criterionforum.org

aox wrote:Damn, I could barely get through Shadows. I thought it was excruciatingly tedious. I loved the jazz, and I liked how Cassavetes worked his camera and actors like an ensemble, but I just couldn't get into it. Nonetheless, cheers to Criterion; the film is obviously in terrible shape and we are lucky we have it at all at this point.

Shadows I would say is rough, even rougher than the other films in the set. True its difficult to get through but face it no one really makes films like Cassavetes, so it is a shock. Even mores when it is the roughest and less narrative driven unlike the films that followed with Woman Under the Influence being what I think to be one of the more structured films in the set, but at the same time its precisely that "rawness" or lack of structure that I find charming about it, I call it raw as I find my experiene with Cassavetes to be like sushi you may be shocked or repulsed at first but eventually its a taste you become accustomed to with each film. That like Jazz each scene slowly "improvises" but it has a certain sincerity to it, though it may not be the most coherent or precise but with that sincerity its bound to hit you hard:

Spoiler

Leila's lines after her first time especially shocked me not just because of what she said but because it came across so believably.

While you will come across scenes of the same magnitude, or even more depending on you, still in my opinion the charm of Shadows is something that becomes lost or increasingly "refined" out of his subsequent films, glimmers of it can be seen in Faces. Well the clarity of his films improve, based on the boxset.

Edit: Course Faces has its own charms too, as many have discussed especially with the way the characters act, and the openning is one of my favorites. Surprised that you opted to skip over it O.o

As for the condition of the print, which shows the lack technical prowess and neatness of the way the film was shot, only further the experience of Shadows.

If it's of any help, I have to say that the non-Criterion Husbands is his best work. Considering your response to Falk's blue collar authenticity, it may be a film for you.

With that said, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by skipping over Faces which may be my favorite film in the box. The jump in control and clarity from Shadows is first obvious there.

I know Cassavetes was a fan of Bergman (who gets namechecked in the film), but I'm not sure the admiration ever worked the other way around (although I have my suspicions). Yet, with Faces you almost have a dry run for Scenes from a Marriage (a comparison that I'm sure would seem more apt if the 6-hour workprint ever emerges). The disintegration of a marriage told through several (what does the film have? 5 segments?) extended, uninterrupted domestic quarrels, revolving around a small group of characters (only four major roles in the film); there's a strucure and rigor to the film which I think too many people overlook when they talk of Cassavetes as an "actor's director" making formless, improvisatory films . While the structure is there in all his films, it's never never been more pronounced than in Faces. And surprisingly, the rigor doesn't destroy the rawness or spontaneity of the work, but helps bring it out front and center by framing it into self-contained segments.

hangman wrote: but face it no one really makes films like Cassavetes, so it is a shock.

I could think of at least one.
That piece of jerkiness said, as someone who is also just getting into Cassavetes, my first experience with Husbands being much improved over aox's, I have an automatic appreciation for him, though I also see every tiny aspect that can get on the nerves of people. It's not so much as it is challenging cinema as it is very dry. Cassavetes seems to ground everything to its bare essentials and let it play out as an improve theater. There seems to be good reason why van Sant said that Gerry was as influenced by Cassavetes as Tarr.

knives wrote:

hangman wrote: but face it no one really makes films like Cassavetes, so it is a shock.

I could think of at least one.

Perhaps it would be better to say that its not a type of film making you would normally see, I mean I was shocked by it since its certainly not your everyday type of film.

To be fair to you, I was looking more at the characters and the way the story is told than raw film technique of which Cassavetes seems more extreme than Ferreri.

I will check out Faces next. Thanks for the recommendation. You had me at Bergman and Scenes from a Marriage.

Cold Bishop wrote: there's a strucure and rigor to [Faces] which I think too many people overlook when they talk of Cassavetes as an "actor's director" making formless, improvisatory films ....

I think like Altman he was often subject to how good his actors are. I think Cassavetes brought incredble things out of every actor he worked with, its just that when he happens to have dynamite actors, as he did in Faces and Woman particularly (I haven't seen Husbands or Minnie yet, but they're here in my keyvip), he gives them the room to just create these extraordinary moments that Cassavetes fans cherish.

The main spot of weakness to point out for me are in Shadows and Chinese Bookie, where false notes ring through because the players maybe just don't have it in them to be as naked and true as a Gena Rowlands or a John Marley. But Shadows is where it all started; incredible story behind that film, which makes it essential, but perhaps only once you've come to love Cassavetes and care where he got his method from. Awkwardly phrased, but hopefully you get my point.

I have to step in here to defend The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. It may be my favorite Cassavetes' behind Faces (which sends me into hyperbolic fervor). However, I did come around to it slowly. At first I definitely preferred A Woman Under the Influence, and only gradually did I come to see the richness in The Killing of a Chinese Bookie.

All of Cassavetes' films (of those I've seen, at least) have characters who put on performances. They're putting on a show, or forcing their laughter, or trying to look more comfortable than they are. In most cases, these facades falter at some point during the film. These are the pivotal points in Faces, and they reveal how futile and even self-destructive the facade is. Cosmo, on the other hand, never lets the act drop. It's paper-thin the entire time and we can't help but see straight through it, see how shabby and cheap his whole enterprise and lifestyle are, yet he persists in maintaining it. He maintains it and thrives off of the dignity that it affords him, even if that dignity is under constant siege by reality. As much as I adore his other films, I find more vulnerability and depth in Cosmo than I do in any of his other characters. Also, while it's not as showy as Rowland's roles, Gazzara's performance is just astounding.

