Talk:Being There

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Revision needed to the "Lake Scene" section

This part lists much speculation and little fact. I think that it should be condensed into "It is left up to interpretation, but X critic says X (using actual quotes from a few different expert analysts, rather than using the subjective first person plural voice that is currently in that section "We are...etc". Such is not conducive to an encyclopedia, as it adds a personal narration to what ultimately should be an objective reference guide.

[edit] Sections to add

  • Social commentary
  • Analysis
  • End scene - walking on water
  • Controversy over out-take sequence during credits

Bungopolis

[edit] Synopsis

It needs to be clairified that this is a summary of the film, and not the book. The movie is a little different from the book, and if you search the book word by word, you will never find the word "MacLaine".

[edit] End scene

Does anybody honestly think there is any question that Chance was able to walk on water at the end of the film? What on Earth would be the point of putting such a powerful image into a film if it was simply a "hidden, slightly submerged pier"? Imagine asking Ashby the meaning of that scene to hear him reply "Oh -- well that was just a slightly sumberged pier!"

--Bungopolis 06:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it also possible that the end scene was supposed to be a satire of the classic Jesus walking on water sequence, because Chance was supposed to be prefect and pure like Jesus? --kralahome 03:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, yes to me that is the obvious point of the scene - Chance walks on water. The director and author are simply asking us, the viewing audience, how much more of this we would have believed! Musicmaker 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he just doesn't realize that he is supposed to sink in the lake, and so walk upon it instead. --[User:BBT] 05:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The article text currently says the following..."as Chance perceives no problem, he is able to walk on the water with no problem, because "life is a state of mind"..." That statement to me makes no sense. Should it be explained better ...or is it really as daft as I think it is, and therefore should be removed? I find it quite unsatisfactory as it reads at present. The views of other editors would be appreciated. Also I find it odd that this article has been classed as "start" status (albeit by a bot). Does anyone know hot to challenge that rating??--Tom 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Delete it. Pgc512 02:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


As the audience we are deceived at first when we see Chance waking to classical musical. This is surely a man of culture. Very soon we are in on the truth of the matter. Later, as we see others making similar wrong choices, we think to ourselves, "how can these characters be so stupid to ignore the truth before them? It is so obvious!". But at the end we are confronted with the same issue that the other characters are faced with. What do we see? We all see things from our own personal perspective. Our knowlege of the world and our belief systems can and do influence what we see. Those who see Chance literally walking on water are undoubtedly making reference back to scripture and almost cannot do other than see it that way. Someone without that knowledge of scripture will not do that. He or she would make a different assumption about what is going on. The truth is probably out there if only you look deep enough. Tom 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that the article as it currently stands misrepresents Roger Ebert. At http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970525/REVIEWS08/401010303/1023 Ebert says

Is it possible that we are all just clever versions of Chance the gardener? That we are trained from an early age to respond automatically to given words and concepts? That we never really think out much of anything for ourselves, but are content to repeat what works for others in the same situation?

which to my mind is quite different from what the article says Eberts has written in his book. Is it possible that the edits have been shifted about and now the Ebert explanation in the article is now mis-stated?--Tom (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television clips

Moncrief and I are working on this section. There are a lot of details I'd like added:

  • Name of orchestral work in opening scene, and, if possible, the name of the conductor in this performance.
  • Production from which the "wheelchair man" was taken.
  • News station (probably local) from which the blizzard coverage was taken.
  • Identify the clip featuring a scene from Little Ceasar; it's reported at IMDb, so I trust it, but it's not apparent to me which one it is. paul klenk 16:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the actual quotes added along with the title of the program, but or sake of consistency, perhaps a format should be adopted. paul klenk 16:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The Little Caesar reference is dialogue only and is played under the final bedroom scene where Shirley MacLaine brings new meaning to the act of "self love"! Musicmaker 13:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have just reviewed the opening footage again and that conductor looks quite like Eugene Ormandy. The orchestra therefore would almost certainly be the Philadelphia. But I can't be sure. Musicmaker 13:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autistic savant?

