John Cassavetes - Life, Death and Freedom

[ChiO]

SHADOWS may be the start of the new independent film, and THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE may be the best post-1958 film noir, and A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE may be the quintessential art-house film as hit, but it is HUSBANDS (and LOVE STREAMS) that is the John Cassavetes film I find myself watching over and over. Long out of print, TCM is showing HUSBANDS tonight at 9:45pm (EST).

A Comedy about Life, Death and Freedom
-- HUSBANDS’ tag line

Three guys. One death. A search for Life and the discovery of what Freedom may mean.

You could say it’s about three married guys who want something for themselves. They don’t know what they want but they get scared when their best friend dies. It’s the story of three guys…who like each other better than they do their wives.
-- John Cassavetes on HUSBANDS

Cassavetes absolutely forever alters the concept of “realism” in film. He makes the act of trying to replicate what is “real” on a movie screen seem not only futile, but meaningless. What is on the screen is neither “real” nor “acting”, the emotions evoked are neither “happy” nor “sad”. All of that simply “Is”. And that is the reality.

It’s the first time real male love has been shown on screen, male love for another male. Men are more comfortable around men. This is the first picture that admits it.
-- Ben Gazzara on HUSBANDS

And never has “Mooooom!” been filled with more meaning.

[charliechaplinfan]

I read about Cassavetes in a book by Bogdanovich and although I haven't seen anything by him, Bogdanovich intrigued me enough to want to investigate more. I've got on my rental list Shadows, A Woman Under the Influence and The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, I'll boost them up to the top of the list, hopefully because of their relative modernity hubby will watch them too. No Husbands available to rent as yet but I will let you know what I think about the others.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I viewed this once a long time ago, but had forgotten nearly everything I'd seen until I was talking with Monsieur ChiO and casually mentioned the UK film Last Orders (2001). Reminded that Cassavetes had used this idea 30 years before wasn't surprising, but another example that the man had a very clear vision of what he felt was possible in cinema before the mainstream industry had any clue.

Recorder is ready and loaded.

[Dewey1960]

Of all Cassavetes’ many difficult films, HUSBANDS (for me at least) is the most difficult and, consequently, the one I’m drawn to most often. I find it perversely amusing (and wonderful) that TCM has programmed this film, as it displays very little in the way of conventional, commercial movie-making; it performed dismally at the box-office when first released theatrically and it continues to baffle and infuriate many of those willing to experience its uniqueness.
Generally, when folks ask me (those aware of my personal fetish for Cassavetes, anyway) where to start when attempting to develop a passion for the Man, I unhesitatingly point to HUSBANDS. And it’s for all the reasons expressed in ChiO’s original post. And then some. If this Cassavetes film sparks your interest, then it’s safe to say that full-scale redemption is just around the corner. I’ll be very curious to read how others feel about this compelling, compassionate, and thoroughly uncomfortable film.

[charliechaplinfan]

Now I am interested, can't wait to read the reviews.

[ChiO]

Since I can't watch it tonight, I watched it twice this morning and afternoon.

It's nothing personal.

He can't vomit.

Don't believe truth. Archie, just don't believe truth.

Discuss.

[charliechaplinfan]

A dear friend is recording it for me and sending it over, I'll let you know what I think in a couple of weeks or so

[ChiO]

The only other Cassavetes film I've seen is FACES, which I rather like. So which of his films should the anti-HUSBANDS viewers check out? Probably not A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, because to me Peter Falk is a one-shtick pony.

Aw-oh. I guess I'm not the one to make a recommendation because of the Cassavetes canon, FACES is near the bottom for me, and HUSBANDS is in my Top 10 (or maybe 15) movies of all-time. A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE is great, but excruciatingly painful (in a good way) to watch.

As for HUSBANDS, Ben Gazzara's performance is wonderful (I find his performances always to be so), Cassavetes is marvelous as always, and...I think Falk's performance blows them both away. According to Marshall Fine (author of Accidental Genius: How John Cassavetes Invented the American Independent Film, which I highly recommend, and who does the commentary on the new release of HUSBANDS), Falk was at a complete loss during the the pre-London shooting. He wanted to be directed, to be told who his character was and what his motivation was. Cassavetes steadfastly refused to tell him (during filming of A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, Gena Rowlands also wanted her husband to give her insight to her character, to which Cassavetes responded, "She's your character. If you don't know, who does?"). After one of Falk's questions, Cassavetes talked for five minutes, after which Falk turned to Gazzara and asked, "What'd he say?". Gazzara replied, "He said, 'Walk over there.'"

But I digress.

HUSBANDS is Life. Maybe not Life as it is lived, but Life as it is felt. It's ugly. It's exhilarating. It is.

Moooom!... You're in trouble. Maybe Nick Cassavetes' finest performance.

See LOVE STREAMS.

[Mr. Arkadin]

The only other Cassavetes film I've seen is FACES, which I rather like. So which of his films should the anti-HUSBANDS viewers check out? Probably not A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, because to me Peter Falk is a one-shtick pony.

I would suggest The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976). This was my introduction to Cassavetes and I've never gotten over the experience, which is the point of all his films: He wants you to experience reality. That means awkward pauses, storylines that take detours, and flawed characters.

Here's part of a post I did about the film awhile back:


While there are many great things about Cassavetes film (color, shots, framing, story), probably the number one reason you should see this film is the incredible performance of Ben Gazzara. Noir protagonists are usually sympathetic in that we identify with them on some level, but have they ever been loveable as Cosmo Viteli?



