Being There Film Critic By By Roger Ebert
Roger Ebert was a film critic for the Chicago Sun Times, from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Outstanding Criticism. This film review of "Rich is Coming" was written in 1997 (the year Kasparov lost to Deep Blue)
Original link:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-being-there-1979
On the day when the chess master Garry Kasparov lost to IBM's Deep Blue Computer, I recalled the 1979 movie "Wealthy and Rich" in my mind. The chess champion said that Deep Blue had something he couldn't understand, which scared him. In some moments, it was as if... it was thinking. It is true that chess is not a game of thinking, but a mathematical strategy; Deep Blue proves that chess is great without consciousness.
Whether computers can be designed to talk like humans has always been a classic proposition about AI. "Wealth is Coming" is a movie about a man whose mind functions like an underdeveloped AI program.
His mind was filled with simplified generalizations about the world, and he couldn't do without the garden language, because he had worked in the garden all his life. But because of the good upbringing he showed (his words and deeds are the same as the male owner of the mansion where he once lived, and he wears the owner's high-definition suit), his simplicity was misunderstood as great wisdom, and soon began to advise the president. Opinions, and become friends with the wealthy.
The protagonist's name is Chance. The audience can see that he has lived in a townhouse all his life looking after the garden for a wealthy solitary person (he may be the son of the male owner), and he knows all he needs to know about the daily affairs he has to deal with: his bedroom Where is the bathroom and how to take care of the plants in the garden, chef Louise will prepare three meals a day for him. The film did not give a medical diagnosis for his condition. He can respond to the clues given, and can adapt and learn in a very limited range.
In the first half of the movie, he introduced himself as "Chance...the gardener" and was misunderstood as "Chauncey Gardener"-the name that would appear in the white elite group and match his clothes, words and deeds. Then he was saying to the president: "Spring, summer, autumn, winter... and then spring again." Nothing wrong.
Peter Sellers plays Chance. This actor once told me that he has no character at all, he is a chameleon. When he is not acting, he is no one. Then of course he would feel that he is suitable for this role based on the novel written by Jerzy Kosinski. Sellers' interpretation of Chance is a person who has reconciled with himself. When the old master passed away and the original home no longer existed, Chance was kicked out. There is a classic scene of when he confronted someone who might be a robber, he took out the TV remote control and pressed against them. Turning the stage, I was surprised that they weren't transferred away.
In the movie, Chance played by Sellers has always maintained the same state. Aloof, calm, full of confidence in the knowledge he already has, and unaware of his limitations. With a series of wonderful opportunities (chances), he was taken to the home of a dying wealthy Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas). The wealthy wife Eve (Shirley MacLaine) arranged Chance in the guest suite. Chance was very happy that there was a TV in the room (his most classic line: "I like to watch").
Soon, the great man's favorability for his comforting friend soared. The wealthy family doctor (Richard Dysart) was very keen and suspicious of Chance, but after hearing the wealthy say that Chauncey had given him more relief about death, he remained silent. Ben introduced Chauncey to the president (Jack Warden), became an informal adviser to the president, and was interviewed on TV. His insights were just right in the limited space available for commentary on the live.
Irony is an endangered category in American movies. Even if it appears, it is usually just general and crude, just like in the Mel Brooks movie. "Wealth is Coming" directed by Hal Ashby is like a rare and dexterous bird that has found its own unique accent and maintained it. It has the shell of an ingenious puzzle game in which the hero survives a series of challenges that he does not understand using common and meaningless words. But are Chance's words obviously more useless than the president telling us "a bridge to the 21st century"? We must know that public speaking in our era is limited by (1) the need for a ten-second live TV commentary; (2) the desire to avoid being nailed to a specific declaration or promise; and (3) It is difficult for the audience to concentrate, just like Chance, although he likes to watch, is always ready to turn the stage with the remote control.
