250-256 John Cassavetes: Five Films

[Michael]

... but I gotta wonder: you don't think Bette Davis and Lily Tomlin have had there fair share of "look at me!" roles?

Bette maybe...more so in Baby Jane but for the most excellent reason - to bug the shit out of Joan. There is overwhelming passion and genius in nearly every one of her performances. She's a very consuming actress, burning up every scene she enters. Very powerful so far away from Gena. Have you seen Now, Voyager? Never once I feel she goes " look at me", what a profoundly soulful and geuine performance she gave in that gorgeous film.

Lily Tomlin. Hmm. I never got that "look at me" impression from her. I love the performances she gave to Altman - Nashville, Short Cuts and A Prairie Companion. All very humble and done with a big heart.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

I'm thinking specifically of All of Me. She was fine, but it was definitely a role she savored, and she let the audience know it. Not that Steve Martin didn't get his fair share of screen time...

These aren't knocks against them, mind you. I love both of them! But I don't mind hamminess, like you said, if its used effectively. I happen to think Cassavetes used Rowlands to great effect in his movies.

EDIT: Yes, I've seen Now, Voyager, I actually own it. I can't say I love the film too much (the tone is REALLY uneven), but she is really wonderful in it, as is Claude Rains, my shameful man crush.

Another great unhinged Davis performance is The Anniversary. You'd love it if you haven't seen it yet.

[Matt]

You have to remember that Davis was performing in a showy, presentational style because that was the dominant (and expected) style of her period. She could go way over the top (see Mr. Skeffington or Baby Jane, but she could also play very understated when the role called for it. Rowlands tends to perform in a showy, presentational style in films that are meant to be psychologically realistic. I think that's part of her problem.

[mteller]

Rowlands tends to perform in a showy, presentational style in films that are meant to be psychologically realistic. I think that's part of her problem.

If you don't think her performance in Woman Under the Influence is psychologically realistic, then you've never known a woman like that. Probably something you should be thankful for.

A major facet of her character is that she's constantly putting on a show. She's perpetually torn between acting on her impulses and acting the way she thinks others expect her to act. Of course it's "showy", that's the whole point.

[putney]

Rowlands tends to perform in a showy, presentational style in films that are meant to be psychologically realistic. I think that's part of her problem.

If you don't think her performance in Woman Under the Influence is psychologically realistic, then you've never known a woman like that. Probably something you should be thankful for.

that's a key point... many people have never had personal experiences with folks like these. this film always struck a chord with me because it was like watching home movies, even down to the job falk's character does. the sort of martyr complex a disturbed person (in this case rowland's character) like that suffers from manifests itself just like an over the top performance, because they need to be in charge of where the conversation goes, to the point of being the be all and end all as to who said what, when, and why, in order to support the idea of their unjust persecution they believe to be a reality.

putney

[Michael]

Just for the record, my opinion of Rowlands is not based solely on her performance in Woman. It starts with Minnie and Mosowski and ends with The Skeleton Key.

[Stefan]

"Husbands" will be released on a German DVD (region 2) in some weeks, by the way:

http://www.amazon.de/Ehem%C3%A4nner/dp/ ... 541&sr=1-2

[sir karl]

"Husbands" will be released on a German DVD (region 2) in some weeks, by the way:

http://www.amazon.de/Ehem%C3%A4nner/dp/ ... 541&sr=1-2

77 minutes?! Haha they are kidding, right?

Edit: On the backcover of the Swedish DVD it's readable: 2hrs 5 min. - so I guess it's the *cut* 131 min Sony version. :/

[Stefan]

Oh! Sorry - I didn't check the running time. As I've never heard of a 77 minute version of the film (the original version lasted 140, the extant version 131 minutes) there might still be a chance that amazon etc. have been given a wrong information by the DVD label (wishful thinking).

