criterionforum.org

Annie, I would love for us to meet and talk all night long about our newfound love for Cassavetes. Is that possible?

Mind telling me your reaction for each one of those five titles?

To put it simply, they ALL seemed to me like I was watching cinema being made for the first time (and I only ever felt that way with one other director, Pier Paolo Pasolini - but not this intensely). It was this strong a reaction.

And I completely agree with one of Sean Penn's quotes in the documentary: whenever you're watching a Cassavetes film, every 3 or 4 minutes you get a lightning bolt of reality right before your eyes. Cinema was never THIS powerful. It even managed to shatter my admiration for the likes of Bergman and other big shots. Quite an achievement, I must say!

Absolutely, Annie. We're definitely on the same wavelength.

I remain scarred by the finale of Faces. It nearly killed me when I first saw it. During the first half, I thought how terribly boring it was. Why would I want to sit and deal with those painfully shallow people.. watching them getting drunk and doing stupid stuff... and how joke telling makes up most of their conversations.. all about NOTHING (even thought the zebra ass joke is hardly forgettable). I felt very irritated. especially when the camera refused to let go off the faces of those very empty people. Too claustophobic.

But then suddenly! Cassavetes worked some really bizarre kind of magic into the last part of the film.. ultimately redeemed my experience of watching Faces. The last shot of Faces with the song playing, I couldn't help being reminded of Scorsese.

Amazing film.

I know how you two feel because I felt the same way and it gets better with every repeated viewing!

The Cassavetes box set gets high praise from The Village Voice which puts as their top choice for box sets of 2004: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0448/dvd.php

There's also a nice review of the set at The Chicago Reader:
http://www.chireader.com/movies/archive ... 41126.html

Is anyone else disappointed by the documentary "A Constant Forge' that's included with this set?

I found it totally lacklustre in it's reiteration of information already conveyed in the extras of the individual titles. Overall I thought it wa sjust a fluff piece. More an overview of Cassavetes' good qualities than a dissection of the artist. And being 3 hours, it felt extremely light on content.

analoguezombie wrote:Is anyone else disappointed by the documentary "A Constant Forge' that's included with this set?

I found it totally lacklustre in it's reiteration of information already conveyed in the extras of the individual titles. Overall I thought it wa sjust a fluff piece. More an overview of Cassavetes' good qualities than a dissection of the artist. And being 3 hours, it felt extremely light on content.

I have to agree that ACF is a fluff piece. It's never good to watch something for 3 hours that leaves you wondering "that's it?" I found myself wandering about my apartment doing other things while I waited for the doc to get to something I hadn't see or heard yet. The footage and stills from Husbands, though, were a welcome addition.

Has anyone heard anything about "Cassavetes: Anything For John?" I would've liked to have hearing Fuller's comments on Cassavetes. At least moreso than hearing Sean Penn gush over and over.

I agree also. The film is far too long and far too sprawling in its logic and content. Perhaps a logical-historical approach would have been better but copyright laws would limit film clips being used. [I'm advocating a film-by-film analysis here which would obviously alienate the audience Kiselyak had in mind] I think more discussion on the editing of the films would also have been interesting but Mrs Cassavetes would have probably nixed this as she did any in depth referenced to Cassavetes' private life.

Three hours! What was this man thinking?

I just watched "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore," and I just have to say that Lelia Goldoni must have done something right in the 15 years after "acting" in "Shadows." It was nice to see her do a very good job as Alice's friend; she no longers comes off as a refugee from "Desperate Living" or "Pink Flamingos."

I hadn't seen "Faces" until the CC box set came out, and I was floored by it. I really loved it. I just watched "Who's That Knocking At My Door?" for the first time as well, and it really reminded me of "Faces" (not the story, but in almost every other aspect). I know that Scorsese and Cassavetes were fond of each other's work, and I thought that Scorsese must have been heavily influenced by "Faces." I was surprised to find that "Faces" was released the year after "Knocking." Anyway, can anyone comment on their actual relationship at that time (1966-68), or if there was one at all?

I got the set for Xmas. I'd been reluctant to buy it for myself because although Influence is one of my all-time faves, I'd never seen any of the others (and I didn't care much for Minnie & Moskowitz). So far, I like Faces a lot, wasn't so crazy about Shadows.

I'll be watching Chinese Bookie for the first time soon, I'm wondering which version is "better". Any preference?

The '76 version is better on on the whole. It is more logical: in terms of narrative. I would watch the '76 version up until the "no credit" scene. Then watch the waiting-for-and-meeting-with the gangsters scene from '78 [including the uroligist scene] then put back the '76 version when Cosmo drops the girls off home. The only other scene from '78 worth it is the 'gangsters in the bar scene,' it is different to the one in the '76 version. This will give the fullest, logical experience of the film (in my opinion of course). Some may argue that the '78 version is the final director's cut but I personally dislike it due to its mixed-up editing (destroying the early narrative structure) and its shortened scenes. I understood the film better after seeing the original cut for the first time this year. Even the opening credits from the '76 version was a pleasant surprise to me.

http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=HVD001732


I've never seen this cover before on the boxset. Rarer than Jimmy Crack Corn, I imagine.

