Taking a Chance

by Terry Snyder

The movie I chose for this week is Being There. It was directed by Hal Ashby and starred Peter Sellers. It was released in December, 1979. It tells the story of a simple gardener who has lived a cloistered life in a Washington D.C. home his entire existence. When “the old man” dies, he is told he has to leave by a couple of attorneys who show up at the house. He packs a suitcase and starts walking. His life is changed when he is hit by a wealthy person’s car and he ends up at their home, where he inadvertently becomes a famous political advisor.

The parallels between this movie and what was going on politically in 1979 somewhat relate to the president, Jimmy Carter, who, like the character of Chance, is soft-spoken and a gentleman. But Chance really is a simple man who cannot read or write, and was mainly raised on television. He was a gardener at the house where he was raised and most of his opinions are based on gardening. But they are perceived by the people that are listening to him as much more profound as they really are. It becomes a case of some well-meaning people interpreting what he says in a good way to others exploiting him for their own gain. 

The president has his staff try to investigate his background and they are unable to find anything and eventually it gets blamed on some agency destroying his file for reasons unknown. In this day and age of instant access to anyone’s entire life, it seems dated, yet, as sometimes happens today, his words are used by some as wisdom and others as a reason for paranoia. Especially the media, who immediately request interviews and put him on talk shows and bob their heads like puppets, agreeing with everything Chance says. Despite the fact that most of his references are monosyllabic and only refer to gardening, he is described as having the ear of the president and a potential financial advisor to a large company. Even the Shirley McClain character finds herself falling all over him, when he obviously doesn’t have the slightest idea what she has in mind. 

I don’t think this movie is especially particular to the time it was made; it could very well happen now, because of the media and everyone being so anxious to latch onto “the next big thing”. Chance’s abilities get more exaggerated as more people talk about him and I can easily see various security agencies blaming others for hiding his background and then dreaming up ludicrous reasons for doing so. 

I had never seen this movie, and as I watched it, I was waiting for Chance to do something that would give away who he really was, an uneducated gardener who based his life on what he saw on television. But it didn’t happen. I think the filmmakers saw this as an extreme satire on politicians and the media at the time, of course not knowing that it would become common place. In the years since 1979, there have been many people who have exploded into the limelight for a few months or a year and then just as quickly disappear. Usually they are phonies or con men who manage to deceive to public and the media, but this movie shows an innocent, unassuming man who probably doesn’t even realize that he is famous or that he is being talked about as a visionary. 

In Film Comedy, author Geoff King says, “Chance the gardener becomes Chauncey Gardiner, a presidential advisor, chat-show guest and prospective future incumbent of the highest office, in a withering satire on politics, the media and the trope of childlike innocence/insight so widely employed in Hollywood comedy.” At the time the movie was made, that was certainly true, but now that there are many persons famous for absolutely nothing, it doesn’t seem as withering. But Peter Sellers played the part to absolute perfection. The way he spoke, smiled and was totally honest in his statements regardless of how others took them, made the film very believable. 

I am sure the ending has been interpreted many ways, but I think it means that, despite no one watching him at the time, they all thought he could walk on water, so he did.