250-256 John Cassavetes: Five Films

[solent]

I only watch the 76 cut now and I use the 78 cut of BOOKIE as a deleted scenes disc. Only three scenes are unique to this version and one of them would have been better left in the 76 cut. The scenes are: [1] Cosmo's conversation with the girl in the bar (after the taxi driver scene), [2] Cosmo & co. waiting to see the gangsters at the casino + the urologist scene & [3] Cosmo's conversation with the gangsters at the cafe (an extension of the alternate scene in the 76 cut?). I think scene 2 is very interesting since it highlights the Godfather-like business approach of the gangsters and of how they use fear to get results.

[ben d banana]

But the 78 cut would be considered "the director's cut". If it had been first would it be better? Is it not as good because it's shorter? Also, if it's only deleted scenes you're looking for, there is an easter egg trailer in the different cuts menu of the 78 disc (can't recall if that's been mentioned here yet).

Yeah, I'll get right on that Zedz.

[solent]

To call the 78 version a 'director's cut' is true in the same sense as to call PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK mark II a director's cut. This leads to opposing views on a film as a work of art as belonging to the director or the public. I agree with both sides. An artist has a right to re-edit but the original work, as presented to the world (and admired by them) belongs to the world also. I prefer the early PICNIC but thanks to Weir I can't see it on DVD. Even Miranda and other cast members expressed anger at key scenes being excised. Why can't we have both versions of PICNIC as with BOOKIE?. In Cassavetes case, I believe he re-edited only as a reaction to severe criticism of BOOKIE in 1976. Who knows which version he would approve today.

[ben d banana]

True enough, I'm happy there's both and would like to see the earlier Picnic, have no interest in retouched Star Wars, etc, but Cassavetes was constantly drastically re-editing his movies up to release, re-cut them if they were too well received at early screenings (let's not get into the studio ones with forced cuts), and thanks to his estate, and presumably his wishes, we can't see the original Shadows, so to feel one is more correct because it came first is particularly questionable in his case. Certainly who knows what he would prefer now, he may well have created entirely new versions of everything.

That said, I generally prefer the earlier versions of songs with all the rough edges intact, am delighted I can watch the theatrical version of Stripes on the new DVD, and such, but in this case, at this time, I prefer the latter. It flows much better in the tightened up form w/o compromising his vision, still gives the characters room to live and breathe, and, most importantly in his case, delivers the maximum emotional impact. Why is the 76 cut better?

[solent]

The 76 cut moves more slowly. There is more dialogue explaining the prelude and the aftermath of the ill-fated gambling night out. All the later scenes (in both versions) are slightly longer in the 76 cut.

You are right concerning Cassavetes' editing. The original HUSBANDS would be very interesting to watch, apparently it is funnier and it contains more London episodes plus more of Gazzara. Cassavetes did not want the audience to be to happy so he re-cut it to balance it out.

Hell, we should be happy we have both versions of BOOKIE and just hope that Columbia put HUSBANDS out as a 2-disc edition.

[Steven H]

Hell, we should be happy we have both versions of BOOKIE and just hope that Columbia put HUSBANDS out as a 2-disc edition.

Let's hope. I'd love to see three cuts of Husbands (two referenced by Carney in Cassavettes on Cassavetes) the really short "funny" cut, the extra long (5hr?) cut, and the nearly three hour version that's on VHS and shows up on Flix every now and then.

I went backwards and watched the '78 Bookie first, and loved it. I really enjoyed Faces as well, but didn't *love* it. Feel pretty similarly about the rest of his films as I do with Faces, though there's something about Love Streams that sticks more than the others. It's really a shame Criterion couldn't/didn't get that one.

The more Cassavettes I watch, the more he seems like an auteur in the strictest sense, very autobiographical, extremely personal style consistent with all his films, etc. I wonder to what extent he was inspired by this theory and it maybe built up his confidence for taking these interests and styles through all his films. From his interviews, he seems dismissive of critical influence, but reading between the lines, he sounds very sensitive to it. I can just picture him getting drunk as hell, crashing, and obsessing over whether or not he's a true "auteur."

