THE FILM
FILM DIRECTOR: Hal Ashby
SCREENWRITER: Jerzy Kosinski, Robert C. Jones
FILM STARS: Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine, Melvyn Douglas, Jack Warden, Richard Dysart, Richard Basehart, Ruth Attaway, David Clennon
COUNTRY: USA
THIS BOOK
AUTHOR: Jerzy Kosinski
TYPE: Novel
PUBLISHER: Corgi
THIS EDITION PUBLISHED: 1980
COUNTRY: USA
COVER: Paperback
THE ORIGINAL BOOK
ORIGINAL AUTHOR: As Above
YEAR FIRST PUBLISHED: 1970
ORIGINAL BOOK TITLE: The film title
NOTES
GENRE: satire
WORDS: Kosinski’s 1970 satire and the 1979 Hal Ashby film of the same, about a simple gardener who rises to become an influential political pundit, commentator and presidential advisor are both considered classics, and rightly so.
The story: Chance, a gardener, has taken (or inherited) his former wealthy employer’s expensive, old-fashioned suits and people make mistaken assumptions about his social station and wisdom, and call on him for opinions, elevating him to a celebrity (a influencer today). His wisdom, though, is only derived from his knowledge of gardening and his constant television watching.
Polish born Kosinski writes in a dry, simple way in much the style of the American satirist novelists of the 50s and 60s. It’s a one gimmick book and not as profound as some may think but it is an enjoyable read. There are some changes between the book and the film. Chance is much younger and handsomer than he is represented in the film (changed, I assume, to accommodate Peter Sellers age). Also, importantly, I think the most important difference between the book and the movie is that in the book, we get to read what Chance is feeling and thinking, but in the movie, we only get to see his actions. Since we only see Chance’s actions in the movie he seems even more innocent and simple than in the book. Oddly, because of his distance he also seems more other worldly or godly whereas in the book he is more human. Perhaps this was intentional. For example, when he is working in the garden in the film it seems he has no facial expressions, feelings or emotions. He is beyond that … he isn’t tired, sad, happy or anything, he just is. His inner thoughts in the book though give a more human picture. Of course, an inner monologue is always difficult to put on the screen but I think a true, complete “innocent” is, also, easier for movie audiences to follow. There are pros and cons about both.
It has been suggested that Kosinski modelled the character of Chance on Jerry Jarvis, the national leader of the transcendental meditation movement during the late 1960s and early 1970s, who had been a greenhouse manager and who Kosinski had met. On the other hand, some Polish critics (at the time) said the book was a variation on Kariera Nikodema Dyzmy (Nikodem Dyzma’s Career) by Tadeusz Dolega-Mostowicz, a Polish novel from 1932, and Kosinski was accused of plagiarism.
The film gave Peter Sellers one of his best latest roles, and director Ashby was not slacker when it came to gentle cynical observation. He had bite but he also saw the humanity in situations. The supporting cast is wonderful. The film is more of a tragicomedy than the book.
The film (and the book) are still relevant today … in relation to the media (its shallowness), perception, assumption and status.
LINKS
TRAILER
Sellers was a comedic genius. Dr Strangelove is one of my favourite films, and I can’t imagine how it would have worked without Sellers playing the three roles.
He passed away far too early . I think Being There was his second last movie. The character he played was in some ways like Sellers, a human chameleon who could inhabit any role.
agreed!