance's being a beneficiary of luck. I'm surprised (even apart from it not being the topic of this video) not to hear more about his origins, and his relation to the 'old man' - a man who had taken him in and let him live in his home, and work in his garden...even letting him wear his suits. This leads me to think of Chance as likely an illegitimate son of the 'old man,' conceived and born by accident, or by 'chance,' who was kept hidden away, albeit with some paternal kindness shown to him.
The video does make reference to parallels to Eden. But in this case, it isn't the acquisition of knowledge that leads to Chance's expulsion from the garden -- heaven's no! -- but rather the death of the 'god' figure (not long after, we hear a modern version of Richard Strauss' 'Thus Spake Zarathustra,' a composition which took its title from a philosophical work which had, of course, proclaimed the death of God).
I seem to remember that Chance ultimately becomes the US president, or has at the end been nominated, for which party I don't recall.
@@jazzman1904 The film ends with political operatives planning among themselves to back him for president, before any primaries or nomination has taken place.
Delightful video your breakdown of this stunning film is wonderful and heartwarming, Being There is on my top ten list of the greteatest movies ,Peter Sellers is outstanding in the role of Chance , sheer genius Thank you for this
Very happy to hear that you enjoyed the video. ☺ Thank you for taking the time to write.
also don't forget about the genius scene with the black people which also reveals all of our modern neurosis
Thank you for both your comments. I truly appreciate them and they have helped me decide on the direction of a new video.
Can you explain more
I greatly appreciate your analysis with one exception. I was hoping you would talk about this in your assessment but it appears that you, like most people, have either missed it or you do not give it the same weight that I find in its meaning.
At the end of the movie, Chance walks on the water and shows he is doing so by standing in place and dipping his cane all the way into the water next to his feet. This act turns the entire premise of the film on its head. My take on this is that Chance indeed knows exactly what he is doing all along. He is having everyone on and having an internal laugh about everything. He is like a yogi who is both outwardly innocent and fully enlightened. He is full of the wisdom of the world but is at the same time transcendent to it.
For me, that is a more brilliant interpretation of what the whole film is about. But that is my opinion and you, of course, have yours. That last scene informs me that Chance is not empty-headed at all but rather a fully enlightened being who is making his way through the world while dispensing his wisdom in an easily digestible manner for us mere mortals both by his words and his behavior.
Nice!
Those were my thoughts also when I left the theater. You're the first person to echo my thoughts that I've heard. I have to think others have also.
Thank you for your comments. It was not so much that I felt the ending was not consequential enough to comment on, it was just that I did not see it as germane to the topic of this particular video. I must admit that your approach is much more holistic and thus it would tend to fit in better with the topic. To me, the ending felt more like a separate YT video, which I was working on for way, way too long. Clearly the viewers tended to side with you, though, judging by the number of comments. I had different ideas about Chance, some of which kind of leaned in your direction, though I saw them less about the ending of the film and more about the film as a totality and about the other characters to a degree. I'm considering something else on this, but can’t quite decide what it will look like just yet. To be sure, I come at some of this from a much different angle than others. Having said that, I hope that you enjoy the latest video, which presents various interpretations of the final 60 seconds of Ashby’s Being There.
ruclips.net/video/VmP84__gCbk/видео.html
As I was thinking about it a little more I kind of get the idea that the wonder and ambiguity of the ending is also part of the charm. It lends to what Alfred Hitchcock called "the refrigerator talk" or as my girlfriend and I preferred discussing the movie on our walk home.
Some movies would cause us to sit on the porch for another half an hour after the walk from the theater...Amadeus, Dark City , Blade Runner etc.
I think the fact so many have different interpretations on what Chance ultimately was only further solidifies the message of the film.
Thanks for this. Being there was huge for me as a kid. I was lucky to have seen it. Your video is a stroke of luck to find as well.
Describing my video-essay as being a stroke of luck is truly too kind of you. To return the compliment, your note felt like a ray of sunshine and really made my day. Thanks.
I recently watched "Being There" for the first time (I'm 54, so have no excuse - I grew up loving Peter Sellers) and it was one of those movies that staked a claim in my brain, and is on the list of movies I will return to again. Your analysis was very inciteful, and I saved it to my RUclips playlist so I can rewatch it as well. I wish I knew someone in my small circle of friends with whom I could share gems like these. I've subscribed, and look forward to watching some of your other posts. Thank you!