If Chance's little golden sentences reveal how shallow a public speech can be, it still doesn't reveal as much as his response. Because he was an Anglo-Saxon, middle-aged, decent, dressed in high-definition suits, and talked like an educated person, he was directly assumed to be a person with a solid material foundation. In fact, he is just a social idiot (Louise told him that he will always be a little boy who will never grow up), which led to his being misinterpreted as self-confidence, just like he directly called the president’s name. He also grabbed the president's hand with both hands. The film advocates that if you wear the right place (looks right), your name is right (listens right), talk politely, and make friends that are either rich or expensive, you can succeed in our society. At the end of the movie, Chance was seriously elected as the presidential candidate. Yes, why not? I once watched Senator Lamar Alexander at a New Hampshire restaurant for 45 minutes on C-SPAN. It was nothing Chance could not control.
The film is not without flaws. There are two minor episodes related to sex, which are not necessary. The impotence of the president can be completely cut off. Shirley MacLaine, as a wealthy wife, the strong part made her act stupid, she shouldn't. She is very smart, she should be able to see through like a doctor, there will be a lot of good shows, instead of lying on the bear blanket in an awkward position.
At the end of the hotly debated "Prosperity Coming", Chance walked on the lake casually. We can see that he is really walking on the water, because he bent down curiously and poked the umbrella underwater.
When I was teaching this movie, my students and I had countless discussions about this scene. Many forced to explain that he was walking on a hidden sandbank, the water was only half an inch deep, there was a dark pier, and so on. "Not valid!" I growled. "The movie presents us with a picture, you can discuss the meaning of the picture, but you are not allowed to arrange an explanation for it. The director does not show us a dark pier, then there is no dark pier-the movie is just as it shows the audience, and there is nothing else. ." Wait a minute. [*But the translator, I suddenly felt that what the students said made sense, because it corresponds to the protagonist walking in the middle of the lane with endless streams on both sides when he left the mansion for the first time. That is for us in society. It’s not for walking at all, but the protagonist will feel safe and walkable, so he will leave. He doesn’t have the solidified logic that we have. Therefore, the section where he walks on the water can also be regarded as he found there. It is possible to go, but not on either side, so he left. It’s just that we, no, people who grew up in a biblical environment can only think of...Jesus from common sense]
So what did he show us? It shows us that Chance is doing things that only one person has involved in human history. What else can we think? Chance is Jesus? The wisdom of the prophet has its appearance? Can we find anything we want to pursue in politics and religion? Like BB bird (also defeated gravity) will not fall unless he realizes that he is going to fall? [*When I was young, this setting in the animation refreshed my understanding of the world. Baidu Encyclopedia: Whenever chasing to the edge of a cliff, the BB bird is not affected by gravity (the effect of the wings?), but the crooked wolf falls The cliff fell to the ground. And many times, the crooked wolf will be allowed to hang in mid-air for a short while, until he realizes that he is about to fall off the cliff]
The metaphor of the movie is very alert. Is there a possibility that we are all just clever gardeners Chance? We have been trained since childhood to be able to respond automatically to the words and concepts given to us? We never really think for ourselves, but repeat the content that is effective for others on corresponding occasions?
The last line in the movie is: Life depends on mentality. So the computer is not alive. But limited by our own procedures, neither are we. The point is not whether computers can one day think like humans, but whether we can stop thinking like computers.
over
The reason I like this film review so much that I roll up my sleeves and translate it is that those guru, so-called masters, are not the same. And those who have made a lot of money/have a lot of fame and fortune, but are superstitious, are they not like the powerful people around Chance. This is what they want, a person like Chance can bring them spiritual comfort. What an empty life. (Of course, at the same time, this is also a movie that can be related to conspiracy theories, mysterious organizations, and whether Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing movie. After all, the music of the 2001 Space Odyssey was also used, and the hero of Dr. Strange Ai also used... …)
In fact, I feel that my Chinese can no longer be controlled, such as the agility in this review, and I don't want to go too far.
On the day that Kasparov was defeated by Deep Blue, I found myself thinking of the film "Being There" (1979).
