Being There (1979) 8.0
Chance, a simple gardener, has never left the estate until his employer dies. His simple TV-informed utterances are mistaken for profundity. Director:Hal Ashby |
|
| Watch Trailer 0Share... |
Being There (1979) 8.0
Chance, a simple gardener, has never left the estate until his employer dies. His simple TV-informed utterances are mistaken for profundity. Director:Hal Ashby |
|
| Watch Trailer 0Share... |
| Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
| Peter Sellers | ... | ||
| Shirley MacLaine | ... | ||
| Melvyn Douglas | ... |
Benjamin Rand
|
|
| Jack Warden | ... |
President 'Bobby'
|
|
| Richard Dysart | ... | ||
| Richard Basehart | ... |
Vladimir Skrapinov
|
|
|
|
Ruth Attaway | ... |
Louise
|
| David Clennon | ... |
Thomas Franklin
(as Dave Clennon)
|
|
|
|
Fran Brill | ... |
Sally Hayes
|
| Denise DuBarry | ... |
Johanna Franklin
|
|
|
|
Oteil Burbridge | ... |
Lolo
|
|
|
Ravenell Keller III | ... |
Abbaz
|
|
|
Brian Corrigan | ... |
Policeman by White House
|
|
|
Alfredine P. Brown | ... |
Old Woman asked for lunch
(as Alfredine Brown)
|
|
|
Don Jacob | ... |
David
(as Donald Jacob)
|
A simple-minded gardener named Chance has spent all his life in the Washington D.C. house of an old man. When the man dies, Chance is put out on the street with no knowledge of the world except what he has learned from television. After a run in with a limousine, he ends up a guest of a woman (Eve) and her husband Ben, an influential but sickly businessman. Now called Chauncey Gardner, Chance becomes friend and confidante to Ben, and an unlikely political insider. Written by Scott Renshaw <as.idc@forsythe.stanford.edu>
This film is an absolute jewel. The main character, played by Peter Sellers, is the exact opposite of the film itself. Chauncey/Chance is simple, vapid, unconcerned and utterly unselfconscious, yet he radiates an image of being ponderous, calculating, and complex. The film is deceptively straightforward and uncomplicated on the surface, but is rich and complex upon reflection. The film is very enigmatic (even the title seems to make no sense, even though it seems like it should) and lends itself to interpretation. This is one of those films that you have to talk about after seeing it, and you'll find endless points of view to consider. More than that, however, this film is historically fascinating. Taken as a whole, the movie, the book, the behind the scenes intrigue, the place it holds in the careers of the Stars, the writers and the directors, makes this an exceptionally interesting and enjoyable film.