Sunday, June 21, 2009

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)


Can you believe that until recently I had never seen Steven Spielberg's seminal sci-fi pic Close Encounters of the Third Kind? Perhaps Millie and I had been distracted all these years by another famous space flick that also came out in 1977 . . . Well reader, it's quite impressive, and if I may say, for a science fiction film made over thirty years ago, visually stands the test of time. There is one scene in particular that remains in a class all it's own. I've never seen anything made before or since to compare.

Now, one reason for watching Close Encounters, other than it being canonical in a genre I adore more and more each day, was to continue the heated debate raging about Spielberg's alleged assassination of Hollywood cinema. The debate, if you haven't been involved, began with our discussion of Jaws (here's a refresher). In it, some pretty hefty accusations were thrown at the director, the gist being that his outrageous blockbusters have exploited everything from great whites to WWII to the Holocaust and that nothing he made was every really worth a damn. Readers, especially those who have seen Close Encounters, can you really agree that Spielberg has added nothing to American cinema? Honestly?

I mean look at that sweet hat, he can't be all bad . . .

Close Encounters, written and directed by Spielberg, tells the story of a small town in Indiana that's suddenly turned into a hub for UFO's. Two folks in particular, Roy (Richard Dreyfuss, who's awesome, per usual) and Jillian (Melinda Dillon), are severely affected by the sightings and begin to hallucinate a particular image, the same image, as their lives deteriorate around them. Called to the place they imagine, as an invitation from the aliens themselves, Roy and Jillian are lead high atop a mountain for a close encounter indeed . . .

Okay, rereading that plot makes it sound a little cheesy, but here's where Spielberg's art - and yes, I'm gonna go ahead and classify him as an artist (whether he always hits his mark or no this remains true) - takes over. What could have been an otherwise run-of-the-mill alien story is originally recounted, subtly built, and tenderly filmed. By today's standards it's almost slow - the careful pacing creates an almost orgasmic build, slowly, deliberately, leading to this, as a friend watching put it, "bombastic" finish of symphonic proportion.

Plus Francois Truffaut is in it.

Nerds rejoice "this is awesome."

What makes this film truly stand out is the expert sound. Not only the quiet creaking of the ceiling lamp or careful steps of a three year old discovering intruders, but the unforgettable call sign of the aliens themselves and the righteous electronic tunes throughout. If I closed my eyes during certain scenes it was almost like attending a noise show! Human/alien communication is through music? Sweet, sweet music? I couldn't help but think of James Cameron's The Abyss, a film I simply love. Not that I feel one is a copy of the other, but rather how they compliment each other with this highly attractive concept of the intelligent, peaceful, well intentioned extra terrestrial.


And this brings us to my favorite scene. When the ship finally arrives, a keyboard player (center, above), operating the biggest synth I've ever seen, begins the tune the aliens originally used to signal the landing site. They respond. The keyboard player responds. The aliens begin to add notes, changing tone, and again the humans respond. With each note comes a corresponding colorful flash of light, like the biggest light bright you've ever seen connected to the sweetest keyboard 10-year-old-you could ever have envisioned. The result is an intoxicating, resounding symphony of noise and light wrapped up in the supernatural. It's like watching an unforgettable nerd concert, with every character in the film watching it with you, completely transfixed, completely enthralled.

Really though, did we need a line-up?

My one qualm with the film, and I hear this is perhaps to the director's distaste as well, is the physical representation of the aliens themselves. It is totally unnecessary and unfortunately becomes the one element, other than the sweet bellbottoms and feathered hair of course, that dates the film.

Super famous scene. So famous M. Night totally stole it.

Okay, so readers, what say you of Spielberg now? I mean, this film is highly regarded as darn good for its genre. I mean, M. Night Shyamalan practically ripped the entire thing off for that monstrosity of a film Signs. Close Encounters is a good film, and not just a good Hollywood summer blockbuster of a sci fi pic, but a thoughtful, interesting, highly rewatchable film. It's not fluff. And just for the record, neither is Munich!

Millie's bees to knees meter (1 bee = blah, 10 bees = hoo-rah!): 8

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Richard Dreyfuss, Melinda Dillon, Francois Truffaut, Bob Balaban
Released: 1977
Distributor: Columbia Pictures

9 comments:

josh said...

i want that hat.

Kat said...

Alien/space films will never be my thing! love reading your reviews though:-)

thanks for your lovely comments

Margot Harrison said...