I think this was one of Peter Sellers best acting jobs.
Superb work! I hope you don't mind if I will just say a few things about it, I'm not religious at all, just to clear the air.
I think he is an angle stuck in a human body, he was there to help the old man, people you would never think that could need help, they maybe lost a child in a typical situation and then they got Chance and realized he was not right in the head for the big world and hid him. So he became the Gardener. Chance is bigger than that! In all cases he takes time to process the situation and in mostly getting it wrong he shows a bizarre sort of kindness moving forward. In the end he is the only being that looks Ben in the eyes honestly when he dies. I think the Umbrella scene is an angle walking in the park!
Thank you for your note. It was thoughtful and appreciated. The angel paradigm is a particularly intriguing approach, especially when applied to the final scene of the film. Thank you for this. Yours is a quite helpful and well-reasoned insight. In addition, it fits in quite comfortably with the other video.
ruclips.net/video/VmP84__gCbk/видео.html
I feel like that key scene in point 10 is very key, Chance for once doesn't just smile and nod with no agency or make a convinient non-sequitur, he goes out of his way to say something genuinely and effectively empathetic, as simplistic as it may be. It is with this that his and Ben's bond feels very real. This is something that adds stakes to these sort of plots, and why everyone DREADS the whole 'liar revealed' climax most of them besides this film eventually get to, when something sincere and heartfelt has came out of it and is at risk. It is no longer all just a farce.
Not to just parrot Chance here but I give my sympathy to your own sickness.
Thank you very much for your kind wishes and for sharing your thoughts on the significance of Chance's kindness to Ben. It truly is a key scene and really sets the tone for the last hour of the movie. Thank you again for your best wishes. It is most kind of you.
@@obsessedwithcinema No problem. I'm glad it was meaningful.
In hindsight, Chance is almost wish fulfilment in that regard, he can say anything and it hits the spot, even when he doesn't mean it to. We spend so much time thinking over our choice of words and what impact they could have positive or negative.
Very interesting thoughts. I must watch this movie. I cannot imagine the mind that wrote this complex novel. Surely it is a must read.
Thanks for your kind note. BT is really a novella. Hard to believe they made it into a two hour movie. Complex, yes (a lot of different ideas are explored), but it kind of goes down like candy. Somehow Kosinski is able to make a single joke really last and last. You can easily read BT in a day, but I recommend reading it very slowly--it kind of sticks with you a little more and makes it more fun, wondering what comes next.
One of the funiest men playing the straightest roles,thats so deep.
Yes, it could not have been easy to keep playing everything so straight and humourless for an entire film. It truly is amongst Sellers most brilliant stuff (up there with Clare Quilty in Lolita, Dr. Strangelove and Hrundi V. Bakshi in The Party). What I always marvel at in Being There is that Mr. Sellers is completely subsumed into his role. I truly do not see him on the screen: I see Chance only. Sellers feels unrecognizable-as though the character he’s playing has somehow come to exist independently of him.
I love your comments on this movie. I have not seen it since it first came out, I believe I would like to see it again. Thank you for such an intelligent video.
My pleasure. I am glad that you enjoyed the video.
he simply mirrors others. simple psychology. Hes the perfect mirror. Love the movie
Sellers was ROBBED of his best actor Oscar for this amazing portrayal. Who won? In a completely forgettable movie and average performance, Dustin Hoffman won in a story about a divorce in Kramer vs. Kramer. It's just ROTTEN!
Yes, I kind of wanted to say that, but somehow it feels way more satisfying when the viewers say it. And if academy voters couldn't bring themselves to cast a ballot for Sellers, then Al Pacino and Roy Scheider seemed like much better choices for the Oscar (on that particular year). In addition, Kramer vs. Kramer was awarded best picture and best director, over Mr. Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Ugh.
@@obsessedwithcinema I remember it did not receive favorable reviews when it came out. So I didn't see it in a theater and instead saw it, by 'chance,' on DVD at a friend's house one evening. I was amazed at what a fantastic movie it was. Hollywood conspiracy much?
