When I saw the film, I thought, “Now why doesn’t that kid get nominated for an Oscar?” Well, because the Oscars are usually full of it, that’s why. But what a great performance. And the team of Doyle and Van Sant meant it was beauitifully shot. One of the great movies of the last ten years.
I wonder if Kieslowski was simply expressing what many others have expressed: that Hollywood takes good directors and turns them into bad ones. Coppola has to be on that list, as well as Lucas and Spielberg.
A movie I can’t get through because it is so psychologically disturbing to me (due to the presence of Bruno S.) is Stroszek. I can watch the other movies Herzog made with him, but not that one. Also, Ian Curtis killed himself after watching it. Maybe that’s why. Who knows?
Since I’m new to the forum, I will use this thread by way of an introduction.
Nashville (Altman)
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
Berlin Alexanderplatz (Fassbinder)
Trouble in Paradise (Lubitsch)
8-1/2 (Fellini)
Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky)
L’Atalante (Vigo)
The Milky Way (Bunuel)
Inland Empire (Lynch)
King Lear (Kozintsev)
Pandora’s Box (Pabst)
Mr. Arkadin (Welles)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
The Last Laugh (Murnau)
Children of Paradise (Carne)
All That Heaven Allows (Sirk)
The Decalogue (Kieslowski)
Faces (Cassavetes)
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai)
Talk to Her (Almodovar)
The Graduate (Nichols)
The Blue Angel (Sternberg)
M (Lang)
I tried to keep it 1 to each director, and there are several faves I left off. I have trouble narrowing it down to a favorite 100.
I am curious to see what adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays have appealed to people. And by adaptations I mean anything from Zeffereli’s Romeo and Juliet (straightforward) to West Side Story (complete transformation.) I direct theater, but draw a lot of my inspiration from films. And while it is easy enough to make a film of Shakespeare, I believe it is very hard to make it work. Branagh’s Hamlet is the only film to use the whole 4-12 hour conflated script, but to me the film was a mess. On top of my list would be Kozinstev’s King Lear. (Maybe it would be Chimes at Midnight, but I have yet to see it.) Please give me your thoughts, and maybe introduce me to a film I haven’t seen yet.
First off, I am sorry to have duplicated a topic. Very boorish of me. I looked but I didn’t find. Thanks for the link, Jay.
Second, nothing here or in the past thread that I haven’t come across. Thanks for the suggestions though.
On Hamlet: I love Olivier’s and Kozintsev’s, kind of liked Almereyda’s, but detested both Branagh’s and Zeffereli’s with Mel Gibson. Glenn Close as Gertrude was a mistake, given that she is the same age as Mel, and the Medieval setting did nothing for it. I was amazed how many shots duplicated Olivier’s version, as well as acting choices. Anyway, I refuse to like anything Mel Gibson does, though it doesn’t take much effort.
On Pacino’s Shylock: bloody awful. He did the most obvious take on the character and then overdid it. And that is about all I can remember about the film.
On Branagh in general: Henry V had great actors and was generaly well done, but how he shot himself makes me laugh everytime I watch it. It has not aged well. Hamlet: ‘nuff said. The comedies: it’s hard to do Shakespeare’s comedies well on film, and Branagh often goes wrong in the casting. Keanu Reeves in Much Ado? Himself in Love’s Labour’s? Ms. Howard in As You Like It? Hearing her bubble and lisp her way through her lines made me want to vomit. There are nice moments in all of them, but Branagh overall is a poor filmmaker I feel. You get the feeling he is trying to sell Shakespeare, not do it justice.
And Taymor’s Titus: an interesting but not great film. Some fantastic performances, and she did an amazing job with a poor play. But I think she got carried away with some of the imagery, the need for relevance, etc. But it’s as good as that play probably ever will be done, even on stage.
Somebody always has to put down other people’s choices. It’s a list of favorites, and that’s a pretty subjective thing. And some of these films are on every critics’ list, but that’s because they are damn good films. But just to mix it up, I’ll add a few more unexpected choices to my list.
The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner)
Murder on the Orient Express (Lumet)
Victor Victoria (Edwards)
True Stories (Byrne)
The Awful Truth (Mc Carey)
Duck Soup (McCarey)
A funny thing: I was living in Mpls when they were shooting Fargo and sat next to her and Joel Coen in Cafe Wyrd. I happened to have the script to Short Cuts in my bag, which has those great watercolors of the actors by Don Bachardy in it. I wanted to ask her to autograph the one of her, but figured she just wanted a cup of tea and didn’t want to be bothered. I just smiled and went back to my coffee.
