Write about 400 words discussing the films of John Cassavetes in relationship to the novels we have read so far. In particular, think of how Cassavetes handles human emotion (obviously under the influence of drugs and alcohol) and how that influences the way the movies are plotted (if they are plotted at all). What do you think is the overriding concern of Cassavetes when he makes a movie? Does his methods (which are very actor-oriented) allow him to do things in his films that we don’t see in Hollywood films? As with Selby, do you get the sense that he likes his characters (i.e. is he being purely critical when he shows them doing unpleasant things)? Try to mention a movie you’ve seen that you think was influenced by this style of filmmaking.
New York Underground in Film, Music and Literature 1955-85 
The films by John Cassavetes are similar to the readings we have done — in particular, Junkie and Last Exit to Brooklyn — in that his films seem to be filled with scenes that have a lot of dialogue and seem to run for a longer period of time than one would expect. In Junkie, for example, Burroughs writes a lot of scenes that lead to no particular plot and have no ulterior motive, simply showcasing the physical appearances and daily lives of addicts. In the films by Cassavetes, the audience is meant to think about the dialogue and acting so that they may read in-between the lines in order to truly understand the message the director is attempting to convey. Like Tralala in Shelby’s story, Cosmo, the main character in Killing of a Chinese Bookie, appears to have a need for a more sophisticated lifestyle. It is this needs that continuously drives him deeper into his debt, as every mistake he makes only leads him to a second problem. Tralala, much like Cosmo, is in constant search for a wealth she does not possess. She is willing to sell her body for monetary compensation because she believes she deserves to be praised through material items. Both Cosmo and Tralala’s greed is what buries them deeper into misfortune.
I believe Cassavetes attempts to separate his films from what one would consider to be a Hollywood film as much as possible, his main concern is not the plot of the film nor entertaining the audience with action, but with scenes that show the true depth and reasoning behind his characters. He stretches out scenes and adds background information on characters that the audience may perhaps believe to be unimportant, but ensures that they form a base and depth for his ulterior message. Like with Shelby, he seems to show the true nature of humans and their actions when under the influence. His way of portraying them does not make me believe that he dislikes them, rather wants other to be able to identify with them and understand where their decisions stem from — greed, passion, love, addiction, etc.
LikeLike
John Cassavetes’ hold on human emotion differs from those typically portrayed in archetypal Hollywood cinema by putting the emphasis on the character and its embodiment, and not on the actor themselves. Many aspects of Cassavetes filmmaking style does not translate to the style audiences are generally accustomed to in Hollywood. Often, specific actors are often chosen for specific roles, in specific genres, following specific direction—which can be monetarily, critically, or otherwise not-creatively based. Cassavetes worked instead around the characters he created—asking his cast to experiment, interpret, and embody their role and not themselves. One way Cassavetes achieved this was through scripting lines and action (with the exception of Shadows which was largely improvisation) but allowing freedom to improvise and play with delivery. His style of characterization within his cast speaks to his dedication to the act of the character and acting itself, and not as much to the plot or even the film’s “takeaway.” Given this, where his films, arguably, lack or lose the plot, they succeed with complex, detailed characters. While debatable, this can be considered a very admirable approach to filmmaking because the drive to create comes from a place of honesty and passion, and not for fame or commercial concern. In terms of the novels we read, and most novels in general, the emotion outputted by characters are an amalgamation of the author’s and reader’s mind, whereas in films they are created from a much larger team of people—from the words coming from screenwriters, to the direction coming from directors, to the action done by actors, and the interpretation from the audience. In this sense, having a “hold” on human emotion can be more difficult in film. Junky and Last Exit to Brooklyn operate characterization within a vacuum of sorts in the narration—characters only interact with other characters created out of the mind of a single author, which is interacting with a single reader. Even still, John Cassavetes concern when making a movie is that of raw human emotion and experience. He seeks to explore dynamics between varying relationships with various casts of personalities and characters. While it’s difficult to say whether he “likes” his characters or not, there is certainly a level of obsession he exhibits with his characters and the specific ways they display emotion and personality. Cassavetes allegiance is with the philosophy of film and with evaluating various behaviors and characters through his cast, and not with Hollywood or larger cinematic criticism.
LikeLike
This all seems very general. And where are your other comments?
LikeLike
Compared to the novels we have read so far, Cassavetes shows the abrupt changes of human emotion better than the novels. In Faces, when Richard Forst comes home and tells Maria he wants a divorce at first she laughs in his face. The couple has been feigning love for the better part of their marriage and Maria does not think he actually wants a divorce. Little does she know alcohol has pushed him to express his true feelings. Maria’s facial expressions and body language change drastically as she watches him call a call girl and realizes he is serious. Cassavetes amplifies the emotions with actions. Richard calling another woman is shown in order for the audience to see Maria’s raw emotional reaction. She looks distraught and can be seen sitting down from shock.
