Close Encounters of the third kind

I just watched the Director's Cut for the first time this weekend (damn this blu-ray is pretty!!)  It has been several years since I have seen this movie, and have only seen the theatrical version.  Is there a version people here prefer?  Ultimately, there isn't a lot different between all three versions, but I really liked what I saw that was added.

This really is a great movie all around.  It was just so ballsy at the time - particularly with character motivations and dialogue.  It's also remarkably timeless, but most Spielberg flicks during his Golden years have that tendency.  (Except for, maybe, Always.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead 

All fans of this movie (ie all sentient humans with a soul) should read THIS BOOK.

Is this book ALSO known as "The Close Encounters Diary"?

'cause I bought THAT back in the day...

...or is it an entirely different or upgraded beast?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by wd40 

I just watched the Director's Cut for the first time this weekend (damn this blu-ray is pretty!!)  It has been several years since I have seen this movie, and have only seen the theatrical version.  Is there a version people here prefer?  Ultimately, there isn't a lot different between all three versions, but I really liked what I saw that was added.

 

This really is a great movie all around.  It was just so ballsy at the time - particularly with character motivations and dialogue.  It's also remarkably timeless, but most Spielberg flicks during his Golden years have that tendency.  (Except for, maybe, Always.)

I prefer the Director's Cut precisely because there's more of the character moments.  I'm not saying anything that other Chewers haven't pointed out before me, but the extra family scenes really turn Roy Neary into Spielberg, getting his happy ending by escaping a wife and kids that he can't relate to anymore.  It's more of a downer, to be certain, but personal, introspective art is more interesting to me than the abstract.  I've never been married myself.  I just admire an artist who lets us see the issues he's working through.

 Hmm interesting point and maybe I am just too used to the theatrical cut, but I feel like that idea isn't very obvious in any iteration of the movie.  Yes, Spielberg has gone on record stating that this man wanted to escape from his life on several occasions, but I just can't see that.  To me, I find Roy to be almost immature and ultimately, quite selfish when he runs away.  His kids seemed fairly normal and his wife wasn't particularly overbearing, so I can't help but feel like this guy was just a jerk (yet charismatic).  I guess if there were more back-story about his personal life - like a bitch of a wife, an awful job, extreme debt, children that were truly trouble - and Roy's efforts to repair that, then I would have been more open to his decision to run away.

Instead, it seems like we are supposed to assume Roy has tried to make things better, but is getting nowhere; especially because Spielberg has said that's the point.  In the end, I have always seen Roy to be one of the biggest pricks in the history of movies.

Alien Abduction = marital break-up where you can TOTALLY point the finger somewhere else (blame-wise)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by wd40 

I just watched the Director's Cut for the first time this weekend (damn this blu-ray is pretty!!)  It has been several years since I have seen this movie, and have only seen the theatrical version.  Is there a version people here prefer?  Ultimately, there isn't a lot different between all three versions, but I really liked what I saw that was added.

Rewatching that Blu-Ray set recently (it'd been several years since I'd seen any of the three versions), the Director's Cut is arguably the strongest to me, since it removes the Special Edition's ending, but Spielberg also trimmed the "idiotic Roy" shit way down (such as the front-yard dirt-dumping shenanigans).

Ultimately, when you couple that with the added new footage (and again, minus the alternate ending), it's like getting the best of both worlds between the Theatrical and the Special Editions.

Just saw this movie again in HD and it's overwhelmingly good.   It seems everyone is at their creative peak here from the direction, to the writing, the score, and the amazing effects from Douglas Trumboll.   Not only that but the movie is gorgeous to look at.   Spielberg is still a good film maker and still makes great movies but there was something truly special about the guy in the late 70's/ early 80's.   I don't think we'll ever see that Spielberg again thanks to Schindler's List.

There are a lot of moments like that. Here's another:

Project Leader: (translating the story of a Mexican who witnessed the UFOs): "He says the Sun came out last night. He says it sang to him".

Laughlin translates into French for LaCombe, then looks up at the sky as the sand storm obscures the camera.

What I love about the climactic (Non-Michael Jordan related) Space Jam is how elegantly the buildup is paced. The gentle buzz around the installation, testing the sound system, etc; the audience doesn't know it yet (At least on first viewing), but we're watching an interstellar orchestra doing their final tune-up before launching into symphony.

