The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, March 12, 1980, Page Page 8, Image 9
Seeing is bell
By David Baker
Gamecock Staff Writer
While visiting the set of Being There in Asheville,
M O tliio o T tiroo imnraccoH Kxf Hiropfrtr
i "N . , tlllO J/U31 lVACtlV.ll, 1 WOO Illlpl V/OOVV4 KfJ uu vvvvi
Hal Ashbys grasping for perfection in every aspect
of the filmmaking process. Ashby left nothing, but
nothing, to chance, even if it meant spending more
than six hours to ensure that a room was properly
ugniea or mai a specmc snoi nau me t-xaui now ?uu
framing Ashby wanted it to have.
AS SCENES were filmed, they also were
videotaped, and if Ashby didn't like what he saw on
the playback, the scenes were filmed and videotaped
again.
Richard Dysart, who plays Dr. Robert Allenby in
tho film said that .Jerzv Kosinski's scriDt. based on
his 1971 novel, was being strictly adhered to, though
Chance the gardner, (Peter Sellers) tends
his well kept garden in 'Being There'
Ashby was not, by any means, ruling out improvisation
during rehearsals. Indeed, two extremely
funny lines ad libbed by Peter Sellers the day
1 was there are still in the film.
IMPRESSED AS I was during the filming, I admire
Ashby and Co. even more, now that I've seen the
finished picture. With the exception of its length (130
minutes is just too long for a comedy, expecially
when the book upon which it is based is only 118
pages), Being There is virtually a perfect film.
Not one false note is struck by a single performer,
no technical aspect of the movie falls short ol
magnificence, and Kosinski's script is filled with sc
many humorous moments that it isn't until well aftei
-**' #936 BBiB
*( wmmmmm
Peter Sellers and co-star Shirley Mac Lain
'Being There'.
eving,but 'Bei
one sees the film that he realizes that 90 percent of its
comedy is derived from a single joke.
The joke in question is that, by quoting the only two
things he knows (gardening and television), a
mentally retarded man can rise from nothingness to
political prominence in the space of a week precisely
because he has no past to hold him down.
With the 1980 presidential campaigns in full swing,
the idea is a timely one and, thanks to an astounding
performance from Peter Sellers, it's not exactly
unbelievable, either.
THE PICTURE opens with the death of the Old
Man, a wealthy Washingtonian who has kept his
gardener, Chance (Sellers), locked within the confines
of his estate since he was a child. In all that
time, Chance never learned to read or write, so what
little knowledge he possesses came straight from
either the television or the garden.
When the Old Man's estate is closed, Chance has
nowhere to go but into the streets of Washington,
where he's promptly hit by the limousine owned by
Eve Hand (Shirley MacLaine), who takes him home
with her to recuperate.
BOTH EVE and her husband Ben (Melvyn
Douglas), a rich industrialist and part-time
presidential advisor, fall in love with Chance (whose
name they've misunderstood to be Chauncey Gardiner),
and Ben is soon inviting him to meet with the
President (Jack Warden).
Chance's simple statements about gardening sound
like metaphors for the sinking U.S. economy to the
J - I i /II ?l.nt
president, wno quotes nuance in a spceuu iaici mni
evening. Almost immediately, Chance is talked into
appearing on a television talk show and the mass
media have a new hero, whose snowballing
popularity starts making things pretty frigid in the
bedroom at the White House.
f ASH BY TELLS the story through a myriad of
i medium-length and wide-angle shots, with a star[
tlingly small number of closeups. The framing of
every shot is deliberate, unmoving, seemingly held
down by the trappings of wealth which surround each
of the film's major characters. The awesome look is
different from any film I've seen before and the look
fits the subject matter perfectly, even though it
supresses, to a small extent, the film's comedic tone.
Caleb Deschanel's dark, moody cinematography is
another highlight of the film, as is Johnny Mandel's
score, which makes use of Eumir Deodato's"Also
Sprach Zarathustra" in a way I'm sure the makers
o(2001: A Space Odyssey never dreamed possible.