[colinr0380]

Two excellent articles from the Bright Lights Film Journal:

On Faces:

The difficult ending of the film, with Richard and Maria silently smoking on the stairs, suggests that continually deflecting real feeling into canned witticisms, puns, and "charm" cannot last. But if this is true, what alternative is there? Jeannie's way of life is every bit as unsustainable as Richard's. She too is not built to last. How many more woe-is-me midlife confessions can Jeannie listen to and continue to care about? Cassavetes knew that being open, responsive, and giving like Jeannie is ultimately just as lonely and limiting as being as repressed and uncommunicative as Richard; both options are equally untenable, both equally doomed. Where we find ourselves between these two positions is what Cassavetes demanded that we ask of ourselves as much as he asked it of himself throughout the rest of his life in his subsequent films - films that would not exist had it not been for Faces.

And The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, in which the two versions of the film are discussed as illustrating the break from more objectively filmed films focusing on groups of characters to more stylised character studies from individual perspectives:

Throughout the re-release, narrative excisions, additions, and transpositions support, confirm, and corroborate Cosmo's interpretation of actuality, so that the "comparatively objectively rendered backgrounds" of the earlier films are never permitted to contradict or confound him....

...Just as the taxi driver is permitted a voice in the original, so the first De-Lovely that Cosmo collects on his way to the casino is allowed to introduce an alternative perspective to Cosmo's. In the original, she expresses indifference to the expensive champagne that Cosmo offers her, prompting a peeved response. In the re-edit, however, she raises the glass and happily observes as any obliging escort should, "Look at all those little bubbles." Thus the trip is again made a reflection of Cosmo's vision, rather than in the original where its unruly participants confound his best intentions. The Cosmo of the original is similarly discomfited once inside the casino, where his inability to control the reactions of those within his orbit continues. His vision of entering the club with his harem and wowing the crowd, as if he were bringing his stage show on the road, begins to fall apart quickly — he even has to call for chairs for the De-Lovelies, because no one is paying them any attention. When his girlfriend, Rachel, tries to tactfully remonstrate with him as he signs a large cheque to go further into debt, he querulously tells her, "Don't do that — it irritates me." In the re-edit, none of this occurs. Most significantly, Cassavetes has withheld from the audience information relating to an unlimited credit offer that Cosmo has earlier received from one of the gangsters who run the casino. Without this information, Cosmo's decision to go to the casino and lose prodigiously is more directly linked to his conception of himself as "amazing." So, while this initially seems to make Cosmo a less sympathetic character — in the first version he is manipulated into the situation, while in the second it is sheer recklessness — it ultimately makes his actions all the more audaciously wilful, and his massive losses are brought about with correspondingly more chutzpah. The whole sequence thus becomes Cosmo's subjective vision of how to lose big, rather than the shabby reality of the original. Cassavetes achieves this by trimming the aforementioned scene of the casino floor, but reinforces it with the addition of a scene, once the action has moved upstairs to the executive office. Before Cosmo is shown in to account for his losses, Cassavetes adds a scene of a bickering married couple who are similarly in hock to the casino management. As they begin to turn on each other, their fear and hysteria is at odds with and complements Cosmo's serene, albeit tired, acceptance of his own situation. His elan is similarly emphasized by the re-edited version of his subsequent punishment beating. In the original, as he is led down an alleyway by the largest of his debtors, Cosmo tries to escape, only to be unceremoniously yanked back into the shadows. Following the beating, he is further humiliated by his assailant's complacent sarcasm. In the re-release, the dialogue is removed altogether, as is Cosmo's attempt to run away. The beating is thus made a transaction among equals, and Cosmo takes it without complaint, and without losing his dignity.