[ben d banana]

We'll have to agree to disagree Solent. I prefer the more elliptical style of the latter and feel less is more in this case. You get right into that night of gambling, which lends it an increased impact. And on it goes from there.

[backstreetsbackalright]

Anybody notice that in the train station towards the end of Shadows you can see a poster for A Night to Remember? The poster even reads "Criterion" along the bottom.

[hammock]

I noticed but did not see "Criterion". Is it good taste to place adds in movies, even though your name is Criterion? I think there is a similar thing in Shock Corridor/The Naked Kiss but I don't think it says Criterion anywhere...

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

A late explanation: the Criterion was a prestigious theater in Times Square that closed in 2000 and has since been replaced by a Toys 'R' Us. Presumably the Criterion was showing A Night to Remember at the time Cassavetes made Shadows.

[hammock]

Wow - that is almost too weird to believe. What a coincidence...

[blindside8zao]

is there a story behind husbands being unreleased?

[analoguezombie]

is there a story behind husbands being unreleased?

nothing besides the fact that the company that owns it (sony i think) doesn't see any chance of profit in putting it out

[daniel p]

Having watched and read every single thing the Boxset contained, I just wanted to say this:

Thank you John Cassavetes for ruining cinema for me.

I have to say that although I'm only 3/5 of the way through this box, I'd have to echo your sentiments Annie. I saw Shadows a while ago, and while I thought it was a good film, it didn't blow my mind - and I thought maybe Cassavetes was a director I just might not 'get'. But after sitting through Faces last night, and A Woman tonight, your comment came to mind Annie.
If these 2 aren't among the greatest films to come out of the 70's, or even out of America, then I don't understand the medium. Faces blew me away, and A Woman completely desintegrated me.
In a great year for American cinema, what with Godfather II, Chinatown and The Conversation, it's a shame the same recognition was not given to A Woman. And the fact that "The Academy" didn't award Gena Rowlands for her amazing transformation is a joke.
I don't expect the remaining films in the box to improve on those before them, but can't wait to dive in further.

[jorencain]

Those are the 2 that impressed me the most. I'll have to go back and watch "Chinese Bookie" and "Opening Night" again though. The first time around, they didn't pack the same emotional punch as "Faces" or "A Woman..."

[gubbelsj]

Takes a deep breath....

Lately, I've been re-reading and skimming some of Ray Carney's writings, both in print and online, essays I had a passing familiarity with a number of years back. I must say, after spending a few hours with Mr. Carney, I feel quite strongly that the Cassavettes box is a stronger offering without his commentary or essays included. He may be the most knowledgeable Cassavettes scholar on the planet - a point he makes sure to bring up time and again - but he may not be the best ambassador for the man's work. He comes across as an inflexible idealogue and an insufferable snob, a man deeply offended at having to rub shoulders each day with fellow humans incapable of making the grand leaps and bounds of logic which come easily to him -

(Martin Scorses and Gena Rowlands) don't really understand the movies in a deep way.

(like I do!)

Rowlands isn't an intellectual or of a critical bent. Rowlands is not a thinker. Her mind is not analytic. She's not a deep thinker about art or aesthetics

(but I am!)

Granted, Carney's relationship with Rowlands has devolved into a disastrous state. And, no, she's not an intellectual. But why belabor the point? I don't believe anybody is making the case that Gena Rowlands is a critic or intellectual. His (deserved) anger at the Shadows fiasco brings out his true character - that of patronizing vanity.

So, ok, he's a jerk. Lots of interesting people are. But even when concentrating solely on his film comments, I find him pretty difficult to take seriously. His world view seems so limited, so narrowly defined, and so morally opposed to any other system as to be nearly useless. Spike Lee is a "trendy Black filmmaker....(p)aid a lot of money to come to Harvard. Does that seem as bizarre to you as it does to me?" The Coen Brothers are dismissed as "smart-ass". Mulholland Drive is a "dreadful, soulless fashion show." The Godfather and 2001; A Space Odyssey are "ordinary". Citizen Kane is "entertaining. It's fun. But it's not great art". Nothing wrong with these statements in and of themselves. Taken separately, they could constitute a worthy approach towards idol smashing, dismissing accepted knowledge, questioning the status quo. But taken all together, as the comments of one individual, they suggest an extremely limited pallette. And such a limited and indignant tone does little justice to Cassavettes' films.

