?

Log in

 
 
07 April 2008 @ 07:14 pm
Spielberg: E.T.: The Extraterrestrial  







WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT?
Elliott is a middle child. He is too young to play with his older brother Michael and his friends and too old to divert his mother's attentions away from his younger sister Gertie. Elliott, essentially, wants attention. To expand a teeny bit more, he wants to play, but has no friends. When we first meet him, what he wants is to, literally, get in the game, that is, the game Michael and his friends are playing. What Elliott gets, of course, is more than a little attention and more than "getting in the game." He ends as the center of everything in the narrative and the leader of his brother's gang. More on the significance of this later.

The structure of E.T. is relatively unconventional, especially for a movie under two hours. As far as I can tell, it goes like this:


ACT I (0:00-24:00): This act could be called "When E.T. met Elliott," and is, essentially, a series of purely mechanical scenes illustrating that narrative demand. How does a lost man from outer space meet a lonely 10-year-old suburban boy? We meet both characters in the extremities of their situations (E.T. being chased by Keys and his men, Elliott being undervalued by his brother and the gang) and bring them, plausibly, together.

ACT II (24:00-57:00) This act could be called "The Education of E.T." Elliott secrets E.T. in his room and, first chance he gets, begins educating E.T. about everything important -- Star Wars mythology being first on the list, with Jaws coming a close second, then expanding outward to food and entertainment, and eventually basic science and broader concepts. When Elliott goes to school, E.T. furthers his own education by getting drunk and screwing around, pursuing an afternoon of wild free-association. By the end of the act, he's sufficiently educated to hit upon the idea of building a machine to contact his people.

ACT III (57:00-1:17:00) This act could be called "Building and Activating the Machine." Elliott, Michael and Gertie all help E.T. build his machine and conspire to activate it on Halloween night. Their efforts are, or seem to be, spectacularly unsuccessful, even though there is much wonder and humor on the journey to failure. At the end of this act, E.T. is found face down in a stream bed being investigated by hungry raccoons, Elliott is ill and his house has been invaded by Keys and his men.

ACT IV (1:17:00-1:34:00) This is almost too short to be considered an act, but the arc is too pronounced to ignore. It could be called "Keys Invades," and it involves Elliott's family's house being taken over by government scientists (at least I think they're government scientists -- I don't think the script actually specifies who Keys works for). It climaxes with E.T.'s death and concludes with the first hint of his resurrection.

ACT V (1:34:00-1:50:00) Here we have, perhaps the first Dreamworks "race to the finish line" final act: sixteen minutes of pure cinema -- Elliott and Michael slap together a hastily-considered plan to get E.T. to his spaceship and, miraculously, make it.


NOTES:

LOVING THE ALIEN: "Invert the cliche" is Bob Dylan's advice to the writer. This sentiment is expressed in the halls of Dreamworks as "Turn the idea on its head." This concept is central to Spielberg's success. If you're making a flying saucer movie, make the saucer-men friendly. If you're making a WWII movie, take the most irreverent approach possible to the war and its causes. If you're making a haunted house movie, make the house an anonymous suburban tract house. (In my case, if you're making a movie about an ant, make him an individualist ant.) In the case of E.T., if you're making a movie about contact with an alien, start by telling the story from the alien's point of view.

I am now going to spend a little time writing a little about the very beginning of the movie. Because it's sheer genius. This paragraph will take longer to read than it takes to watch the passage discussed, and much longer to write.

I'm watching E.T. at a Saturday matinee on opening weekend. The crowd is substantial and the energy is palpable. The lights go down and the Universal logo comes up, with its Earth spinning around in those odd little cosmic energy bands that hover around it.

Here's what happens next: the Earth in the Universal logo zooms away from us, and out of sight, leaving us in empty space. The audience laughs at this mild logo-joke, but then Spielberg goes to black and gives us his simple titles on a black background, with spooky music that prepares us for, perhaps, a redux of Close Encounters. After the titles, space comes back up on screen, as though we are back in that logo. The audience believes we're still in space and giggles with anticipation -- the movie seems to be starting over, or even running backwards. We're somewhere out in space, watching a movie called E.T.: The Extraterrestrial. What's going to happen next?

What happens next is the camera tilts down, the sky lightens a bit, and we come to a tree-line. After a brief pause, we cut to a shot of E.T.'s ship, already landed, in a clearing. The shot is from a tree-height camera -- one of the very few camera placements in the entire movie that's above belt-level.

