by Sam Juliano
“It’s for sure a white man’s world in America. Look here: I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-aint. And I’ll say right now, he never learned to read and write. No sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th’ ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now! Yes sir, all you’ve gotta be is white in America to get whatever you want.”
It’s a one-joke movie sustained by a vulnerable premise. Yet Hal Ashby’s Being There against all odds employs amazing restraint and subtlety to pull off what could have been a tiresome exercise in satirical overkill. Aided by acting icon Peter Sellers playing against type as a mentally retarded gardener who is forced to leave the protection of a Washington town house, where he was employed by a wealthy patriarch referred to by the maid as “the old man,” Being There is pretty much unlike any film released before or since. Scripted by Jerzy Kosinski, the scathing satire takes aims at media obsession, how television shapes the public mind, and how frankness and the desire to please can lead to misrepresentation of staggering proportions. Sheltered since childhood, and exposed to endless hours of vapid staring at the boob tube, “Chance”, who speaks with a deadpan delivery is seen as a profound sage and philosopher by a media crazed society who read his simpleton pontifications with metaphorical glee. Kosinski continues to up the ante throughout the picture to the point where the final revelation, though utterly preposterous, shows the depth of the conceit in a world short-sighted by mechanized reactions that never leave the box of acceptability.
The film’s ruse is hardly discernible after the opening scenes. Chance, a middle-aged dimwit with a suppressed smile is seen blankly staring at television, riveted by the images. An African-American woman approaches him and informs him that he must leave the only home he knows after the passing of the elderly man who served as his protector and provider. Taking a bag that contains the only item he thinks he’ll need – a television remote – Chance leaves his manicured home and garden with its inherent safety and seclusion, venturing out in a decaying inner-city neighborhood populated by menacing black street gangs. Strolling down aan avenue of urban blight over the jazzy strains of Straus’s “Also Spoke Zarathustra” and dressed in a dapper, privately-tailored wardrobe, Chance is immediately acosted by a few thugs at knife point and promtly tries to tune them out by aiming his remote at them, incurring further threats and derision. With child-like cluelessness, he then approaches a black woman on the street and asks her for lunch, connecting her in his compromised state with caretaker Louise of his town house. The woman appears horrified and runs away.
As “chance” would have it, the gardener slightly injures his leg when a limousine backs up, and the wife of a billionaire political puppetmaster (played by Shirley McLaine) takes blame and convinces Chance to travel back with her to the palatial home she shares with her high-profile older husband, one with it’s own hospital room and medical team. While in the vehicle, “Eve” inquires about the name of her unexpected guest after urging him to have a drink she prepared. He coughs, causing “Chance the Gardener” to come off as the aristocratic sounding “Chauncey Gardiner.” The continuing themes of mistaken identity and being in the right place at the right time are evident in the initial meetings with Benjamin Rand, a dying industrialist whose influence extends to major input on White House policies. Rand finds meaning and metaphor in Chauncey’s childlike ramblings about garden care and seasonal changes, interpreting them as similes for economic growth and political confidence. Rand is smitten with Chauncey’s directness, and after the gardener tells him he was “thown out of his home” Rand again mistakes that as a parting of the ways from an expensive abode, and encourages Chauncey to take up residence in his mansion, allowing for late-night talks that greatly impress the older man, as his health deteriorates. Rand affectionately tells Chauncey: “One of the things I admire about you is your balance. You seem to be a truly peaceful man.” Rand arranges for a meeting with the President (Jack Warden) and he too is enormously impressed with the new border, appreciating his reserve, unassuming manner and homeliness. The President is startles to hear Chauncey declare with deadpan confidence: “As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden….there will be growth in the spring.” Misconstruing his statement for a metaphor about the current political climate, the President responds with “Well, that’s one of the most refreshing opinions I’ve heard in a long time.” That dialogue and the chief executive’s sold remarks make for one of the film’s most inspired ideas and interchanges:
President “Bobby”: Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President “Bobby”: In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President “Bobby”: Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President “Bobby”: Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President “Bobby”: Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I’ve heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President “Bobby”: I admire your good, solid sense. That’s precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.
