Spoiler Warning: I will discuss significant plot elements and the endings.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind, three versions
Director: Steven Spielberg
Richard Dreyfuss-- Roy Neary
Francois Truffaut-- Claude Lacombe
Melinda Dillon-- Jillian Guiler
Teri Garr-- Ronnie Neary
The DVD has made it possible for directors to continue fiddling with their films, much as some writers revise and revise and revise, until they finally tire of the project and put it aside. I recently found that there were now three versions of the popular SF film Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I had seen what I thought were the first two, so I was curious about what changes had been seen necessary to put forth a third and, presumably, an improved version. Fortunately I was able to get all three versions at home at the same time. I, therefore, settled down for my own version of a "Close Encounter Marathon."
I found some differences which I will bring up and some that I'm not sure about. I got the feeling some scenes were shortened a bit, but lacking a stop watch and the inclination to get that detailed, I can only speculate. Therefore, I'll leave those for more serious and dedicated observers.
I see the film as having three distinct parts:
The First Part--Strange Events
The Second Part--the trek to Devils Tower, Wyoming
The Third Part--the Encounter
Here are those that jumped up off the screen at me as I watched the 1977, the 1980, and the 1998 versions:
The First Part--
The first changes occurred during the early part of the film, the part that depicted several strange events that happened around the world. In the 1977 version, the strange events took place in Sonora, Mexico, where WWII military aircraft suddenly appeared; in India where the musical theme seemed to come from the heavens; and in the US, where sightings occurred which introduced the two characters played by Richard Dreyfus and Melinda Dillon. A new "strange event" was introduced in the 1980 version and appeared also in the 1998 version. This time the UFO researchers traveled to the Gobi Desert where they saw a Russian freighter stranded in the desert thousands of miles from the nearest ocean.
The second change involved Roy Neary, the Dreyfuss character. We first see him at home, with his family, when the phone rings. In the 1977 version, he goes to the power plant where he learns of the strange things that are happening to the power grid. He is then sent out to investigate and resolve one of the problems. It is while he is driving to the trouble spot that he has his first encounter with the UFO. The scene at the power plant is dropped in the 1980 and 1998 versions. Instead, we see him at home and the phone rings. In the next scene, he is headed for a problem area, and it is at this point that he again has his encounter.
The Second Part: The Trek to Devils Tower
I recognized no significant changes in this part.
The Third Part: The Encounter
The most interesting change took place at the end of the film. In original version, we see Roy walk into the UFO, but can't see anything inside because of the bright light. In the second version, the 1980 version, the viewer steps inside the UFO with Neary and gets a chance to look around for a short period. What I saw was mostly inexplicable to me, which, being an alien craft, was appropriate. However, that scene was dropped for the 1998 version, and it ends, as far as I could tell, the same way as the first version did, with Neary walking inside and disappearing in the glare.
Some questions inevitably arise. I haven't heard or read anything that explains the thinking of Spielberg or whoever was responsible for the changes. All I can do is make guesses. If you have information or a different guess as to why the changes were made, I would love to hear about it. Please make a comment.
Why wasn't the Gobi scene in the first version? Scenes are dropped frequently because it's felt the film is too long and needs to be shortened. Then, why was the Gobi scene added to the 1980 version? Perhaps it was felt that something more was needed to reinforce the sense of something inexplicable was going on. In the version, the scene at the power plant was dropped. That scene really didn't forward the plot but it did convey the feeling that something strange was going on, which the experts couldn't figure out. That sense of the bizarre disappeared as Neary just finds out there are problems and he's sent out to do something about them--this was his job, after all.
That brings up a second question--why was the scene at the power plant dropped? Now that I think about it, a better question might be--what is the relationship among the various changes--the addition of the Gobi scene, the dropping of the scene at the power plant, and the addition of the scene inside of the UFO, all of which took place in the second version, the 1980 version. Were the changes made independently or possibly, was the power plant scene dropped to make room for the Gobi scene and the scene inside of the UFO.
Finally, why was the scene inside the UFO dropped from the final(?) version which emerged in 1998?
At times I have disagreed with those who made the changes in various films (for example, see my comments on Blade Runner), but this time I do agree with the changes, even though I'm not exactly certain why they were made.
One side point: my favorite scene occurs near the end when the UFO touches down and engages in a light and music communication sequence with the humans' computer. Great stuff--could have gone on longer.
Overall Reaction: an enjoyable SF film with friendly aliens to counteract the usual SF stuff featuring fanged, drooling monsters with an inexplicable wish to wipe out humanity (although I must admit, after reading the daily headlines, I frequently don't find it that inexplicable).
Showing posts with label SPIELBERG Steven. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPIELBERG Steven. Show all posts
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Steven Spielberg--A. I.: Artificial Intelligence, a film
Warning: I will discuss significant parts of the story and the ending.
Steven Spielberg's A. I. : Artificial Intelligence.
This is a film I hadn't heard of until it was mentioned in connection with a short story I had read for a discussion group. The story is Brian Aldiss' "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long." I posted a commentary on the short story on March 25, 2011.
