They Came to Coddle: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977)

closeencounters1      Steven Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is dazzling when it is showcasing the talents of special effects designer Douglas Trumbull and his crew but falls precipitously on the scale of artistic ambition when the focus in more often redirected at that peskiest of ingredients in science fiction: human beings. So just imagine the disappointment when decades of labors and countless billions of dollars have been shuttled into the exploration of space to answer the question as to whether or not wecloseencountersOS are alone, and to find the answer is no: we are sharing the universe with the patrons of an intergalactic Chuck E. Cheese whose denizens are only interested in our species as long as they can grab the most irresponsibly infantile of the bunch whose ideal of a keen sense of mature scientific curiosity finds its foundation in the lyrics of a song made famous by Jiminy Cricket. A Spielbergian wet dream if there ever was one.

     The film begins by jumping around the hemisphere recording incidents most accurately identifiable as extraterrestrial  j.d. pranksterism: an airliner is buzzed by a U.F.O. to the career distressed chagrin of it’s pilot; in Mexico, a squad of missing World War II fighter planes is found pristinely intact in the desert, and most importantly (at least for the purposes of the film’s inevitable focus) the city of Muncie, Indiana, for some inexplicable reason never explained, becomes the fulcrum of extraterrestrial interest, subjecting the citizens to a series of incidents including a massive power blackout, a sadistically harrowing episode of child abduction and several traffic violations, plus selectively chosen mental implants resulting in a psychic intrusion to the film’s lead character who is already more than a little childish when we first meet him; his only frame of reference when attempting to pry his sleeping kids away from their beds to join in a nocturnal chase of spaceships is that “it’s better than Goofy Golf”, one of many blatant reminders of the Land of Disney so deliberately planted in the film that it’s unclear that when the ship does arrives the departing specimens might not be a rodent named Mickey  followed by an army of dancing brooms.

      This character is Muncie power department employee Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) whose effects from the subconscious implantation are manifesting into a manic obsession with geological protrusions while simultaneously disintegrating his obnoxious domestic situation. (If Neary is emotionally immature, then his wife is portrayed as a scattered, unsympathetic nitwit; a particularly unflattering portrait of the “average” American household as envisioned by the writer-director.) This storyline is juxtaposed with that of a globetrotting team of scientists, led by Frenchman Claude Lacombe (Francois Truffaut), who set about collecting random evidence of close encounters with extraterrestrials at evidently a moment’s notice. (It’s never explained how closeencounters1this group is always seemingly just minutes away from these intergalactic manifestations.) It becomes very clear early in the film that Spielberg’s interest lie more with his perverse view of everyman as everychild and so the bulk of the film’s attention centers on dreary Neary whose compulsive behavior oddly isn’t all that different from the habitually distracted character we’re introduced to (pre-encounter) and whose inability to maintain any appreciable level of cognitive thinking makes him a dubious choice at best to eventually represent the human race on an intergalactic student exchange.

To read the complete review, click the following link to: https://chandlerswainreviews.wordpress.com/nites-at-the-shoppers-world-cinema/

Advertisements

About chandlerswainreviews

I've been a puppet, a pirate, a pauper, a poet, a pawn and a king, not necessarily in that order. My first major movie memory was being at the drive-in at about 1 1/2 yrs. old seeing "Sayonara" so I suppose an interest in film was inevitable. (For those scoring at home- good for you- I wasn't driving that evening, so no need to alert authorities.)Writer, critic and confessed spoiler of women, as I have a tendency to forget to put them back in the refrigerator. My apologies.
This entry was posted in 1970's movies, Culture, Film, Film Reviews, Francois Truffaut, movie reviews, Movies, Reviews, science fiction and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to They Came to Coddle: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977)

  1. asipofpop says:

    The depiction of the wife as “a scattered, unsympathetic nitwit” angered me. If my husband quit his job and shoveled dirt into the sink, I’d hit him over the head with the shovel, Psycho II-style.

    • Sorry for your distress, but the description is accurate. I am not referring to Ronnie’s eventual abandonment of Roy which is certainly understandable when the bricks start flying through the kitchen window, but all of her earlier behavior in which she barely seems to form a coherent sentence. (If your husband awoke with half of a face sunburned, wouldn’t it tickle your curiosity even a bit?) The depiction of Ronnie is entirely brainless and whiny (by the way, Neary doesn’t quit, he is fired) spouting nonsense about taco shells but without the slightest impulse to help a husband who is clearly on the verge of mental collapse, nor to display a maturity more advanced than the average twelve-year-old. This is typical of Spielberg films in which the scarcity of mature, realistic women is problematic (only Golda Meir and Mary Lincoln emerge with any memorable distinction, both courtesy of writer Tony Kushner and history) and goes to the larger issue with his films: the dearth of mature adult relationships. If you look at the behavior at the more devastatingly affected Jillian, she is far more composed in temperament than Ronnie who has to be unsympathetically disposable by design in order to excuse Neary’s later willing discarding of his family by going with the aliens. (Does anyone else notice that spousal and child abandonment is thoughtlessly promoted in the film’s “happy ending” conclusion?)

  2. tashpix says:

    I like Close Encounters more than you apparently, but I still love your review.

  3. Rick says:

    I’ve never seen Close Encounters, but I may have to just to see how bad it is.

    • Rick, not that I would ever presume to influence another’s judgment ( who me?? what?!?) but I would be interested to hear what you think about the movie if you have the occasion to see it. (Big screen a must.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s