Another instance of the sudden shift in human emotions is when Richard returns home from spending the night with Jeannie, singing and dancing, but when he sees a man run out of the window and realizes his wife spent the night with another man he begins to yell and call her names. One of the most emotional parts of the film is when Maria slaps Richard three times and then yells “I hate my life”. The tension in the scene is palpable and at that point the audience fully understands the marriage and dynamics of the relationship of these two middle class Americans.
I do not think that the emotions influence the way the movies are plotted rather they are plotted based on Cassavetes’ desire to show the lives of all the characters. Unlike most Hollywood movies which focus on a single protagonist, Cassavetes’ main concern throughout the movie is to show all sides of a relationship and provide the audience with background information on each relevant character. In Shadows, he allows the audience to follow all the protagonists individually so that the audience can better understand each character’s life. The film starts with Ben as he and two of his friends enjoy a meal at a café and meet women. Then it focuses on Hugh and finally depicts the love story of Lelia. Another example is Faces. The film is split into two main halves, with the purpose of both halves to show how the individuals in a relationship react to conflict within the relationship. Both the protagonists engage in adultery. Richard’s evening is shown first and then Maria’s evening is examined. Cassavetes’ likes all his characters because he organizes the film so that each character’s story is told. Then when an emotional relationship is examined the audience can decide who to support since the audience knows the background of each character.
Avengers: Infinity War is a movie I saw recently that had many protagonists and focused on groups of protagonists at a time. One thing I did not like about the movie was that it followed many characters’ story. However, Cassavetes’ films have fewer characters and I enjoyed the fact that he highlights the lives of each character.
LikeLike
Cassavetes watches a lot like a Frank O’ Hara poem. The characters glide through their lives, held up by their little passions, like Ben’s love of performance in Killing of a Chinese Bookie or Ben’s love of music in Shadows. Shadows is full of deep character studies and interesting shots, and rather than a lack of plot the action of the film is cyclical and winding. Leila is as dissatisfied with love at the end as she was when she left David. The scoring of this movie sets the action and the emotion of every scene. When Leila loses her virginity, the saxophone is wailing and remorseful, and fades around the emotional beats between the characters. She soaks in her disillusion and bit by bit the saxophone fades out and the audience is drawn further into the dialogue, and each line hits like a brick. Each of the sibling’s arcs tangent and bounce off one another, each sharing their misfortunes. All the different scenes are related emotionally if not chronologically.
Inside Llewyn Davis (2013), directed by the Cohen brothers, has a similar storyline and relationship with music. In Inside Llewyn Davis, which is set in 1961 New York, a young folk singer named Llewyn cannot keep his life together after his partner kills himself. The use of music to capture the emotions Llewyn is feeling is the only thing that he can use to move on when he is trapped by his circumstances. Cassavetes does the same thing with Ben. He hangs around with his friends and looks for his own version of love instead of focusing on his music or staying sober. As a result, he is stuck in a cycle of disappointment, and the only music that comes is the saxophone solos that play over his arguments and wanderings through the city.
LikeLike
John Cassavetes’ movies reveal the ability to express emotion to a high magnitude solely through facial expressions. As he includes little monologue within significant scenes within his films he implements movements on the faces of the actors to convey their sentiments. Visible within his movie Shadows when the character Tony expresses his racial stance as he views Lelia’s brother. Tony’s immediate retrieval from the house despite his lust for Leila suggests that the possibility holds racist views. However, while Tony never explicitly states his views, Cassavetes focus upon Tony’s face of bewilderment when he meets Lelia’s brother indicates his views. Cassavetes pays particular attention to the faces of his characters within all of his films. In doing so, the director denounces the significance words can play within a conversation. His focus upon their faces fuels his movies as actor-oriented since the words of the actors hold little value within their scenes. Yet, the movies become centered upon the actor’s ability to manipulate the scene with their expressions. This manipulation allows Cassavetes the liberty in creating a film with little plot nor motive yet, one which captives the audience through expressions they often make as well.
Furthermore, Cassavetes integration of actor-oriented films exposes his viewers to possible misfortunes within the film industry that often go unnoticed. By implementing Hugh’s character within Shadows as an individual who aspires in creating a name for himself yet who becomes rejected when in the spotlight, the director indicates a industries success over an individual. Additionally, he pinpoints this rejection as being due to the actor’s race similar to his interaction with Tony. While never explicitly portrayed, Hugh becomes rejected by multiple characters within the film, at times including his own family. Through focusing on his character, the director pinpoints distasteful conduct by other actors, and by industries which attempt at giving chances to individuals.
Cassavetes films act as a gateway for future productions to utilize facial expressions as a larger medium of action then exaggerated monologues. The director’s ability to center his films around possible misconduct within Hollywood sheds the spotlight upon higher ranked individuals. By doing so, the director calls into question whether a plot extends as greatly with these Hollywood characters rather than hometown low-income individuals.