But that was a great writeup, Nathan. CE3K is one of those movies that isn't just a favourite; it's buried in my soul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

What I love about the climactic (Non-Michael Jordan related) Space Jam is how elegantly the buildup is paced. The gentle buzz around the installation, testing the sound system, etc; the audience doesn't know it yet (At least on first viewing), but we're watching an interstellar orchestra doing their final tune-up before launching into symphony.

What I like is how the three UFOs show up and clumsily reply to the musical sequence, and nearly everybody thinks that's it.*  You hear the PA guy thanking everyone, and it sure looks like people are starting to break down equipment and congratulate each other.  Then the cloud rolls in and the swarm of UFOs appears and buzzes the place and flies off, and again, everyone seems to act like that's it for the night.  So when the music and sound completely drop out and the mother ship begins to appear, it really is a great moment that we've sort of been told to expect, yet still seems like a surprise.

*I realize they had the jumpsuit brigade ready to go off with the aliens, and I think LeCombe anticipated the possibility of something like what came to pass happening, but being prepared for something and actually expecting it to happen are two different things.

I've never seen this on the big screen. That's something that needs rectifying I feel to completely appreciate this peculiarly personal film of The Beards - maybe more than any other of his films actually.

Oh to have seen this at the local Drive-In in 1977, or even for it to get an Imax re-release today.

I saw Star Wars for the first time at a drive-in, and it was pretty spectacular.  I can only imagine what CE3K would have been like.

And yes, and IMAX release would be mind-boggling.

Never seen it on the big screen either. Mothership + Imax = Fuckin' hell, yes.

I saw Star Wars once one the gig screen. I saw Close Encounters of the Third Kine in the theater as a teenager. And I've seen it maybe 10 times as an "adult". And the sense of mystery and awl still hold up.

Saw it at the Ziegfeld Theater in NYC some years back. That was just a grand experience. Especially walking out, and seeing the heartening number of enthralled, mindblown kids buzzing about it afterward.

I got to see the original in the theater many times and then the special edition also in the theater, I think the Chinese.  I've seen it many more times on the small screen, most recently a couple of weeks ago.  As an adult and a parent, it changes your perception of Roy leaving, and I think Spielberg has expressed the same feeling.  When I was a kid, doing was Roy did was my ultimate fantasy but now I'd have to really think about it.  I love this movie. 

I bought the bluray for $8.99 at Best Buy about 6 months ago. When I got home and opened it, I found the soundtrack cd behind the View from Above poster. I checked online to see if it was an unadvertised bonus or a Best Buy exclusive (it didn't have a sticker), but couldn't find anything. Not that I'm complaining! 

Watched this film easily 7 times in the theater...3 more times when the special edition came out.

It's a film that perfectly sums-up my childhood, in ways that Star Wars can't even touch.

The ONLY film I've watched more times in the theater was ALIEN, but that's a different and less personal story.

(...gotta say, I never understood the video/DVD cover for this film...talk about spoilers!!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

As an adult and a parent, it changes your perception of Roy leaving, and I think Spielberg has expressed the same feeling.  When I was a kid, doing was Roy did was my ultimate fantasy but now I'd have to really think about it. 

Yeah, viewed through an adult - or at least realistic - lens, Roy comes across as hugely selfish and irresponsible. CE3K is a hugely romanticized film, though; the aliens are portrayed as threatening at first simply because that is how the humans choose to view them, and even the government agents are revealed as being okay guys by the end.

It's interesting that the only character who remains negative throughout is Ronnie, who is desperate to cling to their suburban normality and won't even consider recognizing the strange events that have intruded it. Roy's function is to represent youthful idealism and the need to stay 'young at heart', while Ronnie represents the pressure society places on us to abandon those things. We kind of get the feeling that Ronnie doesn't so much desire happiness as she does 'normality', whereas Roy has a childlike sense of wonder that drives him to excitement and curiosity. The problem is, the Pinocchio vs. Goofy Golf discussion suggests that the kids take more after her, and we get the sense right from the off that Roy simply doesn't have much in common with his wife and kids.

From a realistic POV, this of course doesn't diminish the act of Roy giving up on his family, but the film does present the family drama as an unhealable schism. Ronnie never takes her husband's obsession seriously even if it's in terms of his perhaps going crazy, and simply wants him to forget the whole thing even when it's blatantly obvious that that is impossible for him to do. I think the shower scene is key in this, because this is where we see Roy reach the bottom of the barrel. He's being driven crazy by what he saw, and the visions that are coming to him in the aftermath; at the same time, he's under pressure to drop the whole thing against the grain of his being for Ronnie's sake. He has a breakdown in the shower and in as many words begs for Ronnie's help; Ronnie responds by freaking out and ultimately worsening the situation.

