John Cassavetes - Life, Death and Freedom

[Mr. Arkadin]

I got a copy of Convicts 4 in the mail today. Funny that.

[Ollie]

I would not consider myself a Cassavetes fan although I've watched a lot of his films. I like stumbling across Blast Of Silence or World's Greatest SInner, and I can't quite analyze why I enjoy those oddball films but don't have a more positive appreciation for Cassavetes' work.

The one aspect I've always liked about his films - they're HIS films. He's collected the money, the producers, etc, and he'll find a cadre of friends to make his films. I may not like them, but I do appreciate this aspect - which puts them very much into the Errol Morris, Tim Carey and Allen Baron category. Cassavetes was able to accomplish a lot more over a much longer time, though - I don't know if this is some statement of his universal expertise or simply that his creativity lasted longer or pushed him farther.

PS... Convicts 4 is a "confluence of the universe" occurrence in mailboxes. Some squeaky wheel asked about not bothering to knock (ha ha), and that made me rewatch that film. Then Convicts 4 showed up and, well, it just seemed like the stars aligned themselves. If someone hadn't brought up Widmark & Monroe films, I'm not sure other films would have impacted my attention. Therefore - blame yourselves!! ha ha

[ChiO]

Ollie & Ark,

Speaking of "confluence of the universe," (and major detour on this thread) guess what I picked up for $0.99 at an auction today. That's right -- a one-sheet of CONVICTS 4. And a lovely thing it is even though there's not even a credit, let alone a picture, for Timothy Carey, just pictures of Gazzara, Whitmore, Davis, and Walston. The poor guy never gets credit for making a movie what it is.

Ever notice who the director is? Millard Kaufman. It's the only movie he directed; he was primarily a screenwriter. His best known screenplay credit? GUN CRAZY -- he was the front for Dalton Trumbo.

So it goes.

[charliechaplinfan]

A big thank you to Nancy who knew I wanted to watch this movie and recorded it and sent it to me.

Hmm, where do I start??? Well, it grabbed my attention straight away but then I got a bit bewildered during the bar singing scene. The guys needed to have a skinful to be able to free and deal with what they were feeling inside, the vomiting being almost a purging of the feeling of bereavement. Going to the gym and lamenting what had passed reflected a loss of youth and dreams. What I didn't get was the slight feeling of cruelty, especially towards the woman who was singing. The cruelty surfaces again, most explosively with Harry being abusive with his wife, not that I felt any sympathy for her. Cruelty surfaces again in the hotel scenes, the men don't step in to temper another's verbal cruelty.

It's a difficult film for me to completely tune into because I felt the women were objects, extensions of how the men felt towards them. The title confused me, 'Husbands' to me suggests men who want to be husbands but I don't think these guys wanted to be.

When they got to London, I admit to feeling bewildered. The scenes in the casino and hotel were difficult for me to follow, I wasn't sure of the motivation, I thought it was the obvious one and they were full of awkwardness but even then I wasn't sure, why the tall girl didn't run out on Gus is beyond me, he was acting really strange. Archie, well for me he was the most sympathetic and the one I felt I understood the most (and that wasn't very much). The lovescene with the oriental girl was really sweet until he started shouting at her, I guess he was the least sure of himself with women. Harry, I just didn't get him at all, aside from the pain he felt by the rejection and fences built by his wife, he was still a physical bully.

So these husbands all abandoned their marriage vows in London and two of them returned home. Are they chastened or remorseful? Has the heart grown fonder for the wives they left behind? I doubt it but they've had an experience that has reinforced the bonds between the remaining three.

The one thing I tried to remember through this is that I was watching a threesome who had a history, how long, no one knows but that history was a foursome and these guys are more important to one another than their families and their family has been shaken to it's core at a relatively young age, that's something different for me to comprehend but not out of my grasp.

I've only ever seen Peter Falk in Columbo, and Columbo never stood up straight, I was surprised to see this different side to him, Ben Gazzara and John Cassavetes are new to me.

Well, I'm still bewildered but not turned off the male theme of Husbands and interested enough in Cassavetes to rent the movies that have been released as Region 2. I've heard very good things about Gena Rowlands. Let my film education continue.