And there you have it -- Spielberg, in that brief, wordless sequence, has essentially made his movie's argument. By putting the logo joke up front, he got us used to the idea that we are out in space, far away from home. Then, as the titles end, he puts us back in that shot, then tilts down to reveal that, yes, we are out in space, far away from home, on Earth. We are put in E.T.'s POV before we even meet him. By shooting the ship from above, he deliberately removes any sense of threat or menace -- the exact opposite of his approach in Close Encounters, where the alien ships are always above us, messengers from the heavens.

LOCATING THE METAPHOR: While watching E.T. during its 2002 theatrical re-release (with the superfluous extra scenes and the idiotic federal-agents-wielding-walkie-talkies redaction) it was my first viewing as a professional screenwriter and I pressed myself to locate the screenplay's metaphor. All fantasy screenplays must have a metaphor or else they inevitably run off the rails. I hit upon this notion that Elliott needs to be noticed, and E.T. is God, leaning down and saying "It's okay, Elliott, I see you, in your loneliness and fatherlessness. I see you and I love you -- you're the most special kid in the world." This is a moving and worthwhile metaphor, but on closer inspection I've decided I'm wrong. Unlike the aliens in Close Encounters, and contrary to the Michaelangelo-inspired poster art, E.T. is not an emissary from Heaven.

Rather, he springs from a more internal location -- Elliott himself. E.T. is a movie about a kid who knows he's special but finds himself in a position where he is undervalued and overlooked. He needs badly to be noticed, to be counted -- and so he creates a situation where that happens in a very profound, unexpected way. E.T. is a part of Elliott himself -- that's why the alien's name is a compression of the protagonist's.

Elliott makes the point over and over that E.T. is "his." He is horrified when Gertie dresses him in girls' clothes and disdainfully snorts "he's a boy" when Gertie suggests otherwise. The bulk of Act II exists to demonstrate that they are psychically linked. E.T. is the "special" part of Elliott, as though Elliott has found a way to take his specialness and make it physical. When Elliott says "I believe in you" to E.T., he is really talking to himself.

From there it's not too much of a leap to see that Elliott is the boy Spielberg and E.T. is his filmmaking talent -- his artistic impulse. Like an artistic impulse, E.T. is weird, unpredictable, simultaneously ancient and innocent, powerful, wily and difficult to harness. Spielberg, like Elliott, grew up in a suburban house with an absent father, and it's not hard to see in Elliott the young Spielberg, anonymous and slighted, convinced of his genius and determined to one day prove it to everyone. The fact that Elliott yearns to be recognized by his older brothers' gang suggests (to me anyway) Spielberg's yearning to be taken seriously as an artist by his older, better-reviewed director pals. If we say that Michael is Steven's "brother" George Lucas, the rest of the gang could be seen as Scorsese, Coppolla and DePalma. That might sound like a stretch, but I can't think of any other reason why the "gang" needs to participate in the action of Act V. Elliott and Michael simply need to get E.T. to his spaceship -- the gang have nothing to do with the effort but tag along anyway, specifically to show that Elliott, once the tag-along squirt, is now the leader and center of the group.

On the other hand, one of the gang members wears a hat marked "Camus," which, well, I don't know what to do with.  Maybe Spielberg is shooting at bigger fish than his film buddies.

THE ARTISTIC IMPULSE: E.T. is thrust out into our world, abandoned and alone, fragile and terrified. Anyone who's ever created a work of art knows this feeling. You feel tender, exposed and fearful -- you created a thing out of love and who knows what people are going to do with it? E.T. is born into and emerges from the forest, which any folklorist will tell you is a metaphor for the subconscious. He is inspired by, and assembles his machine from, the detritus of suburban American homelife -- toys and gadgets and comics and TV. In this way, E.T. the movie is exactly like E.T. the character, and Spielberg's artistic impulse, finding magic and wonder in the pop-culture garbage that sits strewn around every American household. "Want a Coke?" pipes up Elliott when he isn't sure what to say next to E.T., making America's most universally recognized brand, well, more universally recognized.

If E.T. is Spielberg's artistic impulse, then who is Keys? Is he "the critics," eagerly pursuing E.T. in order to examine him, tie him down, quantify him and maybe kill him in the process? Or is he the studio hacks, the capitalists who can't wait to get their hands on the artistic impulse to package it, brand it and make a ton of money off it? Elliott's desperate cry in Act IV, "You're just going to cut him all up!" takes on new meaning in this context -- he could be talking about E.T., or he could be talking about the filmmakers terror at turning in an edit to the studio.