The film, according to an interview with Spielberg, is actually a project of Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick had been inspired by Aldiss' story and had worked on a film idea for a number of years, frequently consulting with Spielberg. Kubrick, according to Spielberg, had approached him with an offer. Kubrick would produce the film if Spielberg would direct it. Spielberg replied that he would produce it, but Kubrick would have to direct it himself. Kubrick died some time afterwards, and his widow came to Spielberg and offered him the project, saying that if Spielberg didn't do it, it wasn't going to get done at all. Spielberg then accepted the project--a homage to Kubrick.
I found it a fascinating film, but I wasn't quite sure what to make of it at first. It took awhile before I was able to see something of what Spielberg was doing, and, of course, I could also be hallucinating all of this. I see the film as being three separate parts, but so seamlessly created that it was some time before I came up with this view of it.
The first part is inspired by Aldiss' short story and also the Biblical story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Issac. For a fuller discussion of this, see my comments about Aldiss' short story posted on March 25. Spielberg makes the connection to the Biblical story even stronger than Aldiss does in his story. In the film, David (interesting Biblical name) is a real threat to Martin, the real son, whereas David in the story probably will be returned to the factory at around the time the child is born. Secondly, Monica in the film takes David out into the wilderness and leaves him there, telling him to find his people (the synthetic people) and stay with them, which more closely parallels the Biblical story in which Hagar and Ishmael are driven out into the wasteland by Sarah, who fears for Isaac's future if Ishmael remains with them.
The second part begins at this point. David, who has heard the story of Pinocchio, decides that he is just like Pinocchio, and he goes off to search for the Blue Fairy. In Pinocchio, the Blue Fairy is one who has the power to turn a wooden puppet like Pinocchio into a real human child. If the Blue Fairy could do this for Pinocchio, then she should be able to do the same for David.
The second part of the film then depicts David's search for the Blue Fairy. The story which had been a relatively ordinary domestic drama suddenly turns into a bizarre odyssey as David searches for the Blue Fairy and eventually his humanity. One of the most intriguing experiences David has is at the "Flesh Fair." Stray and abandoned synthetic people and robots are rounded up and then destroyed for the entertainment of real humans. The MC? works up the crowd by warning them that these are soulless machines who will eventually replace real humans if given the opportunity. David is about to be destroyed when he is saved by a little girl, just as Pinocchio is rescued by a little girl when he is about to be destroyed. This incident reminded me of the stories of the early Christians who were taken to the Coliseum in Rome to be killed for they were also seen to be a threat to society.
Spielberg incorporates many SF ideas into the second part, David's quest for humanity. Perhaps there's a touch of Oz here. Is David's quest for humanity any different than the Tin Woodman's search for a heart or the Cowardly Lion's for courage? At one point David is found by the people who created him and is taken to their lab. The lab is in Manhattan but it's a flooded Manhattan, no doubt caused by the melting ice caps at the poles. Later, the ocean freezes over, a new ice age, another common topic in SF catastrophe novels.
The third part begins when David, who has been trapped for thousands of years at the bottom of the ocean, is rescued by what I thought at first were aliens. They were extremely thin figures, almost stick figures, but with a metallic sheen to them. I was later told that Spielberg in an interview said that they were evolved robots, "descendants," in a sense, of the robots from the first part of the film. Humanity has died out by this time, but the robots had survived and flourished.
The robots had developed techniques of cloning humans, if they could get the DNA from a fragment of the body. But, the resurrected humans would live for only one day and then die that night while they slept. Monica, David's mother, is resurrected and the two of them have one day of perfect happiness together. It's a sort of reverse Sleeping Beauty tale, for David and Monica have their perfect day and then she goes to sleep, forever this time. David also falls asleep, to dream forever about their one perfect day together.
There are several ways of looking at the end of the film--that robots have now inherited the earth. Just as the Christianity later supplanted the polytheistic religion of Rome, so the robots supplanted the humans. Another intriguing idea goes back to the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac. In the Bible, Abraham takes Isaac up to the mountain to be sacrificed, but the Lord stops Abraham. Isaac's children then multiply to become the Hebrews, God's Chosen people. Moslems, on the other hand, insist that it wasn't Isaac, but Ishmael who was taken up to be sacrificed and then saved. As he is Abraham's oldest son and heir, it is Ishmael's descendants, the Moslems, who really are God's Chosen People.
What makes this film work? It is David, the main character, played by Haley Joel Osment. Somehow, Osment never let me forget that he wasn't a human boy but a machine that looked like a boy and acted like a boy. However, there was a constant intensity in his behavior that only a machine could exhibit. This intensity never wavered, never increased nor decreased as it would have in a flesh-and-blood human. From a distance, I could mistake David for a human child, but in the closeups, his mech nature came through, and, for some inexplicable reason, I found it disturbing.
Overall Reaction: a gentle film, certainly an antidote to many SF films in which warfare is the main ingredient. In this respect, I guess it could be put in the same category as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E. T.
Recommended for those looking for something a bit different in an SF film, or for something a bit different in a film.
Steven Spielberg's A. I. : Artificial Intelligence.
This is a film I hadn't heard of until it was mentioned in connection with a short story I had read for a discussion group. The story is Brian Aldiss' "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long." I posted a commentary on the short story on March 25, 2011.