I'm sorry he devoted eight months and more than 300 hours to the Criterion box only to be tossed aside. That's lousy treatment for anybody. But the thought of listening to that wheedling little man shitting all over every other film in the CC and beyond on a commentary track is enough to make me glad Rowlands put her foot down. I'd be curious to hear from Carney fans. Is his inability to see any other films (well, he does admit to liking Tarkovsky) as worthy, beautiful or artistic a major impediment to taking him seriously as a film scholar? Is his groundbreaking work on Cassavettes enough to overlook his serious deficiencies as a writer, scholar, thinker, human being? Or do such protestations only play into Carney's belief (one I'm willing to consider, by the way) that most film viewers are saps utterly seduced by traditional storylines, manipulated emotions and the play of light upon the screen?

[Quirky77]

-Hi Gubbelssj

Well, I am a former student of Ray Carney's, and after reading your post, I have to say that the picture that you have of him is much different than the one I have.
A lot of people seem to take issue with his personality. I'll say this: there were certainly times he drove me nuts and we had arguments. On the other side, he can be very kind and have great empathy for others. He's an emotional guy (and admits it). I've had plenty of other teachers who were more easy-going, laid back, really likable, etc. And I didn't learn that much from any of them. But I never thought of Carney as looking down on other students, or having any kind of haughty attitude in class. But he would get upset if he felt that students were being lazy or disrespectful. We had a screening of Ordet in my first class with him, and students were laughing at the film. Next class he went ballistic and said he would never show the film again. Obviously, attitudes in the class became polarized afterwards. I heard something similar happened at a screening of Jeanne Diehlman for grad students. Did he overact? Look, the films mean a lot to him. And on that point I think you've misrepresented his tastes. If you go back to his website, or his books, you'll easily see that there are tons of films that he likes, many directors. Yes Tarkovsky- and also Kiarostami, Rossellini, Renoir, Dreyer, Mike Leigh, Ozu, Capra, etc. A bunch.
I would also ask if you have read any of his books. I can see how a person would think of him as an idealogue if they only read his interviews. The books make arguments much more in depth than any interview does. In fact, when I first read his interviews I had much the same reaction, and honestly it took a lot of time to understand where he was coming from.
As far as his criticisms of other films, such as Kane, 2001, Godfather- I think the bigger picture is that he believes that there have been many other, much greater films, that have been overlooked, and that there is the sacred canon that people take for granted, and part of this also has to do with the state of film criticism and reviwing in the US for decades. Cassavetes, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, etc. were not well served in their lifetimes by the critics, though now it's safe to jump on the bandwagon. But look, Roger Ebert has no respect for Kiarostami and admits to not having familiarity with Tarkovsky (I believe on Nostalghia.com there is letter from him where he says Solaris could have used some editing, though I have to double check that). He's the highest paid reviewer in America! Do you have any scorn for him? And that guy, along with Vincent Canby and Pauline Kael (who didn't even bother to review Tarkovsky and eventually Cassavetes) had direct effects on viewers and other reviewers, and in extension, on many of the filmmakers we love. The Spike Lee coment that you repeated is, I believe a refernece to how this trend affects other parts of our culture, including our colleges. Does Spike Lee deserve that distinction taht he received? Moreso than Charles Burnett- who makes great films and is virtually ignored?

As far as the whole Gena Rowlands/Criterion thing- Obviously there has been a ton of discussion about this, and my opinion will probably be held as being suspect since I'm a former student. But consider this: You say that the set is better off without Carney's essays and commentary. But would it have been better without the 1976 Bookie, which Rowlands did not want included? Is it better to have the first 17 min of the Alt Faces than to have the entire cut? She wanted neither. Do you wish you could have seen outtakes from Opening Night? Well, thank Rowlands if you don't. And outside of the box set, what about the eleven minutes missing from Husbands that she approved (while Cassavetes fought for thir inclusion back when the film was released, and which she resisted at that time). Has she served him well? The "intellectual" comment which may sound harsh, is, in my opinion, an effort to counteract the idea that we can have a deeper understanding of the films merely by talking to those who worked on the films, and those who knew Cassavetes (or any other filmmaker/artist). It's not true. That's the critics job, and it is something we would not question in the other arts. But film is so wrapped up with the aspect of celebrity that we can sometimes be blinded to this. I do agree with you that he does say things in a very pointed manner at times, in ways that I myself would probably not. But I don't think that it invalidates the points he tries to make.

