Childhood living...

...is easy to do.  Being a grown up (sometimes before you should be) is a lot tougher.

This is the next installment in the ongoing series of blogposts I'm writing about watching the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in a calendar year.  I am, as of March 30, through 25 of these films.  Rules are here.

Film 22

22. "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" (AFI Rank #24)

OK.  I kinda jumbled the order around so as to make sure that this film wound up on a weekend that I have my kids.  As such, my delicately planned matrix took a bit of a hit.  I'm OK with that, but it...you know what?  I'm already getting to the theme of my thoughts.

I watched "E.T." for the second time in the last 3 years, but the first time with a critical eye...ever.

THERE IS A LOT WRONG WITH THIS MOVIE.  A LOT.

Rather than listing them, I'm going to let most of them go for the purposes of this review.  The errors are in the realms of continuity, convenient coincidence, and just...shit that can't possibly happen.  Don't believe me?  OK.  I'll give you one that is a little tough to spot.  There is a scene where Michael (Robert MacNaughton) and Elliott (Henry Thomas) are in the garage, looking for any tools they can find to help E.T. build his space phone.  There is a table, covered in dust and disorganized tools, which contains their father's (very recently separated from their mother) work shirt.  They smell it, and it smells of Old Spice.  It's a touching scene between the boys, speaks to isolation, separation, regret, etc.  It is lit well, and there are really great images contained in the scene.  EXCEPT THE TABLE IS POSITIONED 6" from Mom's DRIVER SIDE DOOR, rendering her car impossible to escape.  Later in the film, when she needs to jump in the car and go...SHOP TABLE (WHICH NEVER MOVE, RIGHT, GENTS?) IS NOT THERE.  Like I said, that's one that is not quite as glaring as others...but sticks out like...well....like a director who cared about manipulation more than reality.

And...BAM.  That's it.  I, while watching the film, continued to point out the errors as I saw them, but because I was watching the film with 3 children...eventually I was able to really just watch the film for the emotional punch it packs, and the beautiful pictures the director created, whether they could ever happen, or not.  And, for the record, I get that this is about an alien trapped on earth, and that a lot of disbelief needs to be suspended.  I always believe E.T. is real.  I don't believe the humans are, at times.

I'm getting off track.  Let's talk Steven Spielberg.  This is the second Spielberg film I've watched this year on this quest.  He was THE director of my youth, and has more films (5) on the list than any other director, beating out Hitchcock, Kubrick and Wilder with (4) each.  Perhaps some of that is sentimentality on the parts of the voters...but a lot of it has to do with the innovation and beauty that Spielberg brings to his lens.  "E.T." was, for years, his masterwork.  And it's easy to understand why.  Every shot in this film feels intentionally laid out in order to maximize its emotional or aesthetic impact.  Whether it is the shot of the crescent moon over the corn field behind Elliott's house as he stares into the lit shed, or the simple shots in Elliott's room with the kids as they meet E.T., we are treated to a visual feast.  But what Spielberg does so well, and what he learned, I'll bet, while filming "Jaws," is making us feel something with very little visual information at times.  We see a character called "Keys" (Peter Coyote) several times throughout the film.  We don't know much about him, but he represents fear to us.  We're not exactly sure what he does until he appears at the family home, but he is always there, stalking Elliott and E.T.  It's a great conceit, and I love the fact that his character's name is the visual we are left with most often.

Also well utilized in this film is the actual E.T.   While played by a puppet, we believe he's what he's portrayed to be.  Spielberg couldn't get the shark in "Jaws" to work, and had to film a great deal of the film hiding that fact, which made for a much more terrifying experience.  Can't do that with this film. We need to connect with E.T., and he needs to be presented to us visually throughout.  We know that thing isn't real, as rational human beings.  "E.T." succeeds in tricking us into believing he is.  Spielberg finally got his shark in front of us, and we love it.  Now.  Let's think about it a bit.  Do you think we'd connect with our little alien if he'd been rendered on a computer?  I'm not sure we do.  Not the same way, anyway.  This film was made at the right time.  Now, I'm not regressive, nor do I think that "they did it better in the old days."  This particular film, however, with the technology that was available, is just right.  

The heartbreaking emotional impact of the film, the gut-punch, if you will, is the final scene showing E.T. going home...his "Ouch" as he points to Elliott's heart...if that doesn't get you...you can't be got.  But, those are not the only moments we are led down a path of heartbreak.  I'm not going to spoil (any more of) them...but there is a shot in the film that I almost feel is unfair to us...and way more than I wanted to see, because of what it does to us...so long before the film ends.  I may have a photo of it somewhere near here.

Now.  Acting.  Dee Wallace, while playing somewhat of a ninny (script's fault), does a fairly capable job of portraying a mother who is kind of wandering, as she has just lost her husband to another woman.  She is in a whirlwind of events that are out of her control, and we see her struggle very well portrayed at times.  She's got a lot of responsibility she hasn't been used to shouldering all by herself, and Wallace nails it.  Plus.  What parent wouldn't laugh before scolding the child if he/she blurted out "Penis breath!" at a sibling.  It's a small moment. I love small moments.  Drew Barrymore got her start with this film, and we all remember her capturing us almost from the moment she appears.  It wasn't a "THERE'S A STAR" momemnt, but she draws focus whenever Gertie appears on screen.  Robert MacNaughton is great as the older brother, and apparently retired from acting in 1987, just 4 years after this film, but has made a small comeback of late.

Of course, Henry Thomas is our eyes.  His portrayal of Elliott is at once real, fantastic, wooden, and multi-layered.  Elliott's story is of a middle child, in the throes of some really devastating family upheaval, who finally meets a friend who understands him, and whom he understands.  E.T. grounds Elliott...the alien from another galaxy...grounds the kid.  Anyway, Henry Thomas was a kid strapped with carrying a major motion picture, directed by Hollywood's hottest talent, with a little alien puppet.  I, for the life of me, never once believe that Elliott isn't looking into the eyes of a real alien life form.  His connection with E.T., which becomes symbiotic in the plot of the film, looks that way on the face of a then 10 year old kid.  It's an amazing job, and if Henry Thomas hasn't had the career that his fictional younger sibling Drew did, it's not because of the talent he displayed in this film.  We love Elliott, and the film would NOT be what it was if Thomas hadn't nailed it.

It's been 33 years since this film appeared.  It looks it, at times.  It was a joy to watch it again this time, especially since I got to share the experience with my kids.  They were just as fascinated with it as I was...although I was 14 when the film premiered, as opposed to nearly 10 and 5.  What my kids have that I didn't, however, is films like "The Avengers," and indeed all the Marvel films...plus the amazing Pixar movies, "Shrek," etc.  Entertainment has definitely improved for kids, in technical terms.  They are able to see images we could have only dreamed.

My kids, however, LOVED "E.T.," because, while still a cinematic marvel (for the time), it has heart.  A glowing red heart that sometimes hurts...and makes us say..."ouch."

Great film.  Watch it again, grown-ups.  Try and let go of the ridiculous errors.  You'll love the (flying bicycle) ride.  I did.

Good GOD.  I just read Roger Ebert's take on this film for his Great Movies series.  It's here.  It's perhaps a bigger gut punch than the film.  My eyes are welled up, for real, writing this.  Wow.  Yup, Rog, that's what it is.