Chio said (I get to be Cassavetes; Dewey & Ark can duke it out for the other two roles) good choice, if I had to choose between them, then Cassavetes is the only one who I'd go for.

[ChiO]

Doggone it...and, thank you, Alison...for venturing into HUSBANDS and forcing me to re-watch certain scenes. With each viewing, I become more convinced that this is a film for the ages.

The title confused me, 'Husbands' to me suggests men who want to be husbands but I don't think these guys wanted to be.

Cassavetes, for all of his emotional assault, always leaves options open for the audience. HUSBANDS (the title) = (1) men who want to be husbands; (2) irony, because these men don't really want to be husbands; (3) three men who are married to women and are, therefore, husbands; (4) a dig at one-word labels that attempt to define a person in his (or her) totally as if that word can encompass the fullness of a person and has a universally accepted meaning; (5) a commitment to another person and, perhaps, in this case, each of these three is the "husband" to the other two, formerly three, men. It is, after all, at it's core, the loveliest of love stories.

Woman at London club (after Gus babbles in faux Italian): You're making it up.
Gus: It's not real to you, but it's real it me.

The lovescene with the oriental girl was really sweet until he started shouting at her, I guess he was the least sure of himself with women.

I don't see it as "unsure with women." Archie was the least comfortable with straying. He may have wanted to, but something was holding him back. Harry and Gus seemed amenable to finding women for the night, so -- good golly, Miss Molly -- of course, he had to go with the flow. But he didn't like the flow. Before he connects with the young woman, he tries, after finally summoning up the courage (and his discomfort in doing so is discomforting), to pick up a woman who rejects him and, as any self-respecting man would do in such a public situation with his buddies nearby, backs off by saying he was just kidding. Then he hits on the more mature woman who is eager to accept his advances and, then, he immediately retreats. Then he finds the young woman for the evening. Note, she does not speak English. Meaning? Two outsiders? No real connection can be made? Easier to take advantage of? (Good grief -- one hopes that Cassavetes wasn't making a political statement: loud, brash American outside of his country in a position to violate an Asian who happened to be Vietnamese). Then, when she becomes sexually aggressive, Archie retreats, screaming at her after she puts her tongue in his mouth (penetration = feminizing). Cassavetes leaves us with the chance to find our own meaning(s). But failing to react viscerally is nearly impossible.

And each bedroom scene in the London hotel is done -- for the most part -- in one shot. That, at least for me, adds to the tension and the emotional impact. Cassavetes keeps us on the edge throughout, forcing a response. This is The Theater of Cruelty.

I hope LOVE STREAMS is on your list.

[charliechaplinfan]

Thank you for the insight into Archie, I guessed he was the most married of the three, he was uncomfortable with straying. I thought she bit him (in a sexual way, shows what I know) and that was why he was angry with her, it did cut back and show the tears in her eyes, instead he's annoyed because she's taking the lead. Doesn't he describe himself as a bit slow at one point? I thought that meant during the act but it could mean picking women up, or both? . What was the scene about it the rain? The were estranged from one another there, was it a postcoital argument? Was it just that Archie didn't know what to do, perhaps never having strayed before, are you cool the next morning or grateful? Is each person expecting something different.

I thought Harry and Gus were braggarts, although Gus reverted to a schoolboy when he was with the tall woman. Harry, I didn't like Harry, he was aggresive and lacked the charm of the other two.

Questions, questions, question.

[ChiO]

Today, I ran across a portion of the eulogy delivered by Timothy Carey at John Cassavetes' funeral:

His grace, humility, artistry, against all odds. His light will never be extinguished. Cassavetes: always perpendicular to humanity, antidote against apathy in my life as a thespian. To me, he will always be a theanthropist. Hail Cassavetes.

[charliechaplinfan]

I read about Cassavettes in a book by Peter Bogdanovich called Who The Hell's In It? Bogdanovich spoke so eloquently and passionately about Cassavettes that I knew I had to give one or two of his films as go.

