|
Directed by: Hal Ashby Starring: Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine Being There is the story of a very simple man, Chance the Gardener, who has lived his entire life inside a house and watching TV. He was formerly employed as a full time Gardener, but his employer has died and he is kicked out of the house he lived in his whole life by the inhereters. Thrust into the real world for the first time, he falls into the lap of a political mastermind and his wife, who mistake his simple comments about gardening for deep intelectual statements about politics and business. Before you know it he is thrust into the public eye as the new, smartest up and coming politician. This is by far the best movie I have ever seen. When you watch it at first, it may come off as a bit of a comedy, or you may think it is an early Forrest Gump type of movie. But the movie never gets too comedic, and quickly you realize what is going on in the broad sense of the tale. Even if you think the movie is rather simple, be sure to watch the whole thing and really think about it afterwards. You find new things in it each time you watch it, and it seems to only have more layers and depth to it. There has been lively discussion as to the meaning of the ending, which the director eventually said exactly what he meant by it. If anyone is curious I can point you in the right direction, though it isn't too difficult to figure out. Oh yea, Shirley MacLaine is hot in this movie. My first review! RATING: 5.5 PROS: Amazing story and possible allegory CONS: none come to mind ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2004 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
I was home sick one day, and this was on TV. I had never heard of it, and the only reason I watched it was because Peter Sellers was in it. It was very enjoyable; some might think it's a bit slow, but that just adds to the movie. It really takes you in, and even though it isn't just a comedy, I do remember several true laugh out loud moments. And, even though I don't remember the ending too well, He walks on water, equating him to Jesus, then this applied to the rest of the film makes it a religious satire, basically (?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2004 21:54
|
|
|
Arh...I read the novel then saw the movie in my English classes in the late eighties. Turned up at exams having forgotten about the exact six pages they dragged me through. I hated that movie for years. Anyways, it's actually quite good. Original, well directed and acted with a script that covers the novel and stands well alone. Go see it if you have the chance. During the past years it has come to my mind again which is more than I can say of a whole lot of other, better known movies. I was about to write something along the lines of 'early Forrest Gump' but that has already been done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2004 20:35
|
|
|
Ending: It isnt necessarly that he is like jesus, but more that since he didnt know that he should fall in the water, so he didnt. He has never seen a lake before since he has been in that house his whole life. I personaly prefer the Jesus interpertation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2004 21:02
|
|
|
The movie is great. Some may not like it, because of the deliberately slow pace. Peter Sellers is great, going away from his usual high performances. My interpretation of the ending: I think this is a fairy tale really. This mythical creature is sent among stupid mortals to teach them a lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2004 01:59
|
|
|
Being There is an extremely interesting mix of drama, plenty of satire, and the occasional sight gag. Unfortunately as the story progresses the mixing of humor and drama tends to spoil the humor (it's hard to laugh at Chance's behvaiour in a scene which is bracketed by dramatic scenes about a dying man). Sellers' performance is wonderful and although the movie can drag at times, his presence is usually quick to revive it. There are quite a few scenes which I felt dragged on too long, or were entirely unecessary, and I think they are largely at fault for this movie being pegged as "boring". As people above have said, the ending, depending on how you interpret it, can completely change your view of the film. It's really a delightful ending to the story, and though I don't think people should put too much weight into it, it made me wish the rest of the film was a bit less subtle. 4.0
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2004 04:24
|
|
|
I tought it was excellent, loved the slow pace that just seemed to fit Chancey's character, and the humour was so nice and subtle. 4.5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2004 17:02
|
|
|
It was okay. Glacially slow in the beginning. I thought it had a lot of missed opportunities. I mean he said the same stuff over and over and people thought it was brilliant. It seemed they set up some stuff, where he was listening to t.v. and people and I figured he would repeat that, but in the movie he didn't. And yeah, no matter how you view the ending, it was completely not in keeping with the rest of the movie. If he was Heyseus, he wouldn't have been hurt by a car backing into him. If he was too dumb to know...same thing. And he was hungry a lot as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2004 22:01
|
|
|
I don't have much new to add, just wanted to point out that this should probably be labelled as Comedy rather than Drama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2004 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
I was interested to see Being There because I read it in high school and, while I had problems with the story, hoped that they were fixed in the translation. After all, the film is held in high regard. Too bad that the problems aren't fixed. My problem with the book was that the prose was boring and rambling, and it lost my interest after a while. I think the movie suffers from the same problem in a different way. Bottom line, I think the movie is boring. It's just boring to me. The satire is a good idea but it never rings true, and Peter Sellers gives a good performance but I think almost everyone else is miscast. However, from the standpoint of film history, it is interesting to see how the film is influential. Big, Elf and Forrest Gump are all its successors, which means that formula works but just needed to be perfected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2004 23:14
|
|
