Being There

It is probably sacrilege to some people, but I did not like Being There. I understand that many people think very highly of the movie. I also recognize that there are many comedic performers and writers I think very highly of who consider this movie influential on their sense of humor. Yet, setting all that aside, my honest and unvarnished opinion is that about 20-30% of the movie is genuinely funny and the rest is not only lacking in comedy, but is a bit of a dreary bore to get through.

For a comedy, the movie is strangely fixated on sadness. The movie is deeply, deeply awash in a kind of prevailing melancholy. The movie starts with a death, ends with a death, and the main through-line of the story concerns itself with, in large part, a man with a tragic chronic illness that is slowly dying on screen. While this doesn’t totally kill the ability to generate laughs, it certainly puts a damper on the mood.

The movie is also fairly slow, which helps the audience really feel like they are wallowing in that sense of sadness. The central satirical trick of the film is in positioning Peter Sellers’ character Chance, a child-like simpleton raised and educated by television, in the right place and time to continually fail upwards through the hallowed halls of business, economics, and even politics. Chance offering simplistic or folksy answers that are mistaken for deep is a common manifestation of this particular trick. The problem is that to get there, a lot of celluloid is spent drifting through the story about as purposefully as Chance drifts through his life.

Still, that central satirical idea has its moments. In fact, the parts where the movie is funny are often very funny. Beyond the satirical conceit, there is plenty of clever writing throughout (and especially in the more comedically-oriented middle section) to bolster the humorous absurdity of it all. For example, the movie loves to play with Chance’s television obsession by setting up juxtapositions between the television Chance is watching and what the others around him are experiencing in real life. I don’t want to spoil it, but perhaps the most hysterical piece in the whole movie involves Chance watching TV while another character attempts to engage him romantically and the way that the channel surfing Chance and the actions of his romantically minded companion dovetail together is simply sublime. It is just that, on the whole, this kind of laugh out loud content makes up a disappointingly small fraction of the movie.

The humor of the second act is fleeting, too, as it eventually gives way to sadness again as the movie barrels towards its inevitable third act. The ending, in particular, is an area I found full of problems. For starters, the conclusion to the film’s cynical satire was entirely too predictable. Perhaps there is no better way to close out Chance’s path of failing upwards, but it also isn’t going to surprise or delight me when I can see that particular “twist” coming from a mile away. On the other end of things, the conclusion to the non-satirical part of Chance’s story is completely befuddling. It offers some kind of faux-mystique around the main character, perhaps asking you to question the nature of either him or the realism of the story. It brings in religious iconography that feels completely out of left field and inappropriate. The more you think about how these things fit in with the rest of the movie, the more it seems to make both the logic and symbolic construction of the movie unravel. It is all just so odd.

Being There seems to want to have a lot to say about the corrosive nature of television on the nation’s collective intelligence (reminiscent of Fahrenheit 451); about the vapid and self serving nature of politics and business; about how empty people are perfectly happy to reflect emptiness back while mistaking it for wisdom; and about death, dying, and the purpose of life. I just don’t think it really succeeds at doing any of those things particularly well. As a comedy, it is very funny for a moderate portion of the second act and a complete dud for the rest. As a piece of philosophy, it never came across as nearly as clever as it thinks it is. Its pace is lethargic and its satire superseded by better, more scathing and expertly written works like Wag the Dog or In The Loop.

Perhaps the true answer to understanding this movie is as cinematic Vegemite. The people that love it, really love it. The people that don’t, think it’s kind of off putting and don’t get the hype. I am definitely in that second camp. I can appreciate the times it made me laugh. I can appreciate that just about every actor in the movie brought their absolute A game. I just struggle to understand why it has the appeal it does with the people who love it so dearly.

Would Recommend: If you are interested in some real divisive, experimental comedy.

Would Not Recommend: If you just want to laugh and have a good time.