[charliechaplinfan]

I'm nursing a horrible winter virus that makes my mind go all foggy and I've chosen to watch Faces. I'm not sure a foggy mind and Cassavettes go hand in hand, or maybe he aims to confuse the vieweer initially. It's like walking in on a conversation, knowing nothing about either person and trying to figure it out, I get a bit mad at myself for not picking everything up instantly. I admit, I nearly gave up at the beginning but something about Gena Rowlands made me stay with it. I doubt I'll get through it all tonight, maybe the first hour or so. I'm intrigued, has the title Faces got anything to do with the amount of pictures, mostly portraits that all the characters so far have on their walls?

[ChiO]

Not the best circumstances for watching a Cassavetes film.

My take on why the name FACES: His first three films (excluding the two "Hollywood" movies, TOO LATE BLUES and A CHILD IS WAITING) each had a one word title -- SHADOWS, FACES, and HUSBANDS. It could be that since the first one got him attention, he decided to run with it awhile. Also, a one word title reflects the minimalist nature of the film. Finally, something that seems counter-intuitive for an independent filmmaker, Cassavetes wanted to make a movie about a segment of American society that he thought independent filmmakers were ignoring or, when not ignoring, ridiculing.

It is a picture about the middle-aged, high-middle-income-bracket people that are made fun of in our society. This is the white American society that certain social groups talk about all the time. One day I woke up and realized that I'm part of that society and almost everyone I know is. There's no use in pretending that I am back in New York in the early days looking for a job. I'm not. And I knew there was something to be said about these people and their insular existence and about their place in society that is frowned upon today.

In other words, he wanted to give these people FACES. Perfect.

[charliechaplinfan]

Thanks for the info Chio, it helped. I ended up watching Faces in two parts. It wasn't the best idea to start it when feeling less than tip top. You helped me understand his motivation and choice of people. To me viewing his work is like trying to interpret a book for an Enlish literature class.

In Faces I felt the biggest sympathy with the wife, I found the scenes she was in the most moving and she seemed the most complex individual because she said very little. I'm presuming that the men watching would feel more sympathy for the husband but I might be wrong. One of the ladies says that she went to college and I get the impression that these women, all probably bright are just housewifes and it doesn't fulfill them. I don't think the problems are of a sexual nature but that's the easiest way for the characters to act out their discontent. I do sympathise with the guys too, they work hard, make good money and don't connect with their wifes anymore but I'm a bit more confused as to how they react. I see that the wife only went with Chet because her husband left. Chet blamed himself for her overdose, which I didn't understand, perhaps he was making her feel better. Then towards the end I got the impression that the married couple had been there before. I've never seen Gena Rowlands in anything before, she's luminous in this, I'm definetly wanting to check out more of her work. I'm probably over simplifying a complicated script. Why do I feel once I've reached the end of my second Cassavettes film that yet again I've probably missed 50% of what has happened, even though I was paying complete attention.

My only slight dissappointment with this is that Cassavettes wasn't in it himself.

[ChiO]

I've never seen Gena Rowlands in anything before, she's luminous in this, I'm definetly wanting to check out more of her work....
My only slight dissappointment with this is that Cassavettes wasn't in it himself.

Then definitely see LOVE STREAMS. They are the leads, and it is the last of his films that he was in. Incredible and moving film. It's not available in the US, but I believe it is in Region 2.

[Dewey1960]

I'd like to second ChiO's recommendation on LOVE STREAMS. It's really quite an impressive
film, and I think you'll thoroughly enjoy it. Below is the first ten minutes or so; the entire
film is posted on YouTube. Have at it!
[youtube][/youtube]

[ChiO]

Then there's MINNIE AND MOSKOWITZ, another Cassavetes movie with him and Gena Rowlands, as well as Seymour Cassel and, in one incredible early scene, Timothy Carey as Morgan Morgan. Though not nearly up to the standards of LOVE STREAMS, it is worth viewing.

[youtube][/youtube]

[charliechaplinfan]

It looks like Love Streams has been out as region 2 but is only offered by a marketplace seller and is quite expensive. The Cassavettes collection which offers 5 films, all which I've put on my rental list is only £16 to buy.

As soon as I get the other rentals, I'll let you know what I think of them. I'm looking forward to seeing more of Gena Rowlands. Did she do her best work for Cassavettes?