Being There

There are some who say the book is always better than the movie. I don't entirely believe that, though I do think that some stories are better suited to books and some are better suited to film. When a movie is based on a book, the book isn't automatically better, though it definitely has the home field advantage.

Having said all that, as I read "Being There," I started to think that this might be one case where the movie is actually better. They are at least very similar, I thought until I realized: Of course, they're very similar. Jerzy Kosinzki wrote both the novel and the screenplay, which I didn't know until I was halfway through the book.

For those who don't know the story, here's a brief summary. The mentally-disabled Chance works in the garden of a rich old man. He has never left the man's house and can't even read or write. He can, however, watch television, and his imitation of what he sees on TV is what helps him function in life. When the old man dies, Chance is forced out of the house.  He has nowhere to go, but soon by, well, chance, he is taken into the home of a wealthy business leader. When he says his name is "Chance the Gardener," it is mistaken for the WASP-ish Chauncey Gardiner.

He eventually meets the President, and his simple talk about the garden is mistaken as a cogent analysis of the economy:

In a garden, growth has its season. There are spring and summer, but there are also fall and winter. And then spring and summer again. As long as the roots are not severed, all is well, and all will be well.

One appearance on television makes him the talk of the nation, as he continues to talk about his garden. This illiterate but well-dressed white man is somehow mistaken as a powerful financier with important insights into the world's economy.

In some ways, the story seems to be more a visual one, which might be why I think I prefer the film. I saw it about 15 years ago, and I remember most the scene where the immaculately dressed Chance, played by Peter Sellers, is walking down the island of a highway, as well as the last scene of the movie, which I won't reveal. Even more, what makes the movie is watching Sellers so perfectly imitate what he sees on television.

Nevertheless, there are some nice touches from the book that I don't remember from the movie. For example, the reason Chance allows everyone to call him "Chauncey Gardiner" is that he knows people on television usually have two names (the actor's name and the character's name). He is also confused when he is asked to be on television for the first time:

He wondered whether a person changed before or after appearing on the screen. Would he be changed forever or only during the time of his appearance? What part of himself would he leave behind when he finished the program? Would there be two Chances after the show: one Chance who watched TV and another who appeared on it? 

In both versions, by the end, Chance is amazingly being considered as a vice-presidential candidate. Previously, such satire seemed a little bit too over-the-top for me. This year, not so much.