The very notion that such tomfoolery could readily be so enthusiastically embraced by those in the highest positions of government and finantial leadership tends tediously on the threshold of crossing the line of feasibility even in broad comedic strokes, but director Hal Ashby’s approach is presenting the film as a straight drama and letting the comedy come from situations where the characters truly believe what they are saying and never once question the authenticity of a character as irrifutably fraudulent as anyone out there, but one whose reserve belies an inner brilliance for those seemingly willing to believe anything, even by way of stark intellectual pretensions. Inevitably, Gardener appears on talk shows and enraptures the nation, with business executives proposing book deals. The way one, Ron Steigler, twists everything that Chauncey says to explain away frank illiteracy is hysterical:
Ron Steigler: Mr. Gardner, uh, my editors and I have been wondering if you would consider writing a book for us, something about your um, political philosophy, what do you say?
Chance the Gardener: I can’t write.
Ron Steigler: Heh, heh, of course not, who can nowadays? Listen, I have trouble writing a postcard to my children. Look uhh, we can give you a six figure advance, I’ll provide you with the very best ghost-writer, proof-readers…
Chance the Gardener: I can’t read.
Ron Steigler: Of course you can’t! No one has the time! We, we glance at things, we watch television…
Chance the Gardener: I like to watch TV.
Ron Steigler: Oh, oh, oh sure you do. No one reads!
Practically at every turn Chauncey’s opaque simplicity is an overriding asset. “He was very cleaver, keeping it at a third grade level; that’s what they understand,” one character obsesses with clear admiration after watching a television appearance. All through this Eve has become exceedingly fond of Chauncey as well, and combined with Ben’s encouragement for her to persue a relationship with the annointed sage to serve as security and emotional well-being when the industrialist is gone, she seeks sexual fullfillment in one of the film’s most riotous set pieces in Chauncey’s bedroom. Of course the inevitable sexual misunderstanding ensues when Chauncey declares that “I like to watch.” He means he likes to watch television, but Eve misreads that as his wanting to watch her get aroused, and she gleefully complies. Eve squirms, groans and gropes on the floor reaching a climax while Chauncey parrots various scenes on the television, standing on his head during an exercise program. Incredibly this inconceivable charade gives Eve the most sexually stimulating encounter of her life and further bonds her with her retarded partner. At a Washington cocktail party even gays are turned on by Gardener, with another mistaken interchange on the “I like to watch” theme:
Dennis Watson: You know, I’ve never met anyone like you in Washington before.
Chance the Gardener: Yes, I’ve been here all my life.
Dennis Watson: Really? And uh, where have you been all my life?
[laughs]
Dennis Watson: Ah, tell me, Mr. Gardner… have you ever had sex with a man?
Chance the Gardener: No… I don’t think so.
Dennis Watson: We could go upstairs right now.
Chance the Gardener: Is there a TV upstairs? I like to watch.
Dennis Watson: You like to uh, watch?
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Dennis Watson: You wait right here. I’ll go get Warren!
Other subplots in the film involve a clash between the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. as to who destroyed Chauncey’s files, and the matter of Rand’s close confidante Dr. Allenby (played by Richard Dysart) who eventually finds out the truth about Gardener, but balks at bringing this to his patient’s attention after he realizes how much Chauncey means to the dying man by way of inner peace as he nears death. Being There examines the issue of television’s impact on society on an opposite plane than Sidney Lumet’s Network and it’s “mad as hell” rants. Kosinski considers passivity and the intellectual vapidity of the experience, and how television is a vacile for the dumbing down of the culture and the media. Network of course is all about the idea of high ratings being far more important than the actual worth of the programming.
Peter Sellers, sedate and blank, delivers what may well be the best performance of his career, making every nuance and reflection count, and keeping the tone and modulation of the film in perfect unison with the sly and satiric dialogue that aims to put forth the ultimate conceit. Sellers’ naivete does sometimes clash with his eager propensity for media consumption, but this inconsistency actually enhances the fable-like quality of the film. Sellers won the New York and London Film Critics Award for Best Actor, and also captured a Golden Glove and an Academy Award nomination. This was yet another year where Oscar got it wrong, giving the statue to Dustin Hoffmann for Kramer vs. Kramer. Shirley McLaine as the oblivious younger wife of Rand pulls off the most difficult scene in the film, and is excllent throughout. Melvyn Douglas as the crusty political manipulator, won a well-deserved Academy Award as Chauncey’s friend and philosophical interpretor with a turn that segues into resignation and poignancy. As the gruff-talking chief executive Jack Warden exudes a willingness to accept any advice from all corners in a presidency obviously compromised by affiliated power brokers. In any case, director Ashby, an auteur who was was gifted in blending intense drama with off-kilter comedy in his 70’s films that broached the uncertain social climate of the time, extracted some superlative performances in the films that preceded Being There. These include Warren Beatty and Julie Christie in Shampoo (75), Jon Voight and Jane Fonda in Coming Home (79), and Jack Nicholson in The Last Detail (73).
