Feel free to pick and choose — you don’t need to run every question in one sitting, though you may want to leave some time at the end to discuss what, exactly, you just watched.

––––––––––––––––––––
CHARACTERS: WHO IS CHANCE THE GARDENER, AND DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY KNOW?
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. Casting Call from the Garden
    When Peter Sellers appeared as Chance — immaculate, serene, entirely devoid of inner weather — did your mental image of Kosiński’s Chauncey Gardiner pause and hold very still, the way Chance does? Sellers reportedly said Chance was the most difficult role of his career precisely because the character has no subtext—no hidden feelings, no irony, no performance beneath the performance. Did you believe the absence? And does the casting of a famously brilliant comic actor in a role requiring absolute blankness create its own kind of irony the novel doesn’t have?
  2. Chance: Blank Slate or Zen Master?
    The novel and film both refuse to answer the central question they pose: is Chance a simpleton, a savant, or something the categories of intelligence simply don’t capture? Kosiński’s Chance has no interiority on the page — the novel gives you only his surface, the gardening metaphors he produces without understanding their effect. Did either version push you toward an interpretation, or did each hold the question genuinely open? And which reading did you find yourself settling on — the comic (he’s simply empty), the satirical (the world is empty), or the philosophical (he’s enlightened)?
  3. Eve Rand: The Woman Who Sees What She Needs to See
    Shirley MacLaine’s Eve Rand is the novel’s sharpest satirical target — a wealthy, intelligent, emotionally unfulfilled woman who projects onto Chance exactly the qualities she desires in a man, and who interprets his blankness as depth. Did MacLaine play Eve as a sympathetic figure, a comic one, or something more pointed? And does the novel or the film ask you to judge Eve more harshly for her projection — or to understand it as a fundamentally human behavior that Chance simply makes visible?
  4. Benjamin Rand: The Dying Man Who Knows a Good Thing
    Melvyn Douglas won the Academy Award for his performance as Benjamin Rand — a man who is dying, who knows it, and who finds in Chance’s company a simplicity he can’t find anywhere else. The novel’s Benjamin is slightly more wary; Douglas’s Benjamin seems genuinely fond of Chance in a way that softens the satire. Did Benjamin’s warmth toward Chance feel like the film complicating Kosiński’s more purely satirical vision? And is Benjamin the most sympathetic reader of Chance in either version — not because he understands him, but because he doesn’t need to?
  5. The President: Power’s Appetite for Simple Wisdom
    The unnamed President’s encounter with Chance — in which he takes gardening metaphors as economic counsel and quotes Chance in a public address — is the novel and film’s most direct satirical target. Did either version make the President feel like a specific political satire, a general one about the appetite of power for simple-sounding wisdom, or simply an absurdist set piece? And does the political satire feel more or less dated in each version now than when it was written or filmed?
  6. The Intelligence Community: Searching for a Man Who Isn’t There
    The subplot in which intelligence agencies attempt to investigate Chance’s background and find nothing — because there is nothing to find — is one of the novel and film’s funniest and most pointed satirical threads. Did either version give this subplot enough space to develop its full satirical logic? And does the idea of intelligence services defeated by a man who has simply never existed in any documentation feel more or less resonant in each version — or more resonant now than in 1979?

––––––––––––––––––––
KOSINSKI AS SCREENWRITER: ADAPTING HIS OWN NOVEL
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. The Author Who Wrote His Own Screenplay
    Kosiński adapted Being There himself — a relatively rare arrangement, and one that produced some interesting results. He reportedly cut large sections of his own novel, tightened the satire considerably, and made choices that some critics thought improved on the source and others thought simplified it. Did the film feel like an author’s own distillation of his material, or like a screenwriter making the practical compromises the medium requires? And does knowing Kosiński made these choices himself change how you evaluate them?
  2. What the Novel Has That the Film Removed
    The novel has a richer inner world than the film — not Chance’s inner world, which remains blank, but the satirical texture of the world around him. Kosiński gives more time to the media machinery that creates Chauncey Gardiner as a public figure, more attention to the specific mechanisms by which a blank man becomes a political celebrity, more detail about the secondary characters who project onto him. Did the film lose any of this satirical texture in its compression? And is there a version of this story that could have been sharper if someone other than Kosiński had adapted it?
  3. The Television Motif: More Loaded in the Novel
    Chance’s relationship with television is the novel’s central metaphor — a man who has learned everything he knows from television, who experiences the world as if it were a television program, and who the world then puts on television, completing a circuit of perfect vacuity. The film keeps this motif but somewhat reduces its philosophical weight. Did the film make Chance’s television obsession feel as central as the novel does? And is the television metaphor — written in 1970 — more or less applicable now, in an era of social media and the perpetual performance of self?
  4. Kosiński’s Ending vs. Ashby’s Ending
    The film’s final image is one of cinema’s great parting shots: Chance walking on water across a lake, pausing to dip his umbrella in, and continuing. The novel’s ending is somewhat less literally miraculous but equally ambiguous. Did the film’s final image feel like the right conclusion — an image that both literalizes and withholds interpretation simultaneously? And does an ending that could be read as genuinely miraculous change the story’s meaning, or does it simply deliver the same ambiguity in more visually striking form?

