Skip to main content

Is he a pig? He sure eats like one.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
(1982)

(SPOILERS) I didn’t really care that I didn’t get to see E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial at the cinema. Quite reasonably, my parents demurred from accompanying me, considering the title character to be hideous (he is, which is why he didn’t feature on any of the initial promotional materials). Although I was just the right age (10-ish) for the creature’s indelicate charms, and well remember the merchandising accessorised by many a classmate (mostly in the form of lunchboxes), I wasn’t that fascinated. It (he) didn’t hold the lure of Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark. The movie was about kids, and it didn’t seem terribly exciting. So I’m presuming it wasn’t until 1990 (its BBC Christmas Day screening – and world TV premiere) that I finally caught up with the little guy. And yes, E.T.’s a likeable, well-made little movie, one with its glowing red heart in the right place. Just the kind of archetypal fare one expects from Steven Spielberg.  But, like many a box office champ, whatever it was everyone else responded so strongly to escaped me. Ultimately, I was only very vaguely affected.


And I don’t think that’s because E.T.’s trying too hard to tug the heartstrings (although John Williams score really doesn’t know when to hold back, and despite that signature theme, is definitely one of his weaker efforts). As master a manipulator as Spielberg is, it’s not like he planned the movie to be the (at one time) all-time box office champ. Or had a Lucas-like master plan for how the merchandising would permeate every aspect of culture (for a period that seemed to last a decade but definitely wasn’t). It was simply his magic touch.


No, I think it’s just that I wasn’t inspired to care very much for E.T. himself. Perhaps this was simply the legacy of parental disapproval in operation, but that didn’t usually hold sway. True, there is the aspect of straightforward aesthetics; this isn’t like Gremlins, where the far less vital (to the lifeblood of the movie) Gizmo is thoroughly delightful (Terry Gilliam considers the key to E.T.’s appeal is the “big Walter Keane moonstone eyes”, arguing the challenge would have been to make Elliot love a creature with eyes like frogs’). But it isn’t really because Carlo Rambaldi’s creation resembles “an animated dog-turd crossed with a vacuum cleaner” (John Walker, the Film Yearbook Volume 2). It’s that he fails to move me, except maybe when he’s lying face down in a drainage ditch (drunk again, no doubt). E.T.’s a preternatural child, arriving on Earth equipped with vast technology but possessed of the emotional faculties of the boy he befriends. He proceeds to get irresponsibly pissed-up, fall down, eat bits of metal and shout excitedly at inopportune moments (thus endangering himself) when he should know better. He’s a bit of a doofus, basically.


I guess that, because I merely think the movie’s good, rather than awesome, I have no soul, certainly if the AFI is anything to go by (it comes in at number six on their list of most inspiring films which, to be fair, isn’t interchangeable with most sentimental). There’s certainly much to admire here, not least the instinctive facility with which Spielberg knows just how to unspool his yarn. He’s completely unhurried, confident the audience will remain with him throughout (I admit it, there are times I can feel the picture dragging, which I suspect is a consequence of his dropping the storyboards and going with the flow), and conceits that might be distractions work splendidly (until Peter Coyote’s Peter Pan-father surrogate rocks up, the only adult whose face we see is Dee Wallace, and she can be trusted because she’s the mum; at least, she can be trusted until she reacts like every other mum in the world did on clapping eyes on E.T. and pulls her kids away).


The picture isn’t perfect technically – not least in terms of puppetry, which even at the time was inferior to Lucas’ galaxy-spanning fare and had more in common with Bruce from Jaws in terms of the seams showing – and with nearly 35 years distance it doesn’t feel as fresh as it did, but its key attraction is exploring a child’s world unburdened by artifice. Where the Spielberg-produced The Goonies a few years later was mostly just a lot of noise, the kids here behave like proper kids (complete with the very un-U Certificate “penis breath”).


Henry Thomas may be centre stage – and he’s fine for the most part, even if too much is occasionally placed on his shoulders, such as Elliot’s ruse to fashion an escape for E.T., which plays more like kids’ TV – but Robert McNaughton and Drew Barrymore are more than his equals. McNaughton as initially belittling big brother Michael turns out to be supportive in all the correct and crucial ways, while Barrymore’s adorable moppet Gertie very nearly steals the show from the central Elliot-E.T. relationship when she gets to spend the day with the turd-like-vacuum cleaner. Together, the trio form a very naturalistic bond of teasing, bickering and sibling support, crucially within a broken home that informs the setting without ever overwhelming it or getting in the way.


