John Cassavetes - Life, Death and Freedom

[jdb1]

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.

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.

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.

[Mr. Arkadin]

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.

But where did you get this impression?

I do agree that Cassavetes' work seems exceedingly male-oriented, but in an exclusionary way.

So films like A Woman Under the Influence (1974) Opening Night (1977), Love Streams (1984), Shadows (1959), and Gloria (1980) are male-oriented? You seem to be suggesting your perspective of a single film (Husbands) is a standard for judging the rest of Cassavetes' work. If you've seen these other films, you know that concept has no merit.

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.

Actually, I see quite bit of broad humanity in the man's work, but we all have different tastes and find different things in art. My point was simply that Cassavetes should not be judged by one film you hated (or a film still), but his entire body of work, which embraces many different genres and styles. I would encourage you to see the other movies to gain a better overview.

[jdb1]

Mr. A, you continue to miss my point. Just because I pointed out something by using a shot from Husbands doesn't mean I was talking only about Husbands. I was talking about the kind of characterizations that Cassavetes uses. And yes, I do think that just about all of his "personal" films are just a bit too personal for the general movie-going audience. I am saying that Cassavetes' work does not speak to me -- I'm not saying that nobody else is allowed to like it because I don't. There are a great many "small" films that I find meaningful and affecting. Those are rarely the films of John Cassavetes.

He has a loyal following to be sure, but he has not gotten the scope of attention that other auteurs have. There has to be a reason for that. It's not because we're being mean to him and his memory because he didn't make chick flicks. Perhaps it's because not all cinematic self-indulgence is successful cinema with a universal appeal.

(There are a great many threads on this board in which I haven't participated, because I don't know enough about the subject. If I don't have anything well-considered to add, I don't say anything. Consequently, I don't need to be told to do my homework before I voice an opinion here.)

[srowley75]

I've found this thread very interesting. Since my recent unemployment, my sister and I have been working our way through the films listed in 1001 Movies to See Before You Die. Most of the ones we've watched thus far have been films I'd already seen but that Rebekah hasn't. But I've seen none of Cassavetes' films, and yet several are listed in this volume - Shadows, Chinese Bookie, Woman Under the Influence, and Faces being the ones I remember (there may be one or two more). All of them had been on my own personal list as well for some time. I tried to watch both Shadows and Faces long ago, but didn't finish either. I was quite young then so I'd probably be more inclined to stick with them now.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Mr. A, you continue to miss my point.

Your point is obvious. You don't care for Cassavetes, and that's perfectly fine. As I said in my last post "we all have different tastes and find different things in art." The problem is you are obviously unfamiliar with his work. While this does not make your opinion any less valid, there are certain things you are tossing out as fact that are untrue. Let's start with your most recent post:

Just because I pointed out something by using a shot from Husbands doesn't mean I was talking only about Husbands.

That shot is not from Husbands. It is from The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. Furthermore, the characterizations that you implied are not present in that shot.

You also stated that Cassavetes work "seems exceedingly male-oriented", when this is clearly not the case, as the films I listed attest. That you would take such a position, leads me to conclude that you have never seen them. My advice to you was to seek out some of these works and then come back to discuss what you like or dislike.

It was not my intention to insult you. I merely stated you were in error in some of your facts.

[jdb1]

This reminds me a lot of a "conversation" I had with my husband when I ventured to opine that I found Daryll Hannah rather horsey-looking and not a very good actress. That was not intended as an attack on my husband's taste in movies or movie stars, only a statement of my opinion. Expression of personal opinion is not necessarily the result of ignorance, or intended as personal invective.

I could watch Cassavetes' films from now until the 22nd Century, but I doubt my opinion would change. There are some things that even further education cannot change, and personal preference is one of them. Sorry you seem to be so sensitive on the subject of Cassavetes, as my husband was on the subject of what's her name. I'm sure she is and he was a perfectly nice human being.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Hi KR. I have no problem with the idea that Husbands is a male oriented film. My point was this is not the only type, or style of film which Cassavetes makes. Seeing his wife and muse Gena Rowlands work her magic in films like A Woman Under the Influence (1974), Opening Night (1977), Gloria (1980), and Love Streams (1984) will give you a completely different perspective of his work and these are films people should see before judging him as a filmmaker.

Another example of this might be one of Judith's favorites, Fellini. Should we consider his pre-1963 or post-1963 films? The answer is, obviously, you need to see both, because they complete who he is as a director. Another perhaps, is Sam Peckinpah, who is often viewed as a violent filmmaker, but made such tender works as The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1971) and Junior Bonner (1972).