Was watching this, thinking it has some interesting insights, but then you get to the bit about being cronically ill and how it feels to have someone recognize the suffering, and I'm like, oh dear. That's special.
Peter Sellers was furious when the studio had the end credits roll over scenes of the real Peter Sellers telling jokes! He felt the end credits took away all the mystique from the character. But you have to remember: 1. Back in 1979 Sellers was known mainly as a funny man and not much else. Sellers was Inspector Couseau. So the studio probably was leery of Sellers carrying a more dramatic part and decided to bring in more of his comedy fans. 2. Sellers was at a low point in his career in 1978 being he hadn't a hit for a long time, so the studio again probably thought they better throw in more of Sellers's comedic talent.
At the funeral, the powerful men talk about Chauncey,
" He's our only chance".
I like your interpretation of Dr. Allenby much better than my own. Ive always thought of him as a potentially sinister character who is suspicious of Chance from the beginning because of how close he is to ben. I think the Dr. intended to find the truth about Chance so he could expose him as a charlatan before he had the chance to harm the Rands. The fact he sits on the truth of Chance’s identity however always made me assume he intended to use that information at a later date when he needed leverage.
Thank you for your nice note. I am glad that you found the video to be enlightening. One of the reasons that this film remains engaging many decades after it was released is that it is mostly an internal, introspective journey. No matter how many times I see the film, I am always fascinated by all the major and even some of the minor characters. I wish to know more about them. What might they be experiencing at various points? There are so very many curious things taking place within this film. I have always been impressed by Kosinski’s capacity to find ways to reflect the world around us on paper (e.g. how much of what we think and do is related to our perceptions, rather than things we know for certain). What is truly extraordinary, in a way, is that we still don’t really know what motivated Dr. Allenby-though we can speculate on it endlessly. We accept this so readily in life: the unknowableness of others. The reasons people do different things and behave in different ways probably isn’t always obvious, even to them…sometimes it might just be something uniquely related to one incident or one moment in time.
@@obsessedwithcinema Fitting that I was first introduced to this film in my high school epistemology class. We were shown it with no notice or preconditioning and told to try and just figure out what it all meant. It was such an engaging exercise which has stayed with me to this day.
Another wonderful analysis. I truly enjoy your observations!
In a world of pretensions, back-stabbers, schemers, and takers, Chauncey is neither of these things, lending to his sublime likability.
Very well said.
Excellent synopsis of one of the most amazing cinematic contribution to us all!
Great work. Hope you get better from your chronic illness.
Thank you for your kindness.
I can't help noticing the similarities between Chance, Dory, and Forrest Gump.
Very good 👍🏅Thanks
Thanks for watching. I am glad you enjoyed the video.
Thank you so much for your Being Thete videos, the one on Chance, the doctor, and the various theoriesabout the ending wrre all excellent and engaging. I saw the movie and then read the book back when the movie came out. It remains one of my favorite movies. Your videos have added depth, enhanced appreciation, and even a greater love for this movie, even after all these years. Thank you.
Brilliant breakdown of a classic! Many thanks!
My pleasure. I'm glad you liked the video.
Thanks for reviewing my favorite movie of all time. I'm sorry you missed the underlying theme of it. His seeming simplicity and lack of guile can be understood as naivete or ignorance, but it's not. His career in horticulture is a clue. He gives everyone he encounters a sense of well-being. Eve can orgasm in his presence without being penetrated. Finally, his name, Chance, is the give away. He is the embodiment of the Holy Spirit. There is only one way to walk on water - living with no doubt.
Timothy, thank you for your thoughtful note. I'm not sure I missed it exactly, but chose to put some of what you have said in another video. Link below. On the other hand, your have stated the case quite a bit more succinctly and eloquently and no doubt more subtly than I ultimately managed to. I appreciate this note and a number of others that see BT and Chance in particular in more spiritual and thus more uplifting terms.
ruclips.net/video/VmP84__gCbk/видео.html
Really insightful analysis. Thank you
A very thorough and insightful video.
Thank you for your kind note. It is much appreciated.
Most office employees in corporate america are like Chancey. The only thing holding our society together are blue collar men and women, still un-aware that there is nothing left in the building.
Thanks for pointing out the Ashby cameo in the background.(19:24). I've never caught that before!