Cassavetes' re-editing of the original is a process by which he accommodates Cosmo's self-determined identity. The director's sympathies are self-evident. He even goes some way to excusing, or at least lessening, the jarring impact of the titular murder. In the original, Cosmo is inadvertently made aware that the target of his hit is not actually who he's been told, but he completes the mission regardless. In the re-edit, he is not made aware of the true identity of his target until afterward. Moreover, in the original there is no revelation of Cosmo's army experience in Korea, where he has killed in the line of duty. As his chief tormentor phrases it, "You've killed gooks before." So the murder he commits entails less of an inward schism, and its success is much less improbable than in the original, where Cosmo's undertaking of the task seems the most desperate capitulation. Even the written directions he is given to the victim's home allow him a little more autonomy than in the original, where they emphasize his puppet-like helplessness: "It's all marked; the steps are in there . . . look in the book; the steps are marked — that's your bible." In the re-edit, his fate is never entirely out of his own hands; his will is never defeated.

[CSM126]

Finally finished this cycle after buying the box a few months ago and taking my time watching the films...

My God. This was my introduction to Cassavetes and now I can't look at cinema and see anything but him. I believe someone here said Cassavetes had "ruined every other movie" for them and that's about how I feel. These five films are on a whole other plane of excellence than any other 'great' film I've seen. I've never seen any movies that were this raw, this real, this beautiful or this heartbreaking. They all sucked me right in and hit me so hard it was like Cassavetes had reached through the screen and grabbed hold of my heart and just wouldn't let go; in fact, if anything, it was like his grip was getting ever tighter. And man was it ever fantastic. These films put me through the wringer and yet I came out feeling so much better at the end than I felt before, a smile on my face as I wiped away tears from my eyes. And they don't just stimulate or entertain...it's like they better you: teaching you compassion for the kinds of people you might not have felt deserved or needed it before, and teaching you to connect with emotions in a manner so direct it's overwhelming. It's as if Cassavetes somehow stepped outside of himself and saw life with the kind of clarity we sunjective creatures can't normally attain.

Could I ask for anything more from a movie? I don't think so. That we have five such movies is miraculous, and now I look forward to discovering the rest of Cassavetes' work. But first I'm going to dive through all those extras!

[Narshty]

This latest news about Peter Falk is disheartening:

Fears have grown for the Columbo star Peter Falk who is 80 years old after he was spotted on Tuesday afternoon near his Beverly Hills home looking dazed and confused.

A postscript to this incident from the latest issue of Private Eye:

How Journalism Works (on the Mail Online)

1. Purchase series of photographs of actor Peter Falk, best-known as Columbo in the long-running TV series

2. Do not worry about your proprietor's solemn promise following the death of Princess Diana to "not in future purchase pictures taken by paparazzi" when handing cash to Mavrix Photo Inc, a "premier source for celebrity images" which boasts how its "hard-nosed determination to 'get that picture' has earned us universal respect in one of the most competitive areas of photography." After all, he gave up worrying about that years ago.

3. Worry neither that the 80-year-old Falk is clearly distressed in the photographs and gesturing at photographers surrounding him in street to leave him alone.

4. Write instead in the accompanying piece that Falk's "erratic beahivour" and the fact he was "spotted waving his arms in the air and muttering to himself" raised "fears" in passers-by, and maintain this was why police were called to the scene.

5. Cut and paste the last eight paragraphs of your story directly from the Wikipedia entry on the actor.

6. Ensure the story is attributed to "Daily Mail Reporter" so no one knows this is what you do for a living, and can only blame the thuggish Martin Clarke, editorial director of Mail Online, when complaints from readers about lack of "respect" and "humane consideration" flood in.

[Hail_Cesar]

Oh! Sorry - I didn't check the running time. As I've never heard of a 77 minute version of the film (the original version lasted 140, the extant version 131 minutes) there might still be a chance that amazon etc. have been given a wrong information by the DVD label (wishful thinking).

Now its 125 Minuten

[nsps]

Individual releases of Shadows and Faces are coming next week. Were these previously out separate from the box?

[Matt]

No. Not from Criterion, at any rate (they had been issued on DVD before, in vastly inferior editions).