It is, of course, to Spielberg's credit that he doesn't demonize Keys. Whether Keys symbolizes critic or studio exec, he knows the artistic impulse and, in Act IV, admits that his impulse is identical to Elliot's. "I've been to the forest," he says, and, "He came to me too. I've been dreaming of this since I was ten years old." Keys is not evil, and neither are critics or studio execs -- they just don't have the power that Elliott has to make their artistic impulse flesh.

OTHER THOUGHTS IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER:

I very much appreciate Spielberg making Michael an Elvis Costello fan. And I imagine Elvis Costello appreciates it too.

My son Sam (6), of course, sat up wide-eyed and amazed when he saw the interior of Elliott's room, festooned as it is with Star Wars toys. "Hey! He's got a Hoth Rebel Cannon with Probot Playset!" is a typical exclamation from Sam as E.T. is shuffling around Elliott's room.

(For those curious, Sam's reaction to E.T. is curiously muted. He enjoyed it and had no complaints, but he didn't spark to it the way he sparked to Jurassic Park or Raiders of the Lost Ark. I cannot account for this -- I thought it would hit him like a sledgehammer.)

The Peter Pan references in E.T. seem to be there primarily to lift the burden of Christ comparisons from E.T.'s shoulders. E.T. doesn't come back to life like Jesus, the movie insists, he comes back to life like Tinkerbell. Both plot turns hinge on issues of faith, but one doesn't need to believe in Jesus to believe in E.T., one only needs to believe in fairies. And the power of storytelling devices.

Elliott's father is missing. He, like E.T., has been abandoned. I don't quite buy the scene in the garage where Michael and Elliott contemplate their father's shirt, but otherwise I greatly admire the way the missing father is delineated. One of my favorite moments is in Act III, when Mom, storming out the door to go look for her truant kids, backs the car out of the garage and says only "Mexico," the country, we are told, the father ran off to.

I love the slowly-uncoiling yellow extension cord, which is all we see of the scientists doing recon work on Elliott's house. Perfect example of Spielbergism, the object standing for the thing, the thing more frightening because we can't see it.

I do, however, have some reservations about the acting in E.T. and, really, all of Spielberg's 80s work. The warm naturalism that abounds in Sugarland Express, Jaws and Close Encounters was turned into eye-popping cartoonism in 1941 and movie-movie shorthand in Raiders. Now, and for the foreseeable future, Spielberg's actors are all very good, but never quite as human as the least supporting player is in his early movies. This is, I'm guessing, a symptom of the "high concept", er, concept that E.T. created that went on to sweep Hollywood in the 80s. Story, it was decided, does not spring from character any longer -- it springs from an irresistible "concept," and the acting is there to help illustrate the concept.

Of course, no besieged family in a Spielberg movie can be left that way, and by the end of E.T. we are to believe that Keys, far from being an antagonist, will replace Elliott's father. This is indicated by Keys checking out Mom's rack as E.T. prepares to blast off.

In addition to Peter Pan, Spielberg also refers to Jaws, of course, and John Ford's The Quiet Man, and also puts Wile E. Coyote in the kids' closet, a reference to The Sugarland Express. Michael finds E.T. in a stream next to a storm drain, a visual reference to a key scene in Amblin.' Spielberg then takes the most terrifying scene in Close Encounters, the siege on Gillian's house, and stands it on its head at the climax of Act III, when Keys and his men invade. Mom in E.T. responds exactly the same way that Gillian does, and the otherwise-unmentioned suddenly self-operating electric train set makes the link permanent.

In addition, E.T.'s afternoon-long journey from innocence to experience echoes that of Dumbo, who, the viewer will recall, was also an overlooked child with hidden specialness. Spielberg forges the link to Dumbo by having E.T. make his breakthrough the same way Dumbo does -- by getting drunk. A drunken alien and a drunken 10-year-old boy seem like odd things to put in a children's movie, but Disney used to do it all the time -- all the way from Dumbo through The Rescuers we find characters getting drunk, getting high and having hallucinatory experiences. For E.T., the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. E.T.'s technological breakthrough is echoed, cinematically, by Elliott's sexual breakthrough. As E.T. brainstorms his machine, Elliott grabs his pretty blond lab partner and plants a juicy kiss on her lips. He is led off to the principal's office as the blond swivels her foot in rapture. This sexual side of Elliott's maturity is,oddly, out of the blue and never referred to again -- I have the feeling Spielberg is working out something private in this sequence.

