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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

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.

I am you, and you are me, and we are here. I am the dreamer. You are the dream.

Communion (1989)
(SPOILERS) Whitley Strieber’s Communion: A True Story was published in 1987, at which point the author (who would also pen Communion’s screenplay) had seen two of his novels adapted for the cinema (Wolfen and The Hunger), so he could hardly claim ignorance of the way Hollywood – or filmmaking generally – worked. So why then, did he entrust the translation of a highly personal work, an admission of/ confrontation with hidden demons/ experiences, to the auteur who unleashed Howling II and The Marsupials: Howling III upon an undeserving world? The answer seems to be that Strieber already knew director Philippe Mora, and the latter was genuinely interested in the authors’ uncanny encounters. Which is well and good and honourable, but the film entirely fails to deliver the stuff of cinematic legend. Except maybe in a negative sense.

Strieber professes dismay at the results, citing improvised scenes and additional themes, and Walken’s rendition of Whitley Strieber, protagonist…

So you made contact with the French operative?

Atomic Blonde (2017)
(SPOILERS) Well, I can certainly see why Focus Features opted to change the title from The Coldest City (the name of the graphic novel from which this is adapted). The Coldest City evokes a noirish, dour, subdued tone, a movie of slow-burn intrigue in the vein of John Le Carré. Atomic Blonde, to paraphrase its introductory text, is not that movie. As such, there’s something of a mismatch here, of the kind of Cold War tale it has its roots in and the furious, pop-soaked action spectacle director David Leitch is intent on turning it into. In the main, his choices succeed, but the result isn’t quite the clean getaway of his earlier (co-directed) John Wick.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …