killing of a chinese bookie-which version to watch?
I think the 108 version is the one to watch. From what I’ve read and heard, I think Cassavetes cut down the film to 108 to exclude alot of the strip club show footage, which is really hard to sit through, even for someone who likes the film. Not exactly sure though. I’ve only seen the 135 version and I honestly thought it coulda been shorter. And by that I mean it could have cut the run time of those horrendous performances. I understand why Cassavetes made them horrendous, but they were just too long.
I need to watch the 108 version.
Hmm. I was wondering what the difference between the versions was. I’ve only seen the longer version. Yes, the stage show numbers were long, but I’m not sure it would make the film better to shorten them. It certainly wouldn’t take much screen time to establish that the performances are not good. But I think that the way those shows ramble along in a sprawling unfocused way is important to the mood of the film. Those shows are rather like the grand idea he had to take his girls in high style to the other club only to end up making a wreck of the evening.
the original 135-minute version is your best bet. besides, I haven’t seen the 108-minute version yet.
the 108 minute version is tightly pace and it feels more like an action film, I prefer the longer one, the strip club scenes are amusing.
Watch the 135-minute cut then watch the 108.
I always opt for longer cuts of any film
I think that Ben Gazzara was the one who wanted the shorter cut , not Cassavetes, due to the bad box office.
is a good link to the criterion essay.
http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/577-the-killing-of-a-chinese-bookie-the-raw-and-the-cooked
I think those who consider themselves some sort of “purists” will argue that the long version is the winner. However, after seeing the 1978 version tonight, I do believe it is vastly superior to the original cut. I noticed the missing strip club footage and I must say, I did not miss it. The film was tighter and more cohesive, but not at the cost of losing any sort of “reality” of the long, extended takes.
I think in a lot of ways this could have been one of his most “commercial” films, but in a good way. To me, “pop” or “commercial” can be used without the classic implications involved by those oh-so-clever purists. A great film is a great film; trimming the fat can actually be a GOOD thing. Pacing is everything; who enjoys the dragging on of Cassavetes earlier work (a la Faces)? Sure, the experimentation is interesting, and occasionally revealing, but at the sake of creating a timeless, rewatchable film. Chinese Bookie is the only Cassavetes I can rewatch over and over through the years (except maybe Woman Under the Influence, or Mikey and Nicky) and discover new things about it each time, as I get older.
Incidentally, the color photography in Chinese Bookie gives me such an art boner, it is insane. I have taken over a thousand individual frames from the film, that I consider compelling, and saved them as JPG snapshots (using VLC media player), just to study the photography and lighting techniques of this film. It is a treasure trove of genius ideas.
Are you bound to only watching one version? If not, watch both. I’ve heard proponents of both versions (I prefer the longer cut, personally), and they both are good.
The Cassavetes box set from Criterion contains both versions. I prefer the longer one, but the shorter version is worth a look. I watched both, just to see the difference between the two.
“who enjoys the dragging on of Cassavetes earlier work (a la Faces)?”
I guess me, since it’s my favorite of his.
(edit: can’t wait to see BOOKIE, though, and per your recommendation, will probably try out the shorter version first)
I think it works best if you watch the longer version first. It’s not just that club scenes are taken out, but a lot of scenes are edited and put in different places, plus a new scene was put in. Both version are good, but I honestly think that the longer version is the better, fuller film. Plus, it could be fun seeing how the movie changed over the two year period. Definitely watch the longer version first.
I’ve only seen the shorter version and loved it.
Mastroianni
108 minute version or 135 minute version?
Even though the director’s cut is 108 minutes, the film is listed on this site as being 135 minutes, which leads me to believe that it is the widely accepted running time.