Humanity’s Lens: “Being There” - Discussion

[brainpanhandler]

Interview with Jerzy Kosinski

Brainpanhandler was intrigued by this interview wherein Kosinski refers to himself in the third person, a lot. The year is 1988, 3 years before he committed suicide. He has just published his 9th novel, The Hermit of 69th Street and is out on the talk circuit. Given the way he describes The Hermit of 69th Street I can imagine that referring to himself in the third person was an intentional device but there are a few other slips (most notably 29:13) which suggest Jerzy had some narcissistic tendencies. "And why shouldn't Kosinski be narcissistic?"

He briefly discusses Being There from 7:45 to 8:40. Skip that if you do not want to hear Kosinski's take on Chauncey.

From 37:15 to 37:40 is a bizarre little tidbit about an accusation that he was holding two girls in bondage in his basement writing his novels for him.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Still no comments on the movie's overt plot, themes, historical context, author's politics, etc.
And I put links up in the locked thread that point right at this.

What does the sick president remind you of? And why that specific ailment?
Why does Shirley McClaine do that and on that specific rug?
What names stand out?

...etc.

Y'know, these other forums that are not General Discussion get little traffic, a visibility ghetto.

Oh well.

[§ê¢rꆧ]

Well here is what I got out of it... kind of superficial thoughts but here they are...

Last time I saw "Being there" was in a High School, Humanities class. Read the novel then, too. There was much more to it then I remember and plan to reread the novel when I get a chance.

Girlfriend said "It's Rain Man meets Bilderberg" and I had to laugh at that. In the Wiki talk page there is a person asking if Chauncey is an autistic-savant, but I don't think there really is any specific evidence of that. It seems it came out at a time before the concept of 'autistic-savant' was popularized, but I could be mistaken... Clearly there is something 'wrong' with Chauncey, yet they way things work out in the film it would seem what is 'wrong' with him is exactly 'right' for him.

The film is clearly a commentary on television in some way, with its numerous television montages and Chauncey's love of TV. But what is it saying about television? Is it that television creates our reality, or something more complicated? I don't know.

I find it difficult to personally relate to Chauncey, and I imagine most viewers do too. In fact his denseness is almost painful to watch, and the comedy ensues when each character projects his or her own thoughts onto him to absurd effect. This of course leads to the question of us projecting our own thoughts onto Chauncey. And I suppose the only reason we can sit through it and watch it is because we have projected the role of 'protagonist,' 'hero' or 'main character' onto him.

I think "Being There" is best thought of as a fairy tale of human folly and shortsightedness. It satirizes the stupidity of politicians and shines a light on how corporations run things behind the scenes. Chauncey reveals to us our own delusions by sticking, steadfast and laconic, to his own script about being a gardener. I mean, what do YOU think he is? Just a gardener?

Chauncy is like a "pure fool" and as such leads a magical life, to my perception. I know some people get a Jesus reference from the walking-on-water ending, but Simon the Magician walked on water, too. To me it seems to be about magick moreso than religion. I guess it just depends on what you are projecting onto him

One thing that really struck me was the scene where they are carrying the casket, and the grave monument is an Illuminati eye and pyramid. That made me crack a smile.

[IanEye]

What does the sick president remind you of? And why that specific ailment?

Hugh, are you sure you are not confusing/combining two characters? The billionaire tycoon Benjamin Turnbull Rand (played by Melvyn Douglas), and President ‘Bobby’ (played by Jack Warden)?

The billionaire is quite ill, wasting away from a “young person’s disease” and needing “fresh blood for dinner”, while the President’s primary malady seems to be impotence (which, indeed seems to be the point of his character).

Why does Shirley McClaine do that and on that specific rug?

In terms of the “love scenes” between Chance and Eve Rand, I think the episode of Mr. Rogers detailing the amazing stereopticon and the song Mr. Rogers sings is just as important as the stilted intimacy in the room.