In the end Kosinski’s caustic consideration of where the true authority lies in our flawed democracy is perhaps the most vital concern, and it’s all too relevent over thirty years later. When emptiness trumps complexity, it’s clear enough that we’ve reached the point of no return. Being There is a kind of cautionary tale, and it’s not afraid to beat a dead horse, yet it may well be the most original and uncompromising American comedy since The Producers in 1968. It’s an unqualified triumph for Sellers, Kosinski and Ashby, and it holds up beautifully. The outakes over the credits, when Sellers breaks down while trying to be serious are priceless.
How Being There made the Top 100:
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Very well done treatment, Sam, especially considering the circumstances you’ve been dealt the past couple of weeks. I admit I’ve never seen the entire film all the way through but have been enraptured by its novel qualities. I don’t think MacLaine or Sellers have ever been better than here, and Douglas really shined in his later career. This film is an original, and I prefer it to Network.
Thanks so very much Pierre with the exceedingly kind words. I must say that Sellers and MacLaine have never given greater performances, and that of course is a very bold statement when you consider films like Dr. STRANGELOVE and THE APARTMENT just to name two. Melvyn Douglas did this and I NEVER SANG FOR MY FATHER in his final decade, a remarkable achievement even if those were his only two films. I love NETWORK, but yes I again have to side with you and give this the edge. So many of the lines are favorites, and my youngest brother and I often recite some of the great lines to each other over the phone.
Ultimately, I’d side with you and Pierre on Sellers and Douglas. The understatement of Sellers turn speaks louder than anything in this film and it’s perfectly put into focus by the interpretations made by Douglas’ tragic and poignant business magnate. Like Holly Hunter and Anna Paquin in THE PIANO, Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO”S NEST and Tom Hulce and F. Murray Abraham in AMADEUS (just to name a few) the sparring (if you want a quick term for it) between these two is only truly brought to fruition by top-flight work TOGETHER. Take one of them out of the equation and the other performance falls. Douglas’ Oscar win for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR is bittersweet and lacks complete potency without the win of Sellers as LEAD ACTOR (and he was clearly the best of the five nominated in 1979-the other nominee’s were good, but no match for Sellers: Roy Scheider in ALL THAT JAZZ, Dustin Hoffman for KRAMER VS. KRAMER, Jack Lemmon for THE CHINA SYNDROME and Al Pacino for AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
If I am truly honest with myself, however, I have to say that my favorite performance of the two in this film is Douglas’. I find myself drawn to his honesty and his plight to find closure in his ideals before his death from a debilitating illness. There is an ease, a kind of somber peace, in the character of Benjamin Rand that I find soothing and knowing and I often wonder if Rand would have really turned his head away from Chauncey even if he had found out that he was duped by the gentle idiot at the end of his life. I’d like to think that Rand would have still found great value in Chauncey’s peaceful presence anyway.
Only MacLaine, if you really think about it, was better in the earlier THE APARTMENT. However, her turn in that 1960 Billy Wilder film was a full showcase that focused, specifically, on her lead turn. Still, her few moments in BEING THERE, along with her Oscar-winning turn in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT (and, to a slightly lesser extent as the harried mother in 1977’s THE TURNING POINT) remind us of the promise she showed all those years ago when she first broke out in the late 50’s and early 60’s.
MacLaine was, to me, also one of the most perfectly beautiful leading ladies of that period. Cute, adorable and sexy.
Sam, I think I’ve mentioned to you before that I saw this at a cinema in London on the day Sellers died in 1980 – the whole audience stood and clapped at the end. I don’t think I’ve seen it again since, but I do remember some scenes 32 years on, and your great piece has brought back memories of it and made me think I should see it again.
