Skip to main content

Spielberg Sundays: Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)


Spielberg and aliens have an interesting history. While many other filmmakers working with alien stories were concerned with giving the extra-terrestrials a presence and purpose, Spielberg was much more taken with the mystery. Again hearkening to his curiosity with the enigma, his first alien story barely features aliens at all and is much more about their mystique, inspired by early sci-fi films in the vein of The Thing From Another World and It Came From Outer Space, as well as alleged alien encounters in rural America.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind was also the first movie (and one of only two) that Spielberg was the sole credited writer on. And certainly more than any other movie of his yet, this one provides insight into the kind of storytelling that drives him.
It tells the story of an Indiana electrician Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss), who sees a UFO on a job one night and subsequently becomes obsessed with learning more about the phenomenon. Along with a single mother, Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon), whose son is abducted, he’s drawn through subconscious imagery to a place where aliens are apparently going to be making contact -activity that’s also being monitored, albeit through more sophisticated means, by government scientists.
What Close Encounters does very well is the identifiability of its pretense. There’s enough detail devoted to the logistics of making an alien encounter, investigating clues to their activity, and the significance of radio signals and sound frequency for communication, that the premise itself comes across believably. It also authentically captures both the curiosity and paranoia about alien life, as well as how society perceives such ideas. The scientists, led by none other than Francois Truffault (a surer sign of Spielberg’s identification as auteur) and a young Bob Balaban, conduct themselves professionally. Through this realism and plenty of good set-up, the story is very engaging. Roy Neary is likewise a believable everyman, an intended avatar to the point of being without personality for much of his early screen-time.
Though he remains somewhat lacking in substance, Roy as a character is very interesting. He’s Spielberg’s own persona in the film, representing the directors’ interest in the unknown, his perseverance, even his artistry in how he creates based off of higher inspiration. Though this was before Spielberg had a family, his own family values seem to be apparent. We see from one scene early on where Roy heartily responds to their goofing off with him, that he’s good with kids, and he’s willing to open himself up emotionally with them. He’s a bright and enthusiastic working man at his job too. It’s interesting then, how in certain respects Roy is an unlikeable character. While he’s framed in the positive light when his behaviour starts causing problems with his family, he still ultimately loses them to his obsession and his inability to consider their feelings. Was this a self-conscious fear of Spielberg’s? And then of course there’s the fact that the movie ends with him abandoning them entirely, and it’s meant to be uplifting. He leaves Earth to learn more about the universe and doesn’t seem to think twice about his loved ones. It’s really quite selfish. For what it’s worth, Spielberg later said he never would have allowed Roy to leave on the spaceship if he’d had kids of his own when he made the film. But it does raise an interesting point about both the character and directors’ priorities. Is satiating ones’ curiosity and “finding answers” worth giving up family and the life that one knows?
Watching the movie in 2018, the clearer audience surrogate and role model is Jillian, played with stirring desperation by the mum from A Christmas Story. Dillon was even nominated for an Oscar for this performance, the same year her co-star Dreyfuss won Best Actor for The Goodbye Girl (in this movie he was perfectly fine). Jillian’s indicative of a more noble nurturing determination, which engenders us towards her drive. And somehow it just feels right to see a mother defying the government to be reunited with her young child. Her other purpose in the film is to be Roy’s rebound love interest to his wife Ronnie (Teri Garr). Jillian’s meant to be preferable to Ronnie by virtue of the fact that she shares Roys’ experience, and thus they’re shown to be more compatible -which isn’t entirely fair to Ronnie, whose actions in the movie are very justified given her point of view. Yes, Roy’s going through a lot and you can sympathize with him, and Ronnie could make an effort to understand better; but she and the kids have to deal with the collateral of his behaviour and unbelievable claims, and it’s very emotionally trying. The movie even seems to understand this, but goes ahead with the eventual romantic pairing of Roy and Jillian anyway. Maybe the idea was that it wouldn’t matter either way with Roy’s ultimate choice to leave both for the aliens.
Those aliens though –let’s talk about them. Spielberg builds them up using a lot of eerie lighting and effects, suspense that would be fitting a horror or at least hostile invasion story. His dedication to mystery in every aspect of their presence, from the overwhelming flying saucers to what exactly they have the power to do (as demonstrated in the attack on Jillians’ house sequence), heavily suggests an antagonizing force. Yet ultimately these aliens are good, or at least they intend no harm. I think this was actually mostly clever, not for the misdirect, but for the fact it forces you to consider the aliens on their own terms –they’re either unaware of the impression they’re leaving or are unconcerned with it. They’ve been abducting people for centuries for reasons never explained (though likely to learn about them), and relentlessly pursuing specific specimens, as is the case with Barry Guiler. It’s very optimistic on Spielberg’s part to suggest this wouldn’t be met with some aggression on our end. Communication is the deciding factor for the nature of these visitors’ activity though, and the sound frequency method, illustrated through John Williams’ unusually diegetic now famous five-note phrase, is again another smart realistic choice. Technology becomes a tool of peace.
The reveal of the aliens is a big moment, certainly the biggest in Roy’s arc, who finally has validation. But they aren’t the horrific War of the Worlds type aliens you’d expect. Instead they’re small and apparently harmless. All but the tall freaky-armed leader were played by little girls in grey suits. Spielberg nonetheless conveys a good sense of otherworldliness -despite how unthreatening they may be, their features are largely hidden by the intense backlighting, one of the first examples of Spielbergs’ signature lighting style. The aura of mystery is still there but it’s peppered with optimism. Possibly too much optimism, but it’s a comforting interpretation nonetheless of how we could make our entrance on the cosmic stage.
The last thing worth discussing are the visual effects, which especially after Jaws, are dazzling. Under legendary VFX supervisor Douglas Trumbull (of 2001), and with crew that included Star Wars’ Ralph McQuarrie and Dennis Muren, Close Encounters generated some really brilliant visuals. The luminescent ships are rendered convincingly enough, but it’s the aliens’ impact that the film does best. Surely that shot of Barry opening the giant door on a haunting rapturous orange glow is the most evocative in a Spielberg movie, and among the greatest images in cinema. Iconic imagery also comes from the framing, most notably of the titanic spacecraft above Devils’ Tower.
Close Encounters already feels like a reaction to Jaws. With that movie, Spielberg had made cinema history and become a famous name, but you can sense a reluctance on his part to embrace that kind of thrill-based blockbuster wholeheartedly. Close Encounters was his attempt to make a provocative science-fiction movie, no doubt inspired to some degree by what Stanley Kubrick did nine years prior. It just so happens he released it the same year his best friend completely eclipsed him with his own revolutionary sci-fi juggernaut.
But Close Encounters is still a commendable feat, if for nothing else than its technical achievement, moderate realism, and curious idealist message. Jonathan Rosenbaum called the film “the best expression of Spielberg’s benign, dreamy-eyed vision”, and that may be true. It certainly seems to epitomize his optimism and sense of whimsical wonder. And with the critical acclaim it received, Spielberg could satisfyingly begin to be taken seriously enough as an artist to go from collaborating with Truffault …to John Belushi.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...