Dee Wallace too, post-werewolf, pre-mad dog, and pre-pre-Critters, is at her most sympathetic as deserted mother Mary (riiiiight) having to contend with kids who unfairly idolise their absent father (gone to Mexico with his new woman). Spielberg’s skill here, through Melissa Matheson’s screenplay, is presenting the new norm, the broken home, in a manner that fits sweetly with the themes of the story; E.T. arrives as a companion when Elliot needs him most, and the family find a common bond that supplants the pain of loss.


That Elliot doesn’t go off with the little goblin at the end, in response to E.T.’s invitation, can only be taken as Spielberg atoning for Close Encounters of the Third Kind; Roy Neary leaving his family may as well be Elliot’s dad, Mexico another galaxy. The adult with the childlike obsession, Coyote’s Keys, hangs around. Who knows, perhaps in due course he fills a ready-made gap for an absent dad.


As such, Spielberg’s film couldn’t resolve itself more differently from another huge hit (albeit relatively much less so) featuring a child protagonist from the year before. Spielberg chooses the comforts of home and the security of order restored at the end of E.T., even if the actual departure of the alien is a bittersweet moment. Time Bandits finds Kevin returned home, following an uncondescending adventure that calls into question the very underpinnings of notions of good and evil, to find his parents have been reduced to charred lumps of coal. But then, Gilliam’s never been the sentimentalist; that’s what gives his films greater resonance, beyond the quick fix that’s Spielberg’s candy-coloured sugar rush confection.


Matheson and Spielberg throw several smart ideas in the mix, not least the symbiotic connection between alien and boy. This allows Elliot, for all his ordinariness, to become special and chosen by virtue of his connection with the visitor (now, Elliot really would be special). Close Encounters found the ‘berg rehashing his childhood by referencing Pinocchio, and here he’s doing the Disney again with Peter Pan, from Coyote’s boy who won’t grow up, to E.T. himself, the eternal child from a Never Never Land who teaches a real boy to fly. The best scene in the film might be Mary reading JM Barrie’s novel to Gertie while Elliot and E.T. bond in another room; it’s a perfect blend of language, image and emotion that could so easily have coalesced into a saccharine lump.


The class scene, for example, where Elliot gets drunk via E.T. then releases all the frogs (see the Gilliam comment above), finds a director brimming with ideas, but perhaps overstretching himself. Certainly, the kiss homage to The Quiet Man is cute in concept, but fails to display the musicality, the effortlessness it needs. It’s too ornate and manufactured (I know some love it, but this kind of play is usually better realised when fully integrated, such as in the opening to Spielberg’s next film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom).


Much of where E.T. succeeds is through keeping things deceptively simple; the motif with the withered and rejuvenated flowers, for example, is far more potent that E.T.’s glowing chest or pen torch finger. So too, E.T.’s promise “I’ll be right here” is simple and direct, notably pointing to Elliot’s third eye, rather than the more expected heart, but we all understand; the connection is spiritual, not only emotional (see also Jesus below).


The flying bikes is entirely marvellous, and justly iconic, stunningly executed (that Moon flyby, only topped by The Naked Gun 2½The Smell of Fear's wheelchair) – but you do wonder how a dying E.T. is able to expend such audience-rousing energy at such a narratively unlikely moment. Logically it needed to happen earlier in the movie. Or maybe I’m just nit-picking. Earlier, it bugged me that the family (and friends) leave a perfectly good pizza in the backyard just because Elliot dropped it (in its box) on the ground. On the other hand, I rather like that Spielberg has the quarantine team invade the vacuum-sealed house in spacesuits simply because it looks cool.


It’s in the last third of the picture that the threat of adults (rather than man, or woman –notably, when it comes to the crunch, Mary sides with the adults against the alien, even if only for a moment) manifests, bringing them in from the side-lines to occupy a similarly ambivalent role to the establishment in Close Encounters. The government still manifests the architecture of conspiracy and supressed knowledge, but as the ‘70s dwindles away the fear and paranoia, their unquestionable wrongfulness, is less certain. In Spielberg’s world, the wolf may lie down with the lamb, and an average joe can be sent off to space as a wish fulfilment fantasy (Close Encounters) or a government employee (a proto-Mulder, who just wants to believe?) can be on board with the greatest catch of his career returning to the skies and leaving him empty-handed. We see this too with Indiana Jones – or more especially with Raiders of the Lost Ark  – where the hero nominally allies himself and represents the government while retaining his own moral code and individuality. It may be an expression of the ‘80s, or simply betraying his own corporate indebtedness, that Spielberg’s heroes have to be venerable sell-outs. Because that’s what he is.