––––––––––––––––––––
THE SATIRE AND ITS TARGETS: WHO IS KOSIŃSKI ACTUALLY LAUGHING AT?
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. The Primary Target: The World That Makes Chance Possible
    Kosiński has said the true subject of Being There is not Chance but the world that receives him — a society so hungry for simple, reassuring wisdom from an apparently unimpeachable source that it creates a great man out of a void. Did the novel or the film make this satirical target feel more precisely identified? And which version made you feel more implicated in the world’s response to Chance — as someone who might, in the right circumstances, also hear profundity in a gardening metaphor?
  2. The Media as Meaning-Making Machine
    Both versions show how the media transforms Chance from a confused man in an expensive suit into Chauncey Gardiner, sage and economic advisor. The novel is somewhat more detailed about this process; the film shows it more efficiently. Did either version make the media’s role in creating public figures feel like satire, documentary, or prophecy? And does the specific mechanism by which Chance becomes famous — through being seen in the right place with the right people — feel more or less like a description of how celebrity actually works in each era?
  3. Class and Appearance: The Suit That Made the Man
    Chance’s transformation is enabled partly by his appearance — he happens to be tall, dignified-looking, and dressed in his late employer’s expensive suits. The world reads his appearance as evidence of his substance. Did either version make you feel the specific comedy of a society that reads external signifiers so completely that it never bothers to look for what they signify? And is there a version of this satire in which Chance is not white, not tall, not conventionally dignified — and does imagining it change what the story is actually satirizing?
  4. The Willing Suspension of Disbelief: Everyone Knows, Nobody Says
    Part of what makes Being There work as satire is the implied question of how much the characters know — whether they genuinely believe in Chauncey Gardiner or whether they have made a collective decision to accept a useful fiction. Did the novel or the film suggest that some characters know, on some level, that Chance is not what they have decided he is? And is the satire sharper if the world is genuinely fooled, or if it is knowingly complicit in its own foolishness?

––––––––––––––––––––
TONE & VIBE: COMEDY, FABLE, OR SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY?
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. Satire That Refuses to Wink
    One of the most distinctive qualities of both the novel and the film is their refusal to signal their own satirical intent — Kosiński’s prose and Ashby’s direction both maintain a deadpan seriousness that forces the reader and viewer to do the interpretive work. Did that refusal to wink work for you, or did there come a point where you wanted the story to acknowledge its own joke? And which version held the deadpan more consistently — the novel’s controlled prose or the film’s performances?
  2. Peter Sellers and the Gag Reel: The Film That Plays It Straight
    The famous end-credits gag reel — in which Sellers is shown breaking character repeatedly, laughing, mugging, doing silly voices — was included by Ashby over Sellers’s objections. Sellers felt it undermined the film’s careful seriousness. Did the gag reel change how you experienced the film? And is Sellers’s objection right — that showing the performance beneath the performance retroactively comedifies something that worked precisely because it refused to be a comedy?
  3. Fable, Satire, or Philosophical Puzzle?
    Critics have read Being There as political satire (the emptiness of American public life), as Zen parable (the enlightenment of the empty mind), as media critique, as class commentary, and as absurdist comedy. Did the novel or the film push you toward a particular reading, or did each hold multiple interpretations open simultaneously? And is there a reading of Being There that makes it a sad story rather than a funny one?
  4. The Walking on Water Problem: Miracle or Metaphor?
    The film’s final image has generated more critical argument than almost any other detail of either version. Is Chance literally walking on water, suggesting genuine miraculous status? Is he accidentally walking on a hidden submerged platform? Is it a purely symbolic image that shouldn’t be read literally? Did the image feel like resolution, provocation, or simply the right final note for a story that has refused resolution throughout? And does the novel’s less literally miraculous ending feel more or less satisfying?

