I was born in '75, and so recall seeing this film on tv (though only in parts).
I’m now watching it and really still do not understand the draw this film has. I can recall it seeming a bit disjointed, and watching it now, I feel the same way. I mean, it seems like ages and yet the plot hasn’t really progressed much.
So what was so special about the film when it came out. Does anyone else agree that it doesn’t hold up well at all?
At the time, the special effects were nothing short of astonishing. I can look at them now and see the flaws, but back then they were cutting edge. And it really is not suited for TV - any TV, no matter how large. It was made for the theater, and I can assure you that when the Mothership comes in in the theater, it really is an awe-inspiring thing.
There are particular scenes that just stand out as being particularly good scenes on their own. The bit with the flight controllers, with the technical talk and the over-lapping dialog is a classic of the type.
Obviously, I can’t forget I’ve seen the film and see it with your perspective. But I do think it’s in that class of films like Citizen Kane that need, and deserve, to be seen in a theater to fully appreciate. For a recent example, people who watched The Hurt Locker at home sometimes report being unimpressed. But when I saw it in a state-of-the-art theater with 4k projection, 11 channel sound and a bass shaker mounted under my seat, I walked out of the film literally stunned.
It’s hard to come up with a comparison, but with some films, seeing them at home on a TV instead of seeing them in a theater is like comparing masturbation to sex. Enjoyable enough, but nowhere near as satisfying.
The effects were awesome at the time. The cinematography was by the great Vilmos Zsigmond, who won the Academy Award for Cinematography for that film. I saw it at the theatre, and I can tell you I was blown away by the opening scene in the desert. It also was a good story. Moog synthesisers were considered pretty nifty then, too.
‘Wait,’ you say, ‘The story sucked!’ Not really. But storytelling was different back then. Here’s this Average Joe (or Average Roy) who probably hasn’t given much thought to UFOs and is just a working guy supporting a family, and he is drawn into this world of aliens and government. Due to that ‘something special’ in his make-up, he is unable to ignore what he saw or rationalise it away. He’s on an adventure he can’t stop.
The book was better, IMO, since it showed more of the machinations and detail of the government operations. The original version was better than the Special Edition. I recall that a couple of scenes were trimmed for the SE, and the whole going-into-the-mothership thing was unnecessary and lame.
Does it hold up? I haven’t watched it in a while. I think that it’s a little ‘quaint’ today because we now have mobile phones and the Internet. Today Neary would log onto a message board and describe what he’s ‘seeing’ and probably post photos of his attempts to sculpt it. Then someone would point out, ‘Hey, that looks like Devil’s Tower,’ and he would have saved some trouble. It was a different time then.
Am I going to be an absolutely stereotypical Doper and point out that the synth featured was not a Moog, but actually by Moog competitor ARP?
Why, yes I am.
It was a Moog in the book.
I saw it for the first time in years a few months ago and loved it all over again. I did prefer the original release, though, that spared us the extended shrieky Teri Garr bits.
There’s also a “feel of the times” kind of thing it had going for it back then as well. Pyramid Power, Crystal Power, Ancient Aliens, Bermuda Triangle, the last warm, fuzzy glow of the Space Race wearing off…CE3K was seriosuly a product of its time.
I re-watched it just a few months ago, and I loved it all over again. I even had my daughters watch, and they enjoyed it, too. I don’t think it is disjointed at all. And I still can’t serve mashed potatoes without my husband feeling compelled to build a (super mini) Devil’s Tower.
That shot of the little boy opening the door to the blast of light is…I hate to use a shopworn word, but it’s truly iconic.
But that whole scene is incredible, because of how the little boy reacts. If he was doing what a child in real life would do: pick up on his mother’s emotional cues and react with the same horrified panic as her, only a sadist would be able to watch it. But because he’s so delighted by the aliens, as if it were Santa Claus coming down the chimney, it stealthily provides character establishment for the ailiens without requiring them to be exposed before the big reveal at the end of the movie.
If the movie had actually shown Teri Garr’s bits, we’d be hailing it as a masterpiece.
I actually watched it at a friend’s home…on a 7ft wide projector screen and it was indeed amazing. I really do think that movie was made for large screens and nice sound systems.
Exactly. I have a very nice home theater with an excellent sound system and a 10’ screen. But there is no comparison between my system and the one at the AMC Mainstreet. I’m fairly sure that is sparky! could see Close Encounters at a theater, he or she might have a different reaction.
Anyone who loves Close Encounters should try to find a copy of Bob Balaban’s excellent Close Encounters Diary, since re-issued as Spielberg, Truffaut & Me: An Actor’s Diary.
“Zay belon gear, Mozambique.”
I’m with the OP. I think the same about Jaws and Blade Runner. They all rely heavily on nostalgia from those who saw it at the original release to be considered any good. In today’s terms they’re really not up to snuff.
I disagree with the assessment of the two films mentioned above.
I agree, to an extent. I think Jaws is still pretty good, but it’s noticeably dated in terms of pacing. And Blade Runner just bores the crap out of me.
But this could just be me; I won’t extrapolate to a wider audience.
Plus 1. Jaws outclasses most of the crap released today. It doesn’t look dated and is still a great story.
I agree about the film not being all that great. I saw it when it first came out, and was extremely disappointed. This film ended where Day the Earth Stood Still BEGAN – with the flying saucer landing and the inhabitants coming out. Yo can argue all you want that it’s a different type of film all you want, but that’s where the interesting part happens. This is a “National Enquirer” view of the universe, and I prefer mine “Scientific American”.
J. Allen Hynek was technical advisor to the film (He’s the one who creted the “Close Encounters of the First/Second/Third Kind” terminology), and he gets a cameo at the end when the ship lands. I think of the film as “Hynek’s Dream” – this is what he’d have loved to have seen happen.
Spielberg it a helluva filmmmaker, there is no doubt. The story is beautifullt and dramatically told. But there’s no there there.
To me, the pacing serves to build the tension of Jaws (unlike less “dated” movies where a character just says “Gee, it’s really tense.”). If you saw the actual shark from the beginning of the movie, it would have been laughable after the first hour.
I kind of regret saying this, but I agree with you here. Blade Runner feels like a movie I should like. I’ve given it several chances, but I just can’t get into it.
That’s a wonderful book. For anyone who doesn’t get that joke, Bob Balaban was the only one who spoke French and so was appointed Truffaut’s minder/translator, just as he is in the movie. People were constantly ribbing Truffaut about his accent and translating even his English phrases. In the film Truffaut, when Neary and the others are being helicpotered out of the Devil’s Tower area, says “They belong here more than we” and if I’m remembering correctly, some of the crew had T-shirts made up saying “Zey belong ere Mozambique.”
I love this movie, but I love the version I saw in the theater multiple times upon first release. I hate watching the “Special Edition” though. Spielberg took out and changed many of the things that made the original release so wonderful.