When Eve comes into Chance’s room the second time, he is watching a soap opera type show and so the passion between him and Ms. Rand lasts as long as the ravishing onscreen. When the soap opera segues into another scene, Chance has nothing to mimic. Eve inquires as to Chance’s loss of lust, only to be told that the Gardener “likes to watch”. So, Eve masturbates as Chance switches channels. As she climaxes, Chance is mimicking the yoga onscreen. At times, the television is a mirror in Being There. Other times a sort of Greek Chorus.

Y'know, these other forums that are not General Discussion get little traffic, a visibility ghetto.
Oh well.

Hugh, weren’t you the one advocating for a new forum?

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?p=166420#166420

Oh well, indeed……

[sunny]

No video store near me carries the darn thing, so I'll have to comment superficially based on memory.

The film is clearly a commentary on television in some way, with its numerous television montages and Chauncey's love of TV. But what is it saying about television? Is it that television creates our reality, or something more complicated? I don't know.

Basically, I think the film is commenting on the future of mankind, in the person of Chance, in the media age and it has surely come to pass. A generation of people who have immersed themselves in tv have nothing else to model, no other way of "being". Real life has become a reflection of media, not the other way around. We are practically automotons, unquestioning cliche spouters who would be lost without media telling us how to think, speak, and act.

My only question is-WTF is the meaning of the ending??!?

[IanEye]

Basically, I think the film is commenting on the future of mankind, in the person of Chance, in the media age and it has surely come to pass. A generation of people who have immersed themselves in tv have nothing else to model, no other way of "being". Real life has become a reflection of media, not the other way around. We are practically automotons, unquestioning cliche spouters who would be lost without media telling us how to think, speak, and act.

that all seems quite apt Sunny, although I certainly think the viewer can go even deeper into it, it is a very rich film in that regard.

every single image from the numerous televisions in the film are important:

it is no "happy accident" that Buffy Sainte-Marie is on the particlular episode of "Sesame Street" the Gardener is watching.

nothing is left to "chance" here.....

[sunny]

I certainly think the viewer can go even deeper into it, it is a very rich film in that regard.

every single image from the numerous televisions in the film are important:

it is no "happy accident" that Buffy Sainte-Marie is on the particlular episode of "Sesame Street" the Gardener is watching.

nothing is left to "chance" here.....

I quite agree. I was only commenting on the basic premise of the film. Not being able to view it right now, details escape me. But I do remember commenting on the presence of BS-M the last time I watched. I wondered what her presence signified. Thoughts?

[IanEye]

But I do remember commenting on the presence of BS-M the last time I watched. I wondered what her presence signified. Thoughts?

i think one basic reason is that Asby was friends with Jack Nitzsche, who was dating BS-M at the time. Nitzsche and BS-M are both on the "Performance" soundtrack which Nitzsche compiled, but they might have met sooner, I don't know. In the '80s they won an Oscar for co-writing 'Up Where We Belong' from "An Officer and a Gentleman".

The Sesame Street track that Buffy sings in Being There is odd. It is supposed to be an inspiring song about learning, but she sounds wicked depressed. The 'suspended' nature of the melody gives the song a tension, it certainly fits the overall tone of the scene....

[brainpanhandler]

Hugh, please tell me the bear rug has nothing to do with russia and Eve is not master baiting.

[streeb]

Nearly two decades after Cree singer and songwriter Buffy Sainte-Marie's song ''Universal Soldier'' was released and shipments of her records mysteriously disappeared, the truth of the censorship and suppression by the U.S. government became public.

Now, in federal court, Charles August Schlund III stated he is a covert operative and supports Sainte-Marie's assertions that the United States took action to suppress rock music because of its role in rallying opposition to the Vietnam War.

Sainte-Marie says she was blacklisted and, along with other American Indians in the Red Power movements, was put out of business in the 1970s.

''I found out 10 years later, in the 1980s, that [President] Lyndon Johnson had been writing letters on White House stationary praising radio stations for suppressing my music,'' Sainte-Marie said in a 1999 interview with Indian Country Today at Dine' College.

''In the 1970s, not only was the protest movement put out of business, but the Native American movement was attacked,'' Sainte-Marie said.

