OVERLAY REPORT

In *Being There*, the audience's feelings toward characters are quite complex and shift throughout the film, largely due to the film's satirical and ironic nature. Here's a breakdown: **Character the Audience Roots For:** * **Chance/Chauncey Gardiner:** Despite his intellectual simplicity, Chance is arguably the character the audience *most often* roots for. Several factors contribute to this: * **Innocence and Vulnerability:** Chance is presented as utterly naive and sheltered. He genuinely believes what he sees on television and speaks with disarming sincerity. This makes him vulnerable to exploitation and mockery, eliciting sympathy from the audience. We instinctively want to protect him. * **Honesty (Ironically):** Chance is truthful in his simple observations about gardening, even when misinterpreted as profound social or political commentary. His honesty, born of ignorance, contrasts sharply with the calculated manipulations and power plays of the other characters, making him seem more authentic and virtuous. * **Unexpected Positivity:** Despite his limited experience, Chance exudes a calming, almost Zen-like presence. He genuinely seems to want to help and reassure people. This positive influence, however accidental, is appealing. * **Unintended Impact:** Chance's words and actions, regardless of his intentions, create positive effects. His focus on growth and renewal (in gardening terms) offers hope and inspiration to those around him, even when they misunderstand his metaphor. * **Underdog:** We root for him because he is the ultimate outsider, the "little guy" thrust into a world of power and wealth, who somehow succeeds despite his naiveté. However, it's important to note that this "rooting" is laced with irony. We are aware that Chance's success is based on misinterpretation and that he is essentially a blank slate onto which others project their own needs and desires. The audience experiences a mixture of amusement and discomfort with his ascent. **Character the Audience Roots Against:** * **The Powers That Be (Indirectly):** There isn't one specific character we actively root against, but rather the system itself, represented by the wealthy and powerful figures like Benjamin Rand and his associates. * **Exploitation:** We see the characters in power desperately looking for answers in an uncertain world, and they latch onto Chance to manipulate and exploit him as a tool to further their own personal goals. It's never explicitly presented, but the audience feels it, nonetheless. * **Gullibility and Arrogance:** These powerful figures are portrayed as shockingly gullible, willing to believe that Chance's simplistic garden analogies are profound insights. Their willingness to embrace a non-entity as a political guru highlights their own intellectual emptiness and desperation. * **Ruthless Ambition:** The characters like Benjamin Rand are portrayed as ruthless power players who are so eager to exploit Chance that they are willing to disregard the implications of their actions. Their ambition blinds them to the absurdity of the situation. **Ambiguous Characters:** * **Eve Rand:** While she initially seems sympathetic, even motherly, toward Chance, her actions become more questionable as the film progresses. Her blatant attempts to seduce him are disturbing, particularly given Chance's mental state. While the audience might pity her loneliness, her behavior can also be seen as predatory and insensitive. Therefore, she is neither someone we fully root for nor against. Her actions and decisions are questionable and open to interpretation. * **The Russian Ambassador:** In a similar way to the Eve Rand character, the Russian ambassador serves as an ambiguous character in that the audience can see the positive in his actions as he is merely seeking to take advantage of a political situation for the betterment of his country. Likewise, the negative perception is that he seems rather opportunistic in the situation. **Ultimately, *Being There* is not a film with clear heroes and villains.** It's a satire that exposes the follies of human nature, the absurdity of societal expectations, and the power of perception. The audience's shifting allegiances and emotional responses are a testament to the film's complex and thought-thought-provoking nature.