LikeLike
In Faces (1968), Cassavetes portrays alcohol as sort of liberating for human emotion. When Richard and Maria Forst are drunk, they have their most honest conversation. Both of them are sexually repressed, unaccomplished, and unhappy. They resent each other and their roles in marriage. They are only able to express this under the excuse of alcohol. They both finally rupture and seek a way out through more consumption and adultery. There is no plot in this movie, but more of a record, tracking of their ability and inability to express their emotions in the span of one night. I think Cassavetes is concerned with the specific inner workings of each character rather than gaining a neat resolution or answer. He wants to track the how they evolve and detangle from their old, restrained selves to ones willing to explore other parts of their lives. His methods, namely his close-up shots of the actors, allows for this personal exploration. Unlike most Hollywood films, he does not establish a plot or give a resolution. The film focuses on all the turmoil that can take place within a single day through the perspective of individual characters, none of which fit any stereotype. I think like Selby, Cassavetes has some sympathy for his characters. When Richard Forst abruptly tells his wife he wants a divorce, he asks “That’s the only thing to do, isn’t it?” He confesses a feeling he has had for a long time, that there is nothing more left to do to improve his marriage. While he declares he wants a divorce twice and his wife is somewhat shocked, he is also asking for some sympathy and answers as to what this point in his life means, where to go from here.
LikeLike
I have indeed found several connections between the texts we have read this week and the three cinematic production by John Cassavetes. To be more specific, I consider the settings, the main concerns of the works, and the modernist narrative style are the characteristics these works share; however, the novels and films differ in my eyes a great deal in terms of their tone, among other great divergence.
I find the settings of the novels and the films are quite similar, and this statement risks to be a tautology because they basically share a same historical background when they are created and released. However, for me the films (esp. Shadows) visualizes to a great extent the New York that time which remains somehow abstract to me. Whereas Faces doesn’t necessarily concern about the city landscape, and Killing moves directly out of NYC to LA, they share still a strong sense, or a mood, with the two novels which differ with each other themselves with their hysteric basement and Mexican landscape. This is because the concerns of the works can be seen as interconnected: junkies, young people confronting the passing problem, married couple in the middle age crisis or boss of a nightclub are all more or less sank into a darkness as another side of the capitalism- and/or heterosexuality-dominated Foucauldian modern country mechanism. Drug, alcohol, sex and dialogues which are carried out to say nothing become a common resort and thus a main subject to be depicted by these works. If a historical, thematic, and emotional context has been set up here, a modernist style of narration can also be easily found in these works. We see, in terms of subjects being depicted by these works, a salient focus on tiny individual lives and especially inner experience. The individuals form always a group or a community despite its deeply fragmented essence by the individualities of each particular, seeing that the titles of Cassavetes always tend to be with plural nouns, and Brooklyn and Junkie try also englobe a general view with the characteristics, or even the physicality of each character. On the other hand, the narrative styles vary, but are similarly free of restrictions and diverse by themselves. We see some free indirect discourse in Brooklyn, and this kind of technique, presumably reserved to textual creations, amazingly comes up in Cassavetes’ work. For example, around 00:42:45 of in Faces, we are first made to believe that we are observing from Jeanie’s point of view; however, with the movement of the camera, we soon figured out we are tricked—or not, for a great fluidity of standing point is present here, making us audience vacillate between the so-called objectivity and the subjective judgement.
Yet I will argue that the two groups of work still contrast with each other to an extent that cannot be ignored. I will only talk about the tone of the narratives. As it is already mentioned in the prompt of this assignment, a critical distance, which creates a big sense of ambiguity, if not a quite overt self-hatred of the narrators, is at the heart of both Brooklyn and Junkie. This overt self-hatred is the other side of the work’s insistence of human existence. Between the self-sympathy and self-hatred is born a dramatic tension, which makes the individuals in the story, consciously or unconsciously, uncomfortable about their wandering between Norm and their counteracting liberations. However, the tone of Cassavetes’ work itself doesn’t bear this tension. The productions are indeed actor-oriented, an eco-system which not simply permits us to see the charisma of each artist. More over than that, when the camera closes up again and again to the micro facial expressions of each role, we are invited by the films to observe in the same way, to suspend the dissatisfaction or disbelief vis-à-vis the current situation in front of us, but to see those human beings themselves, who are deprived of any outlet or solution, with a great sympathy. This doesn’t mean that Cassavetes’ is not critical; I want to say that he is critical in another way, with his critiques, ironies and even denunciations deeply hidden in the absurdist prattles, puns and tropes as well as dramatic eruptions of violence. Yet it is interesting to see how each of the three films, especially Faces with a beginning strongly seasoned by Harold Pinter’s notion of Pinteresque or comedy of menace, move the audience from an experience of isolation to an more comfortable position of sympathy and empathy as the characters hug each other, fight with each other and love each other.