––––––––––––––––––––
PAGE VS. SCREEN: WHOSE BLANK CANVAS WAS MORE RESONANT?
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. The Novel’s Interiority-Free Prose and What It Achieves
    Kosiński’s prose gives you Chance’s perspective without giving you Chance’s interiority — you see what he sees and hear what he hears, but there is nothing happening behind his eyes. This is a technically demanding literary achievement: a first-person perspective that is genuinely empty. Did the novel sustain that emptiness without becoming either boring or inadvertently suggestive of hidden depths? And is an empty first-person narrator something that only prose can fully achieve, or did Sellers’s performance find its own equivalent?
  2. Sellers’s Performance vs. the Novel’s Prose: Two Kinds of Blankness
    Both Kosiński’s prose and Sellers’s performance are attempting to render the same thing — a man with no interior — through completely different instruments. Prose renders it through the deliberate withholding of interiority; performance renders it through a specific kind of physical and vocal stillness. Which version’s blankness felt more genuinely unsettling — the prose emptiness that never gets filled, or the performative blankness that you keep expecting to crack?
  3. Scenes the Film Staged Better Than the Novel Described
    Name one moment where Ashby’s film gave you something Kosiński’s prose couldn’t: a reaction shot, a physical performance, a moment where the gap between what Chance means and what he is understood to mean is made visible rather than described. Which cinematic moment felt like the ideal version of what this story needed?
  4. What the Novel Did That the Film Couldn’t
    Kosiński’s prose has a precise, slightly clinical quality that gives the satire a cold edge. Were there passages — the intelligence community’s failed research, the media machinery assembling Chauncey Gardiner, Chance’s own experience of being on television for the first time — that the film compressed in ways that lost some of the satire’s precision? Name one thing the novel gave you that the screen couldn’t fully replicate.

––––––––––––––––––––
OVERALL ADAPTATION VERDICT: WAS ANYTHING ACTUALLY THERE?
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. A Film That May Be Better Than Its Source
    Several critics have argued that Ashby’s film is the superior version of this material — that Sellers’s performance, the film’s pacing, and Melvyn Douglas’s Oscar-winning turn produce something richer than Kosiński’s relatively spare novel. Do you agree? And if the film is better, what specifically does it add — is it the cast, the deadpan visual comedy, the specific texture of late-1970s Washington, D.C., that grounds the satire in a particular historical moment?
  2. What Each Version Does Best
    One gold star for the novel, one for the film. They don’t have to be for the same thing. (Suggested categories: Best Prose Rendering of a Character With No Inner Life; Best Performance of Absolute Blankness as a Form of Charisma; Best Satirical Target Identified With Maximum Precision; Best Final Image That Refuses to Explain Itself; Best Comedy That Isn’t Sure It’s a Comedy.)
  3. Recommend: Read, Watch, or Both?
    If a friend had time for only one version — novel or film — which would you send them to first, and why? Would your answer change if they’re a Peter Sellers devotee who wants the performance above all? If they’re interested in the satirical argument rather than its delivery? If they find deadpan comedy more bearable in prose than on screen, or vice versa? And is there a case that the film renders the novel so efficiently that reading afterward is primarily for completists?
  4. Being There in 2025: Does the Satire Still Land?
    Kosiński wrote Being There in 1970, and the film was made in 1979. The satire targets a specific set of American pathologies: the hunger for simple wisdom, the media’s power to create authority, the willingness of the powerful to hear what they want to hear. Did the satire feel dated, freshly applicable, or somewhere between the two? And has the specific mechanism by which Chance becomes famous — appearance, access, the projection of depth onto blankness — become more or less accurate as a description of how public figures actually achieve their status?
  5. Final Club Gut Check
    On the dial from “perfect page-to-screen translation” to “loosely inspired by a satirical novella about the American appetite for emptiness dressed as wisdom,” where does Ashby’s Being There land? And the question the story has been asking all along — from the first page of the novel to the final image of the film — which is this: if a man with nothing to say says it with sufficient stillness and is heard in the right room, does that make him wise? And did either version give you an answer, or just a very long, very beautiful pause?

Use, tweak, or mash these questions as needed — your club, your garden.