But the point is, if you’ve ever lived in Minnesota or Wisconsin, you’d know that people really are that over-the-top nice. And the accent wasn’t in the least bit exaggerated. And that seems to be the style in the majority of their films. Anyway, I think her performance is perfectly in line with the tone of the film—over-the-top as it is. William H. macy is just as big in his performance. So is Buscemi, doing his dirty weasel thing.
Gotcha, Jay. I guess I’ve experienced much more subtle takes on the character in the theater than Pacino’s on film. In his big scene—“hath not a Jew eyes…”—he really is going for blood there, not pleading for understanding. The truth is, it’s an anti-semitic play through and through, and you have to be pretty sly to give it a sensitive reading. The film didn’t do that for me. it just asked for sympathy when none was appropriate. It’s a really hard play and not one that I would ever want to do. So stars to them for trying, i guess.
Seen them all many times, and i always hesitate before I put on Love on the Run. Too many flashbacks to the other films, and not enough plot of its own except to tie up the series and not make us feel too bad for poor Antoine. But 400 Blows, Stolen Kisses and Bed and Board are great films, and how could you not round out the series?
Don’t be surprised if you walk around for days saying to yourself, “Antoine Doinel, Antoine Doinel, Antoine Doinel…”
Altman’s “Prairie Home Companion” is a pretty apt last film, full of mortatlity as it is, and is also pretty well done. Not “Nashville” but a good movie nonetheless.
Fassbinder’s “Querelle” may be his worst film.
Ozu’s “Autumn Afternoon” stands up with his best.
And Murnau’s “Tabu” is a delirious dream of a movie. Up there with his most interesting at least.
While i tend to disregard what directors and actors say to reporters—since they are usually just asking for smart ass comments—what an artist does in their life does affect how i view their work. Kazan is a perfect example, and possibly the only one that comes to mind. His actions with the House Un-american Activities Committee has blackballed him in my book. I saw “Streetcar” many times as a kid, but once I became aware of his testimony in the Fifties, I haven’t seen it since. When people booed at the Oscars when he got his Lifetime Achevement Award, i was at home booing too. It’s a personal call, but Kazan is off the chart for me.
But, as I said, he is the only director I feel that way about. Hooray for Polanski and Herzog and Hitchcock and von Trier and the rest; boo to Kazan.
I am so glad to see so many people putting Fassbinder on their list!
R. W. Fassbinder, for his politicized theatricality
Robert Altman, for his ensemble portraits
Jean Renoir, for his wit
Yasujiro Ozu, for his sense of domesticity
Luis Bunuel, for his antic intelligence
David Lynch, for his ability to paint dreams
Andrei Tarkovsky, for his sense of cinema
Ernst Lubitsch, for his comic finesse
Orson Welles, for his struggle
John Cassavetes, for his psychology
though any of the above have all the above qualities.
Well, Cesar, because it reaches an emotional and psychological depth that most films don’t. Cassavetes is not for those who are looking for entertainment. He confronts the worst in human behavior and asks, “How can we be better, or worse, but how do we live with these aspects of ourselves?” Many people agree with you, but time has proven that Cassavetes wasn’t up to just bullshit. Gena Rowlands’ performance is simply one of the best in all cinema. And what does Peter Falk’s glass eye have to do with anything?
I tend to find contemporary Hollywood entertainment boring, because it is constantly telling me what to think and how to feel, and yet encourages me to do neither.
I remember seeing Nicolas Roeg’s “Don’t look Now” on TV at age 5 and was intrigued. I saw Altman’s “Nashville” at age 10 and fell in love. I recall staying home from school when I was seventeen (20 years ago) and watching a triple-header of “8-1/2”, “Midnight Cowboy” and “Network.” I’ve been a film geek ever since.
Any of Peer Raben’s work (for Fassbinder, Wong Kar-wai and others.) Also Johnny Greenwood’s score for “There Will Be Blood.” But then I am a nut for Radiohead.
“Star Wars,” sure. (It came out when I was four and I somehow found 11 opportunities to see it in the theater.) But the love started with Altman: “Nashville,” “M*A*S*H,” and “Short Cuts,” which was released when I was 21. The idea of a large ensemble panorama view of a subject has been embedded in my aesthetics ever since. In fact, I think I’ll watch “Short Cuts” tonight.