LikeLike
I found it interesting how Cassavetes was able to convey emotion and the tension in certain scenes from “Shadows” all through the way the camera was zoomed in and just the facial expressions of the characters. At first I did not like how the camera would cut off pieces of their bodies but after the confrontation scene between Tony and Hughes I grew to appreciate it. I felt as if the scenery and the way that the camera would focus on the male characters when they were in the diner was similar to how Selby describes or wants his characters to appear. There was constant overlap of conversations in Shadows and I felt as if this related to how there was always something or some type of conversation going on in Last Exit to Brooklyn. I did not feel there was much of a plot for Shadows, I don’t think Leila learned anything and there was so many different perspectives similar to Selby’s novel. At times the movie focused on Benny and then it would switch to Hugh and then Leila. Similar to Last Exit during the stories there was not much plot but the reader was able to learn about various characters just like in the movie Shadows.
Cassavetes keeps up this type of filming style in The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, there is a lot of close ups and focus on the facial expressions. I feel like this is the overriding concern of his, being able to convey feeling and dialogue through silence and just the facial expressions and the close ups along with camera movements. Which again is similar to Selby and how he does not straight out reveal the characters sexuality or desperation, or lack of, for certain characters but he uses their actions to show how they truly fair.
As for liking his characters, I don’t think he ever judged their decisions or critiqued them. After Cosmo killed the bookie he still lived a while and continued on with his night routine and the movie ends with the viewer not knowing if he receives help and this highlights how Cassavetes perhaps feels like his character did what he needed to do. I feel as if Cassavette wanted to critique Cosmo he would’ve had him killed a gruesome death or his club shot up. Instead he leaves the ending open for interpretation.
LikeLike
The films of John Cassavetes display the same turmoil and unpredictability of the novels we have read so far. “Shadows,” “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie,” and “Faces” all share a focus on conflicted people attempting to navigate the shady dealings of New York. Though “Chinese Bookie” is harder for everyday people to relate to, as it is more crime-oriented, “Faces” and “Shadows” have protagonists searching for love, similar to “Last Exit to Brooklyn” by Hubert Selby. “Chinese Bookie” is more comparable to “Junky” by William Burroughs, as it details shadier dealings.
Cassavetes handles human emotion sincerely and uses round, dynamic characters to accentuate these emotions. His films break away from traditional storytelling and character arcs and instead focus on capturing a screenshot of turbulent times in American society. Dialogue is not used to confer information to the audience; rather, it exists in the same plane as the people that inhabit his films. Dialogue is a tool to convey an aesthetic and lifestyle of a begotten era.
Cassavetes’ films allow him to experiment with filmmaking techniques to capture periods in American history. For example, the erratic and pervasive jazz soundtrack in his film “Shadows” not only underscores the musician plotline and the culture of the time, but gives the film a zippy and incendiary tone. The artistic pursuits of the characters literally permeate their stories. Another parallel between soundtrack and film is the improvisational nature of both. “Shadows” features characters submerged in the world of jazz, a loose yet passionate genre of music, and as such the characters behave reflect this. Much of the narrative revolves around love, and the obstacles characters will overcome for it.
Somewhat similar is hard-boiled, LA-centered crime noir “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie,” which declines traditional narrative structure in favor of a subdued, true life plot. Unlike typical films of the time, there is no opening scene that introduces you to all the characters, and the setting is not glamorized. Cassavettes opts to include plenty of low-life banter and dialogue that really gives viewers an idea of the character’s seedy living conditions. Much of the film focuses voyeuristically on Cosmo’s day to day life, a man who strives to elevate the LA night club scene, and not the titular hit. The character study of Cosmo–his goals, work ethic, and gambling addiction that leads to his downfall–is of higher importance than entertaining the audience, for Cassavettes unconventionally uses the language of film to portray people and their psyche rather than a story.
LikeLike
John Casavetes movies definitely have strong ties to the novels we have read recently. In particular, I believe it is the filmmakers strong emphasis on literal close-ups on his characters as they flow seemingly without plot through his films that best resemble William Burrough’s Junkie. In Junkie, Bill’s character is slowly unraveled as he goes through different interactions with different people, and we as readers learn more about himself and the world around him from his point of view–a perspective that is often corrupted by drug use. With that said, there is no strict plot, rather there is heavy focus on emotions that ultimately piece together each character’s story–a trait that can also be found in Casavete’s debut film on race relations, Shadows. The film is essentially a compilation of dialogue and interactions that emphasize on close-up shots–specifically on the actor’s faces. An interesting aspect I noticed was during these scene transitions where characters are walking about New York City, the audience are provided with less magnified shots, and characters often have things covering their faces. A perfect example of this is Ben who would wear shades while outside but during heated confrontations with his siblings or love interests, those shades are taken off so we can see the emotions displayed through enlargements of his eyes.
