John Cassavetes Gena Rowlands Retrospective Laemmle Theatres

IN HIS OWN WORDS: John Cassavetes (Methods)

Dialogue:

     “There’s no such thing as a “good actor”. What it is, you know, is an extension of life. How you’re capable of performing in your life, that’s how you’re capable of performing on screen”.

     The dialogue in the films of John Cassavetes, rambling, undefined, and filled with incidentals, manages to avoid the affectedness that results when art represents reality too faithfully. (Cassavetes employs a peculiar brand of realism different from the kind normally found in American movies.) His goal, however, is not to point out the falsity of cinematic representation, on the contrary, for Cassavetes, art is an extension of life.

     Although each sentence resonates with sentences that precede, (words are repeated, ideas meld into one another), the lines do not add up to any coherent story. Lacking a clearly identifiable focus and progressing from association to association, the speech mimics the rambling quality of thought, even changing syntaxes mid-sentence, as though thinking of what one has to say as one says it, not simply before.

     Also, the characters listen to each other just enough to continue conversation, repeating each other’s words, but clearly not communicating, (setting no overall tone because each character sets his own tone.) Improvisation is not solely the activity of professional performers, when real people speak, most of the time they are improvising. John Cassavetes saw real life as a kind of performance, that in his films he sought to represent people in the act of representing themselves, (tending to focus on precisely those moments when the two forms of improvisation become impossible to delineate. (Such confusion results from Cassavetes’ interest in the theatrical nature of real life, his movies often focus on people who play roles, make scenes, people who try to direct.) (Don’t bother about the distinction between reality and fiction, between actor and role, between script and improvisation; none of those categories holds up.)

“Methods” Quotes:



     “Most people don’t know what they want or feel. It’s very difficult to say what you mean when what you mean is painful. The most difficult thing in the world is to reveal yourself, to express what you have to.”

     “It’s a matter of being in touch with yourself and being able to think, the things that … of your life are your inner feelings, your mind’s eye view of yourself. If that isn’t broken, you’d be a fantastic person all your life.”

     “My responsibility as an artist … the films are a roadmap through emotional and intellectual terrain that provides a solution on how to save pain.”

     “First you form a relationship with your actors, an alliance, that you’re working together, and then you can beat them or be nice to them, because they respect you, and you respect them. You bring them into the story, and then you write off of that, study his speech patterns and the way he works and how he really feels about it.”

     “There isn’t anything to acting except expressing, being able to converse. The mistakes that you make in your own life, in your own personality, are assets on the film. Expressing according to their own dreams and emotions, exhibiting their personal nature, the actors have creative control over their performances, complete emotional rights.”

     “By writing scenes that we might never use, and rewriting them, everything written and rehearsed was in my mind, used and usable, investigated and studied.”

     “Improvising depends on what degree you need.”

     “The difference between improvising (off a theme, like in jazz) and ad-libbing is the difference between not knowing what to do and just saying something.”

     “If you’re an actor you are set aside from a director, you basically don’t like directors.”

Directing the Actor:

     To act “naturally”, so that their work didn’t look “staged” or “artificial”, so that they didn’t appear to be “acting”, but simply “living” their character.

     (“Most lived experiences were as “staged” and “artificial” as most dramatic experiences, and the real problem for “modern man” was breaking free from conventions and learning how to really feel again.”)

     Since most dramatic conflict arises either from characters trying to get behind the personality masks or from trying to prevent others from seeing through their own masks, a method which neglects the creation of a character mask is essentially destructive of dramatic value.

     At one point or another in the film the fundamental drama of each of the main characters can be described as dealing with the mask they wear.

     --Giving the actor something definite to do.

     --Rewriting.

     --Going back to the written material without any improvisation.

“Methods”

     “Almost everything is shot from the same place, from the same perspective. Feel what you feel. You light generally, so you can encompass all of it, but the soft lighting seems to work well for improvisation, because it’s a general light.”

     “At what point can I have some kind of rapport with the crew?”

     All that mattered to Cassavetes was the credibility of the performance. The actual script was of secondary importance and the exact lines of dialogue were of little value for what he wanted to express. The emotional impact of the dialogue has more to do with vocal variations in pitch and timbre than actual content.