Much more here

[erosoplier]

I think the "walk on water" ending was the author's way of saying that, no, there wasn't going to be that inevitable point where Chance makes a huge gaffe and everybody realises that he's really a simpleton and that it took them all a very long time to figure it out. It's the author's way of saying that no one realises their folly in this little tale, because no one realises their folly in the real world.

The film as a whole made me think of Idiocracy. Like Idiocracy was a kind of sequel or adaptation of it, looking from the outside in, not the inside out.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hugh, weren’t you the one advocating for a new forum

?

Yup. A mixed blessing now I realize. Users can find it easily but readers, not so much.
Anyway...

What does the sick president remind you of? And why that specific ailment?

Hugh, are you sure you are not confusing/combining two characters? The billionaire tycoon Benjamin Turnbull Rand (played by Melvyn Douglas), and President ‘Bobby’ (played by Jack Warden)?

The billionaire is quite ill, wasting away from a “young person’s disease” and needing “fresh blood for dinner”, while the President’s primary malady seems to be impotence (which, indeed seems to be the point of his character).

Oops. Yes, the two authority characters that Chance serves are distinct.
Their names have political inferrences. So do their maladies, both variations on problems with power, bones and virility.

The maladies of both authority figures are interesting.
I see many clues and keywords that this film is a political allegory and clever cover-up of US post-WWII dirty laundry.

I put up a link to the story about the Scottish prison camp for high level Nazis where: >they were shown holocaust movies to 'de-Nazify' them
>one escaped and did landscape gardening until recaptured
>one became a propagandist with the CIA.

Why does Shirley McClaine do that and on that specific rug?

In terms of the “love scenes” between Chance and Eve Rand, I think the episode of Mr. Rogers detailing the amazing stereopticon and the song Mr. Rogers sings is just as important as the stilted intimacy in the room.

"Eve"..."Rand"..."sex"..."bear rug"...the political history allegory angle is rich here.
Mr. Rogers details the stereopticon? Hmmm.

In the political keyword allegory framing, I see the Mapfumo Affair which had repurcussions in the US, also.

Since I've asserted that 'Being There' is a political history allegory and dirty laundry cover-up with links to back this up in the now locked thread...I was not surprised to find that there is a contemporary (1970s) iconic photo that matches the movie poster and what I think is 'Being There's' counter-propaganda meme-reversal.

I just found a 1973 book, 'The Best of LIFE' photos.
And there is a 1946 photo of General Charles de Gaulle with his back to the camera looking out at the sea dressed in a civilian suit and homburg hat and umbrella in hand, exactly the same. Exactly.

This was the Photo of the Week for 2/18/46.

Charles de Gaulle died in November, 1970. The 'Being There' book was published in 1971.

I've searched and searched for this photo but all I can find is a description of it in a for-sale February 18, 1946 LIFE Magazine on Ebay-

[url]http://cgi.ebay.com/LIFE-mag-February-18-1946-DOROTHY-MCGUIRE-MITROPOULOS-+
_W0QQitemZ310022323286QQcmdZViewItem?IMSfp=TL08021109113a15623[/url]

Issue Date: February 18, 1946; Vol. 20, No.7
IN THIS ISSUE (MOST below include many pages and pictures):
.....
Picture Of The Week: General Charles De Gaulle, No Longer Head Of The French Government, Stands On The Rocks At Antibes And Looks Meditatively Out Over The Mediterranean.
De Gaulle Meditates On The Riviera.
.....

Charles de Gaulle allegedly died in front of a television on November 9, 1970.
November 9, 1970 is the SAME DAY that the president of West Germany, Gustav Heinemann, made an important announcement about the hunt for Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele suggesting he was hiding in Paraguay.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/9/newsid_4275000/4275206.stm

1970: France mourns death of de Gaulle
One of the greatest figures in the history of France, General Charles de Gaulle, has died at his home of a heart attack. He was 79.

The wartime hero and former president was playing patience and watching television when he suddenly slumped in his chair.

His wife, Yvonne, called a doctor and priest, but he died within minutes.

There was no warning: this afternoon, he took his usual walk in the gardens, then worked on his memoirs in his study.

At first, news of his death was kept strictly within the family, and his wife told only their son, Philippe, and daughter, Elizabeth.