Things continue in the same vein after this, the divide gets deeper and Ronnie eventually takes the kids and leaves, preferring to run rather than attempt to see things from his perspective. While it's a bit glib to write Ronnie off as being 'a bit of a bitch', she is portrayed as small-minded and unsupportive. This is her role in the film, as mentioned above - she represents a society that sees responsibility and imagination as being at cross purposes and is written in opposition to the passionate and belief-driven Roy. The film is above all about belief and the courage to stand by it; Roy is arguably Spielberg's Pinocchio, and only becomes a 'real boy' when he endures his trials and steps aboard the alien mothership (The quote from When You Wish Upon a Star in John Williams' score at this moment pretty much writes this on a sign and waves it at the audience). While in everyday terms Roy may be seen as selfish and negligent, in terms of the film's own internal logic there was no way he ever could stay with his family. He was on another planet to them long before he ever set foot on a spaceship.

I'm not saying that this attitude is morally right per se, but it's the stance it takes as a modern fairytale; the kind of fairytale only a young man can write, hence Spielberg's own ambivalence to it in later years. Being a childless guy who's at least old enough to take a few educated guesses at what parenthood means, I completely understand the 'Roy As Deserting Father' idea, but if anything he's always been more an allegorical character than a realistic one.

Always wanted to see a '77-era Teri Garr skit on SNL where we see what happens with Ronnie and the kids.

Didn't get to see this (on the big screen) until the '80 special edition. My parents went to see it in '77, though. I was taken to Star Wars but not that; I seem to remember CE3K at the time was considered more of a grown-up film than Star Wars — not in terms of objectionable content but in terms of a lot of talking heads and comparatively little lightsaber action. My mom probably thought I'd be bored, and I probably didn't display much eagerness to see it at the time, since I was all about Star Wars. By the time the special edition came around, I was ready, I guess.

My moviegoing experience growing up was, in retrospect, oddly spotty. I never saw a single John Hughes film in the theater (until Uncle Buck), and I was certainly the perfect target age for them, but at the time I was all about horror films and didn't care much about teen angst. Wasn't until high school — coinciding with the arrival of the household's first VCR — that my tastes grew a bit more inclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

Yeah, viewed through an adult - or at least realistic - lens, Roy comes across as hugely selfish and irresponsible. CE3K is a hugely romanticized film, though; the aliens are portrayed as threatening at first simply because that is how the humans choose to view them, and even the government agents are revealed as being okay guys by the end.

 

It's interesting that the only character who remains negative throughout is Ronnie, who is desperate to cling to their suburban normality and won't even consider recognizing the strange events that have intruded it. Roy's function is to represent youthful idealism and the need to stay 'young at heart', while Ronnie represents the pressure society places on us to abandon those things. We kind of get the feeling that Ronnie doesn't so much desire happiness as she does 'normality', whereas Roy has a childlike sense of wonder that drives him to excitement and curiosity. The problem is, the Pinocchio vs. Goofy Golf discussion suggests that the kids take more after her, and we get the sense right from the off that Roy simply doesn't have much in common with his wife and kids.

 

From a realistic POV, this of course doesn't diminish the act of Roy giving up on his family, but the film does present the family drama as an unhealable schism. Ronnie never takes her husband's obsession seriously even if it's in terms of his perhaps going crazy, and simply wants him to forget the whole thing even when it's blatantly obvious that that is impossible for him to do. I think the shower scene is key in this, because this is where we see Roy reach the bottom of the barrel. He's being driven crazy by what he saw, and the visions that are coming to him in the aftermath; at the same time, he's under pressure to drop the whole thing against the grain of his being for Ronnie's sake. He has a breakdown in the shower and in as many words begs for Ronnie's help; Ronnie responds by freaking out and ultimately worsening the situation.

 

Things continue in the same vein after this, the divide gets deeper and Ronnie eventually takes the kids and leaves, preferring to run rather than attempt to see things from his perspective. While it's a bit glib to write Ronnie off as being 'a bit of a bitch', she is portrayed as small-minded and unsupportive. This is her role in the film, as mentioned above - she represents a society that sees responsibility and imagination as being at cross purposes and is written in opposition to the passionate and belief-driven Roy. The film is above all about belief and the courage to stand by it; Roy is arguably Spielberg's Pinocchio, and only becomes a 'real boy' when he endures his trials and steps aboard the alien mothership (The quote from When You Wish Upon a Star in John Williams' score at this moment pretty much writes this on a sign and waves it at the audience). While in everyday terms Roy may be seen as selfish and negligent, in terms of the film's own internal logic there was no way he ever could stay with his family. He was on another planet to them long before he ever set foot on a spaceship.