Not sure that this is the right place to put this...but I searched and this was the only result and it didn't feel necessary to create a separate thread for the one film....BUT - am I the only one that really loves Gloria? Scanning through the old discussion, erm, pile-on, of Ms. Rowlands I am kind of shocked to see so much dislike for the poor woman. The Columbia disc of Gloria is nothing to write home about, but there's something about the film that has always really grabbed me, and while she was clearly doing everything in her power to NOT say "Go ahead, Make my day...punk!" (she did go with punk a few times though), watching this tonight I was just as gripped by her plight as I was in junior high when I first saw this. There's just something very organic about it all to me that it never seems like over-acting like so many here seem to see....just a woman in one hell of a bind fighting for her life and trying to save this poor kid. I dunno...I think it's one of Cassavetes' best outside of this box.


I also had to get it on record that I realized why the kid seemed so familiar to me half way through: he sounds EXACTLY like Rosie Perez.

Faces has been remade...maybe?

I'd like to see Criterion reissue A Woman Under the Influnce on Blu-Ray using the 2009 Film Foundation restoration...

I have to agree on Gloria, which I believe was made in 1985. That's 35 years old people.

Hey! As someone born in 1985, please do not age me prematurely. It's 26 years old.

I have lots of love for Gloria and I would never blaspheme any performance by Rowlands. Watching her do her thing is the real pleasure of the film. Cassavettes shooting seedy eighties New York is great as well. The film does push your suspension of disbelief but I think it's a testament to Rowlands that it works in the end. Plus he got to make My favorite Love Streams next and surely showing he could play ball with Gloria helped.

The Rosie Perez kid is the problem. Yech. Otherwise it is an enjoyable genre experiment. The blond wig in Chungking Express is a tribute to Gloria, which I guess is a favorite of WKW, and of course Julia is a remake (some would argue "loosely based") which I find superior to the original. Either way it is a strangely influential film.

Don't forget the Sharon Stone remake!

colinr0380 wrote:Don't forget the Sharon Stone remake!

Directed by Sidney Lumet no less!

"Gloria. Big mouth. Big attitude. But who knew she had a big heart."

zonk wrote:I have to agree on Gloria, which I believe was made in 1985. That's 35 years old people.

PEDANT ALERT! Actually, Gloria came out in 1980 so it's 31 years old.

I had no idea that Ben Gazzara had died (hell, I had no idea even who he was) until today, after I finished watching the '76 cut of Killing of a Chinese Bookie. What a strange, but tragic, coincidence! The version of Killing that I watched, I can say, is the weakest of the four Cassavetes films I've seen. Regardless, Gazzara performance in the film is incredible to behold - he really steals the show, and I look forward to checking out the '78 cut of the film, which will probably be a significant improvement.

To elaborate a little bit, my qualms with Killing are entirely related to the editing, so I suspect a pared-down version would rectify those problems. Does anyone know if Cassavetes did the re-edit because it was recieved so negatively upon its initial release, or if he re-edited the film purely out of personal dissatisfaction with the original edit? The latter option would make sense, given that the 76' version's release had been very rushed.

Jazzkammer wrote:To elaborate a little bit, my qualms with Killing are entirely related to the editing, so I suspect a pared-down version would rectify those problems. Does anyone know if Cassavetes did the re-edit because it was recieved so negatively upon its initial release, or if he re-edited the film purely out of personal dissatisfaction with the original edit? The latter option would make sense, given that the 76' version's release had been very rushed.

Here's a nice article on the film from Bright Lights Film Journal which mentions that this was not the first time that Cassavetes had re-edited his films. I can't remember after a few years whether it is talked about in the interviews in the Criterion set about practical reasons for Cassavetes re-editing the film, but that article makes a persuasive case that the two films illustrate a move from an ensemble view of the world, in which Cosmo Vitelli is seen from afar and judged, and an interior subjective view of an individual character, of Cosmo's view of himself taking primacy.

In other words Cosmo in the 1976 version is a rather pathetic individual, forever falling prey to his self delusions and always in debt to someone or other, with most of the other characters ignoring, undermining or pushing him around at every turn. In the 1978 version he is a tragic hero, someone just trying to keep his dream going in a world where everyone is unscrupulous and shifty, and rather than being pushed around he makes the best of a bad situation.

Over at Ecstatic, Jason Hedrick and I work through Opening Night.

I hope there aren't any problems with the Cassavetes set being on only 5 discs.

Askew wrote:I hope there aren't any problems with the Cassavetes set being on only 5 discs.

I guess that means that the 3+ hour documentary A Constant Forge will have to be squeezed onto the Opening Night disc.

There's no indication that Constant Forge is being presented in 1080p.

criterion10 wrote:

Askew wrote:I hope there aren't any problems with the Cassavetes set being on only 5 discs.

I guess that means that the 3+ hour documentary A Constant Forge will have to be squeezed onto the Opening Night disc.

And not on Shadows, which is much shorter? Perhaps it won't be in HD either?