The film, according to an interview with Spielberg, is actually a project of Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick had been inspired by Aldiss' story and had worked on a film idea for a number of years, frequently consulting with Spielberg. Kubrick, according to Spielberg, had approached him with an offer. Kubrick would produce the film if Spielberg would direct it. Spielberg replied that he would produce it, but Kubrick would have to direct it himself. Kubrick died some time afterwards, and his widow came to Spielberg and offered him the project, saying that if Spielberg didn't do it, it wasn't going to get done at all. Spielberg then accepted the project--a homage to Kubrick.
I found it a fascinating film, but I wasn't quite sure what to make of it at first. It took awhile before I was able to see something of what Spielberg was doing, and, of course, I could also be hallucinating all of this. I see the film as being three separate parts, but so seamlessly created that it was some time before I came up with this view of it.
The first part is inspired by Aldiss' short story and also the Biblical story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Issac. For a fuller discussion of this, see my comments about Aldiss' short story posted on March 25. Spielberg makes the connection to the Biblical story even stronger than Aldiss does in his story. In the film, David (interesting Biblical name) is a real threat to Martin, the real son, whereas David in the story probably will be returned to the factory at around the time the child is born. Secondly, Monica in the film takes David out into the wilderness and leaves him there, telling him to find his people (the synthetic people) and stay with them, which more closely parallels the Biblical story in which Hagar and Ishmael are driven out into the wasteland by Sarah, who fears for Isaac's future if Ishmael remains with them.
The second part begins at this point. David, who has heard the story of Pinocchio, decides that he is just like Pinocchio, and he goes off to search for the Blue Fairy. In Pinocchio, the Blue Fairy is one who has the power to turn a wooden puppet like Pinocchio into a real human child. If the Blue Fairy could do this for Pinocchio, then she should be able to do the same for David.
The second part of the film then depicts David's search for the Blue Fairy. The story which had been a relatively ordinary domestic drama suddenly turns into a bizarre odyssey as David searches for the Blue Fairy and eventually his humanity. One of the most intriguing experiences David has is at the "Flesh Fair." Stray and abandoned synthetic people and robots are rounded up and then destroyed for the entertainment of real humans. The MC? works up the crowd by warning them that these are soulless machines who will eventually replace real humans if given the opportunity. David is about to be destroyed when he is saved by a little girl, just as Pinocchio is rescued by a little girl when he is about to be destroyed. This incident reminded me of the stories of the early Christians who were taken to the Coliseum in Rome to be killed for they were also seen to be a threat to society.
Spielberg incorporates many SF ideas into the second part, David's quest for humanity. Perhaps there's a touch of Oz here. Is David's quest for humanity any different than the Tin Woodman's search for a heart or the Cowardly Lion's for courage? At one point David is found by the people who created him and is taken to their lab. The lab is in Manhattan but it's a flooded Manhattan, no doubt caused by the melting ice caps at the poles. Later, the ocean freezes over, a new ice age, another common topic in SF catastrophe novels.
The third part begins when David, who has been trapped for thousands of years at the bottom of the ocean, is rescued by what I thought at first were aliens. They were extremely thin figures, almost stick figures, but with a metallic sheen to them. I was later told that Spielberg in an interview said that they were evolved robots, "descendants," in a sense, of the robots from the first part of the film. Humanity has died out by this time, but the robots had survived and flourished.
The robots had developed techniques of cloning humans, if they could get the DNA from a fragment of the body. But, the resurrected humans would live for only one day and then die that night while they slept. Monica, David's mother, is resurrected and the two of them have one day of perfect happiness together. It's a sort of reverse Sleeping Beauty tale, for David and Monica have their perfect day and then she goes to sleep, forever this time. David also falls asleep, to dream forever about their one perfect day together.
There are several ways of looking at the end of the film--that robots have now inherited the earth. Just as the Christianity later supplanted the polytheistic religion of Rome, so the robots supplanted the humans. Another intriguing idea goes back to the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac. In the Bible, Abraham takes Isaac up to the mountain to be sacrificed, but the Lord stops Abraham. Isaac's children then multiply to become the Hebrews, God's Chosen people. Moslems, on the other hand, insist that it wasn't Isaac, but Ishmael who was taken up to be sacrificed and then saved. As he is Abraham's oldest son and heir, it is Ishmael's descendants, the Moslems, who really are God's Chosen People.
What makes this film work? It is David, the main character, played by Haley Joel Osment. Somehow, Osment never let me forget that he wasn't a human boy but a machine that looked like a boy and acted like a boy. However, there was a constant intensity in his behavior that only a machine could exhibit. This intensity never wavered, never increased nor decreased as it would have in a flesh-and-blood human. From a distance, I could mistake David for a human child, but in the closeups, his mech nature came through, and, for some inexplicable reason, I found it disturbing.
Overall Reaction: a gentle film, certainly an antidote to many SF films in which warfare is the main ingredient. In this respect, I guess it could be put in the same category as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E. T.
Recommended for those looking for something a bit different in an SF film, or for something a bit different in a film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)