Exactement, Fredo. Cesar, I don’t know how old you are (not that it matters) and I don’t want to judge, but maybe you should give this film a few years and then watch it again. Who knows, maybe you’ll never like it.
But I should point out that part of what Gena Rowlands was doing was showing someone who is so eager to please that she ends up tearing at the seams of her own sanity. She is childlike, but insofar as she is a child trying to please the grown-ups around her. Watch the scene with the kids in the backyard, dancing to “Swan Lake” and you’ll see how at home she is. But when the adults interfere (Peter Falk and Mario Gallo) she ends up getting slapped. Her actions are large and childlike and even somewhat grating and embarrassing, but the journey Rowlands portrays is very subtle. It should be uncomfortable to watch, as that is what Cassavetes was trying to achieve. But, as I said, that sort of thin is not for everyone.
I dosed off during “Synecdoche, New York” for two seconds. The film, while great, has a long wind-up to the mind-blowing portion. It was snowing that day and my friend’s car wouldn’t start. Terrible day.
I can’t reproduce it here because of rights, but “Sunny Morning – Eight Legs” by Lucian Freud. If you go to the Art Institute of Chicago, it’s in their collection.
Another thought, more to the origin of the thread: Cassavetes originally scripted and shot scenes where Nick and Mabel were walking down the street and laying in bed, talking about their dreams. It showed a gentler, more loving side to their relationship, and was a relief from the harshness of the rest of the film. Cassavetes cut them because he thought, I suspect, they soft-sold the story, that instead of having to earn their intimacy, it showed it up front. That’s Cassavetes. He recut “Husbands” and “Opening Night,” among others, because the audience were enjoying them too much and weren’t getting what the film was about.
But in the film as is, Nick is obviously inapable of showing his love for who Mabel is. He must love her, in order to stay with such a difficult personality, but simply can’t articulate it. Even sending her to the loony bin is an act of love, because he can’t understand her. But it is still an act of love. He wants to be able to stay with her, and in the world he lives in—the “normal” world—she is an aberrant personality, a kook. But Mabel doesn’t live in his world, she lives in a world where love is unconditional and easily shown. In a typical Hollywood product, she would be the hero and would, in the span of an hour and a half, cheer up the curmudgeonly Nick. But In Cassavetes’ world—which is our world but with the difficulties magnified—she is sent away for a cure, told to be different. By the end, Nick no longer wants her to be different, he wants her to be happy. And he realizes, I think, that that means allowing Mabel to be the loving, difficult person she is. Whether he continues on that path is up to our guess, which is another thing that makes it a Cassavetes film. Look at all the husband/wife relationships in his films and you’ll see they are variations on Nick and Mabel.
PARANOID PARK over 2 years ago
When I saw the film, I thought, “Now why doesn’t that kid get nominated for an Oscar?” Well, because the Oscars are usually full of it, that’s why. But what a great performance. And the team of Doyle and Van Sant meant it was beauitifully shot. One of the great movies of the last ten years.
Go to Comment
Kieslowski on American director's who make stupid films...Who? over 2 years ago
I wonder if Kieslowski was simply expressing what many others have expressed: that Hollywood takes good directors and turns them into bad ones. Coppola has to be on that list, as well as Lucas and Spielberg.
Go to Comment
The scariest or most disturbing film you have EVER seen. over 2 years ago
A movie I can’t get through because it is so psychologically disturbing to me (due to the presence of Bruno S.) is Stroszek. I can watch the other movies Herzog made with him, but not that one. Also, Ian Curtis killed himself after watching it. Maybe that’s why. Who knows?
Go to Comment
Personal All-Time 25 over 2 years ago
Since I’m new to the forum, I will use this thread by way of an introduction.
Nashville (Altman)
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
Berlin Alexanderplatz (Fassbinder)
Trouble in Paradise (Lubitsch)
8-1/2 (Fellini)
Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky)
L’Atalante (Vigo)
The Milky Way (Bunuel)
Inland Empire (Lynch)
King Lear (Kozintsev)
Pandora’s Box (Pabst)
Mr. Arkadin (Welles)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
Ugetsu (Mizoguchi)
The Last Laugh (Murnau)
Children of Paradise (Carne)
All That Heaven Allows (Sirk)
The Decalogue (Kieslowski)
Faces (Cassavetes)
Fanny and Alexander (Bergman)
In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai)
Talk to Her (Almodovar)
The Graduate (Nichols)
The Blue Angel (Sternberg)
M (Lang)
I tried to keep it 1 to each director, and there are several faves I left off. I have trouble narrowing it down to a favorite 100.