BTW, I would consider I Vitelloni (1953) and perhaps Mean Streets (1973) a closer match with Diner. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I find the British film Last Orders (2001) a very close fit to Husbands. Here's a bit more info on the film:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/lastorders/flash/index.html

[charliechaplinfan]

I've found this thread very interesting. Since my recent unemployment, my sister and I have been working our way through the films listed in 1001 Movies to See Before You Die. Most of the ones we've watched thus far have been films I'd already seen but that Rebekah hasn't. But I've seen none of Cassavetes' films, and yet several are listed in this volume - Shadows, Chinese Bookie, Woman Under the Influence, and Faces being the ones I remember (there may be one or two more). All of them had been on my own personal list as well for some time. I tried to watch both Shadows and Faces long ago, but didn't finish either. I was quite young then so I'd probably be more inclined to stick with them now.

I have that book and whilst it's based on the films that a handful of critics think are the most important works in the life of film it filled in gaps in my film knowledge, I've rented lots of films from this list and tried to track down others, with most I have been pleasantly surprised and have sent me off in new directions searching out works by directors I'd never heard of before. I have a tendency to prefer films from the silent and classic eras but do like more contemprorary films, I've added some Cassevetes films and look forward to getting involved in the discussion on Cassavetes. There have only been two films that I've watched from recommendation that haven't struck a chord with me and that is Last Year at Marienbad and Weekend, in both cases I've enjoyed other films by the director. I hope your period on unemployment ends soon, in the meantime I can't think of a better way to keep busy.

[ChiO]

I can understand that certain people would like a more conventional form, so that they can borrow it, much like the gangster picture. You can "read" it, because it's something you know already. But if you deal with a scene [in an unconventional way], it's very hard for people to get with the film because of their expectations. Other films depend on a shorthand, a shorthand for living. You recognize certain incidents and you go with them. People prefer that you condense; they find it quite natural for life to be condensed in films. They prefer that because they can catch onto the meanings and keep ahead of the movie. But that's boring. I won't make shorthand films. In my films there's a competition with the audience to keep ahead of them. I want to break their patterns. I want to shake them up and get them out of those quick, manufactured truths. -- John Cassavetes

Whether one likes that or not, he was obviously successful in shaking up the audience because, forty (ARRGHHH!) years after HUSBANDS, viewers are still shaken. This country farm boy (straight, but not urban) was shaken by it in 1970 and still am (still straight, but now urban). This discussion shows that he could create a continuing emotional response. And that is good.

A couple of clarifications should be made. Cassavetes' films are not improvised, at least not in a strict sense. There were scripts and there were rehearsals. On occasion, a scene was improvised, most notably the "bar singing" scene in HUSBANDS (the only improvised scene in the movie) and Timothy Carey's monologue (absolutely brilliant! But what else could it be?) near the beginning of MINNIE AND MOSKOWITZ. Yes, they look improvised (and, of course, at the end of SHADOWS he claims it was improvised, but there is some dispute as to whether that is accurate) and that I consider a tribute to his skill as a director. Life is not the witty repartee of HIS GIRL FRIDAY (a movie that I adore). Much of life is cliche and banal. That Cassavetes can capture that and give some viewers an exhilarating emotional film experience is a rare combination. He treasured spontaneity, but that I think is different the implication that his films were made up as he went along.

Also, it should be noted that Cassavetes disliked The Method and the Actors Studio. Some might characterize his disdain as purely personal as opposed to being based on acting theory or technique. Certainly that leads to the question of what makes one a Method actor (setting aside the question of what is The Method). Is it dependent on where and with whom one studies, and embracing the ideas found there? Cassavetes' primary study was with Charles Jehlinger, whose school (as I've read) was different than the Actors Studio and whose varied list of students included Hume Cronyn, Robert Cummings, Grace Kelly, Agnes Moorhead, Thelma Ritter, Edward G. Robinson and Spencer Tracy. I'm no student of acting technique or method, but that roster plays right into my bias: I don't care how you got to where you are, but can you deliver the goods on screen?

[jdb1]

It looks like "male-oriented" is too incendiary a label to be used here. What I've been trying to convey is that I find Cassavetes' films too small in outlook, with simply not enough substance to appeal to everyone. Certainly there is nothing wrong with a "small" film, which zones in on one particular feeling or situation. It's just that I don't care for JC's touch. I feel that his films are made for the people who are making them, and the rest of us just happen to be looking on - they don't really care whether we dig it or not.

I don't like Gloria or A Woman Under much, although I don't hate them. I haven't felt much love for any of JC's works, although I do like particular performances in particular films. (And I don't love Fellini, either, but I do find that his work, even his most chaotic opuses, speak to the human condition in terms even a general audience can understand.)