I think I've probably prattled on enough. I'm not a critic and I don't like having to make assertions about other people's ideas or intentions. And over the years I've seen many arguments along this line which in the to and fro have gotten pretty heated. Take my opinions for what you will. You asked so I'm just trying to give my take on things and give Carney a bit of a defense, because I think he deserves it. He has done a lot for Cassavetes- beyond the writings, he has been instrumental to saving pieces of his work, some of which, including The Flip side (a Cassavetes one-man perf) would have been completely lost. I would recommend that you read his books rather than the interviews, because I think his arguments are less emotional and more reasoned. And I certainly welcome any comments you have in reply either on the board or in private.

[gubbelsj]

I'm still digesting your post, which is welcome and very insightful. As a former student, you certainly have a much clearer view of the man and his beliefs than I ever could, and you're quite right about his books presenting strengths often absent in interviews. And certainly, his contributions to the Cassavettes box made it a stronger release - I'm afraid I was a little sloppy on that point. The two versions of Chinese Bookie were indeed a high point of the collection (even if I prefer the 1978 cut, which may be blasphemy!). I guess I was imagining an audio commentary in which Carney would repeatedly say things like, "Note, here, in this shot how Cassavettes doesn't fall back on the crowd-pleasing techniques of an entertainer like Welles, etc." But again, I never sat through a screening or discussion with Carney - it's possible he would never say any such thing, even if that's certainly the impression he gives in interviews and talks.

In short, I would never seek to discount the monumental effort and insight he has brought to a formerly marginalized figure. Perhaps my (longish) previous post could have been summed up in a few words - I really wonder if he's the best ambassador for Cassavettes. If you truly love an artist and their works, part of you really wants to help as many people as possible discover, appreciate and fall in love with the artist. Carney talks a lot about wanting to share his love of Cassavettes with others, but he also talks a lot of trash that hurts his cause. I'd be curious to hear more from you on your interactions with Carney and what you've learned.

Oh, and if a bunch of people laughed through Ordet at a screening in my house, I'd probably react just like Carney did.

[montgomery]

Carney does like some other filmmakers: namely, the ones that Cassavetes liked. Carney's written books about all of Cassavetes' favorite directors. I think it's not stretching it to say that he's obsessed.
As for his book on Dreyer, I thought it was one of the most ridiculous, misguided books about film that I've ever read. Dreyer is my favorite director, so it was disappointing for me. While I was reading the book, I was actually very intrigued by some of his interpretations (while being put off by his rude dismissal of other critics and filmmakers), but when I went back and rewatched the films, I had to disregard everything Carney had said. I think Carney had to find a way to apply Dreyer's films to his own limited view, which centers around Cassavetes, instead of the other way around. I don't know, I really found the book ridiculous.
His book on Cassavetes is definitive in some respects, but he really repeats himself constantly, and he is so condescendingly dismissive of other schools of thought (maybe he wasn't like this in class, but it's all over his books) that it rubs me the wrong way.
As for his role in the Criterion set: Look, it would be better for us fans if we could get our hands on every scrap of film that every filmmaker ever shot. If Cassavetes were alive, nobody knows what he would have allowed on that Criterion set; maybe a lot less or a lot more than what ended up on there. But Gena Rowlands is in charge of his estate, Gena Rowlands was far closer to Cassavetes than Carney ever was, and I doubt that it's out of spite or even ignorance that she wants to keep some things unreleased. It may be a shame for fans who are obsessive or curious and want to see more, but Carney is totally out of line with some of his comments. The fact is, it's not up to him. I appreciate that Carney may be a wonderful guy in person, and learning from him directly may be a great experience. But the Carney most of us know is the one who publishes books, has a website, gives interviews, and in each one of these arenas, he has shown signs of being one of the most immature, closed-minded, condescending, mean-spirited public figures I can think of.

