Skip to main content

He says the Sun came out last night. He says it sang to him.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind
(1977)

(SPOILERS) Interviewed on the set of Saving Private Ryan for Close Encounters of the Third Kind’s twentieth anniversary, Steven Spielberg expressed the view that it was the only film of his he looked back at that “dates me”, that falls victim to the “privileges of youth”. He alluded in part to this being down to his then passion for the UFO subject and possible interpretations thereof (“Now, I grew up”), but chiefly because of the fate of protagonist Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss), who leaves his family for a flight across the universe with little grey men. As a father of seven, Spielberg found this unconscionable. And you’ll get no arguments that it may not be most mature or responsible thing to do, but it’s telling that this is the most interesting choice he has given one of his characters in any of his films, and a marker of his decline as a vital filmmaking force that the one project reeking of personal investment is now one he wouldn’t go near.

Well, I say one. Close Encounters of the Third Kind was soon eclipsed by another alien project of his own devising, one he’d conceived of during filming concerning “all my imaginary friends” of childhood, but which first took form as the John Sayles’ scripted evil-ETs Night Skies, before splitting conceptually into E.T. the Extra-TerrestrialNight Skies featured a benign alien among the evil ones who forms a bond with a boy in the family – and Poltergeist. Later elements can also be found in Gremlins. In E.T., Spielberg’s longings have been boiled down to the much less transformative and much more tangible “finding a father/brother surrogate or best friend”; there’s no longer searching for cosmic answers, framed in Close Encounters’ terms as undergoing a religious experience and dropping everything to follow and/ or proselyte. There’s still the element of the mistrust of authority, but in both cases, it carries a human and trustworthy face. Spielberg doesn’t really want to threaten anybody’s core feelings or ruffle anyone’s feathers. In Close Encounters, he sides with the absentee-ing father (his father), but in E.T., he’s identifying with the abandoned son needing a surrogate. Both represent wish fulfilment of a sort. Neary is really “no different than any of the kids” suggested Spielberg.

The main difference between Close Encounters and E.T., though, one suspects, is one of osmosis. This is the closest Spielberg comes to counter-culture expression, even if it’s about ten years late. There are elements thereof in both Sugarland Express and Jaws too, the former more particularly his attempt to fashion something his peer group would deem respectable. Close Encounters goes a step further, distilling the paranoia of the post-Watergate era (“UFOs and Watergate” as the director put it) but infusing it with the sensibility of a grand showman; instead of destruction, it ends in uplift (literally). Such concerns would be long gone half a decade later; the only thing on his mind by then was being recognised by the Academy (it would take another decade).

Of course, in its protagonist’s quest for the answer to all life’s myriad questions, Close Encounters isn’t entirely devoid of the syrupy ball of sentimentality he’d wrap around later projects. The use of Pinocchio’s When You Wish Upon A Star is an unnecessary wash of gloop too far (although I quite like the underlying implication that Roy leaves his family because they’re indifferent to his veneration of early Disney movies; that sounds like a Spielberg attitude).

It’s notable that the movie might have been even more indebted to governmental paranoia, per Paul Schrader’s rejected screenplay concerning an Air Force officer who’d worked in Project Blue Book. Spielberg considered it “a terribly guilt-ridden story not really about UFOs at all”, one that came at the suggestion of Schrader’s brother Leonard: “Why don’t you do the life of Saint Paul?”. This period of development ended with Schrader yelling “If somebody’s going to represent me and the human race to get on a spaceship, I don’t want my representative to be a guy who eats all his meals at McDonald’s” and Spielberg yelling back “That’s exactly who I do want!” For his part, Schrader, not one to forget, offered that “Spielberg is a very conservative man. He probably still has the first dollar he ever made – screwed to the wall”, which may explain the director recanting his youthful lack of responsibility on Close Encounters (he isn’t alone, of course, in being critical of the generally hallowed berg; others in the ranks include producer Julia Philips and very codedly – or some might say overtly suggestively – Crispin Glover).

If it seems extraordinary that Spielberg, who elsewhere only has story credits to his name at most, could have fashioned an entire screenplay himself, his work wasn’t without abundant help. Peter Biskind devotes a few choice paragraphs to this in Easy Rider and Raging Bulls. It seems his self-styled auteur-presumptive status (not as, essentially, a ground-up guy) had begun with Jaws (“The number of times he wanted his name on the screen was an embarrassment. If he could have written ‘Hair Styled by Steven Spielberg’, he would have”).

His initial pitch was, according to Willard Katz “the worst idea I ever heard” and John Hill, David Giler, Hal Barwood, Matthew Robbins and Jerry Belson all made contributions, the final shooting script whittled into shape by Spielberg and Belson (so go figure how the berg got the sole credit). Even then, ideas and scenes were being spit-balled throughout the production, and beyond (hence the Special Edition). Robbins said of the Spielberg draft, “Hal Barwood and I were really upset by the script, it was so full of holes, it offended me to look at this thing”. Robbins further stated “We were writing at night, big chunks of that movie. We created the story line of the kidnapping of Melinda Dillon’s little boy, Cary Guffey. He shot our script”. Robbins later did an unrewarded rewrite on E.T.

What always impresses me most about Spielberg’s 70s pictures (1941 aside) is the earthiness. Yes, there’s some of that in E.T. (“Penis breath”), but mostly it’s subsumed beneath cute. Close Encounters gives us Dreyfuss’ disintegrating domestic – with the nagging, noisy and obnoxious kids, it’s no wonder he wants out – and mental state, and doesn’t flinch from the effect on wife Teri Garr and kids seeing dad going doolally. Dreyfuss, who as is widely known, and not just because Julia Philips diligently reported it, was vacuuming up anything in his field of sight at the time, is tremendous as Neary, with just the right balance between everyman you’re going along with and someone who can comfortably take a backseat when the effects take over. Ironically, Spielberg had initially chased Steve McQueen for his lead, the very opposite of childlike.

