A description of the film “Being there” starring Peter Sellers

By valiswaverider

Wed, 21 Jan 2009
  • 1852 reads
2 comments
 

What is your response to the character Chance the Gardener walking on water at the end of the movie?

Miracle or mirage?

As surely it can not be both.

A strange trick of sense perception the Greeks would call noesis and noema?

Is he using these relationships to find empathy or is it incidental.

What is the ultimate phenomenology?

Certificate U
Non-fiction
Miscellaneous

Comments

Submitted by animan on
Wot? You've lost me there. The bit I remember, like, is the one where Sellers goes into the lift and treats it like they're just standing in a small, stationary room - genius - I'll always remember that bit - and the other people in the lift think he's a genius because of his perception of the space as so other than theirs - shades of Bean in that film about the Whistler picture of his (Whistler's) terifying mother - bit of a 'borrower' Atkinson, I'd say - over to you mr. rider ...

 

Submitted by valiswaverider on
Hello Animan, glad I’ve got a comment on this, I, am a big Peter Seller’s fan. I first saw this film as a kid and the ending has always stuck with me. For me it is a simple tale told well, I saw it again a few years back and it got me thinking. Here is a conventional description of the events in the film as I see them: Chance the gardener lives in the townhouse of a wealthy man. He has simple-minded outlook, tending the garden, with virtually no contact with the outside world. On meeting Ben Rand, Ben miss hears his name and he becomes know as Chauncey Gardiner. His simplistic, world view mostly concerning the gardening is interpreted as allegorical statements of deep wisdom and knowledge regarding business matters and the current state of politics in America. The reading the viewer has of these events is simple in that Chance’s simplistic world view is accepted without question as profound statements and that the America political system is floored for this every reason (lack of deep analysis). However the ending with Chance walking on water does not fit with this reading of the film. The question I draw from the ending is have we (the viewers) being miss lead by our own beliefs about the character, can Chance really walk on water and if so what does this say about all the other events in the film? It is an unanswered question and too my mind what makes it such a great film