Go to Comment
Adaptations of Shakespeare over 2 years ago
I am curious to see what adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays have appealed to people. And by adaptations I mean anything from Zeffereli’s Romeo and Juliet (straightforward) to West Side Story (complete transformation.) I direct theater, but draw a lot of my inspiration from films. And while it is easy enough to make a film of Shakespeare, I believe it is very hard to make it work. Branagh’s Hamlet is the only film to use the whole 4-12 hour conflated script, but to me the film was a mess. On top of my list would be Kozinstev’s King Lear. (Maybe it would be Chimes at Midnight, but I have yet to see it.) Please give me your thoughts, and maybe introduce me to a film I haven’t seen yet.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 2 years ago
Welles’ Chimes at Midnight
Altman’s Nashville, MacCabe and Mrs. Miller, and The Long Goodbye
anything by Jacques Rivette
Go to Comment
Recent Acquisitions. over 2 years ago
Most recently:
Pandora’s Box (Pabst)
Husbands (Cassavetes)
Go to Comment
Classical Art influencing Modern Cinema over 2 years ago
An obvious one is Bunuel’s famous replication of the Last Supper in Viridiana. Also Altman in M*A*S*H.
Go to Comment
Adaptations of Shakespeare over 2 years ago
First off, I am sorry to have duplicated a topic. Very boorish of me. I looked but I didn’t find. Thanks for the link, Jay.
Second, nothing here or in the past thread that I haven’t come across. Thanks for the suggestions though.
On Hamlet: I love Olivier’s and Kozintsev’s, kind of liked Almereyda’s, but detested both Branagh’s and Zeffereli’s with Mel Gibson. Glenn Close as Gertrude was a mistake, given that she is the same age as Mel, and the Medieval setting did nothing for it. I was amazed how many shots duplicated Olivier’s version, as well as acting choices. Anyway, I refuse to like anything Mel Gibson does, though it doesn’t take much effort.
On Pacino’s Shylock: bloody awful. He did the most obvious take on the character and then overdid it. And that is about all I can remember about the film.
On Branagh in general: Henry V had great actors and was generaly well done, but how he shot himself makes me laugh everytime I watch it. It has not aged well. Hamlet: ‘nuff said. The comedies: it’s hard to do Shakespeare’s comedies well on film, and Branagh often goes wrong in the casting. Keanu Reeves in Much Ado? Himself in Love’s Labour’s? Ms. Howard in As You Like It? Hearing her bubble and lisp her way through her lines made me want to vomit. There are nice moments in all of them, but Branagh overall is a poor filmmaker I feel. You get the feeling he is trying to sell Shakespeare, not do it justice.
And Taymor’s Titus: an interesting but not great film. Some fantastic performances, and she did an amazing job with a poor play. But I think she got carried away with some of the imagery, the need for relevance, etc. But it’s as good as that play probably ever will be done, even on stage.
Go to Comment
Personal All-Time 25 over 2 years ago
Somebody always has to put down other people’s choices. It’s a list of favorites, and that’s a pretty subjective thing. And some of these films are on every critics’ list, but that’s because they are damn good films. But just to mix it up, I’ll add a few more unexpected choices to my list.
The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner)
Murder on the Orient Express (Lumet)
Victor Victoria (Edwards)
True Stories (Byrne)
The Awful Truth (Mc Carey)
Duck Soup (McCarey)
How’s that for entertainment?
Go to Comment
Frances McDormand - pros and cons over 2 years ago
A funny thing: I was living in Mpls when they were shooting Fargo and sat next to her and Joel Coen in Cafe Wyrd. I happened to have the script to Short Cuts in my bag, which has those great watercolors of the actors by Don Bachardy in it. I wanted to ask her to autograph the one of her, but figured she just wanted a cup of tea and didn’t want to be bothered. I just smiled and went back to my coffee.
But the point is, if you’ve ever lived in Minnesota or Wisconsin, you’d know that people really are that over-the-top nice. And the accent wasn’t in the least bit exaggerated. And that seems to be the style in the majority of their films. Anyway, I think her performance is perfectly in line with the tone of the film—over-the-top as it is. William H. macy is just as big in his performance. So is Buscemi, doing his dirty weasel thing.