The French President, Georges Pompidou, was informed several hours later.

Funeral wishes

The General has set out in great detail his wishes for his funeral in a letter written in January 1952 to Mr Pompidou, then a completely unknown bank worker but also a close confidant.

By the time the 1979 'Being There' movie came out, the television angle had been amplified by Jerry Mander in his 1978 book, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.'

And Nazis were in the air, too. Klaus Barbie was still working for the US in Bolivia and DEA agents like Michael Levine were finding out that the CIA was protecting him during the Bolivian coup of 1971 and leading up to what would be the Cocaine Coup of 1980.

That 1973 Best of Life Magazine compilation with a 1946 photo of Charles de Gaulle's back with hat and umbrella as he looks at the sea is stunning to find and compare with the 'Being There' movie poster. I'm going to have to get a scanner going to post it, I'm afraid.

[erosoplier]

P.S. Not that I think it's fair to call Chance a "simpleton," even though I just did. Anybody who gardens like he did is not a simpleton, of course. He's a simpleton in the eyes of the world, if the world only knew, I guess is the point.

I'll look up what Morris Berman's take on Chance/Being There was, and post if I find anything interesting.

[brainpanhandler]

Alright… so here are some preliminary thoughts/talking points.

Last night was my first full reviewing of Being There and a number of details grabbed my attention. Ideas are percolating, but as yet nothing has coalesced into a coherent view of the film.

I am curious to hear more from IanEye about the comparison between Kubrick and Ashby. One of the things I like about Kubrick is that I can count on the fact that EVERYthing in the movie is there for a reason. Even though I had seen Being There a number of times I had never really given it a “very close examination”. Now that I am in that mode I’m overwhelming myself with details, references and tangents.

As an example:

Expanded notes from first reviewing:

The Old Man (Mr. Jennings), who is presumably dead, takes a deep breath as Chance is placing his palm on his forehead. This is very obvious. His chest very appreciably rises and falls. Since Ashby was known to use multiple takes before he got one he liked, we have to assume he saw that the actor took a deep breath and that he knew it was visible on film upon final editing at least. Since the actor playing Mr. Jennings is on screen for only a few seconds during this shot we can also assume that the actor could have held his breath for this shot, but didn’t. Therefore I think it is safe to say that Ashby wanted, one way or another, for the actor to take a breath as chance was placing his hand on his forehead. Why?

I haven’t answered that question yet. The film has these bookends of Mr. Jennings’ and Ben Rand’s deaths. Ashby hints that the viewer should compare Chance’s reactions to those deaths by mirroring Chance’s act of placing his hand on the dead men’s foreheads. Chance shows no emotional reaction to Mr. Jenning’s death as noted by Loisie. Upon Ben’s death however Chance has tears in his eyes and chokes back a sob. At exactly 1:59:02 during Ben Rand’s death scene Chance, at the exact moment of Rand’s death, emits a short choked back sob. Watch it carefully. Clearly Seller’s emits this sound. You can see his mouth and chest move. Kosinski, in the interview I posted a link to above, says of Being There that it is the last novel he wrote that had a traditional, linear narrative. Chance as the protagonist does grow and change throughout the course of the film. It’s easy to miss this. Chance tells Dr. Allenby that he loves Eve very much, a declaration it seems he would have been incapable of at the beginning of the film. Chance’s last line of the film, “Well, I’ll go tell Eve about Ben” is a humane and mature response and also one that Chance would have been incapable of at the beginning of the film. Ignorance was a sort of bliss for Chance, but also not worthy of a human being. The whole arc of Chance’s evolution during the film might be seen as one long expulsion from the innocent ignorance of the garden. This is one of the intersections with my reading of Voltaire’s satirical refutation of Leibniz’s Optimism in his Candide. Both Candide and Chance live sheltered existences to begin their lives and go forth into the world armed with insular philosophies ill suited to interpreting reality outside their sheltered incubators. In the case of Chance all he knows is gardening. In the case of Candide all he knows is Panglossian optimism. Both have their innocence and optimism dashed upon the rocks of reality, and in the end return to their gardens, but forever changed. This is of course an allegory. Perhaps a masonic allegory about rebirth. Voltaire was a freemason apparently introduced to a lodge by Benjamin Franklin.