Judy—
That is an unbelievable, unforgettable experience that is destined to last a lifetime. Geez, it would seem almost impossible not to break down as part of that audience, and the fact that you saw the film on the very night he passed away is quite incredible. His entire life and career really came into acute, emotional focus that night I am sure. This is surely a film to see over and over Judy. I am embarrased to say I have watched it over 30 times since it wa sreleased. I know that’s crazy, but it always holds up. Thanks very much as always for the very kind words my friend.
My favorite line:
“You look so much smaller on TV Mr. President”
This was a genius idea from the start, and what makes it work is Peter Sellers who gives not a false note. The scene in the bedroom not only had Shirley rolling but me in addition. This is one of those comedies where you find yourself repeated the lines. The one you featured at the top with the African-American made Louise reflecting on how it is possible for a mentally compromised man to take time on talk shows is an all-time classic. Sam, I must say I have praised your work over and over, but this is one of your finest pieces ever. I can live this film in my mind just by reading your remarkable insights. And what unforgettable passages you have selected to illustrate the uproarious humor. Melvin Douglas is amazing too.
Frank—
This is one of your banner comments, and I can’t thank you enough for your exceedingly kind though over-the-top praise. That’s a great choice for favorite line, and you say it perfectly that Sellers never registered a false note. I am another who repeats the lines as you know. Yes, what Louise says is really classic. Douglas shines again for sure. he was an amazing actor in his later years! Thanks again!
Tremendous review! I know some people who feel this film goes too far and loses believability, even if is after all a send-up. The incomparable talent of Sellers makes it happen. And I love that metaphysical ‘walk on water’ at the end. Few have since really figured out what that really means. Love your dialogue choices, and the capture is perfect.
Excellent review, Sam. You combine instances with thematic insights. Taken to the extreme, a total idiot might be foisted off on the public to hold the highest political office if only he has the right handlers and avoids any hint of scandal. The biting sarcasm and irony of “Being There” is not everyone’s cup of tea but most perceptive viewers should be captivated by the story and by Sellers’ towering performance. To hold that one joke for almost two hours is quite an achievement.
David—
You add some telling observances here as always! As you say it’s hard to conceive of the one-note going the distance, but therein lies the genius of Sellers, Kosinski and Ashby! I do know too that this film is not everyone’s cup of tea. Thanks again my friend!
Well, ignorance is bliss, or so the saying goes. However, I always understood the final shot (of Chauncey walking on the water) as a metaphor for limitless reach in a world that one is not threatened by. Chauncey has nothing to fear, sees no danger and is not intimidated by anything/anyone because he doesn’t understand what a threat or intimidation really means. Because of his blindness to the wraths of the world he is set free from any inhibition and can do what we encumbered would only see as a miracle. He doesn’t fall into the water as he doesn’t see the water as deep and engulfing as we do.
I don’t recall the water-walking sequence in Kosinski’s original book. I’m pretty sure this was an idea for the film alone. If that is really the case, then both the screenwriter and director (Kosinski working closely with Ashby) are to be commended for putting one of the greatest final caps on an already mesmerizing little triumph.
What are your interpretations of the final shot????? Would be interested in reading as many theories as possible!
That’s a very good analysis, Dennis.
I think the final shot was deliberately ambiguous, but I’d interpret it as having something to do with Chauncey’s coming ascension to the a top-level position.
Peter–
As I just said to David I know that for some this entire satirical premise is too far-fetched, but they are really missing something if they resist letting it all wash over you. I found it often side-splittingly funny. Yes that metaphysical bit at the end continues to be discussed by those examining the film. Thanks as ever my friend!
Wonderful, insightful, learned and fantastic review! Another great one to add to the count.!!!!!
Way to go SCHMULEE!!!!
Like the author of this essay, I was immediately taken with this film upon first sight when it originally played on HBO after it’s intial run in theatres. The seeming simplicity of the film masks a far deeper and more profound observation on the insanity of politics and power and the denoument is both frightening in its allusion and poignant in it’s loss.
Hal Ashby was a terrific director that very rarely erred with each film he brought to the screen. However, in all the time he was making movies he seemed to always just miss the boat in presenting that one extraordinary film that would make his name a part of the legend that is cinema. SHAMPOO, THE LAST DETAIL, BOUND FOR GLORY, HAROLD AND MAUDE., COMING HOME are all wonderful, telling and entertaining movies, but they just always seem to finish behind the line of greatness. BEING THERE, with its hilarious parallels and gargantuan message was, finally, the film that, I believe, brought the word “masterpiece” into association with the director. BEING THERE is a film I go back to again and again (same way as I do NETWORK-but for entirely different positions on a shared theme), and marvel at it’s economy, tight screenplay and, what seems, effortless performances.