Go to Comment
Adaptations of Shakespeare over 2 years ago
Gotcha, Jay. I guess I’ve experienced much more subtle takes on the character in the theater than Pacino’s on film. In his big scene—“hath not a Jew eyes…”—he really is going for blood there, not pleading for understanding. The truth is, it’s an anti-semitic play through and through, and you have to be pretty sly to give it a sensitive reading. The film didn’t do that for me. it just asked for sympathy when none was appropriate. It’s a really hard play and not one that I would ever want to do. So stars to them for trying, i guess.
Go to Comment
THE ANTOINE DOINEL SERIES over 2 years ago
Seen them all many times, and i always hesitate before I put on Love on the Run. Too many flashbacks to the other films, and not enough plot of its own except to tie up the series and not make us feel too bad for poor Antoine. But 400 Blows, Stolen Kisses and Bed and Board are great films, and how could you not round out the series?
Don’t be surprised if you walk around for days saying to yourself, “Antoine Doinel, Antoine Doinel, Antoine Doinel…”
Go to Comment
Out with a whimper: final films by great directors over 2 years ago
Altman’s “Prairie Home Companion” is a pretty apt last film, full of mortatlity as it is, and is also pretty well done. Not “Nashville” but a good movie nonetheless.
Fassbinder’s “Querelle” may be his worst film.
Ozu’s “Autumn Afternoon” stands up with his best.
And Murnau’s “Tabu” is a delirious dream of a movie. Up there with his most interesting at least.
Go to Comment
Any suggestions on introducing myself with Silent Pictures. over 2 years ago
Why do people keep calling “L’Atalante” a silent film? Can’t you remember the songs, Michel Simon’s voice, the music boxes? Zheeesh!
Otherwise, I agree with many of the above, but try “The General” with Buster Keaton, or “Pandora’s Box” with the divine Louise Brooks.
Go to Comment
Out with a whimper: final films by great directors over 2 years ago
Was “Buddy Buddy” Wilder’s last? I thought it was “Fedora.” I’m gonna go look it up!
Go to Comment
Forties Technicolor over 2 years ago
I think one of my great experiences of the magic of Technicolor are Douglas Sirk’s films. The way he used it to tell a story!
Go to Comment
Any suggestions on introducing myself with Silent Pictures. over 2 years ago
Alas, I have yet to see “Sunrise,” Matt. but thanks for the heads up.
Go to Comment
Does the character/behavior of a director affect on how you see his work? over 2 years ago
While i tend to disregard what directors and actors say to reporters—since they are usually just asking for smart ass comments—what an artist does in their life does affect how i view their work. Kazan is a perfect example, and possibly the only one that comes to mind. His actions with the House Un-american Activities Committee has blackballed him in my book. I saw “Streetcar” many times as a kid, but once I became aware of his testimony in the Fifties, I haven’t seen it since. When people booed at the Oscars when he got his Lifetime Achevement Award, i was at home booing too. It’s a personal call, but Kazan is off the chart for me.
But, as I said, he is the only director I feel that way about. Hooray for Polanski and Herzog and Hitchcock and von Trier and the rest; boo to Kazan.
Go to Comment
Top 10 Directors. over 2 years ago
I am so glad to see so many people putting Fassbinder on their list!
R. W. Fassbinder, for his politicized theatricality
Robert Altman, for his ensemble portraits
Jean Renoir, for his wit
Yasujiro Ozu, for his sense of domesticity
Luis Bunuel, for his antic intelligence
David Lynch, for his ability to paint dreams
Andrei Tarkovsky, for his sense of cinema
Ernst Lubitsch, for his comic finesse
Orson Welles, for his struggle
John Cassavetes, for his psychology
though any of the above have all the above qualities.
Go to Comment
Love in A Woman Under the Influence over 2 years ago
Well, Cesar, because it reaches an emotional and psychological depth that most films don’t. Cassavetes is not for those who are looking for entertainment. He confronts the worst in human behavior and asks, “How can we be better, or worse, but how do we live with these aspects of ourselves?” Many people agree with you, but time has proven that Cassavetes wasn’t up to just bullshit. Gena Rowlands’ performance is simply one of the best in all cinema. And what does Peter Falk’s glass eye have to do with anything?
Go to Comment
What kind of films do you consider boring? over 2 years ago
I tend to find contemporary Hollywood entertainment boring, because it is constantly telling me what to think and how to feel, and yet encourages me to do neither.