I need to know whether this film includes an autistic savant or not, preferably with a verifiable source for the claim. Thanks. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we could say that Chance is an autistic savant, and there are certainly no verifiable sources to that effect. The suggestion from the novel and film is that his nature is a result of his isolated upbringing. It is never suggested that he is a product of a neurological condition such as autism. -Bungopolis 19:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Different Take

I removed this link from the bottom of the article.

I don't feel the review adds anything to the article, and it seems like it was added to promote the site and I guess feed its google ads. --87.81.110.119 01:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why reviews should be included at all? Reading that review I've got to say I find it to be nonsense and I'm very gald it's been removed. Raoul 16:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this unseemly back-and-forth. Wikipedia doesn't need it. Chill!


[edit] N.Carolina

Why is this film included in the various "North Carolina" categories? Pgc512 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. It is filmed at the Biltmore House in Asheville.Pgc512 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis & Character Sections Need To Be Deleted

Although interesting, they are full of raw opinions offerred by some Wiki editor. I will delete them soon unless someone gives me a reason not to. Pgc512 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The film (I have not read the book) has created some controversy about what it is about and the meanings of certain scenes (especially the last). The author of this work emerged from hiding in Poland after WW2 and therefore actually witnessed the effects of the rise to power of Hitler. So it is perfectly possible that Kosinsky was drawing parallels in Being There to the blind faith in the populist Hitler placed by the Germans in the 1930s. I agree that the recent edit contains opinion, but many WIKI articles on matters of an artistic nature contain opinion, though I agree the best articles reflect the range of opinion. Rather than delete material relating to opinion I think editors should be encouranged to ensure the article reflects the range of opinions out there.Tom 15:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the two sections. This is not for an encyclopedia. Here is the sections. Perhaps some of the material could be put back. Pgc512 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Analysis

The story is a subtle retelling of The Emperor's New Clothes with a touch of The Comedy of Errors, with added satire about today's society obsessed with celebrity and soundbites. Though written more than 30 years ago, the story has uncanny echos of politics that happened after it was written and even echos of the political scene today.

Though well-dressed and appearing capable of deep thoughts, Chance is mentally limited, stunted by his sheltered upbringing, and has the attention span that one might expect from someone fed on a diet of TV (potentially enriching, but often just drivel) and the quick escape provided by the remote control.

The other characters, however, project other qualities onto Chance/Chauncey which, from our essentially neutral point of view, are not there. They tend to see the qualities and characteristics in Chance that reflects their own needs as well as in some way fitting in with the group preception of him. In this way, a new reality is created.

Kosiński uses Chance/Chauncey to satirize our society in a merciless yet cunningly subtle way. He poses the question, could America elect a folksy, poularist devoid of intellect and famous only for celebrity? Could we be deceived into doing so? It has to be remembered that the book was written in the Nixon era, but Ronald Regan was then governor of California and only much later rose to the presidency.

The dangers of sleepwalking into political disaster by people sinking personal doubts and being swept along by popular opinion and failing to stand up and declare that " the emperor has no clothes!" has many echoes in the history of our modern democracies.


[edit] Characters

All of the main characters are blind to the truth before their eyes, which is that Chauncey really is the simple man he professes to be. Instead they project on to him want they want him to be and they see what they want to see in him. Almost everyone is beguiled into accepting the early established accidental falsehood that he is gifted with deep insights.

The doctor suspects that Chauncey will sue Rand for damages following the accident and is astounded and relieved when Chauncey declines to do so, despite his apparent contact with an attorney and mistakes Chauncey's comment about a potential claim "I don't even know what they look like" as humor. Later he too comes to understand the truth about Chauncey but chooses to hush it up rather than reveal the truth.