Now i have a whole new wealth of respect for Kelsey Grammar seeing that he got his start with David Cassavetes. Kudos Frazier!

Where did Grammer get his start with JC?

AMB wrote:Where did Grammer get his start with JC?

Check the link above.

I have slowly plowed my way through the discs in the set now and finally got to The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. From what I had heard this was supposed to be the weakest film in the set, but I adored it. The music that accompanies the film is wonderful but what I really enjoyed was its use of lighting. An example of what I was most impressed by was when Cosmo enters the room of the man he was sent to kill the lighting accents his gun quickly in red, but not Cosmo. Another thing that I liked was in the car scenes in the dark it wasn't excessively lit which made it feel claustrophobic in the car. The touches of lighting throughout the whole film I found to be one of the best use of lighting I have seen.

Anyone know a good place to rent this set without purchasing it? Netflix only has the older editions available on DVD. I guess they won't upgrade until those versions go out of print.

Anyone know of other retailers that rent the films as set or individually?

The place half a block from me.

Yeah, I'm a dick, but unless your stuck in a small town there should be some decent rental spot, right?

Yeah, Rowlands really blew me away the first time I saw Woman Under the Influence. That was the first time I'd really seen her in anything and was instantly taken by Mabel. I'm truly amazed that Rowlands never became a huge star in the normal sense of the world. That sounds dumb, but with the talent and charisma she brings, I would have expected Hollywood to take more notice. But the second time I watched this one, I was actually more blown away by Peter Falk. Nick's struggle is so real and so palpable, especially in the third act (or whatever) when he's trying to keep it together for Mabel's sake, and trying to convince himself and her that everything is normal, etc. etc. "Be yourself...Be yourself.."

Just an amazing film all around.

I had seen Rowlands in Woody Allen's "Another Woman", which is a film I absolutely love. She, however, didn't really blow me away in that one. It's obviously a less extreme character than in any of those Cassavetes films, and I had no idea of her skills as an actor until I saw "A Woman Under The Influence." How does she come across in other non-Cassavetes films?

jorencain wrote:I had seen Rowlands in Woody Allen's "Another Woman", which is a film I absolutely love. She, however, didn't really blow me away in that one.

I think Another Woman is a severely underrated film, and I think its strength is largely due to Rowlands' superb performance (though without her it would probably still be Allen's most successful Bergman pastiche). For me, one of the marks of Rowlands' intelligence (and maybe it was Allen's direction, or suggestion, but she had to carry it off) is the tone of her narration. It's not the character's stream of consciousness or a recollection: she's written this story down and is reading it out. A small detail, but one that deepens our understanding of the character.

"The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" was the surprise of the boxset for me. I can well imagine it not being well received because in some ways it is a revisionist view of the gangster film just as Altman's "The Long Goodbye" was for the private eye genre. Both were recalled and opened again later. Both are part of the fantastic American films of the 70's. Ben Gazara is the underated actor (even more so than Gena Rowlands). Havent watched the shorter version because I love the lazy way the long '76 version works.

Chinese Bookie is my favorite of the boxset. This is the only one that ultimately stays with me. Try watching it late in the night when your mind is half-numb.. it moves and feels like a dream. Ben is amazing .. his performance as Cosmo is so much superior to any of Gena Rowlands' performances.

Having recently watched the short version of Chinese Bookie, after putting it off for some time, I find it to be my favorite of the batch. To me it seems like Cassavetes finally recut something because people didn't like it and expected they would as opposed to recutting it because people liked it. The rambling for the sake of rambling, the overdoing everything because that somehow implies you mean it more, the affectation of amateurism, etc just tends to wear me the fuck down after awhile. Okay, I get it already, you're not like everyone else (there's a reason the similarly titled Kinks song is popular with so many). Here, he gets to the meat of it and doesn't let up. Also the fact that Cosmo is him, spending every last cent, constantly in debt and being beaten down by money men, the low entertainment quotient/personal conception of his club's shows, the atmosphere of family, etc makes it resonate.

I have to wonder if being a misanthropist (and if I'm any -ist, it is most likely this) hinders my enjoyment of his films. I quite love Faces as the blackest of comedies, but I'm not sold on it as an honest portrayal of middle age and love. I have a general disinterest in my family, but Ozu's Tokyo Story crept up and overwhelmed me (as a piece of wonderful filmmaking, not like I should give my mother a great big hug). So is it something that I lack, or Cassavetes lacked?

Go on, give your mother a hug. Do it for Ozu!