Go to Comment
At what age or what stage of your life have you really started getting into film? over 2 years ago
I remember seeing Nicolas Roeg’s “Don’t look Now” on TV at age 5 and was intrigued. I saw Altman’s “Nashville” at age 10 and fell in love. I recall staying home from school when I was seventeen (20 years ago) and watching a triple-header of “8-1/2”, “Midnight Cowboy” and “Network.” I’ve been a film geek ever since.
Go to Comment
best music[sound effects] used on a film,what are your favorites? over 2 years ago
Any of Peer Raben’s work (for Fassbinder, Wong Kar-wai and others.) Also Johnny Greenwood’s score for “There Will Be Blood.” But then I am a nut for Radiohead.
Go to Comment
Greatest Police/Detective Movies (Crime Genre Part 1) over 2 years ago
One of the best private eye movies ever: “Murder, My Sweet” directed by Edward Dmytryk.
Go to Comment
films that made you love film over 2 years ago
“Star Wars,” sure. (It came out when I was four and I somehow found 11 opportunities to see it in the theater.) But the love started with Altman: “Nashville,” “M*A*S*H,” and “Short Cuts,” which was released when I was 21. The idea of a large ensemble panorama view of a subject has been embedded in my aesthetics ever since. In fact, I think I’ll watch “Short Cuts” tonight.
Go to Comment
Love in A Woman Under the Influence over 2 years ago
Exactement, Fredo. Cesar, I don’t know how old you are (not that it matters) and I don’t want to judge, but maybe you should give this film a few years and then watch it again. Who knows, maybe you’ll never like it.
But I should point out that part of what Gena Rowlands was doing was showing someone who is so eager to please that she ends up tearing at the seams of her own sanity. She is childlike, but insofar as she is a child trying to please the grown-ups around her. Watch the scene with the kids in the backyard, dancing to “Swan Lake” and you’ll see how at home she is. But when the adults interfere (Peter Falk and Mario Gallo) she ends up getting slapped. Her actions are large and childlike and even somewhat grating and embarrassing, but the journey Rowlands portrays is very subtle. It should be uncomfortable to watch, as that is what Cassavetes was trying to achieve. But, as I said, that sort of thin is not for everyone.
Go to Comment
Ok, admit you dozed off or slept while watching.... over 2 years ago
I dosed off during “Synecdoche, New York” for two seconds. The film, while great, has a long wind-up to the mind-blowing portion. It was snowing that day and my friend’s car wouldn’t start. Terrible day.
Go to Comment
Our favourite paintings: the great Auteur Gallery over 2 years ago
I can’t reproduce it here because of rights, but “Sunny Morning – Eight Legs” by Lucian Freud. If you go to the Art Institute of Chicago, it’s in their collection.
Go to Comment
Love in A Woman Under the Influence over 2 years ago
Another thought, more to the origin of the thread: Cassavetes originally scripted and shot scenes where Nick and Mabel were walking down the street and laying in bed, talking about their dreams. It showed a gentler, more loving side to their relationship, and was a relief from the harshness of the rest of the film. Cassavetes cut them because he thought, I suspect, they soft-sold the story, that instead of having to earn their intimacy, it showed it up front. That’s Cassavetes. He recut “Husbands” and “Opening Night,” among others, because the audience were enjoying them too much and weren’t getting what the film was about.
But in the film as is, Nick is obviously inapable of showing his love for who Mabel is. He must love her, in order to stay with such a difficult personality, but simply can’t articulate it. Even sending her to the loony bin is an act of love, because he can’t understand her. But it is still an act of love. He wants to be able to stay with her, and in the world he lives in—the “normal” world—she is an aberrant personality, a kook. But Mabel doesn’t live in his world, she lives in a world where love is unconditional and easily shown. In a typical Hollywood product, she would be the hero and would, in the span of an hour and a half, cheer up the curmudgeonly Nick. But In Cassavetes’ world—which is our world but with the difficulties magnified—she is sent away for a cure, told to be different. By the end, Nick no longer wants her to be different, he wants her to be happy. And he realizes, I think, that that means allowing Mabel to be the loving, difficult person she is. Whether he continues on that path is up to our guess, which is another thing that makes it a Cassavetes film. Look at all the husband/wife relationships in his films and you’ll see they are variations on Nick and Mabel.
Go to Comment