I saw this movie in the theater. At the final sequence, I laughed out loud, and then I cried.
Somehow that response feels like the exact right one.
Never has the phrase " Ignorance is bliss " been more true.
Fantastic. Thank you.
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it. Thank you for your kind note.
Excellent breakdown of an excellent movie that relates beautifully with the times.
I'm glad that you enjoyed it. Thank you for your note.
Beautifully critical essay and review. Thank you for your thoughtful, insightful, and tasteful observations.
Very good commentary , very well done !
Very good analysis of a masterpiece. I LOVE this film.
Thank you for your thorough explanation of the popularity of this wonderful movie.
Thank you for your kind and generous comment. It means a lot to me.
He perdido la cuenta de todas las veces que he visto este film. No puedo decir algo que no me guste,
me gustan hasta las escenas fallidas que aparecen en los creditos del film.
Peter Seller era un genio, sin ser un actor de comedia hacia de sus actuaciones una comedia.
Gracias por el resumen y explicacion.
I am sorry you have a serious illness. You are extremely insightful, and your analysis is fascinating. I'd love to see your views on "one hour photo."
Thank you for your kind words.
Yes! Talk show! This classic movie up n my top 10. The humor,and the bloopers @ end let's audience no there's bad things happening n world outside of Gov. I love euphemisms!!!! My fav! This movie is hilarious cause everything is interpretated through euphemisms! What is said n conversations are using words (dialogue) that doesn't answer guestions but all is euphemisms. Meaning 1 thing n answers using euphemisms! ❤😂
And, in the end, they will be led by a child…perfect!
Saw it a few times this weekend
I wonder if we are seeing this actually happen today!
thing is about Being There, i think it can be seen two ways. he is a blank or everyone else is. they reflect him as her reflects them.
thank you for this insightful analyses of one of my all time fave films, this has earned you a new subscriber (moi), and of course thumbs up, #643 ... this reminds me that it's been awhile since i've seen it, gonna watch this as soon as this is over!
Thank you for your kind note and for subscribing. Welcome to the channel. It so happens that 643 is my lucky number. 😊
One of my favourite movies - thankyou for such an insightful discussion. The ending of the movie is also hugely significant, since there's an allusion to Christ walking on water with the inference that people have projected so much upon him, as well. Both Chance and Christ are essentially simple (i.e. undivided) folk who, though outcasts from society, lived in harmony with Nature and with themselves.
Thank you for your kind words. The ending continues to intrigue and prompt discussion to this day...including on this channel.
It really makes you wonder how much of these stories of the ominous figures like St. Germain throughout history were actually just like Chance Gardner.
TY. I hope you are well and feeling good.
YW. I appreciate your best wishes. I have felt pretty good the last few days.
Allen B is in the Twilight Zone episode with Jack Warden in "The Lonely."
This movie is a masterpiece. Loved every moment.
Peter Sellers really was brilliant in that movie.
Such a great film, unfortunately it is one that you have to insist to people to watch. Peter Sellers was my father's favorite. So I paid attention when his name was mentioned.
I felt I was reading a review in "The NewYorker" mag.
I have yet to see this film - indeed, I didn't remember it at all until I stumbled across your essay here. My first question is to ask if you see a through line between Chance and Forrest Gump?
Though Chance and Forrest have a lot in common as characters, the tone of the two books and the two movies are profoundly different. In general, the characters in Being There overestimate Chance and treat him with great reverence. Being There plays out like a comedy, despite Ben’s death and then the startling, sober moment (in the film only) when we see that Chance may have powers that we as viewers were unaware of. Conversely and despite having many comic scenes, Forrest Gump feels much more serious, since Forrest is often mistreated and denigrated and badly underestimated by other characters, including Lieutenant Dan Taylor (whose life Forrest saves). Chance kind of floats through life, whereas Forrest’s journey is often difficult, seeing action in Vietnam and watching his very best friend, Bubba and later his true love, Jenny, die painful deaths in front of him. Through it all, Forrest keeps a stiff upper lip, a little like Chance, but in the end, the two characters (and the works themselves) diverge more than they converge. For example, the two works interact with the world of politics in ways that feel quite different. Good things seem to find Chance (though he is not looking for them), whereas Forrest is more of an All-American spirit: diligence, hard work, patience, courage and stoicism. There is luck too, for Forrest, but it still had to do with hard work. e.g. His shrimping business was about to fail until an act of god destroys most of his competitor’s boats, but he still had to have invested in a failing shrimping business in order to then be in a position for it to succeed. Being There is different: Chance (after leaving the Old Man's house and being taken in by the Rands) doesn’t really have to do much heavy lifting: everyone else sees something in him which doesn’t actually exist and then they kind of do everything for him (e.g. Ben, Eve, the President, Ben’s pals, Ben's servants and the press).