Great review, Jenny... I first saw this flick when it was new (yes, I'm old), and it's one of my all-time favorites. For a nine-year-old, it was perfect: scary, funny, and weird with a happy ending more strange and beautiful than anything most fairy tales can offer.

I bought the "making of" book (authored by Bob Balaban, who plays Truffaut's interpreter) and pored over it, and thus a movie nerd was born. I had never heard of Truffaut, and in those days you couldn't just google things, so it took me a while to figure out why the dude was so important.

Re: Spielberg — I've been annoyed by many of his later Oscar-bait efforts, and yes, he did introduce the soulless blockbuster model. But if you read, say, Pauline Kael's review of JAWS, you can see how differently he was viewed back then, as an innovator. She claims he was the first director not to use the theater's proscenium arch as the model for framing his images — which I guess means he moved the camera around more? Of course documentarians had been doing that for a while... anyway, I'm not an expert on this tech stuff.

But back then, I think Spielberg's films did seem noticeably more naturalistic than others, because deliberate shaky-cam was not the action norm then as it is now, for better or worse. Also, he eschewed square-jawed, Charlton Heston type heroes in his movies in favor of nebbishes like Richard Dreyfuss who could actually act.

Jenny said...

Hello Margot, so nice to see your post. I'm glad, especially as such a fan of the film, that you've contributed to the comment board!

I'm curious about this "making of" book. Did it mention what attracted Truffaut to the project? Had he worked with Spielberg in any way before? Was he just enticed by the material?

I'm also very intrigued by Kael's review and thank you for mentioning it. I know, it's difficult these days to say much about Spielberg with Saving Private Ryan's or War of the Worlds' or Schindler's Lists' mucking up the works so to speak. (Schindler's List is a film I've not seen by the way). I agree with Kael in a sense, his earlier work is (deceptively now perhaps?) innovative and there is something undeniably auteur about his style in the '70s. Though, my love for sharks did prevent Millie and me from giving Jaws a glowing review . . .

Dreyfuss is a gem. These roles most certainly could have gone to someone a little easier on the eyes, but I have no question they would have suffered for it. For me, one of the shiny bits in Jaws is the raw acting talent. There is nothing ironic or forced about the performances of the three main actors, they are out to kill a man eating shark with no care for how ridiculous that actually sounds.

and for the record, I love Jurassic Park. I'm just gonna say it - I LOVE JURASSIC PARK!

thanks again Margot!

jay said...

"Close Encounters" is one of two Spielberg films that I somewhat like (along with "Empire of the Sun", which is my favorite). CEOTTK will always rate pretty far behind "2001", Tarkovsky's "Solaris", "Alien" and several others in terms of their portrayal of human interaction with alien life forms, but it's still done with enough restraint (well, as much as a Spielberg can handle) that it's respectable. It's one of the few times where Spielberg's substance comes close to balancing out the style.

That said, I still don't think the man has a soul. Neither does Pauline Kael for that matter, but that's a separate topic altogether...

jb said...

i'd rather see humans interacting with aliens on an intellectual level (close encounters) than see them fighting a souless acid spitting killing machine like in aliens. this is probably on my top ten list not only cause of its awesomness but also, along with back to the future, its one of the movies my dad and i used to watch all the time when i was young. oh yeah, and teri garr is a babe. oh yeah, and biob balaban is a babe,

jb said...

biob= Balaban Is Of Babeness

jay said...

"i'd rather see humans interacting with aliens on an intellectual level (close encounters) than see them fighting a souless acid spitting killing machine like in aliens."

The Aliens films (at least the first two) are a lot deeper than they're given credit for. Especially the first one, which is all about dehumanization. In the end, when Sigourney Weaver is thousand of miles from home in a mechanized suit having a battle with a vicious space creature, which of the two is really the "alien"? And are they really all that different from one another at that point?

"Close Encounters" is probably as philosophical as Spielberg has ever gotten with a film, which is both good and bad. Good because, stretched to his intellectual limit, he makes for some engaging, though-provoking philoso-tainment. Bad because, well, this is certainly the limit of his intellect.

I'm really surprised that no one has entered into a "Close Encounters vs. E.T." discussion yet. They actually have some very similar themes, presented to completely different audiences. I can't think of another filmmaker who has ever done such a thing (it's kind of like Martin Scorsese remaking Taxi Driver in a G-rated version for the Blues Clues crowd; I'd LOVE to see that film!)

josh said...

genevieve and i would be all over that shit.