[pemmican]

Hm. My current plan (if finances fall into line) is to apply to study under Professor Carney in 2007, so this is all very interesting to me -- would like to hear more from those who have dealt with him. It's my impression that lately he's getting a really bad reputation that he doesn't entirely deserve -- never mind what he's said about Gena Rowlands, I've seen people on A Film By dismiss him as "a bad guy;" read various other writers accuse him of all sorts of infamies, and there's even a fair bit of Carney-bashing above... New writers dealing with Cassavetes seem to feel they need to clear room by attacking him first... It seems kinda sad to me -- a sort of base territorialism that one would think smart people could rise above. He seems like an emotional man indeed, and sometimes what he says does seem harsh and impolitic, but I respect his opinions, and in many cases agree with him (between his writings and Jonathan Rosenbaum's I don't think I'll ever be able to wholly enjoy another Coen brothers' film again, and I don't think I'm missing much -- I'm quite nervous that they've been handed the reigns on Cormac McCarthy's NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, which reads like a Peckinpah film; I'd be very surprised if they do it justice -- I think I'll start a separate thread on that, tho'). I think Carney's enthusiasm for experimental and (real) independent film is sincere, and not just an attempt to praise the filmmakers Cassavetes himself admired, as someone above suggests. The list of filmmakers he recommended students entering the program at BU acquaint themselves with, when he was head of it, is as follows, in no particular order -- many began filming only after Cassavetes was gone -

Andrei Tarkovsky, Alexander Sokurov, Carl Dreyer, Lars vonTrier, Abbas Kiarostami, Kenji Mizoguchi, Yasujiro Ozu, Robert Bresson, Jean Renoir, Vittorio DeSica, Luchino Visconti, Roberto Rossellini, Federico Fellini, Chantal Akerman, Mike Leigh, Ken Loach, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Orson Welles, Frank Capra, John Cassavetes, Elaine May, Robert Altman, Barbara Loden, Tom Noonan, Elaine May, Robert Kramer, Charles Burnett, Mark Rappaport, Paul Morrissey, Jay Rosenblatt, Su Friedrich, Bruce Conner, Matthew Barney, and Bill Viola.

Ray Carney

As for the two KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIEs, I think that one has to concede that the second film is the more effective -- the explication of the hit makes more sense and is presented more dramatically; there's less of a feeling of being bogged down early on in bad burlesques; the scenes where Cosmo takes the girls to Chinatown to see a movie, which make no clear sense in the first cut, are clarified and motivated; the business with the urologist is a great piece of filmmaking; and there's more business, I believe, with Flo (Tim Carey), whose interactions with Cosmo have a fascinating quality. I've watched both cuts back-to-back a couple of times and I feel like I understand why Cassavetes made the choices he did, and I agree that it's interesting (and made too little of) that he recut this film apparently TRYING to please people (which goes against the Cassavetes myth). All that said, there's some great stuff in the first cut that I'd've loved to have seen left in: I loved the interaction between Cosmo and the cabbie (with the great line about rivers, which is later referred to but rendered senseless during Cosmo's conversation with his girlfriend's mother); and I like that we meet Seymour Cassell (Mort vs. Vitelli -- death vs. life) early on in the first cut, so that we have an established parallel between the two men, as both being club owners, before the action of the film goes underway (I think Cassavetes plays on genre conventions of heroes and villains a bit in Bookie and tries to set up "mirroring" relationships between Mort and Cosmo and Cosmo and Flo, as well as between, most obviously, Mr. Sophistication and Cosmo).

Oddly, though, I didn't feel this way until after I'd seen the 1976 version a few times. I'd long been acquainted with the 1978 version, and didn't really "get" it -- thought it was amazingly minor for a Cassavetes film. Seeing the 1976 film sold me on the greatness of this movie, brought it home to me emotionally -- but once I felt emotionally attached to it, 1978 fast eclipsed it as being the leaner, better-structured experience. I needed 1976 to get the hook in, but now that I'm hooked, I'd rather watch 1978... anyone else feel the same way?