 

I'm not saying that this attitude is morally right per se, but it's the stance it takes as a modern fairytale; the kind of fairytale only a young man can write, hence Spielberg's own ambivalence to it in later years. Being a childless guy who's at least old enough to take a few educated guesses at what parenthood means, I completely understand the 'Roy As Deserting Father' idea, but if anything he's always been more an allegorical character than a realistic one.

Awesome analysis, Workyticket.  I guess I have a little more sympathy for Ronnie in my old age and a lot more for the kids.  And I don't think they're formed yet.  They're helping Roy build his models, after all.  I think there are people who just don't have any room in their minds for things that can't be explained.  I've seen it in life.  And Ronnie's one of these.  But Roy has to go--he's the one they invited, like Barry.  He has no fear of the aliens or the unexplained.  And there was a part of him that was always a dreamer, never in the mundane world of job/parenthood/keeping up with the neighbors.  The Pinocchio theme is definitely there, but is this his final transformation, or is this one of the adventures that Pinocchio goes on, or is his mundane life the adventure and the mothership home?  But one's perspective definitely changes with being a parent, at least mine did.  Before being a parent, the kids' side of the equation never even occurred to me, but now, I'd still probably go but I'd want to come back eventually. 

Yeah, I think for Spielberg the kids are mainly just scared and confused, which is how it would be in real life (And is in line with The Beard's well-documented father issues) That said, the film does make it very clear that if they don't take after Ronnie attitude-wise they're at least most strongly influenced by her. While Spielberg sympathises with the kids though, I think he aligns them with Ronnie to serve the story he wants to tell about Roy, which requires him to be alienated from his family from the get-go. It's a very black-and-white approach to the family drama, and again very much from the perspective of an idealistic young man who hasn't yet experienced parenthood - but it works for the story he's telling.

As for Roy's transformation - am I nuts, but does he actually become one of the aliens at the end of the Special Edition? I always thought so as a kid, and while it's been a few years since I've seen that version the way the 'inside the mothership' sequence is cut is pretty ambiguous. I know as a kid, it made me think that the smiling alien WAS Roy, literally transformed. Or was that just me misreading it? If so, it takes the Pinocchio metaphor to its fullest conclusion (Though is IMO a bit daft and on the nose).

Worky, I never got that, but I'd have to watch the flick for the zillionth time to examine it with that idea in mind.  I have seen the original cut many more times than the extended cut.

I wrote about this film on my blog back in July, and I'd be interested to see what you all think of this:

I think if you strip away all the science fiction trappings, what we're seeing is the story of a man who's simply looking to feel connected to something larger than himself, to know that his life isn't some inconsequential series of mashed potato dinners and miniature golf outings, and to surround himself with people who feel the same way.

EDIT:  Now that I read that, you could even argue the film is about man's quest for the divine, with the aliens as a stand-in for God/Jehovah/Allah/Xenu/Whoever.  And if you go that route, it's arguable Spielberg comes down on the side of the angels.

I never saw Roy as irresponsible.

What I mean is, it's pretty obvious Roy has been taken over by some kind of alien agenda.  He's really not even in his right mind so to speak.  It's not like he just saw a UFO and went nuts and decided to abandon his roots, that's pretty unrealistic...the aliens made some kind of psychic link with him (like the others) and are probably affecting his behavior, that's made very obvious.

But his wife chooses to take the kids, instead of realizing it's something he has to perhaps get out of his system.  If anything the "villain" of the piece is Ronnie.  And Roy never outright states he wants to leave his family, just that he has to do this one thing.  It's important, even if his family can't see that right now.  It's even very possible Roy believed he'd be coming back.

It's important to remember what the aliens did to him, rather than what he's doing to his family.

I think you're assigning more sinister motives to the aliens than Spielberg intended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I think you're assigning more sinister motives to the aliens than Spielberg intended.

