I Watched Close Encounters 48 Years Later, And It’s A Giant Mess
'Close' but no encounter.
Okay. Supposedly, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a classic. But what if I told you it’s not? And, what if I told you that not only should Close Encounters not be considered a classic, but that all of Steven Spielberg’s other movies about aliens — including the new film Disclosure Day — are, in fact, much, much better than Close Encounters? That would sound nuts, right? Well, the truth is out there, and the truth is Close Encounters doesn’t hold up.
In 1978, nearly 50 years ago, Close Encounters of the Third Kind became a watershed moment in cinema history. It broke box office records and demonstrated that a film about human emotions could be braided together with a paranoid thriller about alien abductions and UFOs. It’s also an overrated, incongruent, slogging mess, which, if released now, would probably not have garnered the praise and adoration it got in 1978.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind was the first movie of its kind, insofar as it was a movie less about the “what if?” of alien encounters on Earth, and more about the actual, real phenomenon of people who believe in such things. In this way, Close Encounters is not really a work of science fiction at all, but rather, a UFO movie that attempted to take itself very seriously. And, 48 years later, it feels incoherent at worst, and self-indulgent at best. Director Steven Spielberg is a brilliant magpie filmmaker, capable of taking various inspirations from disparate sources to make incredible, world-altering films. But Close Encounters feels like an arty science fiction film made by someone who is neither interested in art nor someone who cares about science fiction.
Steven Spielberg in 1978.
This is not a new critique. I am not inventing a hot take for the sake of it, and, in terms of feeling like Close Encounters is undercooked, I’m in very good company. In 1978, award-winning author Ursula K. Le Guin wrote a dual film review of both Star Wars (1977) and Close Encounters. Here’s just a bit of what she had to say about the latter: “I was brought up to believe that science fiction, whatever its shortcomings, in the way of characters, catharsis, and grammar, was supposed to try and be intellectually coherent: to have an idea and to follow it through.” Her primary critique of Close Encounters, I believe, holds true today: Close Encounters seems to promise an idea movie about the mysteries of life, but really, it’s just all vibes.
In case it's been a while, here’s the movie: For about the first 30 minutes, we get frantic developments across the world about strange things happening: planes that have disappeared decades ago are suddenly reappearing, there are lights in the sky. The nations of the world are on alert! Something is up! And what about those sounds from the sky, is that music, or a signal from the aliens? Meanwhile, a disgruntled dad named Roy (Richard Dreyfuss) has become obsessed with flying saucer sightings, much to the chagrin of his long-suffering wife, Ronnie (Teri Garr), and their three children. As many have pointed out (including LeGuin), Dreyfuss is obviously an amazing actor, and he sells Roy’s obsession with aliens perfectly. That said, the character, as written and as acted is sort of like if Paul Giamatti’s character from Sideways wasn’t funny at all, and was obsessed with aliens and not wine.
Roy is supremely unlikable, right from the first scene. As a child, I thought maybe I didn’t relate to Roy because I wasn’t a tired dad, but no, I don’t relate to Roy because he’s irresponsible and self-absorbed. The movie charts his obsession with cracking the secrets of the aliens, and in that pursuit, he finds a friend in single mother Jillian (Melinda Dillon), whose young son, Barry (Cary Guffey), provides the movie with the ultimate Spielberg cheat; this child seems to understand the aliens, because of reasons that are not explained, and literally only work because the kid has amazing facial expressions and because it serves as a counter to Roy’s children, who seem loud and annoying — you know, like real children often are.
The pathos of Close Encounters attempts to have things both ways: Roy’s family life and world obligations (like holding down a job and not being an asshole) aren’t scrutinized by the narrative of the movie at all, and because Jillian and her young son seem to be on his side, the audience is encouraged not to really worry about the mess he’s left of his terrestrial life. After Ronnie takes the children and leaves him, the film never returns to see what she thinks about the ending of the movie, in which Roy goes on the alien spaceship, presumably never to return. Again, the emotional impact of this is mitigated by the presence of Jillian, the de facto good parent, who, nonetheless, is more interested in snapping photos of the aliens than anything in her real life. As Le Guin notes: “Why does the heroine express her emotion by suddenly ignoring her beautiful kid and shooting a full twenty-four-shot roll of snapshots, color slides no doubt, of the hero’s exodus?... Is it even appropriate?”
The character of Jillian is not Roy’s wife. But if you’d never seen the movie, you might think she was!
The idea of photographs and documentation in general is an obsession, and is also one way the film has aged poorly. As if to defend the idea that taking photos and footage of certain events is hard, an early scene in the film notes that TV crews can very rarely capture a plane crash as it happens. And yet, in the year 2026, that assertion rings hollow. As author Jack Womack detailed in his excellent 2017 book, sarcastically titled Flying Saucers Are Real!, the 21st century saw a decrease in the pseudoscience craze of the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s connected to alien abductions and UFOs. “Going by both research and empirical observation, the number of UFO reports dropped off significantly in the early 21st century,” Womack told Inverse in 2017.
In the context of 1978, because Close Encounters doesn’t provide any answers to the audience as to why the aliens are doing anything, the only thing the movie really has going for it is its supposed verisimilitude. The constant presence of cameras and of people loading cameras and bringing out recording equipment is something that Le Guin noted was “grotesquely self-conscious,” and now it is even worse: It makes the movie seem dumb in its attempt to be realistic.
The filmmaking of Close Encounters is flawless. The score is wonderful. Every actor is spot-on. But the story is nonsensical, and the theme is elusive at best, and nonexistent at worst. If Spielberg or anyone else wanted to make the point that visiting aliens would be unknowable and confusing, then that point could be made with rounder characters and more clarity. The point of Close Encounters seems to be a philosophical shoulder shrug, the arty stoner sci-fi version of “stuff happens.” The things that do happen in the movie are essentially this: A kid gets taken by aliens, but is returned, a man leaves his family to find aliens, and then finds them. Nobody knows why, and that’s it. In 2008, audiences were furious that the aliens in Spielberg's film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull weren’t explained at the end, but basically, that’s exactly what Spielberg did in the ending of Close Encounters. And, I’d argue, Crystal Skull has better world-building, and more likable characters in general.
Richard Dreyfuss is fantastic in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Too bad about Roy’s family, huh?
Of course, characters in great fiction do not have to be “likable,” but characters who represent humanity in some momentous pivot that changes the world ought to have qualities that we can at least examine. If Close Encounters is trying to make the point that just some random schlub could be the key to unlocking interstellar knowledge, that seems like a deeply undercooked idea, or one that would be better left in the hands of Douglas Adams. In the end, if Close Encounters isn’t really a movie about aliens (deep sigh) but really about our own humanity (deeper sigh), then it doesn’t do a good job on that front either. The humans of Close Encounters are people you would never want to know in real life, and their struggles feel invented.
Spielberg will always be a genius in the world of cinema, and Close Encounters may very well be a great example of his brilliance. Because only a genius could make such a great movie that feels deep, but really, stands for nothing and has nothing to say.