So who is Mr. Jennings?, I found myself asking.

FRANKLIN
(as they enter)
He and my father used to ride to-
gether back in the thirties...
Fox hunting... Before I was born...


Thomas Franklin introduces himself to chance: “We're with Franklin, Jennings and Roberts, the law firm handling the estate.”

Although it is never made clear, it seems likely that Thomas Franklin is the son of one of the partners of Franklin, Jennings and Roberts and that Mr. Jennings was one of his father’s partners.

Mr. Jennings has been bed ridden and paralyzed for thirty years as a result of a spinal chord injury.

How in hell did chance come under the custody of Mr. Jennings? The answer to that question is never made clear, but we can infer some things. For instance, it is discovered there is no evidence that Chance ever existed when the FBI and the CIA cannot find anything on him for the President. One has to presume that this erasure of all evidence of Chance’s existence was performed by Mr. Jennings or by someone with whom he had contact that could accomplish this for him. Now why would Mr. Jennings want to do that? Chance states that he has lived in Mr. Jenning’s house and been employed there as the gardener since as long as he can remember and Loisie says she raised him from a pissant. Mr. Jennings wanted to have a boy around his house and he did not want anyone else to know that Chance was there, nor did he want Chance to know of the outside world. Mr. Jennings must have intentionally chosen to keep Chance illiterate. Why would he do that? And why would he provide so many TV's? From the timeline suggested in the film chance has lived with Mr. Jennings since before the invention of television. Kosinski and Ashby seem to lead the reader and the viewer to these questions. Of course, it is pretty hard not to have the notion of pederasty come to mind. Mr. Jennings does not appear to have been married. Could it be that Mr. Jennings was a homosexual, impotent as a result of his spinal chord injury and just wanted to have male companionship around the house that was completely dependent on him for everything and therefore would never leave him? This seems to be a possibility. Was Chance abducted from his real parents as a child or was he lawfully adopted?

Game of spot the masonic symbolism:

HAYES
(looking up
from papers)
There is no mention of a gardener.
In fact, according to our inven-
tories, there hasn't been a man
employed here since 1933...except
for a Mr. Joe Saracini, a brick
mason, who did some repairs to a
wall. He was here for two-and-a-
half days in 1952.

CHANCE
Yes, I remember Joe. He was very
fat and had short hair and showed
me pictures from a funny little
book.

HAYES
...Some pictures?

CHANCE
Yes. Of men and women.

HAYES
...Oh.

This is an odd little exchange, perhaps indicative of nothing except that Joe might have conversed with Chance, discovered that he had no notion of women or sex and took it upon himself to educate Chance. It seems the blue collar workers are better at figuring out that Chance is clueless than any of the upper crust he meets later in the film, loisie and Joe the mason being two examples. He is a brick mason though.

I’m also looking at the hand to the dead man’s forehead thing as possibly a Masonic ritual as well as any Masonic significance to Chance’s habit of sleeping with the head of his bed to the north (Franklin’s assertion that the head of the bed faced west not withstanding. I could not tell from the shadows cast by the sun which way the bed actually faced in the film).

Ben Rand wears a red flower in his lapel when he meets the president and when they shake hands they appear to use what I understand to be a masonic handshake.

I'll add to this list as they occur to me.

I can find no evidence that Ashby or Kosinski were freemasons.

Lots of RI members know a lot more about freemasonry than me. Maybe someone has some thoughts on this.


It doesn’t really seem there are enough clues in the film to answer some of these questions, like who was Mr. Jennings and why would he want to essentially imprison a young boy and keep him ignorant, isolated and illiterate? And why wouldn't Mr. Jennings have made some provision in his will directing chance's fate? Maybe in the novel there is more. I have not gotten that far yet.

[brainpanhandler]

This Wiki article on the Order of Free Gardeners is interesting. I can't help but think of the apron Chance wears when he is working in the garden. But there are no symbols on his apron that I can see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Free_Gardeners