[Magic Hate Ball]

I just saw Opening Night a couple nights ago. And, um, wow. I may just have to go out and buy this box set so I can see what his other films are like.

[MoonlitKnight]

I just saw Opening Night a couple nights ago. And, um, wow. I may just have to go out and buy this box set so I can see what his other films are like.

Indeed, "Opening Night" seldom seems to get the credit it deserves. It's still probably the best film about theatre I've ever seen.

[Ben Cheshire]

My God. This was my introduction to Cassavetes and now I can't look at cinema and see anything but him. I believe someone here said Cassavetes had "ruined every other movie" for them and that's about how I feel. These five films are on a whole other plane of excellence than any other 'great' film I've seen.

Great post; sorry I'm late to discovering this box. I got it in the Barnes and Noble Criterion Sale and so far am blown away. This definitely holds up well in the blu ray era. I would rebuy these films again in HD, but am glad I didn't wait. Turns out moving from Godard to Cassavetes was an excellent move; both share a revolutionary enthusiasm and are an excellent pair of directors to be into at the same time. Man the freedom of Cassavetes! These are all first time viewings; I'd tried Shadows before on a very poor quality source; but this is definitely the only way to watch these films. Superb!

For those starved for more after this box, are there any go-to works to try next?

[bigP]

For those starved for more after this box, are there any go-to works to try next?

The most obvious choice would probably be to pick up Husbands (Which I have not yet seen but is under the Christmas tree). As it stands, I believe the best available DVD is the new Sony release which has a commentary and a tribute to Cassvetes.

It certainly doesn't entice everybody, but I am quite a supporter of his stuido made A Child is Waiting. There's a fairly nice DVD (barebones though it is) available from Optimum in the Uk which you can pick up on Amazon for usually under £5. It was a pretty unhappy experience for Cassavetes, and he was removed from the film during the editing stage due to conflicts (I believe) with the producer(s), but despite it's constraints (particularly with the uncharacteristically controlled camera), it still carries a filtered verité you would associate with his independant work in regard to many of the classroom scenes, and features a few familiar faces from his later works (namely John Marley and Gena Rowlands). It may be Cassavetes-lite, but I still found it quite a commanding piece and certainly worth the time to see if you enjoy his work.

You may also want to delve into his 1980 film Gloria. It feels a little more clumsy than his earlier more free-spirited work, but it has a lot of charm, many beautifully handled scenes and a fine performance from Gena Rowlands. It reminded me alot of Paul Morrisey's later work, particularly Mixed Blood which also lost the free-spirit that flowed through Flesh and Trash, but made up for in the excellent performances and assured direction.

If you enjoyed the box set, you may wish to try Mikey and Nicky by Elaine May which has a pretty nice release from HVE, and a few very funny stories about Cassavete's in the interviews.

EDIT: I would also highly recommend The Films of Morris Engel collection from Kino. Absolutely beautiful filmmaking, and an independant [pre-Cassavetes] maverick.

[Ben Cheshire]

For those starved for more after this box, are there any go-to works to try next?

Basically I understand A Child Is Waiting would be less free than his other work, and its certainly interesting because it was a big studio film; but at the moment I'm looking for more work closer to the working conditions of the Cassavetes Box.

I'm definitely going for Husbands.

I thought of trying Minnie and Moskovitz; anchor bay is OOP, and I'm not interested in paying $75 for it, but a commentary from Rowlands would be great; was that included on the MK2? Anyone seen it? Its MK2, so I assume its great PQ etc, but are subs removeable?

[Elephant]

Basically I understand A Child Is Waiting would be less free than his other work, and its certainly interesting because it was a big studio film; but at the moment I'm looking for more work closer to the working conditions of the Cassavetes Box.

Outside of Big Trouble, all of Cassavetes' films are worth seeing. You might try to track down a copy of Love Streams, his last real film, in which he and Rowlands play brother and sister; in many ways it's the most alcoholic of all his films.