You see this expression is particularly eloquent & elegant. on the day of xxxx or on the day that xxxxxx, i found myself xxxx. This artistic conception/picture sense is there. To some extent, it's like I was in pain after being run over by a car, but it was so painful that I didn't feel the pain itself anymore, but was dispersed into other sensations, in other parts. This expression has a little bit of that kind of mood. Obviously it is a sad moment as a human being, but the psychological mechanism is based on the defensive instinct and distracts itself from the imagination of "Fortune is Coming". How do I translate the implicit feeling of the original text. I can’t read it out, and I will feel that I am not better enough, so the matter of translation is not very suitable for me.
Roger Ebert has a lot of strong writing styles, of course, because it was 1997, he was an old man in the traditional sense, writing film reviews for paper media, and extremely despised TV. For example, this paragraph:
Chauncey is introduced by Ben to the president (Jack Warden), becomes an unofficial advisor, and soon is being interviewed on television, where his insights fit nicely into the limited space available for sound bites.
his insights fit nicely into the limited space available for sound bites is particularly domineering. The thing about TV is extremely ridiculous. If the brain can speak the degree of Chance, it can fit nicely. This Nima looks down on TV nakedly. This way of writing is very chewy for me.
And this paragraph:
By the end of the film, Chance is being seriously proposed as a presidential candidate. Well, why not? I once watched Lamar Alexander for 45 minutes on C-SPAN, as he made small talk in a New Hampshire diner, and heard nothing that Chance could not have said.
Early in the film he introduces himself as "Chance... The gardener,'' and is misunderstood as having said "Chauncey Gardener.'' Just the sort of WASP name that matches his clothing and demeanor, and soon he is telling the President : "Spring, summer, autumn, winter... Then spring again.'' Indeed.
You look at the last indeed, it's especially mocking. It's the kind of indeed. Are you a mockery of nonsense?
In the much-discussed final sequence of "Being There,'' Chance casually walks onto the surface of a lake. We can see that he is really walking on the water, because he leans over curiously and sticks his umbrella down into it.
Chance casually walks onto the surface of a lake. Casually is very niubility, who can walk casually on the water. Jesus (but this is not the point), the point is this profile. In the movie, it is indeed the protagonist who casually walks on the water. Anyway, casually+ has done some very dreadful things, which is very pretentious. Did some small work.
When I taught the film, I had endless discussions with my students over this scene. Many insisted on explaining it: He is walking on a hidden sandbar, the water is only half an inch deep, there is a submerged pier, etc. "Not valid!'' I thundered. "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 a pier, there is no pier-- a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more,'' etc.
I don't think it is good for me to turn the floor, it means invalid. But when a teacher shouted "NOT VALID!" to the students who were discussing in class, he was establishing an effective boundary for the discussion. The roar of BUT was a roar that made everyone shut up! Shut up with the border! It's more like "No!/Don't hold invalid discussions!" But it really turns into "No!/Don't hold invalid discussions!" It's also wrong/lengthy, and it loses the brilliance of NOT VALID.
So what does it show us? It shows us Chance doing something that is primarily associated with only one other figure in human history. What are we to assume? That Chance is a Christ figure? That the wisdom of great leaders only has the appearance of meaning? That we find in politics and religion whatever we seek? That like the Road Runner (who also defies gravity) he will not sink until he understands his dilemma?
The movie's implications are alarming. Is it possible that we are all just clever versions of Chance the gardener? That we are trained from an early age to respond automatically to given words and concepts? That we never really think out much of anything for ourselves, but are content to repeat what works for others in the same situation?
The last words in the movie are, "Life is a state of mind." So no computer will ever be alive. But to the degree that we are limited by our programming, neither will we. The question is not whether a computer will ever think like a human, but whether we choose to free ourselves from thinking like computers.
The last three paragraphs are very essence and thought-provoking. #The essence of human beings is a repeater. My own thinking about guru. Are we living in simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation. Are we just a small program dont panic but how to save ourselves (anyway I have happily married and live in ever after , So these are not things I need to overthink, hee hee manual funny. jpg)
View more about Being There reviews