Being There is an extraordinary piece of filmmaking,
easily the best movie in town. It has been
nominated for two Academy Awards (Sellers for Best
Actor, Douglas for Best Supporting Actor), and it
[ deserves them both and a half-dozen others besides. I
> can't conceive of anyone who would not be charmed
by what the movie is and by what it has to say.
;; JIM; ,:^#^
'6 pay attention to political conversation in
inqThere' is better
t|g| M " ?* m m - :
^
Richard Dysart prepares to administer an injection
to Peter Sellers after he had been involved in a minor
automobile accident.
r ???I
Reviewing the
reviewer
I From time to time in the writing of this column, I have felt the need
to correct some of the more glaring inaccuracies set forth by The
State art critic, Martha Beaver. Never have I made these corrections
in malice, nor should today's column be interpreted as an indictment
of the individual in question. Yet because of her continued
I abuses and truly aggressive and gross generalizations, something
j must be said of not only critical responsibility, but of the irreparable
damage such criticism causes.
On the surface, it would appear that Beaver simply does not unf
inn irt nponn/in wistlrl rvi iKI i r%
UCidldllU lUC fiuwui Ui utiticioiAi. V/iiiita, aii \;oocuv,u, mviu puwnv,
opinion by articulating and substantiating through attribution, the
more subjective response of the general populace. A critic, for instance,
cannot simply say he likes or dislikes, he must qualify his
responses with reasons, he must cling to his objectivity, he must
consider the impact of his words. This impact is the power of
criticism, for reviews can cut short the run of a play, make or break
revenue at the box office, and on the personal level, elevate or
destroy the careers of artists , writers or performers.
MY PERSONAL FEELING is that Beaver, who has had a long
career in journalism, knows well of the responsibilities I speak of,
and resorts to critical incompetency less out of ignorance, and more
out of the inability to deal with specific aspects of the field she j
covers. She is thus, absurdly predictable, with her redundant praise
of realism and her cutting jabs of non-objective works, she makes it
clear that she possesses no vocabulary or understanding of the
I latter. In effect, this is like a theatre critic who only likes musicals because
of the singing and dancing - and despises drama, simply ]
because it has none.
I Recently the problem has become more accute, for Beaver has
resorted to a brand of journalism that utilizes single, sensational
"one liners" to summarize work she can't come to terms with. She j
did this in January when she reviewed the Guild's Award Show at the
Columbia Museums (which in my estimation was one of the best
rounded and nicely presented exhibits of regional art in recent
history). With lines like, "Geff Heed is displaying woven clay
nothings in siv nurts " Or "Wannv Alhocftftn'c hlAHoi*
D? ... ,u. I 11UIIVJ lUULIMllli O IIUUUIUUUV UJUIWI [
paper has been torn into strips and preserved for the next generation
of cavemen behind plastic", clearly displays Beaver's inability to
seriously deal with the work.
\ IN LAST SUNDAY'S paper, Beaver again dives to a new low in her
| review of the Artist's Guild of Columbia Annual Spring Show. She
I begins by attacking a stunning work by Bill Dooley; "There's the all
I white board with brackets holding a clear plastic strip by Bill
Dooley. It's called "After Wash", and it might have been more interesting
if the wash had still been hanging there."
Dooley's work, in light of Beaver's comments, make a good case in
| point, for his work deals (ironically enough) with perception. It is j
i obvious that Beaver spent little or no time actually looking at the
| work, for if she had, she would have surely noticed that the strip is j
not plastic, but glass. In fact, plastic would simolv not work for
- ?*--?/ y *
IDooley s constructions rely on the interaction of light and glass in the ?
. creation of innumerable projected lines. She is also wrong in
referring to an "all-white board", for on the back of each bracket are
brilliant colors, that, like the lines, reflect upon the board in beautiful
cuhtlptv
There is a joke in the local art community, that if Beaver pans your j
work, then you must be doing something right. Although good for an j
H ironic laugh, the joke is a sour one, for as many people that see
S through her inept criticism, there is an equally large group that
believes it dogmatically. Herein lies the damage, for rather than
promoting understanding and insight into our own serious regional
art, she is discrediting it with unsubstantiated sensationalism.