Speaking of the performances. One has tendency to think that the turn by Sellers, that of a man rendered almost mute by his stupidity and awe for his new surroundings, would be a breeze to portray. However, considering the free-wheeling voracity he brought to not one, but THREE seperate characters in DR. STRANGELOVE, it’s obvious that the slowness and deliberate actions and speech patterns of Chauncey Gardner were really a stretch for a comic that was usually bouncing off the wall with endless energy and creative abundance. I wholeheartedly agree with Sam that it is this performance that saw Sellers at the top of his acting game.
On the other hand, there is the hauntingly beautiful turn of Melvyn Douglas as Benjamin Rand. I really don’t think enough is ever said about the quietly masterful turn this legend of character performance gives in this film. As the dying business titan, Douglas exudes a poignancy that illustrates a human being aware of his predicament and doing everything in his power to find that one person, that one soul, he can finally see his ideals in, to see what he fought for all his life, in someone else. Every moment Douglas has on screen is subtly electrifying and, in his moments with Sellers, proves that one main characters performance can not exist without the other main characters performance. Douglas and Sellers play off of and feed each other so well that it’s unfathomable that the film would remain sound if the chemistry between them was anything other than completely genuine. Also, Douglas’ final moment, for me anyway, is one of the most realistic portrayals of death I have ever seen played on screen. The quiet words of hope he has for his “family” and the world are perfectly balanced with a kind of silent desperation to make his views and hopes not become the regrets he is so worried about leaving behind. Melvyn Douglas won a richly deserved Oscar for his turn here, and I think it would have been a truly perfect win had Sellers won it along with him. The ying never truly works without the yang and they are so good together that that make you forget you’re seeing a movie and really eavesdropping on real life conversations and moments.
On a side note: I think the defining of the “old man” that dies in the begining of the film, and that sets Chance on his journey, should not be as just some rich man that took the mentally crippled protagonist in many years back as Sam alludes to. In my estimation from countless viewings of the film (not to mention reading Kosinski’s book in high school after first seeing the movie in 1980), I was always pretty certain that the old man Chance left behind was his father. Chance talks about never having left the confines of the estate in his ENTIRE life prior to his eviction and I think this is because his PARENTS were too concerned about the hard realities that would malign someone as slow witted as Chauncey. The more I think about it, and the little hints that creep up here and there in the first quarter of the film, the more I am certain that Chance was under the ever watchful and painfully protective eye of his father.
Dennis—
You have me speechless with this spectacular comment, a sterling embellishment of a film you clearly love for many years, and one you know as well as any other fervant fan. What you say about Douglas’ death scene is telling (I really should have spoken of that at length in the review) and I agree that Douglas deserved all the honors he received. Yes Sellers, and not Dustin Hoffman should have been smiling in the winner’s circle. As far as your final opinion as to the identity of the old man, I think you pose an intriguing possibilitity! I never really saw it that way, but I can’t come up with anything to contest what you say there! I need to investigate further! Your defense of Ashby too is inspiring, and one I fully agree with! Thanks for the fantastic mega-comment my friend, and for the exceedingly kind words!
Wonderful review Sam. This is a film whose relevance has increased with time. Now more than ever a person’s likeability is put ahead of their qualifications in political context. Therefore, the far fetched premise of the film is more believable today. Especially since the film shows the real political decisions are made by men in shadows who just need a nice person to represent them. You touch upon this idea in your last paragrwph. Also, today news channels endlessly analyze every expression, cough or word of a candidate. So if a candidate like Chance existed, one side would praise his wisdom while the opposing side would call him out.
You hit upon some very thought provoking observations that spring from this film when we take it into context with today’s political environment and machine. However, a candidate, lets say this actually happened, like Chauncey would send not only the spin-doctors reeling to create the perfect platform for a man with little to say (call it quiet strength) but would probably have the apposing parties and, yes, even foreign onlookers running for cover in what they would probably think is a quietly calculating apponent and/or leader. I could actually see world powers like China, Russia and those in the Middle-East, where all they do, like the States, is talk and talk and talk, sitting on pins and needles because of a lack of words. After-all, what is Chauncey really saying to them? Could a metaphore about drought or an insect infestation in the “garden” be mis-read as a threat to another country, perhaps a move towards war? The allusions that this film (and book) makes are both hysterical and terrifying in their implications.