Then, for good measure, in the closing moments of the movie he throws in the tympani roll from 2001, not being able to resist forging a link between Kubrick's masterwork and his own, taking the narrative conceit of the grandest of science-fiction movie of all time and placing it in a suburban back yard.




hitcounter
 
 
 
stormwyvernstormwyvern on April 8th, 2008 03:49 pm (UTC)
I understand your argument for the use of fantasy as metaphor. But on the other hand, the film can also fall apart if you get so wrapped up in the metaphor tha the story becomes completely enslaved to it. "E.T." certainly works in part because Spielberg built it around this very strong and very personal metaphor, but it also works because millions of kids and probably a good number of adults can watch the movie without knowing a thing about Spielberg's life as a filmmaker or an individual and still appreciate the film for what it is.

As for your son not completely falling in love with the film, I wonder if it's because the idea of aliens being curious and friendly rather than murderous invaders has become less the exception and more the norm. Just looking at children's movie and TV today, you'll find all kinds of stories about aliens and monsters and other creatures that traditionally inspire fear who are actually helpful sidekicks, if not outright heroes.

I just found your site through a friend's Friends page and I'm enjoying it very much.
Mrs. Dr. Mistermoonlightnrain on April 8th, 2008 04:28 pm (UTC)
A great read, thanks for posting it.

I had never made the connection of ET=artistic impulse, but I think that really works. Do you think, then, that Spielberg is admitting that the occasional bender can inspire creativity?
Pope Buck Ipopebuck1 on April 9th, 2008 08:35 pm (UTC)
Anyone who thinks Ray Charles' work (for instance) was better after he kicked heroin, is kidding themselves. The virtue of sobriety for its own sake is overrated.
Mrs. Dr. Mistermoonlightnrain on April 9th, 2008 08:46 pm (UTC)
I tend to agree, myself, but it's not a concept I'd be quick to associate with Spielberg....
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on April 9th, 2008 09:39 pm (UTC)
Indeed. The idea that creativity can be hotwired through getting wasted is not a new one, but it's a strange one to show up in Spielberg's canon, and almost unheard of for a "children's movie."
Doug Orleansdougo on April 8th, 2008 06:49 pm (UTC)
Sam's reaction to E.T. is curiously muted. He enjoyed it and had no complaints, but he didn't spark to it the way he sparked to Jurassic Park or Raiders of the Lost Ark. I cannot account for this -- I thought it would hit him like a sledgehammer.

I was underwhelmed by E.T. as well, though I was 11 when I saw it (in a double feature with Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid-- whose idea was that?). Maybe I was too old for it, but I think it just felt too cartoony. As you say, it's more about personal growth than a cosmic/religious sense of wonder-- more like an afterschool special than a sci fi spectacular.
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on April 8th, 2008 11:05 pm (UTC)
Or maybe he just really likes movies with "ark" at the end of the title. He probably would have loved E.T. if it was called E.T.: The Extraterrestiark.
Doug Orleansdougo on April 9th, 2008 12:13 am (UTC)
I bet he would enjoy A Shot in the Dark but probably not Dancer in the Dark.
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on April 9th, 2008 12:31 am (UTC)
I can't wait to show him Panic in Needle Park.
Duncan Shea: Face of Boe as Big Giant Head by medoxserizawa3000 on April 8th, 2008 11:45 pm (UTC)
Some bit of me always wants to write about movies and things... but I keep forgetting to look closer, as it were.

A couple years ago, I finally got to ask Dee Wallace Stone some of the questions I had meant to ask her but never got to (she's one of the celebrity guests at this horror convention in Maryland I've been frequenting since it began). And I think one of those questions came from the little kid in me that saw E.T. in re-release in 1985... It was the scene where Mary discovers E.T. at last... "But he's an okay guy. He means you no harm." Of course, looking back on it now, I understand her character's desire to get her boy away from the hideous alien thing, however harmless it may be...

Among the odd little plot hole-boring thoughts that sometimes come up pertaining to E.T. is the now-classic "If E.T. could levitate things, how come he didn't just levitate himself back to the ship at the beginning?" That one annoys me to no end...
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on April 9th, 2008 02:34 am (UTC)
Personally, I think the "Why can't E.T. levitate" question is a non-starter. It makes perfect sense to me that he'd be able to manipulate his environment but not levitate himself. Although I suppose he could have hopped on a tree branch or something and lifted the branch up to the spaceship.

The other thing to keep in mind is that E.T. is a child -- or that's what Elliott believes anyway.
stormwyvernstormwyvern on April 9th, 2008 11:52 am (UTC)
It's been ages since I watched the movie and I don't have it on DVD so I can't really go back and check, but does Elliott really think E.T. is a child or is he just reacting to him in the only way he knows how to? Young kids will often make the assumption that adults are interested in the exact same things they are. While Elliott isn't quite that young, I think it's plausible that he might assume that E.T. would want to learn about the Earth things that Elliott finds important. It also makes sense because the film takes Elliott from seeing E.T. as the answer to his problems and feeling very possessive of him to understanding and respecting E.T.'s own separate need to go home.

