STEVEN SPIELBERG

You see I never understood that fact. How can you love not even like the film if you think the score is magnificent? So that means if you just listen to the music inside the film you basically feel nothing because the film is awful in your opinion, however just listening to the score is like a second coming of christ, on a pure emotional level. I could never do that, separate the music from the visuals, or story, or any other aspect of the film.

Most of the films I love, have an equally brilliant score to accompany them. And sometimes I will like a mediocre film more, because it has a good score.

I remember discovering early Spielbergs when I was a kid and Close Encounters was one of the most emotional, wondrous and magical films I had seen up to that point. I will always cherish the memories of wonder, awe and terror I had whenever I saw the film. The big alien at the end used to creep me out like you wouldn't believe.

But in the case of Close Encounters it isn't at all clear. I mean the movie has lots of brilliant touches and unique camera shots and at times unnerving, then uplifting ambience and great acting all-round. Not something you could say about King Solomon's Mines, Supergirl or the Jaws sequels, right?

What is your stance on CE3K Erik, just out of curiosity?

I said it was 'overblown, long winded and tedious', I don't think many people would argue with you Gilles that the film has many redeeming features.

I think it's really, really good. The visuals are indeed STUNNING! The last 30 minutes is a visual feast. I do however find Dreyfus' character a bit odd. He is clearly insane and maybe that's why he does what he does (the gigantic sculpted mountain of dirt in his living room is a bit over board; BTW, didn't Spielberg cut this out of his 1980 Special Edition release?) I find myself questioning his motives. I mean, would ANY of us REALLY leave our families because of a vision? I don't like where Dreyfus' character goes during the last half of the film. Even Spielberg himself said that if he has made the film now then Dreyfus' character WOULDN'T have gone in the ship.

Anyway, it's a film that I don't revisit too often but when I do I really enjoy it!

-Erik-

It actually has nothing to do with being a family man. When I first saw the film in my teens I still asked the same question... did he just alienate his entire family by throwing dirt in his living room and then chasing a "vision?"

If it were me, I'd probably be just as obsessed but I probably would have included my family is some shape or form.

-Erik-

I come from Steven's angle, too. In fact, the whole "family" thing didn't occur to me before I heard about the feelings Spielberg himself had about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSDh94eQTAk

^
To a certain point I agree with this... but what I would have liked is some sort of realization from Neary that he had given up his family for this obsession without second thought. Was he looking for a way out of his marriage and was this the "excuse" he needed? Families fight all the time and I didn't really see any sort of dysfunction as we did in E.T. I don't like the simple fact that he just got up and left without thinking twice about the consequences.

-Erik-

Erik's quite right. That's the thing: the focus on the Neary's mania doesn't really gel with the film's ultimate positive message.
If this had been a setting and story more reminiscent of Requiem For A Dream or Pi, such (self-)destructive behaviour would have made a lot more sense.

I saw Close Encounters Of The 3rd Kind first when I was 12, and even then that jarring behaviour confused me.

There are a lot of beautiful scenes in Close Encounters Of The 3rd Kind (esepcially visually) and some extremely effective and iconic ones (the brief India scene: "Where did the sounds come from?", and of course the abduction scene), but I would not revisit this film often either for much the same reason Timmer already stated.

Yes!



YES!



Oh, you lost me.


...where's that TV guide?

That may be so. That's the price he - and his family - pays.

I don't think he really knew WHAT he was going for at the time, as a child-free eternal optimist. It is only in later years that he has expressed regret in that ending, much due to his own parenthood (as with the whole walkie talkie thing from E.T., which is another stupid thing, IMO).

The film still stands as it does, though, and speaks for itself. Morally wrong or not, I think it is FAR, FAR more powerful than if he did a 180 and returned to his family as a "better man" or something.

You are COMPLETELY missing my point! I don't mind that he went into the ship it was the fact that he didn't ONCE think about the family that he was leaving or consequence of his actions. If there was at least a brief moment where there was some realization of what he was about to do and how it would affect the people in his life then I would be fine with the rest. But his mindless abandonment of his family just doesn't gel with me. Neary turns into an unlikeable jerk!

-Erik-

And that makes his actions even more deplorable. There is no justification for just dumping your family. None what so ever!

-Erik-