This time round I was more struck by the (rightfully) Oscar-nominated Melinda Dillon as Jillian, though, who despite my comments regarding leaving one’s family, is the more affecting for her desperate desire to get her son back. The bond of mutual obsession shared with Roy, albeit directed from different perspectives, is affecting in the interiorised knowing it evokes when they reunite. And Spielberg fills the remaining supporting cast with interesting choices. Truffaut may have been a conceit, but he’s a conceit that works (although his impact on Philips was far greater than it is on the movie), while Bob Balaban is just perfect. You can also see Lance Henriksen and Carl Weathers in there.

The pacing also impresses – more so for the director recognising that, on initially cutting it together, “there was not enough wow in the picture”. In particular, this led to more establishing scenes (notably the F19s in the desert, and dismantling the globe to establish the visitation co-ordinates); my favourite of these is always the ship in the Gobi Desert (an impressive miniature shot fashioned for the Special Edition), and the reason I couldn’t pick the original cut as the best (however, l’m one hundred percent with Spielberg that going into the spaceship was unnecessary).

The early scenes of wonder/horror are perfectly pitched, the ethereal beauty of Trumbull’s light-show UFO effects (still never bettered, and never likely to be, in a world where CGI can’t or won’t varnish that kind of naturalistic visual) countered by the abduction of Jillian’s son. Then there’s the potentially sinister implanting of ideas leading to the tower built from mash and then clay; the alien phenomena can lead to mental instability and the upturning of conceptions (editor Michael Kahn recounts how they became so obsessed with the picture, they were desperate to get it out there before the aliens came). Spielberg sustains the picture remarkably well, given it isn’t one with a simple antagonist; he moves from mystery, to quest, to physical challenge but not in the most obvious ways; there isn’t an action scene until the scaling of Devil’s Tower.

And yes, of course, this is a simplistic interpretation of the UFO phenomena. Spielberg takes it quite literally (“This is science speculation”) rather looking at any of the other interpretations, and wisely doesn’t attempt to provide any answers (“I just want to know that it’s really happening” says Roy, which is what we get); this works for a two-hour movie, but when Chris Carter applied himself to a less benign vision for TV, obfuscating could only take him so far before audiences became tired of his deflections. And the vision is benign (“We are not alone… we have nothing to fear” as Dreyfus summed up). It’s actually a strength of the picture that it ends with very fixed and defined territory, beyond which everything else is left to the audience’s imagination (to an extent, even showing backlit aliens at the end begins to deflate the balloon, as they just can’t compete with what has been built up in the mind).

Being as it is, in part, a paranoia era movie, it’s worth mentioning some of the more conspiratorial angles surrounding Close Encounters. That it manages to be – depending on what you think and so the view you want to reinforce – either/or/and soft disclosure and disinformation, Spielberg being a pawn of the elite (his dad was in the military; but he’s not as culpable as Lucas, who is NSA…) You might even bring in Spielberg’s “alien friends” as a child in support of such an engineered argument.

But while I’m happy to ride with many such notions, I tend to become more expressly sceptical when the masterplan of Hollywood success and engineering is presented hindsight’s fait accompli (particularly with regard to Star Wars). It would mean not only knowing what would be a hit, but by association what wouldn’t be, and in Close Encounters’ case, ignoring that Columbia was near bankruptcy at the time and Spielberg’s wildly out of control project wasn’t helping any.

Added to which, his own professed doubts: “I didn’t know if I was the only person interested in UFOs. I didn’t know if anyone in America could identify with a man who gives up his entire family, including his children, perhaps never to return”. He expressed as much to Lucas, doubtful over Star Wars’ bankability: “No, no, George, this time I’ve made the esoteric science fiction movie. You’ve made the crossover one”. Its success, as Pauline Kael put it, was “a vindication of village crazies” (no one was queuing up to see Communion a decade later). Of course, their accounts could just be inflating the legend.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind definitely dates Spielberg, but it dates him by showing the potential he had as a filmmaker, potential that began to drain away from the mid-80s when he stopped trying to be the best he could at what he could do well and instead attempted to earn the critical respect of his peers. It’s a film that isn’t neat and tidy thematically, one that, unlike the same year’s Star Wars, has one foot in the era Spielberg was never really a good fit for, but which managed to rub off on him in positive ways.

Kael effused “this is a young man’s movie… and there’s not a sour thought in it”, that it was “transcendently sweet… Close Encounters is almost the opposite of Star Wars, in which a whole planet is blown up and almost nobody batted an eye”. I guess such an observation makes it ironic that I see, in retrospect, very much that era (the one that isn’t transcendently sweet) in it; I’d rather characterise the movie as one that inhabits the world of sour thoughts and rises above it, won’t be dragged down by them. 

Which essentially, for better or worse, informed the subsequent blockbuster era. Pre-Jaws, Spielberg had baulked at the picture’s commerciality: “I didn’t know who I was. I wanted to make a movie that left its mark, not at the box office, but on people’s consciousnesses. I wanted to be Antonioni, Bob Rafelson, Hal Ashby, Marty Scorsese. I wanted to be everybody but myself”. Spielberg of Close Encounters of the Third Kind has those aspirations, but melded to his actual sensibility, and it’s what makes it nigh-on the best he’s had to offer.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There