[Quirky77]

hi montgomery

I have to disagree with some of your statements (sorry, I'm not really good with the some of the posting functions on here...). As pemmican quoted in his post, and I mentioned also, Carney's faves do not equal Cassavetes. In fact, somewhere on his site (I believe in the letter section) he states that Cassavetes was unaware of some of the major filmmakers including Tarkovsky and (I believe) Bresson. It's worth a look because he is making a larger point about artists not always appreciating other artists- Faulkner not liking Henry James, Beethoven not liking Bach etc. You did not present any evidence that Carney's appreciation of Capra and Dreyer preceded his knowledge of Cassavetes appreciation of them.

I personally love his Dreyer book. I don't know what you find objectionable about it, but I will say that I don't offhand recall anything condescending about. I have David Bordwell's book and Tom Milne's and I have to say that neither did the job for me. I may be misremembering this (I don't have the book handy) but I believe that Milne argued that Johannes inclusion in the film is a major defect. This to me is completely wrong, though I know how his appearence in the film can be offputting to many (once again, that class of laughing students). Bordwell's book is awful in my opinion. I don't know if you have read it,but that to me is a book where writer and (this) reader are having totally different experiences wit these films. I believe his concluding line from his chapter on Gertrude referred to it as "An empty film"! And while I am deeply grateful for the Drum biography which helps fill in many gaps and gives some interesting clues to what he would have attempted in future films, they completely dismiss Gertrude.

Regarding Rowlands... I've never met the woman. My knowlege of her actions comes through Carney. That said, I would not assume that just because she was his wife that therefore she has his best interests at stake. There can be some debate about the inclusion of out-takes, cut scenes, alt cuts, as we've seen with the cut footage from Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest. But the missing reel from Husbands is damning evidence. The version in circulation is not Cassavetes' final cut, and she objected to the scene in question decades ago, and which he fought to include. She approved the current cut. I would not see that as caring for his work. This discussion could easily go into a discussion of their marriage, which from what I've gathered was very complex and not always pretty. I really don't want to go into that direction, but again being his wife doesn't make her a great guardian of his art.

One final point, to address the concluding sentence of your post, but also as a nod to Pemmican is that whatever he may say in interviews, my experience in class regarding his attitude is much different. In fact, it was often frustratingly the opposite. I personally don't ever remember him speaking condescendingly about other filmmakers, though he would point out weak points of the films we were watching or of other works by the fillmmaker in question. He would always pose questions to us and wouldn't easily give us answers. And that is why I liked him. He wanted us to think. He didn't want us to fall back on snap judgemnts. He tried to get us out of the comfort zone. Could be pretty thrilling at times.

Okay, not wanting to become the scourge of this board, I say adieu. Good luck with the classes Pemmican![/quote][/i]

[domino harvey]

I was on Carney's side til I saw that he recommended his students familiarize themselves with Matthew Barney. I say fire him from the set again.

[gubbelsj]

As for the two KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIEs, I think that one has to concede that the second film is the more effective

Oddly, though, I didn't feel this way until after I'd seen the 1976 version a few times. I'd long been acquainted with the 1978 version, and didn't really "get" it -- thought it was amazingly minor for a Cassavetes film. Seeing the 1976 film sold me on the greatness of this movie, brought it home to me emotionally -- but once I felt emotionally attached to it, 1978 fast eclipsed it as being the leaner, better-structured experience. I needed 1976 to get the hook in, but now that I'm hooked, I'd rather watch 1978... anyone else feel the same way?

This box was my introduction to Chinese Bookie, and after viewing the '76 cut, I'm afraid my reaction much resembled the anger Al Ruban describes early audiences displaying. I didn't shout at strangers to keep their money, but I felt betrayed at having spent over two hours in front of a film I found monotonous, diffuse and infuriating. But as with most transgressive works of art, those reactions often mean you've been moved and haven't yet figured out why. Certain scenes kept playing through my mind, even though I just wanted to forget about this film. So a few days later, I popped in the '78 cut, kind of not believing I was already sitting back down with a movie that had produced such a visceral response in me. And I was faced with the fact that what I was watching was a masterpiece, not just of Cassavettes', but of 70s American cinema.