Speaking of faces, Casavetes other film, Faces also holds close resemblance to our recent text. In this case it is Selby’s Last Exit to Brooklyn. In this film, while we are introduced to the conflict between an old married couple on the verge of divorce, their interactions with other characters throughout the rest of the film is equally important. Specifically, the scenes in which we see the conflict between lovers remind me most of abusive and drug filled relationships showcased in Selby’s novels. Georgette’s relationship to Vinnie comes immediately to mind to have heavy similarities to that of Maria and Chet. Both Maria and Georgette feel as if they are in a form of ‘hell”. They eventually turn to drugs that prove potentially fatal to the both of them.
I do not believe that Casavetes is able use the filmmaking techniques in today’s action oriented Hollywood. Especially in terms of actor-oriented techniques of using an Italian actor and very small part- black actress to portray African Americans would be heavily looked down upon. A film that does remind me of this film is The Room by Tommy Wiseau, a picture in which there is seemingly no plot and the audience is just lead along a journey with the main character. I definitely feel as if Casavetes’s film would fall under the category of cult classics.
LikeLike
In Cassavetes’s films, his focus on the actors leads to a greater emphasis on the characters overall, and the narrative therefore seems secondary or even a byproduct of the characters’ actions and emotions. A similar approach to human emotion is present in both “Last Exit To Brooklyn” and “Junky” as they are character driven novels with little plot. I think the overriding concern of Cassavetes when he makes a movie is creating nuanced and complex characters that feel real to the audience. The attention Cassavetes pays to each actor is rarely done in Hollywood films. Instead of creating characters whose only function is to carry the plot forward, Cassavetes is allotting time to the actors to find freedom in their interpretations of their characters. In “Shadows” Cassavetes uses improv as a method which creates a more naturalistic approach to the dialogue. The interactions between characters are sometimes so personal, the audience can feel as if they are intruding on a private moment. In the film “Faces” when the witty banter between Richard and Maria is cut off by Richard who states that he wants a divorce, the close ups of Maria, after her laughter, are almost unbearable to watch, and such shots make the audience feel they are trespassing on a personal moment.
When looking at the characters Selby creates, I do get the sense that he likes his characters even when he shows them doing unpleasant things. By exposing them in their darker moments, he creates multidimensional characters, and in fleshing them out, he is in a way, honoring them. In the case of Harry, Selby tries to create sympathy for him in moments when his coworkers are apathetic towards him. Selby tries to get his readers to dig deeper and really understand who his characters are beyond a surface level reading.
Cassavetes’s style of filmmaking reminds me of the mumblecore films that began to be created in the early 2000s by people like Andrew Bujalski, the Duplass brothers, and Joe Swanberg. Though I don’t know if they were influenced by him, I see similarities in the style of filmmaking with the low budget, improvised narrative which focuses more on character than plot. Mumblecore films such as “Hannah Takes The Stairs” and “Funny Ha Ha” remind me of this style seen in the Cassavetes films.
LikeLike
Cassavete’s camera work is confrontational and among the crowd he shooting, as if it is a character itself. In the 1979 Killing of a Chinese Bookie the end of Disco and the emotional withdrawl of the 80s already creeping is reflected in the ways his camera also withdrawals from the subject. With his shift towards a less handheld shaky cam aesthetic, into a still frame, you can see a certain deadness he intends to imbue. This stultification of human presence continues into his following three films up until his own death of chlorosis. The lasting presence of his work can be seen across film history and independent production but his techniques have been relegated to the periphery of the mainstream. His actor oriented approach lends a lot of freedom to his performers while his open script provides the malleable scaffolding for their performance. This approach can be scene in Mumblecore movements that hoped to revitalize the semi-autobiographical and realist portrayal of the interpersonal but often fell short with its mid 90s bourgeois hipster adherents.
With this attentive care, Cassevete’s is able to mine the intricacies of identity and bodily relationships in various spaces. In Shadows, upon Leila’s brothers arrival Tony and Leila are captured looking in the mirror, Tony’s whiteness and Leilas passing whiteness are flattened in this visual plane. Followed by a quick reversal shot, where he learns that Hugh is Leila’s brother, Tony’s illusion of her whiteness and their perceived sameness is shattered. As Hugh and Leila lock eyes after Tony’s racism is made known, like the shadow of her own blackness, Hugh walks towards her while she walks back, faces expressionless as if a fight is to break out. But he embraces her and comforts her, knowing all too well the sensation she feels as they are both are reminded of their mutual marginality. Cassavete’s shows a lot of care towards his performers in these scenes. Often you have to wonder, how close is this to the actors actual story? Where does the lived experience and acted expression intersect in this scene? I think Selby alike holds his characters with a certain care, but his use of the surreal often make bodies bend in the direction which he wants to go. There seems to a whittling down of the subject where Cassavete’s is concerned with the expansion. Somehow, life seems to always continue even after the final scene of Cassavete’s flick. Selby on the other hand, forms the world into a more apocalyptic vision.