The ‘berg thought he had gone too far with the darkness of his next picture, but he wisely never commissioned a re-edit (not that we know of, anyway). E.T., on its 20th anniversary re-release, did get ill-advisedly sprinkled with CGI fairy dust, though. Most notably, the changing of road-blocking cops’ guns to walkie-talkies (I rather like Harrison Ford’s principal scene that didn’t make the new cut; the actor gives a pitch-perfect performance as a pompous ne’er do well). It’s all for the best, though, as the universal derision that greeted the decision dampened appetites for such tinkering (which, in the wake of the Star Wars special editions, was looking like a viable money-spinner for a while). Besides, it’s entirely plausible that cops should have guns at the ready to take down a few rambunctious kids; it seems like a very American outlook, rather than merely the conceit of a family science fiction movie.


The picture is otherwise benign though; the adults can only intrude so far, and the army of children mass together to do what’s right; there’s no Lord of the Flies here. Although, it does constitute a marker for the ensuing decade, replete with kids and teens’ tales encountering great box office (WarGames, The Goonies, The Lost Boys, John Hughes’ oeuvre), and one where pop culture could be increasingly recognised and celebrated; the fact of Star Wars is all over E.T., even to the extent of the slightly Yoda-esque title character becoming enthused by a Halloween goer in a Yoda mask, and the near-meta scene where Mary investigates the closet, finding a throng of toys including a papier-mâché puppet, being the papier-mâché E.T. (not as extreme as the witticisms Joe Dante would get up to with his Mogwai, but not bad for a ‘berg).


One of the off-cited aspects of E.T. is its function as a Christ metaphor, what with his coming down to Earth to the house of mother Mary, performing miracles, dying, being resurrected, and returning to the stars (God) again. I don’t find it too persuasive, not in a decade where other ready-and-willing candidates for such laurels (The Terminator, Robocop) have a stronger case; E.T. feels very much the lesser of applicants. He may suffer the little children to come unto him, but he absolutely does not get enraged with any money changers. And besides, he only visited us for the mushrooms. The strongest religious feature is actually the deliriously inspired poster, courtesy of Michaelangelo’s The Creation of Adam.


Well, that and the absence of a sequel (we can’t have one until there’s a Second Coming); Spielberg and Mathison produced a treatment for one, called Nocturnal Fears, which sounds entirely wrong-headed, taking in some of the ideas from his once-planned Dark Skies and finding Elliot kidnapped by evil aliens, with E.T. coming to the rescue.


John Walker, in his contemporary article The Selling of E.T., commented “Overkill was impossible, because the movie would exceed its promise”. It wasn’t as if there was any purity or lack of compromise in the endless array of E.T. memorabilia available circa 1982 (re-released 1985), other than with the ill-fated Atari game (they should have just knocked out a Jet Set Willy-type platformer; no E.T.-inflicted violence necessary there). Spielberg might have regarded his picture with something akin to misplaced sanctity, since its non-video release (until 1988) and lack of TV screenings undoubtedly hastened piracy. Which was a big thing from the off, what with a six-month gap between US and UK cinema releases coinciding with video becoming a true force to be reckoned with. But conversely, there’s little doubt either that being held back ensured it became something of a hallowed picture for a while, something special and prized.


And, while grumpy boots Spielberg may have had to wait another eleven years before he basked in Oscar glory, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial saw his third Best Director nomination, all for resolutely populist, commercial fare that isn’t exactly the Academy’s immediate choice to grant a garland. That he was regularly featured at all is more a cause for comment than that he didn’t get the top prize. The film won four of its nine noms, as usual for fantasy in the tech categories, John Williams aside, and was probably the most unabashedly nominated crowd-pleaser of its type until Titanic swept the board. Whether or not E.T. looks like a bald monkey, a pig, or a turd crossed with a vacuum cleaner, he was a phenomenon. But, if you’re unswayed by his charms, or you rather feel as if you weren’t invited to the party, it’s easy to end up looking for fault to justify that you just though it was good. E.T. is good, E.T. be good, but he doesn’t be quite the enduring classic his unassailable reputation suggests.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism

Now listen, I don’t give diddley shit about Jews and Nazis.