For me, the film's strengths came out after watching the '78 cut, but without the earlier version playing in the back of my mind, I doubt it would have registered quite as strongly. Pemmican, I'm with you that the earlier cut simply dives into the Mr. Sophistication routines too early and too deeply. These moments were perhaps the most difficult for me to accept and process, because they seemed purposefully divisive, so transparently awful that it was, at times, hard to watch. The '76 cut dwells on these long moments, and all I could think while watching them was how unrealistic it was to think that anybody would pay money and sit still for this drivel - finding a peep show in late-70s Los Angeles surely couldn't be difficult enough to have patrons queuing up at the Crazy Horse West for a few glimpses of tit.

But I was missing the point. The artistic mediocrity, even total failure, of Cosmo's routines are the hinge upon which the entire film moves. It's easy to sympathize with a talented individual who's misunderstood and swimming upstream. It's also easy to wallow in shadenfreude as a fool stumbles across the screen. But Cosmo isn't either of these. It's his total and utter mediocrity, in a benign sense, that throws the audience off. He lacks qualities that would inspire or amuse us - he's just a hack with a dream. The dream may not be much, but that doesn't matter because it's his dream. I still think Cassavettes drags the nightclub scenes on a bit longer than necessary, but they seem better integrated in '78.

Finally, before this post becomes too rambling, Chinese Bookie serves as a nice companion piece to another 1970s reworking of LA noir - Altman's The Long Goodbye. If Altman saw in Raymond Chandler's books a false heroic code and sentimentality incompatible with the sleaze pit of contemporary America, he at least suggested a response, however chilling - gun down your best friend after he's betrayed you, and break into a waltz on your way out the door, a scene that plays as a triumphant middle finger to the Marlowe myth of saintly virtue. Cassavettes, if possible, dives deeper into the gloom. He offers no solutions, no wisecracks or evasive action, not even much in the way of a closing scene. Cosmo crawls into the shadows after one final travesty of a routine, perhaps to bleed to death, perhaps not. It almost doesn't matter.

[sevenarts]

But I was missing the point. The artistic mediocrity, even total failure, of Cosmo's routines are the hinge upon which the entire film moves. It's easy to sympathize with a talented individual who's misunderstood and swimming upstream. It's also easy to wallow in shadenfreude as a fool stumbles across the screen. But Cosmo isn't either of these. It's his total and utter mediocrity, in a benign sense, that throws the audience off. He lacks qualities that would inspire or amuse us - he's just a hack with a dream. The dream may not be much, but that doesn't matter because it's his dream.

interesting. i've had this set a while and found the '76 cut (along with opening night) one of the strongest films in the set, so i'm kind of surprised to see so much strong defense of the IMHO much inferior '78 cut here. with that said, i agree with everything you say above, but i think all of that comes across so much more clearly and forcefully in the '76 cut, where the audience is forced to grapple with cosmo's "artistry" straight-on and at length. i think the early focus on the stripshows was completely necessary, because these shows, as silly and awful as they are, are the absolute essence of cosmo. cosmo totally embodies the kitsch and ridiculousness of these shows, and even his gambling trip parallels the shows. cosmo's idea of glamour and the high-life are totally ludicrous, whether it's the way he stages his stripteases or the way he goes out for a daytime gambling spree at a chintzy parlour with a girl dolled up on each arm. i think without the earlier context of the stage shows, the gambling trip just doesn't play the same way.

in any case, i found the '78 version to be rather confusing -- if i remember correctly, audiences didn't really like it any better than the '76 cut despite cassavetes' intentions, and it's not hard for me to see why. the '78 cut in some ways makes overtures towards the typical noir thriller in its plotting, though it's still very slow on action by those standards, of course. but it does so at the expense of a lot of narrative clarity. even watching it not long after the '76 version, i found it somewhat confused and i doubt i would've understood a lot of it without the excised scenes from the previous version to rely on. i'd even venture to say that you might be enjoying the '78 version while keeping in mind a lot of material and psychological nuance that's only present in the older version. i don't think the '78 version can hold up on its own at all.

[pemmican]

Actually, I never thought I'd come to prefer 78 either -- it was only after several viewings and comparisons of both films that 78 began to really grow on me. Probably without having seen the earlier cut, I would have felt the same way about the 1978 version.

A.