The more I watch movies, the more I'm convinced that "Being There" has one of the most perfect endings ever made. It is spiritually and emotionally overwhelming. And I think it's a shame that Peter Sellers didn't win the Academy Award he was nominated for!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bow1ZJTV4L4
"Sister, sister, oh so fair, why is there blood all over your hair?"
Indeed. One of the greatest endings of all time. It's not really a twist ending as much as it is a very thought-provoking commentary on our life and society. The fact that it was unplanned (!) and the director had the idea for it just a few days before making it, really is even more astonishing.
shareI didn't know it was unplanned!
I finished reading the book today (a short novel), and despite being very beautiful, I prefer the movie instead. I feel that Jerzy Kosinski decided to elaborate the screenplay in ways he didn't do with the book. By the way, the ending in the film is much more uplifting than in the novel.
I prefer the movie as well. The book was very good, but this movie is the real deal. The ending in the book was vague and incomplete, while the movie ending was spot on. Robert C. Jones actually re-wrote and gave the screenplay the structure it needed, so much that some think he should be given 50 % of credit for it together with Kosinski.
shareI agree the ending is just perfect. The first time I saw it blew me away. I was like YES! Chance is almost like Jesus. I love this film. It works on so many levels and Sellers should have won the Oscar over Hoffman for Kramver vs Kramer (even though that's a greart film too)
shareThe scene is supposed to remind the viewer of the story about Jesus walking on water, but Chance doesn't actually walk on water. It's a stretch to say he is "almost like Jesus." The scene is there to show how lucky he is and to make a joke about how people view him. Chance - get it?
My real name is Jeff
I think the ending was fine....but if you look at 70's cinema it was filled with the lead actor walking away from the camera with that moment open to interpretation....
So although I don't know if it was great or not....it wasn't 100% original and was a variation of a very common theme at that point.
A lot of movies end with main characters moving away from the camera, not just 70s ones.
The point was that he's able to walk on water, which I don't recall any other movie doing.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
No, the point was not that he was able to walk on water - he wasn't shown walking on water at the end of the movie. He was shown being very lucky in walking out on the only shallow part of the pond, which was surrounded by deep water on three sides. He put his cane in the water to test the depth of the water, thereby showing the viewer how lucky he was (again). His name was "Chance" for a reason.
My real name is Jeff
Well now, I'm going to have to point you towards Roger Ebert's explanation:
"The movie presents us with an image, and while you may discuss the meaning of the image, it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since Ashby does not show the pier, there is no pier -- a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more."
Now I want you to hold that between your knees.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
I am doing exactly as Ebert recommended. I am simply looking at what the movie shows. There is no image in the movie of Chance walking on water. The lack of supernatural happenstance is underlined by Chance testing the depth of the water. He would have no need to do that if he was able to walk on water.
My real name is Jeff
Chance is clearly shown walking on water. We know that Sellers was not walking on water, but the character was.
shareNo, he was very lucky and walked out into a shallow part of the lake - which is very consistent with the rest of the movie. Chance being a supernatural being who can walk on water is not at all consistent with the rest of the movie and makes no sense at all.
My real name is Jeff
I agree Forbidden10. I'm trying to think of a better ending for a movie and I cannot. Perhaps Casablanca.
shareI somehow feel that all the interpretations in this thread have a certain gravitas to them. With the "he is much like Jesus" being the weakest one, I have to say.
To me personally, it is a rather positive ending. Together with the last line of the movie "Life is a state of mind." it seems like Chance simply does not know any better. He has never seen anyone on TV walking on water in the same way he has never seen anyone NOT being able to do so. So he simply assumes: Why shouldn't he be able to walk on water. It has not been proven to him before that he can not.
So to sum it up: Life is what you think it is. Your life, your rules, you boundaries. Or: Life is a state of mind.
This theme is for example also echoed in the "love scene" between Chance and Eve. Only here Eve is the one who "makes things what she thinks they are": Sexually charged and passionate. Chance however could not give less of a s*#t. So all the tension she feels between herself and Chance is really nothing but a state of mind.
I agree in great part with your interpretation of the ending but would simplify it even more.
Chance doesn't assume he can walk on water and then do so. He walks on water, notices he is doing so, and then continues to do so.
Chance is just walking from here to there in a straight line. He doesn't register the lake in his path as an obstacle. When he notices he is walking on water he doesn't register walking on water as an impossibility.
There is no real thought process. It really is a state of mind.
Agree! It took me time to realise this, but this is one of my favorite films ever.
shareThe theme of the movie, as I see it, is projection. People project themselves onto Chance, and see in him what they wish to see.
I interpret the ending as ambiguous, and that it involves the audience to do what the characters in the movie have been doing throughout: search for meaning, interpret, and project.
It's as if we're invited by the filmmakers to ask, "what does the ending mean", only for the filmmaker to turn around and ask us, "what do YOU think it means?"
Dave
I agree with you ^.
People in the movie just project their own ideas on the reactions of chance. Why they do so ? In my view answer lies in that we interpret the situation in a way that pleases us. It is human psychology to approach an ambiguous situation in a way that makes sense. So, every time chance behaves in the peculiar way , the person on the other side projects his ideas on to him. The only person to be able to see clearly was the Doctor.