  The Boys from Brazil (1978) (SPOILERS) Nazis, Nazis everywhere! The Boys from Brazil has one distinct advantage over its fascist-antagonist predecessor Marathon Man ; it has no delusions that it is anything other than garish, crass pulp fiction. John Schlesinger attempted to dress his Dustin Hoffman-starrer up with an art-house veneer and in so doing succeeded in emphasising how ridiculous it was in the wrong way. On the other hand, Schlesinger at least brought a demonstrable skill set to the table. For all its faults, Marathon Man moves , and is highly entertaining. The Boys from Brazil is hampered by Franklin J Schaffner’s sluggish literalism. Where that was fine for an Oscar-strewn biopic ( Patton ), or keeping one foot on the ground with material that might easily have induced derision ( Planet of the Apes ), here the eccentric-but-catchy conceit ensures The Boys from Brazil veers unfavourably into the territory of farce played straight.

Yeah, it’s just, why would we wannabe be X-Men?

The New Mutants (2020) (SPOILERS) I feel a little sorry for The New Mutants . It’s far from a great movie, but Josh Boone at least has a clear vision for that far-from-great movie. Its major problem is that it’s so overwhelmingly familiar and derivative. For an X-Men movie, it’s a different spin, but in all other respects it’s wearisomely old hat.

I can always tell the buttered side from the dry.

The Molly Maguires (1970) (SPOILERS) The undercover cop is a dramatic evergreen, but it typically finds him infiltrating a mob organisation ( Donnie Brasco , The Departed ). Which means that, whatever rumblings of snitch-iness, concomitant paranoia and feelings of betrayal there may be, the lines are nevertheless drawn quite clearly on the criminality front. The Molly Maguires at least ostensibly finds its protagonist infiltrating an Irish secret society out to bring justice for the workers. However, where violence is concerned, there’s rarely room for moral high ground. It’s an interesting picture, but one ultimately more enraptured by soaking in its grey-area stew than driven storytelling.

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon (1963) (SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad! )

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz (1939) (SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

It’s always open season on princesses!

Roman Holiday (1953) (SPOILERS) If only every Disney princess movie were this good. Of course, Roman Holiday lacks the prerequisite happily ever after. But then again, neither could it be said to end on an entirely downbeat note (that the mooted sequel never happened would be unthinkable today). William Wyler’s movie is hugely charming. Audrey Hepburn is utterly enchanting. The Rome scenery is perfectly romantic. And – now this is a surprise – Gregory Peck is really very likeable, managing to loosen up just enough that you root for these too and their unlikely canoodle.

Dad's wearing a bunch of hotdogs.

White of the Eye (1987) (SPOILERS) It was with increasing irritation that I noted the extras for Arrow’s White of the Eye Blu-ray release continually returning to the idea that Nicolas Roeg somehow “stole” the career that was rightfully Donald Cammell’s through appropriating his stylistic innovations and taking all the credit for Performance . And that the arrival of White of the Eye , after Demon Seed was so compromised by meddlesome MGM, suddenly shone a light on Cammell as the true innovator behind Performance and indeed the inspiration for Roeg’s entire schtick. Neither assessment is at all fair. But then, I suspect those making these assertions are coming from the position that White of the Eye is a work of unrecognised genius. Which it is not. Distinctive, memorable, with flashes of brilliance, but also uneven in both production and performance. It’s very much a Cannon movie, for all that it’s a Cannon arthouse movie.

Farewell, dear shithead, farewell.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) (SPOILERS) I saw Highlander II: The Quickening at the cinema. Yes, I actually paid money to see one of the worst mainstream sequels ever on the big screen. I didn’t bother investigating the Director’s Cut until now, since the movie struck me as entirely unsalvageable. I was sufficiently disenchanted with all things Highlander that I skipped the TV series and slipshod sequels, eventually catching Christopher Lambert’s last appearance as Connor MacLeod in Highlander: End Game by accident rather than design. But Highlander II ’s on YouTube , and the quality is decent, so maybe the Director’s Cut improve matters and is worth a reappraisal? Not really. It’s still a fundamentally, mystifyingly botched retcon enabling the further adventures of MacLeod, just not quite as transparently shredded in the editing room.

Have you betrayed us? Have you betrayed me?!

Blake's 7 4.13: Blake The best you can hope for the end of a series is that it leaves you wanting more. Blake certainly does that, so much so that I lapped up Tony Attwood’s Afterlife when it came out. I recall his speculation over who survived and who didn’t in his Programme Guide (curious that he thought Tarrant was unlikely to make it and then had him turn up in his continuation). Blake follows the template of previous season finales, piling incident upon incident until it reaches a crescendo.