LikeLike
Cassavetes’ interest in characters, both personally as individuals as well as their interpersonal interactions and relationships, and the gritty realism in which he does so with often irony or otherwise a stark darkness atmospherically, was extremely reminiscent of Borroughs and Selby to me. The latter authors took an interest in developing characters both as accurate to the suffering and disturbing complexities of real life as possible, while also exaggerating characteristics or making them feel dreamlike or surreal – Borroughs via his twisted, vivid imagery of the human self, and Selby through his erratic, stream-of-consciousness narratives. Cassavetes is interesting because he seems to be interested in doing the film version of this, to some extent (I do believe that his films felt significantly less “surreal” than Borroughs or Selby, but there is also the obvious extreme change in style since they are being told through different mediums), especially through long shots of individual people and their faces. It forces the viewer to study individuals’ faces and the complexity of each emotion that they experience in a very unique way. Further, the characters drive the plot, and thus the idea of a coherent and linear story feels secondary to what can almost be described as a behavioral study of the cast, as the actions and feelings of the characters drive the narrative. This, too, feels very similar to Borroughs and Selby, with Borroughs’ story being entirely character driven and not interested in a coherent plot and Selby’s being a collection of loosely interconnected short stories focused on unique characters. All three creators also aren’t interested in depicting characters as black and white, but rather seem to keep their world functioning within a grey morality, where the actions of individuals is more important than any moral judgement of said actions. Personally, as I watched the films I was reminded of Brian De Palma’s early films and I wondered if they had any inspiration or connection, especially since he is also New York based. Primarily I thought of De Palma’s earlier films such as Greetings (1968), which employed experimental film techniques and was told through a series of interconnected scenes with what feel like rather morally grey main characters.
LikeLike
John Casssavetes movies ran on really raw human emotion, and paired well with the novels we read last week in that they focus less on plot and more on character. His movies are really a big character study in terms of just being able to set a camera up in a room, and whatever happens happens. It feels very of the moment, and even a bit improvised. Even the way that there are sometimes scenes, and especially in Shadows, that the dialogue is a bit indiscernible, there are many different voices going at once, and sound can go in and out. Most hollywood films have a very specific three-act structure, which makes them pretty boring in a lot of ways, Cassavetes doesn’t really have any structure, especially his movie Shadows, which kind of ebbs and flows with these jazz players. You would never see a Hollywood movie meaneander like Cassavetes does. Again in his movie Shadows, and his movie Faces which are much more unconventional than Killing of a Chinese Bookie, which, for him, was at least more accessible than the other two. Either way though, all these movies you couldn’t imagine being able to come out today, even if in the indie capacity that Cassavetes was able to in the fifties and sixties. You get a sense that Cassavetes really likes all his characters, like Sebly, he sees their flaws, but doesn’t judge them for it, he acknowledges their complex personalities and you feel he has a lot of sympathy for them. I also watched his movie, A Woman Under the Influence, in that one you really feel his sympathy for Gena Rowlands in that one. I feel that a lot of movies have been influenced by Cassavetes, maybe not the bigger filmmakers, but the ones who do things on a bit smaller of a scale. The guy who comes to mind first is Richard Linklater. His movies just sort of move around the characters, and they don’t really have a specific plot. I can see some of Cassavetes in Scorsese’s earlier works, not just because of his focus on New York, but Taxi Driver and Mean Streets are great characters studies, which is what Cassavetes seems to be going for.
LikeLike
The main component of the Cassavetes films that caught my attention was their ability to intrigue despite a troubling plot or lack-thereof. Many times, within the films I had to question exactly where/what characters were going/doing and who certain people were in relation to the protagonists. Within “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie”, I felt as though I was plopped right in the middle of someone’s life with zero backstory, character development, or closure. Despite the many exceptions, I surprisingly found myself falling in love with many parts of the film. Despite the lack of information we get from Cosmo and his Crazy Horse West girls, I feel as though the script and direction gave me a unique opportunity to thoroughly understand the inner workings of these characters and the way in which they operate. Cosmo’s gambling addiction doesn’t need to be outright stated; we can see there is obviously a problem from Rachel’s worrisome body language. He states something along the lines of, “It’s just money”, and puts up an aloof front despite the fact that he just barely got out of previous debts during the beginning of the film. The drugs and alcohol within this particular film are interesting compared to the other two films because there wasn’t nearly as many. Solely some alcohol and cigarettes. Even though the other two films had highlighted the use of drugs and alcohol more, possibly in order to provide a catalyst to the characters erratic behavior, I felt as though “The Killing of a Chinese Bookie” did that solely through the use of Ben Gazzara’s acting. The phenomena of watching this film was extremely different from the other two because I genuinely didn’t feel like Cosmo was a character, I really felt as though this story was real. Through the acting-oriented approach, I think Cassavetes brings his films to the next level through the lens of reality and drama. I prefer his films rather than the Hollywood blockbuster’s I see today because it shows a better sense of real life. There aren’t many films being produced like that today, and even if they are, they don’t get nearly as much attention as they should. The only films that come to mind when I think of Cassavetes are also older films such as Kids, The Outsiders, and The Basketball Diaries. Even though we haven’t read “The Basketball Diaries” in class yet, I feel a very strong connection to the setting, even though some of Cassavetes’ films are not in NYC. I mostly felt the correlation to “Last Exit to Brooklyn” due to the lack of explanation and formality. Like the aforementioned point, Cassavetes doesn’t feel the need to explain every single facet of his characters, and I feel as though Selby did that as well, especially in Georgette’s case. I felt as though Georgette and Cosmo were the most relatable because despite their internal problems, they desire love, belonging, and acceptance the most.