The dying business leader and political king-maker Ben, also disbelieves that Chauncey will not be opportunistic by exploiting his (mis-)fortune at having been injured by the car owned by a multi-millionaire. In a comedy of errors of his own making, Ben gains a false perception of Chauncey as a failed businessman and a totally decent businessman down on his luck. And he later chooses to see Chauncey's innocent referal to seasons in gardening when questionaed about growth as some inciteful comment about the national economy.

The President has the dilemma of the Emperor in the Hans Christian Andersen story. Having also bought into this view and quoted Chauncey Gardiner on national TV and held him up to be a wise man and intuitive man. When he discovers or suspects his error, he knows he risks ridicule. He is deeply troubled by his dilemma and the stress affects his sexual function. But he cannot admit his problem without becoming a fool.

Eve is at first puzzled by Chauncey's strangeness and is misled into thinking of him as having insight and a sense of humor by the comments of her husband and the doctor. She sinks her own initial doubts and adopts the consensus view and then persues her own need for friendship, especially when her dying husband signals his assent to her forming a relationship with Chauncey. She sees in Chauncey her soul mate with an interest in gardens and a potential future husband having admitted that she is lonely with no friends of her own age.

The CIA, astounded by their inability to discover any records of a Chauncey Gardiner come to the conclusion that someone has eliminated the entire a record. A feat of such ability that only a CIA man could have done it! The FBI instead prefer to think the cover up has been done by one of their own. A masterful twist in the story and again stressing the view that people tend to believe their own propaganda.

The lawyer, keen to make a career in politics seems to view his contact with Chauncey Gardiner as potentially ruinous to his career. He does not understand how someone like Gardiner came to have the connection to the estate he was dealing with and is persuaded by the doctor with powerful connections to stay silent to protect his own ambitions. Personal greed therefore prevents his revealing the truth.

Louise, the maid, is the only person not to be deceived. On seeing the innocent man-child she has known since he was a boy being fêted on national TV declares out loud that he only has rice pudding between the ears and that its certainly a white man's world in America. But Louise is black and not in the right circles to be heard and listened to.

The general public, as portrayed by the audience in the TV studio and in later opinion polls and represented by the lawyer's girlfriend who is seen watching the program, think that Chauncey is just great and down to earth folksy.

And the political elite in the party, seen at Rand's funeral, having been tipped off by the dying Rand that Gardiner is their man for the presidency instead óf a second term for their lacklustre President, seem to buy into the idea. They are so beguiled by the high opinion polls that they disregard the lack of real evidence before their eyes. They even see his lack of a past as a plus point.

end of removed material Pgc512 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inserted Characters Section

I rewrote it and put it back in. Pgc512 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of television - Cartoon Segment

The first cartoon image in the film is from Mumbly show, yet one voice says, "Muttley, come here". I'm wondering if the sequence shown was intercut between several cartoons. --George100 06:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zen Gardiner

The most fully realized state of meditation, probably mis-paraphrasing Taitaku Patricia Phelan (a Soto meditation teacher), is 'to concentrate on being and doing less and less, until "concentrating" itself is transcended'. Chance is "always already" there (see Wikipedia under Heidegger and Dasein, the "the second intuition").

"Tat tvam asi" is what you find in the seed: undifferentiated self (see reference in Wikipedia). An old Zen koan asks, "What was your face before you were born?" and "How is a baby's face before it learns to smile?" That's Chance, perfectly smooth of face, steadily, rthymically clicking the (aptly named here) remote.

Gardeners must needs be aware all the time, but function as the "unmoveable object" (with the annual plan) to the seasons' "unstoppable force". Another (Zen, I think) koan states, "When the student is ready, the master will appear." Chance naturally becomes the rock around which others swirl and foam.

Then he walks on water, and at that moment, the monk was enlightened. Soltera 14:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the book

please make a link to the book

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Beingthere11.jpg

Image:Beingthere11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:266360.1020.A.jpg

Image:266360.1020.A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)