I wasn't referring to any specific scene in any particular movie, and I didn't reference whatever film that frame comes from -- I was pointing out that that shot of Gazzara's facial expression represents my overall impression of Cassavetes' films.Mr. Arkadin wrote: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.jdb1 wrote: 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?
I do agree that Cassavetes' work seems exceedingly male-oriented, but in an exclusionary way. That's fine for the boys -- I don't have to look, just like I have no interest in watching Sinatra's Rat Pack flicks. They can punch themselves silly for all I care, the participation of Tim Carey notwithstanding. What I am trying to convey is that I do not find much universality in Cassavetes' work. I believe that one of the reasons he isn't more of a major player in cinema is that his movies do not have universal appeal. He made them for himself, and left most of the rest of us out. That doesn't make them bad, only limited.