Aside from Elliott possibly seeing E.T. as a child, I find it interesting that E.T. does seem to be everything Elliott believes him to be. Though Gertie dressing him up as a girl is played for laughs, it does raise the very valid point that we have no way of knowing what gender E.T. is, assuming his species even has male and female genders. But Elliott says he's male. So he is. Michael points out that E.T. could well be nothing more than an alien factory worker and not particularly bright. But Elliott says he's smart, and the evidence generally points to that being true. The opening scenes and E.T.'s connection with his potted plant seem to suggest that he is a botanist. He learns what English he does impressively fast. He can understand a representation of our solar system and tries to respond with a representation of his own. He can build an interstellar communicator with a circular saw, a Speak & Spell, and other suburban odds and ends. And he figures out that humans store memories in the area of the forehead (which we tend to keep for granted, forgetting that E.T.'s brain could just as well be in his spleen).
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on April 9th, 2008 12:00 pm (UTC)
When E.T. is getting ready to board his spaceship at the end, Elliott says "Stay, we can grow up together." If Elliott thinks he's a child at this point, he's never going to be anything else to him.

It's also pretty clear that E.T. is a botanist -- that seems to be the job of his whole crew. He's digging up a pine seedling when his ship abandons him, we see all the different plants from different worlds on board the ship, and then he finally shows up for the pickup with the flowers from Elliott's house -- that's his "official" contribution to the plant gathering expedition.

Put all together, I guess that means that E.T.'s people are in the habit of employing children as interstellar botanists -- and then abandoning them when the heat comes down. Jeez, what a bunch of assholes.
stormwyvernstormwyvern on April 9th, 2008 12:41 pm (UTC)
And that's why I shouldn't try to discuss movies I haven't seen in ten years or more. Worse yet, I probably draw more of my memory from listening to a rather overwritten adaptation of the story on record, narrated by Michael Jackson (which wasn't as creepy at the time as it seems now). I never really saw E.T. as another child, but if I were to watch it again, my opinion on E.T.'s age might well change.
ajsnavely: ralphajsnavely on April 9th, 2008 01:24 am (UTC)
I have seen E.T. maybe 30 times. I know how it ends. I am not surprised. Yet I still cry when he leaves. I don't know why, but I do. No other movie can do that to me after so many viewings. Maybe Sam was so moved by the movie that he couldn't form the words.

Have you ever pointed out the E.T. people in The Phantom Menace to Sam? Make his head hurt trying to figure out the connections to Star Wars.
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on April 9th, 2008 02:34 am (UTC)
Sam already senses the connection with Star Wars because E.T. picks Yoda out of the Halloween crowd as someone he recognizes. Next time we watch whichever episode E.T. is in I'll be sure to point it out.
Curtis Holmancurt_holman on April 9th, 2008 02:28 am (UTC)
"Elliott is the boy Spielberg and E.T. is his filmmaking talent -- his artistic impulse."

That's a fascinating theory, just like your "aliens = light = filmmaking" theory with Close Encounters.

But do you think that Spielberg was *literally* thinking of those ideas when he made the movies, or were they expressions of his 'subconscious?'

"I do, however, have some reservations about the acting in E.T. and, really, all of Spielberg's 80s work."

Perhaps in the 1970s films, Spielberg was living up to a certain standard of the 1970s, and afterwards, his films were setting the standards for the 1980s.
Todd Alcotttoddalcott on April 9th, 2008 02:32 am (UTC)
I don't know if Spielberg was aware of his metaphor when he made the movie or if he just responded to Melissa Mathison's screenplay. I just-a watch-a the movies.

His style certainly did set the standards for the 80s, no doubt about that.
(Anonymous) on April 21st, 2008 10:13 pm (UTC)
ET
Todd, I enjoyed this analysis a lot. Makes me want to watch the movie again. However, there are some indelible moments in ET that I remember from the very first time I saw it. I've always loved this movie. Susan
(Anonymous) on August 11th, 2009 10:30 am (UTC)
Furniture from Kids room
Hello there,

I'm Lynsay from Scotland, I am in posession of the exact same furniture thats in Elliots room in the film ET. I bought it from an American family who were working here back in the 90's. I have a tall boy, bedside cabinet and a writing desk. I would like to sell this on, can anyone help ?