     “The script went through constant revisions throughout the production. After improvisation, rewrite, then improvise and maybe we wouldn’t use anything.”

Structure:

     The form of the film was dictated by the performances.

     Actual events and actions that would traditionally move the plot forward are mostly absent, since this would distract attention from the underlying tensions and social game play. The structure is very far from a conventional three-act construction. It is rather a constant, intense stream of interaction between characters, without building up towards climaxes. (“It doesn’t fit an easy pattern of behavior.”)

     The end is the opposite of a conventional climax, it is a wide open ending which offers no resolution.

Visuals:



     The camera sometimes observes the groups of characters from a distance but it also moves through the spaces in order to capture even the most subtle facial expressions. The technique was to accommodate the cameras to the actor, rather than the standard rule which is the other way around, resulting in a shot structure different from traditional, planned shot structure.

     The isolating effect of close-ups was something Cassavetes tried to avoid by the use of off-frame sound and by having characters, (parts of them), pass through the frame, constantly aware of the actions surrounding the character in the shot, equally used on all characters.

     (“I’m interested only in working with people who like to work and find out about something that they don’t already know.”)

     The idea of the story fitting the character instead of the character fitting the story is perhaps the main different point about the film.

     Acting was tapped into the turbulence of present-tense feelings and experiences, according to the character’s self-justifying understanding of themselves.

     Cassavetes would dictate the “given circumstances” for the new scene in great detail. He had complete control over most aspects of the narrative structure and presentation- over the characters the actors played, their relationships to each other and the situations within they were placed.

     “We would work on the idea of each scene before we would should it. It was just like revising a script.”

     (People having problems that were overcome with other problems, this carried it forward and built a simple structure.)

     “I try, in every way I can, to share with the performers their own confusion or their certainty about certain facts within the script.”

     (I’ll direct it, still on the understanding that it’s a co-operative venture.”)

     (It isn’t the typewritten word that you see up there, it’s people…and if they don’t interpret with some human feeling that the audience can relate to…films will be in trouble eventually.)

     It’s a picture about emotions and these emotions had to develop, be worked out.

     As soon as I wrote it I killed the writer because the writer knows exactly what the intentions are, how every one should be played, but writing is one medium and film another. You do one thing at a time.

     All we were there to do was record what the actors were doing, much like an interview. You really want me to say something, so you’ve got to help me the best way you can to say something that is interesting. And you’ve got to sacrifice your style.

     The emotion was improvisation. The lines were written. The attitudes were improvised, as they always are. I don’t look at a script during the actual filming, I’m not really listening to dialogue. I’m watching to see if they’re communicating, and expressing something.

     If someone has a large part, and if that part is complete, they’ll express a complete person, when they will come to a small scene they’ll do it much better.

     What happens in our picture is that you’re getting so many vibrations from people and you’re seeing people behave so honestly, when they stop you get irritated. It’s more than boredom. It’s antagonism. You identify with a character and then they do something you don’t want them to do, and it becomes personal. You want them to get down to it and give you the answers.

     I’m a great believer in spontaneity, because planning kills the human spirit, so does too much discipline, because then you can’t get caught up in the moment, so life has no magic. I had an artistic and financial hit on my hands - proving to me that it was worth it, and filmmakers don’t have to spend their time doing garbage. When “Husbands” performed the same way “faces” did, it gave me the opportunity to line up just about whatever projects I may want to do without having to sweat the money. Unbelievable as this may sound and for whatever it’s worth, I’m doing just what I want to do with my life and on my own terms, without any hassling whatsoever and never have I felt so correct, so secure in myself. I believe in miracles.

Editing:

     To create a feeling of real time, so instead of fitting more scenes into a reasonable time they chose to cut entire sequences out. A determination to force the viewer to take part in present screen events was the concept.

from: John Cassavetes “HUSBANDS” (1970) Interview Playboy Magazine.