The early studio films--Too Late Blues, A Child Is Waiting--have a lot to admire in them. I wouldn't pay $75 for the Anchor Bay Minnie & Moskovitz, but if you like the films in the Criterion box you will like this one as well.

And yes, agreed that Husbands would be the next logical step after the Criterion box.

[Ben Cheshire]

I just watched A Child Is Waiting and here is what I think: I think other directors wake up in the morning glad to be in the movies, until they realise they're not John Cassavetes.

Here's my vote for forthcoming Criterion releases: "Every Other Film By John Cassavetes: Minnie and Moskowitz, Love Streams, Gloria, A Child Is Waiting, Too Late Blues, and Husbands," and a blu ray release for A Woman Under the Influence, which is easily my favourite and one of the one best movies I've ever seen.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

I just watched A Child Is Waiting and here is what I think: I think other directors wake up in the morning glad to be in the movies, until they realise they're not John Cassavetes.

t fill
Apparently he was very critical of Sean Penn as a director. He said something to the effect of how he wanted to direct low budget films with strong performances, but that it lacked heart and the struggle that his film had. I think his exact quote was something along the lines of of Sean Penn unwilling to "starve".

[aox]

Damn, I could barely get through Shadows. I thought it was excruciatingly tedious. I loved the jazz, and I liked how Cassavetes worked his camera and actors like an ensemble, but I just couldn't get into it. Nonetheless, cheers to Criterion; the film is obviously in terrible shape and we are lucky we have it at all at this point.

I saw A Woman Under the Influence the other night, and that is what I am talking about! What a powerful film. And while Rowlands performance is what is most focused on by critics and the even the narrative, I have to say that I was more engrossed by Falk's performance. I can't imagine how arduous the role was for Rowlands, but there were a few moments where I think she overacts and overplays her hand which I know is weird since she plays a crazy person. Leading up to the children's party, she is constantly making deliberate gestures and exhibiting mood swings that seem so extreme, I found it hard to buy that this was the point where people (mostly Falk) were concluding that she needed to be put away, even after at least 10 years of marriage. The pacing of their lives seemed unnatural at times within the framework of the film.

One of the best artistic cinematic decisions I have seen is Cassavetes not following her to the nuthouse. I was really dreading spending a half hour or more engulfed in asylum scenes with Rowlands. Falk's plight at home with the kids was far more interesting than anything that could have been shown with Rowlands. It was a relief not having to deal with her ordeal. When she came home, I was on the edge of my seat to how she would react in a film that defied general convention. This is a real example of sometimes less is more and I didn't know where Cassavetes would go.

But back to Falk. What a performance. He really nails the Rust Belt/New England 1970s working class man without drowning in hyperbole and remaining palpable. He was at his best when showing his sensitivity and vulnerability. But his tirades couldn't have been more authentic to me. The Deer Hunter scenes portraying the working class seem really watered down to me now.

"No one catches Pneumonia when I'm the father!"

And, the child actors were marvelous as well.

What I liked about this film was the examination of sanity. She never harms anyone, but he is abusive and violent. Who is really sane here? What are the roles of gender in determining sanity? Are there different litmus tests? A near perfect film, but there are a few scenes with Rowlands that held it back for me. Sometimes she was spot on though. On a humorous side note, the final sequence where she was dancing on the couch, I thought she was auditioning for a role in the next Exorcist film. Falk and the kids anchored that scene for me.

Great Great Great film! I guess I will get the Chinese Bookie next.

[Ben Cheshire]

Aox: "Great Great Great film! I guess I will get the Chinese Bookie next."

i'd do faces before bookie. You won't find a better cassavetes than influence, but I think faces equals it. Shadows is rough going, not a good 1st choice. Faces is the first masterpiece. Bookie is nowhere near the quality of faces and woman. One mans opinion, just re which to see next.

Typing on iPhone, excuse mistakes.