LikeLike
John Cassavetes film, Faces, resemble closely to the novels we’ve read last week which are “Junkie” and “Last Exit to Brooklyn” in terms of the way he focuses more on the actors/ actresses rather than the whole plot itself. Cassavetes focus a lot more toward characters in the movie by exploiting many features such as facial expressions, tone of the voices, and etc. In Faces (1968), the scene where Richard and Fred goes to Jeannie’s apartment is one of the examples. They make utter fools of themselves in this quest, doing long-bygone “routines from college” and serenading her with “I dream of Jeannie with the light brown hair.” The whole scenery is full of expressions and is focused on the characters. Also, the scene where Richard comes home and demands for Maria to get divorced, Maria thinks it’s a joke and she responds to Richard with hysterical laughter. Then, Richard sneers saying, “Why don’t you laugh? It’s funny.” These scenes are so full of emotions and are great examples of how John Cassavetes intention of his films and concerns when making a movie. In addition, like “Junkie”, his movie “Faces” has a lot of scenes concerning alcohol. Alcohol in “Faces” work similar to the drugs in “Junkie” where characters become more honest toward their feelings and emotions. His films are unlike any other Hollywood movies because Hollywood movies focus more on plot than the characters a lot of the times, and sometimes it is just boring cause of the same style of filmmaking. I think like Selby, John Cassavetes do have sympathy towards his characters in the film.
LikeLike
A line of Jeannie’s early in John Cassavetes’ Faces – “You don’t say what you mean very well” – seems like a thesis statement of sorts for Cassavetes, a possible reason he filmed and edited the way he did. Since people don’t say what they mean very well, it only makes sense for words to play second fiddle to actions and facial expressions. The words that Cassavetes’ characters speak are insignificant, mere jesting and niceties – until they’re not. Characters’ seemingly abrupt changes in mood lead to the utterance of severe words that cut through the mirth – “I want a divorce,” “What the hell do we care about two whores?” These sudden tonal shifts are no doubt in part a result of the inebriated state Cassavetes’ characters are often in. But looking closely at their expressions and body language – visual elements that Cassavetes’ extreme close-ups and unconventional camera angles render very observable – perhaps they’re not all that sudden. We’ve been given nonverbal indications that these tonal shifts and severe words are on the horizon. Cassavetes uses playful Freudian references (“Well, you look Freudian,” “Say, how would you like to call me Mother?”) to reinforce that he is concerned with the subliminal, a realm that perhaps only manifests in the visual plane as the involuntary microexpressions that his camera’s extreme close-ups capture. His characters’ words are only representations of their conscious thought processes, and therefore woefully inadequate in understanding their interiorities, with which he is undeniably concerned.
I think Faces comes off far more like Last Exit to Brooklyn than Junky. The camera feels quite like an omniscient third-person narrator that utilizes free indirect discourse. I think FID visually kind of translates to extreme close-ups; the two are their respective mediums’ ways of exploring characters’ interiorities while remaining separate from them. Cassavetes’ abrupt scene transitions and shaky camerawork are a far cry from Junky’s oddly emotionless, measured prose. Emotion in Faces is nuanced and raw, much as it is Last Exit. A couple of similarities I do see between Faces and Junky, though: They’re both neutral toward the actions of their characters, treating them with neither affection nor derision. Second, they’re both deeply concerned with faces – but while Burroughs usually categorizes them as various forms of nonhuman, Cassavetes seems deeply invested in bringing out their humanity, in all its ugliness, beauty and everything in between.
Cassavetes’ lack of concern for aesthetic propriety – evident in his use of lo-fi shaky cam and odd angles – makes his films quite different from the typical studio Hollywood film. As others have noted, mumblecore films of the ’00s (“Hannah Takes the Stairs,” starring Greta Gerwig, is one I’ve kind of seen) quite strongly resemble Cassavetes’ films in their naturalism, low budgets, lo-fi equipment and prioritization of character over plot.