Cosmo owns The Crazy Horse, a bottom barrel strip club. The performances range from silly to pathetic and Cosmo writes all the material himself. When a customer gives him an invitation to his gambling establishment, Cosmo makes it a night on the town with his ladies in high style. Things turn sour when he loses and ends up owing the house over 20 grand. Unable to pay and not willing to give up his club, the owners (who turn out to be the mob!) offer him an alternative--kill a well-known bookie who has been causing them trouble. As always, there is no perfect crime and Cosmo is no professional hit man. What's worse, the mob has no intention of leaving him alive.

Gazzara does some amazing work here, particularly long stretches with no dialogue where it's his expressions and mannerisms that give us insight into his character. A sleaze ball with few scruples, Cosmo genuinely loves his club and performers. Whether it's calling from a pay phone to check on the acts while waiting for a taxi (the car the mob provided has a blown out tire), or going backstage to settle a squabble between the girls and his bizarre emcee Mr. Miracle (what film might that name reference?), the character of Cosmo is a stand in for director Cassavetes who prostituted himself as an actor to make films that were important to him.

With The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Cassavetes suggests that while man living in corruption is flawed--he is still a human being with passion, hopes, and dreams which he will fight to protect--no matter how tattered they may be.



P.S. I dig Faces too.

P.P.S. See Falk in A Woman Under the Influence before you call him a one-shtick pony.

[Dewey1960]

KingRat sez: The only other Cassavetes film I've seen is FACES, which I rather like. So which of his films should the anti-HUSBANDS viewers check out? Probably not A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, because to me Peter Falk is a one-shtick pony.

King, I certainly commend your determination to give HUSBANDS a second chance. Most would have been content to leave that puppy alone after such a disappointing first viewing. But Cassavetes' films are among the hardest to recommend, since they don't fall conveniently into safely defined boxes. For those interested in astrology, it's helpful to know that Cassavetes was born in the sign of Sagittarius (December 9) which makes him susceptible to speaking his own truth, often at the expense of undermining his own personal advancement. We see this in film after film of his. Truth and honesty can be relative components, in art and in real life, and Cassavetes elected to communicate his own truth on screen. The results of this dedication have left him lingering in limbo, an artist who has yet to be fully appreciated, let alone understood.

I suppose if I were to recommend other films of his for anyone who loathed HUSBANDS, I would certainly second Arkadin's and ChiO's nod to KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE, LOVE STREAMS and A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Don't be steered away by Peter Falk's presence in INFLUENCE. Without his searingly honest (and distressingly brutal) performance, it's quite likely that the phenomenal Gena Rowlands might not have won her Oscar for her performance.

Cassavetes directed only a handful of films and only a precious few could truly be described as conventional Hollywood entertainment or "audience friendly." The two films he directed after his breakthrough debut SHADOWS were concessions to mainstream filmmaking: TOO LATE BLUES (1961) starring Bobby Darin as an arrogant young jazz musician and Stella Stevens as the girl he can't quite figure out how to love, is a tremendously entertaining (but somewhat compromised) film which should have catapulted Cassavetes into the A list of American directors. But it didn't. His next film, A CHILD IS WAITING (1963) with Burt Lancaster and Judy Garland fared no better. No wonder he retreated only to resurface in '68 with FACES. If Hollywood was unwilling to accept him on their terms, he might as well go unnoticed on his own terms! But Cassavetes was clearly capable of merging with mainstream tastes: MINNIE & MOSKOWITZ (1971) and GLORIA (1980) come about as close to being "normal" Hollywood films as anything else on his resume. (Back when GLORIA first came out, it was condescendingly referred to as the Cassavetes film to see for those who hate Cassavetes films.)

In the meantime, for anyone who's interested, here is the first section of TOO LATE BLUES (compliments of YouTube; the entire film is posted there). It's a Paramount film, so perhaps someday TCM will see fit to air it. I hope so!
[youtube][/youtube]

[jdb1]

I suppose I'm glad to hear at least one dissenting voice in the Cassavetes lovefest, because, boys, Cassavetes doesn't speak to me.

I'm always interested to read what ChiO, Dewey and other Cassa V fans have to say, because I just don't get it. The best I can say is that I hate some of his movies less than others. I really can't abide Husbands, which is possibly at the bottom of my list.

Look at the red-tinted photo of Gazzara, at the expression on his face -- that's how most Cassavetes films strike me: smug, arrogant, inwardly amused at something he doesn't wish to share with the rest of us. The characters generally inhabit their own private little universes, and those are never universal enough for me to feel any sort of connection. There's a "we're the pros in this masterpiece, we're having fun practicing our Craft (or maybe they are saying Crahhft), screw the rest of you" attitude that I can't get past. I've tried to watch so many of Cassavetes' oeuvre, and I can make very little sense of it. It's not that I don't get it -- it's that I don't get it, know what I mean?

Guess I'm just not cinematically astute enough, and I'll have to stick with boring and conventional old Fellini and Bergman.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Look at the red-tinted photo of Gazzara, at the expression on his face -- that's how most Cassavetes films strike me: smug, arrogant, inwardly amused at something he doesn't wish to share with the rest of us. The characters generally inhabit their own private little universes, and those are never universal enough for me to feel any sort of connection. There's a "we're the pros in this masterpiece, we're having fun practicing our Craft (or maybe they are saying Crahhft), screw the rest of you" attitude that I can't get past. I've tried to watch so many of Cassavetes' oeuvre, and I can make very little sense of it. It's not that I don't get it -- it's that I don't get it, know what I mean?

Actually, you have completely misinterpreted what is going on in that shot. Seeing the film before you critique is usually the best policy. After all, I've heard those same comments leveled at Fellini and Bergman by other critics. If I judged films by simply looking at still frames, I might believe them.