CASSAVETES: We worked well together. And we became friends on a level that’s unqualified by duty or loyalty; those things don’t count. The only thing that counts is that you’re all doing the same thing, you’re testing each other, testing yourself. In that situation each actor is thinking, “how far can I reach?” That’s selfish—and honest. I don’t think Peter and Benny were too concerned about how far I could go as a director; they were thinking about how far they could go as actors. And, in a realistic sense, Benny couldn’t go anyplace unless Peter was good and unless I was good. So we knew we had to work on that level, and in order to do that, we had to get tight with each other.

PLAYBOY: Though you were more or less an equal acting partner with them, you had final authority over Falk and Gazzara as the director. Did you have any difficulties in playing that dual role?

CASSAVETES: I don’t ever have trouble with authority. I don’t relate like that to the position, mainly because I’m not aware of the position. The title of director or actor is only to establish continuity in our business. Ben and Peter couldn’t make me a director. Either I’m a director or I’m not. Either they would have respect for me or they wouldn’t, and that’s not something you get on demand. So I didn’t worry about it. Instead, we addressed ourselves to the problems at hand, and sometimes Benny solved them, sometimes Peter solved them and sometimes I did. As a directed, I don’t have any conditions except to enjoy myself while filming and to have the people I’m working with do the same. But I wouldn’t want you to think the three of us made the movie without any disputes. We still have some violent disagreements about the film today; Benny and Peter disagree with me on a lot of things.

PLAYBOY:Like what?

CASSAVETES: I can’t really tell you, because if I understood them, I would have found a way to resolve them. Our biggest point of dispute had to do with the film’s length; we were under a lot of pressure to make it shorter than 139 minutes, which the studio felt would result in bigger audiences. They may have been right. I could see Benny’s and Peter’s anxiety about that, but I could feel my own stubbornness, and I still say that our bargain was with purity and not with success.

Look, many people walked out on Husbands; I’m aware of that because Columbia would call me up to report that 52 people had stormed out of one theater in one day. Well, Husbands is an extremely entertaining film in spots, just like I think life is entertaining in spots. Like life, it’s also very slow and depressing in areas. The one thing it’s not is a shorthand film. I won’t make shorthand films, because I don’t want to manipulate audiences into assuming quick manufactured truths. If I had it my way, Husbands would be twice as long as it is and everyone could walk out if they wanted to. Maybe I’ll get better, but I can’t change a movie merely to pacify people.                                                                                                                                     A lot of people got uptight about the scene in which Peter and I vomit in the men’s room of a bar. The characters weren’t vomiting just because they happened to be drunk; they got drunk so they could vomit for their dead friend. Some people may find that disgusting, but that’s their problem. When somebody dies, I want to feel something. I want to be so upset that I could cry, throw up, feel the loss deeply. If that offends some people, then let them be offended.

Ray Carney's "Cassavetes on Cassavetes" excerpts used with permission, for "Gena and John: A Cassavetes Retrospective", produced by Sportsmans Films, Los Angeles 2001.

CASSAVETES ON CASSAVETES by Ray Carney, excerpts from Venice Magazine September 2001

[Editor’s Note; In paving the way for artists to follow, writer, director, and producer John Cassavetes was a true maverick for filmmaking---indelible in will, original in vision, seemingly clairvoyant in his risk-taking, and passionate about the simple, human elements that make life art and vice versa. Ray Carney’s Cassavetes on Cassavetes took eleven years to write and was culled from hundreds of first-hand interviews with Cassavetes’ colleagues, friends, and the visionary filmmaker himself. Interviews with such noteworthy names as Peter Falk, Ben Gazzara, Seymour Cassel, and Elaine May were all used to frame and define the life of this enigmatic, wild, and courageous artist. In the preface to this “uber-biography”, Carney dedicates his work “to the next generation” asking that they “dare to follow in Cassavetes’ challenging, exciting footsteps---down the road not taken, away from the pack, along the path of the artist.” What follows are excerpts taken from Cassavetes on Cassavetes---an inquisitive, enlightening work that should make the short list of books for anyone affiliated with or interested in film as art, industry, or both.]

     Ray Carney: One of the sources of the power of acting was that the actor was forced to actually look and listen during a take; he experienced the events the way he would in life.