On the whole, I feel much more sanguine about Cassavetes the actor than Cassavetes the director. Other auteurs have made films which are intensely personal, and have done so with results that are more to my taste. This is not a question of right and wrong -- it is a question of what I like and don't like, and of my being able to express those feelings without causing any uproars. Facts are not all that relevant to personal tastes. I hate butter pecan ice cream for no other reason than that I hate it. I'm told there are millions who like it. That is their privilege.

[ChiO]

jdb1 said:

It looks like "male-oriented" is too incendiary a label to be used here.

Nah, not for me anyway. In fact, as Ark wrote, it is quite fair to say that HUSBANDS is "male-oriented" in that obviously the focus is on three middle-aged middle-class males (I get to be Cassavetes; Dewey & Ark can duke it out for the other two roles) coming to grips with Life and Death. It is also reasonable to assume that, as a result, the film likely resonates with such men more than it does with others (male or female). But, as Ark also noted, I would not say that Cassavetes' films -- taken as a whole -- are "male-oriented." And, regardless of any such orientation, his films -- again, taken as a whole -- are unconventional and discomforting. I love them for that, but -- and here we agree -- that is not to everyone's (see Pauline Kael) taste, and that's fair enough. Why do I feel passionately, protective and almost territorial about Cassavetes (and Fuller and Welles and....) and generally luke-warm toward certain other hallowed directors? I dunno. Half the fun is trying to figure that out and being tested by folks who are 180 degrees away.

Now back to the beginning (kingrat & CCF) and kinda the middle (srowley) regarding testing the Cassavetes waters (not to be confused with John Waters) -- for what it's worth, now having some inkling of my biases, here's my loose hierarchy:

HUSBANDS
LOVE STREAMS -- guaranteed to have me in tears at the end every time, but that's probably related to the off-screen as much as the on-screen
A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE -- The feel-good movie of 1974! (just kidding) People have said that my films are very difficult to watch, that they're experiences you are put through, rather than ones you enjoy -- and it's true. Harrowing, uncompromising.... (Mrs. ChiO, who saw it upon its release, as did I, refuses to watch it with me. Why? Too painful and too real...I just want to be entertained, she says. She's right -- and quite a recommendation.)
THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE -- Ark can rhapsodize on this far better than I (but it does have Timothy Carey!)
OPENING NIGHT -- an exploration of a woman's fantasies
MINNIE AND MOSKOWITZ -- as close to comedy as Cassavetes probably gets, with (am I repeating myself?) a brilliant, but short, appearance by Timothy Carey
SHADOWS -- I'll admit it: probably more important for what it caused than as an individual movie watching experience
FACES -- this and A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE seem to be the ones most often considered his best works, so I guess I'm out of the Cassavetes mainstream (need to watch again -- it's been awhile)
GLORIA -- a woman, gangsters, and -- yes -- some comedy
A CHILD IS WAITING -- Cassavetes directing Burt Lancaster and Judy Garland in a Stanley Kramer "message" (pardon the redundancy) movie? And better than I would have ever thought. Check out Lawrence Tierney!
TOO LATE BLUES -- still worth seeing because...well, just because

Then, of course, there are some JOHNNY STACCATO episodes he directed. The ones I've seen are wonderful.

BIG TROUBLE -- haven't seen it , but it's important to have some mysteries in Life

[Mr. Arkadin]

(I get to be Cassavetes; Dewey & Ark can duke it out for the other two roles)

I'll take Ben if I can also have him for Bookie. You will be playing the Cary role, won't you?

[Dewey1960]

I guess that leaves Archie for me, which is fine, as I truly enjoy Peter Falk (and his character) in HUSBANDS.
ChiO, I'm glad you brought up JOHNNY STACCATO with respect to JC's directorial accomplishments; the five episodes he directed for that series are, I believe, among the finest dramas ever created for television.
Overall, I think this has been an illuminating thread. Not much else for me to add other than to say that I concur with the assessment that JC's films are not anywhere close to being singularly "male-centered." I tend to think of them as human-centric. In the best possible way.

[ChiO]

Ark said (thinking I'd do him a favor sometime):

You will be playing the Cary role, won't you?

You flatter me. Nobody can do Timothy Carey except Timothy Carey. Besides, my jaw hurts when I grit my teeth that long and hard.

Now, I must get back to my latest "new" (for me) Timothy Carey movie, CONVICTS 4. He's the savior of the new fish in prison. Who's the new fish? Ben, life commuted from death. Oh, my.... (Don't worry. Things in prison are under control thus far. After all, the officer in charge of the block is Rod Steiger and the warden is Broderick Crawford. Oh, double my.... There's a Method actor in there somewhere.)

"Human-centric". Once, again, Sir Dewey, you nailed it.