Beautifully shot, genuine, noble. Husbands is first and foremost a film about manhood. To me, Cassavetes wonder: does the masculinity of men squeezed in middle class lives remain intact? Are the requirements of the compartmented family/work/friends life not diametrically opposite to the nature of man – or, as a matter of fact, boys? Is it cowardice that men display when, split apart between their need for freedom and their inflexible suburban lifestyle, they choose to escape the “phonies” to play like little children?
His film certainly does not provide us with a clear answer – it is indeed an exploration, as it is told like a memory: the camera is at times very close to the characters, at times blurry, at times fixed, at times following the action. What it does suggest though is the inescapability of their venture: if “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”, it certainly does make Gus, etc. blunt, and when one of their best friends die, a breakout imposes itself.
Another question: why does Gus decide to stay in London, and why is he not able to take things as lightly as his friends do? To me, it is a puzzle to Cassavetes just as it is one for the audience. Certain clues can lead us to think that he reacts in this manner because he is the only one that emotionally rejects the middle class lifestyle, when the others are merely trying to catch up with fun. The ending of the film seems to criticize the two “remaining” friends: they are unable to even confront the disturbing flight of Gus – we could almost say his “death” – as they sort out the myriad of toys they have bought out of guilt for their families at the airport. It also appears to me that Gus is portrayed as more noble: he embraces his boyish nature and asserts his rejection of the middle class life. On the other hand, the innocent, careless and serene amusement of the two others is undeniably charming.
Cassavetes explores yet another aspect of manhood to show us how natural a breakout feels, the morality of which is left for us to judge.