Being There (d: H. Ashby, 1979)

All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by Hal Erickson
Having lived his life as the gardener on a millionaire's estate, Chance (Peter Sellers) knows of the real world only what he has seen on TV. When his benefactor dies, Chance walks aimlessly into the streets of Washington D.C., where he is struck by a car owned by wealthy Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine). Identifying himself, the confused man mutters "Chance...gardener," which Eve takes to be "Chauncey Gardiner." Eve takes him to her home to convalesce, and because Chance is so well-dressed and well-groomed, and because he speaks in such a cultured tone, everyone in her orbit assumes that "Chauncey Gardiner" must be a man of profound intelligence. No matter what he says, it is interpreted as a pearl of wisdom and insight. He rises to the top of Washington society, where his simplistic responses to the most difficult questions (responses usually related to his gardening experience) are highly prized by the town's movers and shakers. In fact, there is serious consideration given to running Chance as a presidential candidate. Both a modern fable and a political satire, Being There was based on the novel by Jerzy Kosinski and costars Melvyn Douglas, who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar as Eve's aging power-broker husband.

Being There is what's considered Ashby's last great film. I haven't seen any of his subsequent films, but I can say that this is indeed a great film. For those that can get into the groove of his film (because it can be slow and non-action oriented), it opens up into a very sly satire that still seems as current as the day it was made.

Peter Sellers shows that he can put away his "silly face" and play a character straight and subtly. This is not the Sellers of the Pink Panther series. The comedy in this film does not come from what Sellers does, as much as it comes from reaction from what he does. Misinterpretation is a big theme in this film, as the film also is rich with images and stories rich for interpretation. I really need to watch this film another time in order to go into specifics.

The ending of the film is one of many interpretations. Roger Ebert comments on this in his review of the film in his Great Movies series. I invite you to watch the film, read Roger's review, and tell me what you think.