     John Cassavetes: We deal with thoughts and emotions and I hope that the actors don’t feel that the material is scripted. So that they don’t think of the script. They take their time until the text seems to belong to them. Everything must find its inspiration in the moment in hand. The words are there but two very good actors must want to express more of their love than by just reading the script. Only in this way can they really believe in their characters and express them. It is really a product of a group of people coming in and interpreting their roles. Really, truthfully interpreting their roles. Everything that Gena did she did by herself. Everything that Peter did he did himself. Everything that all those other actors did they did themselves. I give a lot of room. I would never tell an actor that he is doing it wrong or that it doesn’t connect with my interpretation.

      RC: The point was not to reduce complex events to simple psychological motivations. Cassavetes allowed multiple, oblique, indirect, contradictory meanings to coexist at any moment.

      JC: Within the framework of the writing, all that’s there is the words. And the rest of it is how it is played. That’s where improvisation comes in. somebody tells a joke within the framework of a scene. In most pictures you are committed to laugh because the words say there is laughter there. I want to give that actor the freedom to be a person, not to have to act like an idiot. Not to have to act like a buffoon, if it’s not his own buffoonery, you know? So that you don’t have to tell a joke well. You don’t have to be good. You don’t have to be anything. If somebody tells you you’re supposed to cry at something, and you have some other reaction, I want you to have it---don’t want you to say that, ‘This is all. Everything hinges upon a tear falling down my eyes.’ I saw that movie. I don’t want to see that again. Because I know that that’s, in a way, the greatest form of manipulation. I don’t like things that are neat. I’m very superstitious; this is life.

     RC: The actor must be respected.

     JC: I think that the performing arts are greatly underrated, especially acting. The interpretation of a writer’s thoughts is handled by the actor directly, by the director indirectly. You can’t say which is most important---the indirect or direct action of trying to fulfill an idea. I think one falls in love with the entire concept of communicating abstract ideas, of somehow finding a way of connecting surprisingly with an audience. That much is absolutely rewarding in every facet of our thing.

     RC: Cassavetes got great pleasure from writing.

     JC: When I first start writing there’s a sense of discovery. In some ways it’s not work, it’s finding some romance in the lives of people. You get fascinated with their lives. If they stay with you---make it into a movie, put it on in some way. It was that which propelled us to keep on working at A Woman Under the Influence. The words kind of spell out the story in a mysterious way. I deal with the characters as any writer would deal with a character. There are certain characters that you like, that you have a feeling for, and other characters that stand still. So you work until you have all the people in some kind of motion. Making a film is a mystery. If I knew anything about men and women to begin with, I wouldn’t make it, because it would bore me. I really feel that the script is written by what you can get out of it and how much it means to you.

     RC: There was a lot of thought behind even the smallest details. Cassavetes and his actors would brainstorm many things that never made it into the movie.

     JC: The preparations for the scripts I’ve written are really long, hard, intense studies. I don’t just enter into a film and say, ‘That’s the film we’re going to do.’ I think ‘Why make it?’ I think, ‘Well, could the people be themselves, does this really happen to people, do they really dream this, do they think this?’… Everything was discussed, nothing came from me alone. We write a lot of things that aren’t in the movie, as background. So that when we got to the scene, you might rewrite on the spot, but we might have already gone in three, four, five, seven, eight, nineteen different versions of the scene.

     RC: Filmmaking as an alternative to life’s humiliations.

     JC: There’s a very small part of us that has any kind of value. I think there’s a small part of us that says we’d like to say something better than what is usually said, on the purest level. And the rest of it is con men and struggling people just like every one else---where you’re constantly humiliated and go through your life, even if you’re not humiliated, thinking you are. And then you get very lucky and you meet a group of creative people that are very much like you who are locked up in their own selves, trying to come out, trying in some way to express something that is very personal to them.

   Ray Carney is Professor of Film and American Studies, and Director of the undergraduate and graduate film studies programs at Boston University. His life was changed dramatically by John Cassavetes’ movies. Venice thanks him and his publisher, Faber and Faber, for allowing us to publish his words.

     Passages excerpted from Ray Carney’s CASSAVETES ON CASSAVETES. Published by Faber and Faber, Inc., an affiliate of Farrar, Straus & Giroux. C2001 by Ray Carney. All rights reserved.