I know what you're saying, but as I learned from Kubrick, I don't pay attention to what the filmmaker intended (which can very rarely be known anyway), it's irrelevant to me.  All I see is what I see, which I suppose is all we can really do with film.  I really don't even think it's ambiguous, the aliens are clearly doing a number on him.  If you look at it from that perspective, Roy's actions become a little more sympathetic.  I say all this because all I ever see is people looking down on his actions.  I'm not saying he's a mindless zombie, but it's like being possessed by an idea which didn't originate from you necessarily.  Maybe they tapped into something that was already there and exploited it at the expense of his family, so Roy almost doesn't have a choice...deal with this, or slowly go mad and really destroy his family.  He's essentially having a nervous breakdown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I know what you're saying, but as I learned from Kubrick, I don't pay attention to what the filmmaker intended, it's irrelevant to me.  All I see is what I see, which I suppose is all we can really do with film.  I really don't even think it's ambiguous, the aliens are clearly doing a number on him.  If you look at it from that perspective, Roy's actions become a little more sympathetic.  I say all this because all I ever see is people looking down on his actions.  I'm not saying he's a mindless zombie, but it's like being possessed by an idea which didn't originate from you necessarily.  Maybe they tapped into something that was already there and exploited it at the expense of his family, so Roy almost doesn't have a choice...deal with this, or slowly go mad and really destroy his family.  He's essentially having a nervous breakdown.

Can you actually cite examples in the film that support this idea or is this simply your own personal response to the story?

I think they're unintentionally forcing him to confront how profoundly unhappy he is with his current life.  It's an intervention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Can you actually cite examples in the film that support this idea or is this simply your own personal response to the story?

 

Well the first encounter he has with the UFO...it scanned him.  Since the aliens already probably know what a human is given how advanced they are, I doubt it was trying to identify a species.  It's pretty obvious this is some sort of "download" because very soon after that Roy starts creating Devil's Tower out of anything he can get his hands on.  Since Roy starts to go batty (Blade Runner pun intended) at this point, it's kind of implied that the aliens have influenced him somehow, as he's not been established as irresponsible up to this point; he's a fairly normal suburban dad.  His actions are incredibly bizarre (a mountain in his living room?), and do not add up as just a normal obsession. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I think they're unintentionally forcing him to confront how profoundly unhappy he is with his current life.  It's an intervention.

That's how I see it...I don't think it's mind control, but I just don't see him becoming a dead beat dad just because he saw a UFO and is getting images of mountains in his head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

Worky, I never got that, but I'd have to watch the flick for the zillionth time to examine it with that idea in mind.  I have seen the original cut many more times than the extended cut.

Same here. It could totally be me misreading it as a kid and it sticking in my brain since. I need to watch it again too; I'm not a fan of the inside-the-mothership stuff, and have stuck with the DC ever since that was released.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I wrote about this film on my blog back in July, and I'd be interested to see what you all think of this:

 

 

Really like that interpretation of the film. I'd definitely say that the bringing together of people is a stronger theme than the search for the 'divine', because really the aliens are a big floating MacGuffin: it's the people and what they achieve together that is the focus. I always found it interesting as well how the chemistry between Roy and Jillian seems a lot stronger than with Ronnie; true, you could put it down to their shared experience but their relationship seems a lot more natural. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I never saw Roy as irresponsible.

 

What I mean is, it's pretty obvious Roy has been taken over by some kind of alien agenda.  He's really not even in his right mind so to speak.  It's not like he just saw a UFO and went nuts and decided to abandon his roots, that's pretty unrealistic...the aliens made some kind of psychic link with him (like the others) and are probably affecting his behavior, that's made very obvious.

 

That's a good point as well. The film is very blunt about the fact that Roy's being driven by an external force, though I'd argue that the disconnect between Roy and his family is there from the beginning. It's entirely possible that he was chosen because he didn't belong in his current environment, and the alien influence simply exacerbated a schism that was going to happen anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

That's a good point as well. The film is very blunt about the fact that Roy's being driven by an external force, though I'd argue that the disconnect between Roy and his family is there from the beginning. It's entirely possible that he was chosen because he didn't belong in his current environment, and the alien influence simply exacerbated a schism that was going to happen anyway.

 

Right, I agree. 

My slanted view of it (based on my own experiences in the world) is that the difference between dreamers, people who can live with mystery and "wishing upon a star," and people who don't is DNA-deep.  I don't think it's something you can change about yourself.  I think Roy is susceptible to the alien invitation because he's capable of a) hearing it, and b) not shutting it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

My slanted view of it (based on my own experiences in the world) is that the difference between dreamers, people who can live with mystery and "wishing upon a star," and people who don't is DNA-deep.  I don't think it's something you can change about yourself.  I think Roy is susceptible to the alien invitation because he's capable of a) hearing it, and b) not shutting it out.

Yep, that's definitely the main criteria for selection. See also Jillian, who happens to be an artist.