Great film, not flawless.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Being There
CalibMcBolts — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 04:49 AM)
I love ''Being there'', but the film is not flawless. There are two sex-oriented subplots, and neither one is necessary. The story of the president's impotence could have been completely dispensed with. And the seduction attempt by Shirley MacLaine, as the millionaire's wife, requires her to act in a less intelligent way than she should. MacLaine projects brains; she, like the doctor, should have caught on, and that would have created more intriguing scenes than her embarrassing poses on a bear rug.
This paragraph above is taken from a review from Roger EBert, and i wholeheartedly agree with his criticsm, hence, i put it in here too
The other minor problem i had is how incredible addicted Chance is to TV, I know that this is his character and it wouldve been strange if he wasnt that addicted and that it needed to be that way, but in some moments it was incredibly frustrating how addicted he was. Reminds me of irritating kids wanting to watch TV constantly. -
Edward_de_Vere — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 03:18 PM)
I love ''Being there'', but the film is not flawless. There are two sex-oriented subplots, and neither one is necessary. The story of the president's impotence could have been completely dispensed with. And the seduction attempt by Shirley MacLaine, as the millionaire's wife, requires her to act in a less intelligent way than she should. MacLaine projects brains; she, like the doctor, should have caught on, and that would have created more intriguing scenes than her embarrassing poses on a bear rug.
I agree that neither the President's impotence scenes nor Eve's masturbation scene added much to the movie. They were cheap attempts at cheap laughs in an otherwise intelligent movie.
However, I disagree with your premise that Eve would have caught onto the truth behind Chance. Her husband Ben didn't get to be a multi-billionaire by being stupid, and in spite of his age and poor health he was still clearly sharp as ever, yet Ben was completely taken in by "Chauncey." The reason was desperation - he was a dying man who needed a friend, confidant, and kindred spirit in his last moments. So he found an empty vessel and projected everything that he wanted to see in a friend onto him. Similarly, Eve was a lonely trophy wife married to a man who could be her grandfather. She projected all of the qualities she would have wanted in a love onto Chance. You see the same thing, albeit in shorter moments, with the other characters.
I think the reason the doctor could see "Chauncey" for Chance is that he was objective and not emotionally needy in any way. Unlike Ben and Eve, there was no reason for the doctor to project something that was only in his imagination onto a blank slate. Everyone else probably just accepted "Chauncey" on Ben's authority.
The other minor problem i had is how incredible addicted Chance is to TV, I know that this is his character and it wouldve been strange if he wasnt that addicted and that it needed to be that way, but in some moments it was incredibly frustrating how addicted he was. Reminds me of irritating kids wanting to watch TV constantly.
Maybe it is annoying, but I wouldn't call it a flaw in the movie. It's there to emphasize that Chance has the intellect of an elementary school kid (at best), and the fact that TV is his only source of information about the real world. -
CalibMcBolts — 9 years ago(June 08, 2016 09:48 AM)
Maybe it is annoying, but I wouldn't call it a flaw in the movie. It's there to emphasize that Chance has the intellect of an elementary school kid (at best), and the fact that TV is his only source of information about the real world.
Yeah, i agree, it's needed for the film, but it annoyed me immensly though. -
simonellis — 9 years ago(August 04, 2016 03:59 AM)
Err, this is a verbatim copy/paste of Roger Ebert's 1997 review, paragraph 11:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-being-there-1979 -
akingofcomedy — 9 years ago(August 07, 2016 09:16 AM)
Yeah that's solidly weird to lift the full text and make no mention of its source. Guess it was either straight plagiarism for fun's sake - or OP might have been springing a trap. Wait for someone to call him an idiot, and then inform them they were actually railing against Roger Ebert's opinion.
Whether it came from Ebert or a 4th grader, I would still say the point is kinda misguided. Sex was more taboo in film when he wrote that, though Ebert was certainly no prude. But I always felt those two scenes specifically highlighted the bizarre and all-encompassing ways that Chance infiltrated people's lives unintentionally. Especially the idea that offhandedly, he could impact the confidence and sexual virility of the most powerful man in the world. -
Edward_de_Vere — 9 years ago(August 09, 2016 12:40 PM)
Yeah that's solidly weird to lift the full text and make no mention of its source.
On
The Godfather
messageboard, I had some loon cut and paste one of my posts from several months back verbatim to start a "new" thread.
Wait for someone to call him an idiot, and then inform them they were actually railing against Roger Ebert's opinion.
I fail to see how this trap would work, unless you're dealing with someone who thinks Roger Ebert is the world's ultimate authority. Does anyone actually defer to Roger Ebert's opinion? Would you change your opinion of a movie based on what Roger Ebert or any other professional critic said? Probably not. -
CalibMcBolts — 9 years ago(August 28, 2016 07:18 AM)
Yes i did copy it from Eberts review, i didnt mean anything by it, i didnt ''set a trap'' or any of the things you and the other guy said would be my intentions
I just copied it because i wholheartedly agree with what Ebert said, and i think it's a fair criticism. I just posted it here, to find people's opinion on those scenes.
I'll credit him in the OP Dont get all triggered
Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001 -
chrismovieman — 9 years ago(August 27, 2016 03:04 AM)
Apparently Lawrence Olivier refused to play a part in the film because he said, "I don't want to be in a film where Shirley McClane is masterbating"
As much as I love the film, I agree that many of the sexual subplots could be removed and we would lose very little from the film. On the other hand, there is some humor to be found in considering that the most important man in the free world is having difficulty maintaining an erection after a brief meeting with an illiterate gardener. -
mherch2833 — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 12:02 AM)
I agree wholeheartedly with this criticism, the MacLaine scene is completely jarring on an otherwise accelerant film.
I read Kozinksi's book Being There a while back, and it has a similar event in which some rich old pervert pulls Chance up to a bedroom at a party and beats off in front of him. It's pretty graphic, and was easily the worst part of the book - as is the scene in the movie.