Theodore Roosevelt said “speak softly but carry a big stick”. A metaphor from “President” Cauncey Gardner could be read as a blessing or a damnation and could well be seen in the same way that the Roosevelt quote was taken. BEING THERE raises endless questions every time I repeat see it and its because of this, and the tight direction, script, presentation and performances that makes me think this is the only film by Ashby that can be labeled “masterwork”.
>>sitting on pins and needles because of a lack of words.
That is a great point Dennis. A US president that takes time to evaluate a question, does not have a rapid fire answer and measures his words would probably terrify some people. And if this person is supported by most of the American media, then I am sure the Roosevelt quote you mention would be endlessly used. I am not sure what the political landscape was like in 1979 post Watergate but I think the events depicted in the film are closer to today’s situation than they might have been 3 decades ago. One reason why I am in awe of this film is because it speaks more about today than most current films manage to.
Excellent addition there Dennis, and I totally agree that in an otherwise distinguished, often brilliant career, BEING THERE is Ashby’s masterpiece!
Sachin, you hit the nail on the head with the assertion of the film’s increasing relevence in time. popularity as always is the crucial barometer in electibility. I’d venture to say that in the 2012 election Barack Obama was clearly the more popular candidate one on one, though as we know there was certainly more on the table here. The puppeteers do pull the strings as you say, and this infiltrates every level from the small town to the state to the nation. Yes, it’s insane how every tine ideosyncracy is now up for scrutiny in what remains the same media-crazed society that is satirically scrutinized in BEING THERE! Thanks so very much my friend!
Sam –
I love, Love, LOVE this movie. Especially at the end where Chance (the Gardener) seemingly walks on water and the President of the United States is heard quoting one of Chance’s catchphrases:
“LIFE IS A STATE OF MIND.”
Laurie—
Something told me you would be one who loves this movie and I say “Bravo” to that! Yes that last scene is one of the picture’s most stunning sequences and the “Life is a State of Mind” prose metaphor does fit this narrative in compelling ways! As I stated this is really one of my favorite of all comedies. Thanks my friend!
Actually, the catchphrase: “Life is a state of mind”, as quoted by the President of the United States in the film, is attributed as one of the favorite sayings of Benjamin Turnville Rand (Melvyn Douglas). It’s a section of famous quotes by the deceased during the eulogy given at Rand’s funeral/burial.
Oh yes Dennis, I did know that, but should have mentioned it. I appreciate your astute framing as always.
HI Sam,
I do know well that you really love this film and it shows in your glowing review of it. I like the film enough, but it didn’t quite make my cut. For me it does lose a bit of steam in the second half. However, MacLaine for me steals the whole film. I actually think she gives the best and most interesting performance here and I absolutely adore that scene where she basically masterbates and goes berzerk. Hilarious stuff. As far as Ashby goes, I do prefer Harold and Maude and think it pushes the risktaking even further in my estimation.
Thanks very much Jon. I do love MacLaine too, and that scene is clearly one of the very best in the film. While I obviously don’t feel she steals the film from Sellers and Douglas, I agree there is a poignant human element that is deeply affecting. I aslo do like HAROLD AND MAUDE quite a bit. Thanks again my friend!
My other favorite performance by MacLaine was actually in a 2002 TV movie, “Hell on Heels: The Battle of Mary Kay,” in which she played a cosmetics magnate. She was great and – even though the subject matter sounds kitschy – the film was excellently done.
Pierre—
I will have to research this! I would love to see it myself! I wonder if it’s on netflix.
Dunno about Netflix, Sam, but it’s on YouTube. Here’s the first 10 minutes. It’s a lot of fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8-tBuUVSYg
Thanks very much Pierre, I will check this out!
Fantastic review Sam. I am a big admirer of Jerzy Kosinski having read many of his novels back in the 70’s. BEING THERE is exceptional and so still relevant these many years later. Asby did a magnificent job transferring the book to screen.
John—
You are much more than a big admirer of Kosinski and Ashby, as you have of course done some fantastic things over the last year or two with reviews and interviews on their work! At TWENTY FOURS FRAMES you have virtually all the Ashby films there, and each is superlative. Thanks as ever for the kind words my friend!