Forrest is kind of apolitical with regard to: 1) the civil rights movement (he crosses into the schoolhouse barred by Governor Wallace in 1963, primarily to return Vivian Malone’s book to her, not to make a political statement), 2) the Vietnam war (we never hear what Forrest had to say to Abbie Hoffman and everyone else at the anti-war march), 3) the women’s movement, 4) the student movement, etc.
-In contrast and despite not really having a political preference that we can discern, Chance is perceived as being highly political by others and thus a potential candidate to replace the President.
For its time, the CGI used in Forrest Gump was really impressive (seeing him with LBJ and John Lennon, etc.), but somehow I found Chance’s story more compelling perhaps because it felt more like a fable and has a certain timelessness. Despite similar starting points--protagonists who have certain challenges to overcome--the two works end up in really different places and evoke very different feelings in the viewer.
@@obsessedwithcinema Thank you. Your response is one of the many reasons I am glad to be alive in this, the era of RUclips.
Indeed, I greatly appreciate your "documentary".
Just two further interesting points:
1) Naturally you were aware that Peter Sellers "was dying" in his real life while playing in this film...
2) What do you think about the ending, where Chance "seems" to be walking on water, I would love to know your impressions.
I have seen this part countless times hoping to grasp some new insight into it; naturally I've read the novel too.
Thank you for your video and cheers!
For me, I just think of it as another example (though a striking one) of Chance doing or saying something that seems amazing to those who aren't aware of a very simple, unamazing explanation: In this case, there was probably a pier that had been flooded over with an inch or so of water -- Chance walks out on it, then back again, completely oblivious of how miraculous it would appear to anyone watching.
@@ronmackinnon9374 Don't you remember when he sinks his closed umbrella completely into the water up to the handle...?
I like to entertain another kind of thought... The Native Americans (and also other ancient cultures in the world) believed that the simpleton was a person touched by the spirit of God, was a "pure" person, who could perform what some people would call "miracles", because he was also part of the other life... Everybody defines Chance for something "other" than what he seems to be, yet there might be some hidden truth even in that...
Thanks again for the sharing.
@@ekdaniely Well, maybe the umbrella was put in at a point just over the edge of the pier, bridge, whatever. : )
Chance was very much a precursor to Forrest Gump but I feel that Peter Sellers' character felt like even more of an innocent than Tom Hanks' persona. Chance comes from within a literal walled garden out into the real World. A place he has zero experience nor understanding of and has only known through what he has seen on television. Forrest has experience of the world and is able to navigate much of it but has no understanding of the people within it.
Each character appears on television in an important situation and is observed by someone who is aware of his disability, the Doctor observing chance and the woman who raised him seeing Forrest, and each realizes the absurdity of the situation. It is someone in the film viewing the television appearance in the same manner as the viewer. Almost a silent narrator whom we can all identify with in the piece.
In the end, Chance is proven to be an innocent on a completely different level from Forrest when he walks out onto the surface of the lake. Forrest understands the world well enough to have understood that such a feat would be impossible while such a thing doesn't begin to occur to Chance. They are in different worlds. Different realities.
I have very much enjoyed all three of your videos on 'Being There'. One little plot point still haunts me though. I know it's a 'fable' and not a 'naturalistic' movie but why does Chance just leave his house at the appointed time and head out onto the DC streets, simply because the lawyer has 'instructed' him? It doesn't make sense to me. Surely he would just stay put until forced out of the house, given that it's the only life that he has ever known. Or maybe he is forced out by hunger, ie. Louise not making his food? Ideas welcome.
Watching this movie the first time when it came out, I got the impression I was watching THE REAL PETER SELLERS!.