LikeLike
Similarly to novels such as Junky, John Cassavetes focuses heavily on character development in his films. He worries less about the storyline because his characters themselves are the real story. In Cassavetes’ film The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, we can paint a clear picture of how the main character, Cosmo Vittelli, views himself almost immediately. One scene which stands out as a clear example is when we see our hero in the back seat of a chauffeured with gifts piled next to him. As he puffs on his cigar, he sighs contentedly, “I am amazing.” As if this didn’t illustrate his conceit well enough, we get an even clearer picture of Vittelli’s personality when he is en route to kill the bookie. We see him dash across the street to a payphone, dial a number, and attempt to micromanage his pride and joy, his sleazy Hollywood club, while on the way to putting himself in grave danger. Even with his life at stake, his mind is on his reputation. Instances such as this don’t give us the sense that Cassavetes particularly likes his characters. He doesn’t dislike them either, but instead shows devotion to giving his audience a complete picture of the character, showing the good, the bad, and the nitty-gritty. We the audience get to see the face a character shows the world, what they think about themselves behind closed doors, and the nitty-gritty aspects of their personalities that they’d probably rather not show to anyone.
Similarly to Cassavetes, Borroughs’ primary concern in Junky is character development. The plot seems to meander, never gaining velocity in one particular direction or another, but the reader gains more and more insight into the main character’s mind and tendencies as the novel progresses. For example, although the main character tries to kick junk again and again, he also seems to feel a sense of pride in being a practiced junkie. When he talks about finding junk in Mexico City, he likens himself to being a geologist. “As the geologist looking for oil is guided by certain outcropping of rock, so certain signs indicate the near presence of junk” (110). He compares himself to a trained scientist, which suggests he views his skills as fine-tuned, practiced, and meticulous- almost scientific in nature. His pride conflicts heavily throughout the novel with his impulse to use junk- and it almost kills him.
LikeLike
Cassavetes’ films seem to highlight and showcase loneliness as a plot driving force, and, like Last Exit to Brooklyn, strive to put human emotions on display. Taking a look at the director’s film, Faces (1968), it is almost frightening to see how similar each character is. Over the course of the film, the audience watches as the relationship between Richard and Maria reaches an end. This is caused by a sense of separation that has overcome the relationship, and both individuals go on to seek comfort from strangers. Men, such as Richard and his friend, are all portrayed as overly cynical and unable to contain themselves. In public scenes many men are rowdy, bordering on nonsensical, though always seem to be disconnected from their own emotions. This is not a result of strength, but a psychological response to loneliness, considering how many men are seeking only a quick, sexual interaction to provide themselves with momentary relief from the complications of love. Women appear to be delusional and disillusioned by the chase for love, also giving into the fear of loneliness, and searching for equally loveless relationships. From beginning to end it is possible to see how artificial relationships have become, and the common sentiment of alienation that drives everyone into forced intimacy. Maria’s young playboy, in a scene of chaos and confusion states, “I caused you a lot of pain, and a lot of grief, and I almost killed [you]. I prayed to God, I said ‘God, please, dear God, don’t let anything happen to her because I love her so much…’ Man, I don’t even believe in him… We protect ourselves. So, when you’re taught ethics and values, and honesty, and– I’m a nice guy, you’re a nice guy… Nobody cares. Nobody has the time to be vulnerable to each other, so we just go on.” Chet, after saving Maria from a suicide attempt, has a brief moment of introspection that is not present for most other characters. Within this scene, the most important aspect is the use of character to reveal underlying baggage and acknowledge the plight of every character. He is able to deliver the lines that include the movie’s central themes of vulnerability and isolation, concluding the film.
This external look at relationships and interactions between others is very common in Cassavetes’ other films, Shadows (1959) and Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976). While he constructs differing plots, they each include virtually the same themes, along with similar stylistic elements. With the ultimate goal of exploring the human condition, the director uses each film as a different take on a constantly changing city, though still emphasizing the most important aspects of interaction (sexual, emotional, etc.) Using “Shadows” as an example, it seems that the director neither has a positive or negative feelings towards his own characters. More accurately, he sees them each as a moving component of a larger artistic medium. Cassavetes wants the audience to feel sympathetic towards each character, using character complexity and exploration to garner more admiration for each character. For example, Tony, an attractive and intelligent man, is later revealed to be racist, causing the audience to be unsure of his true nature. Certainly his stylistic choices and execution separate him from Hollywood directors, and make his work highly unique.
LikeLike
The films of Cassavetes are very similar to the novels we have read so far, notably Junky and Last Exit to Brooklyn. The way Cassavetes chooses to portray his characters and the plot development that occurs in his movies, or lack thereof, reflect a very character-based, corporeal method of storytelling, which mirrors that of the literature we have read so far. We see in all his movies his distinctly anti-Freudian approach to emotion. In Shadows and Killing of a Chinese Bookie, there are numerous close-up camera angles on just character’s facial expression. This is the audience’s main way of interpreting their emotions, by staring at the character’s face contortions and gleaning meaning from the way their body takes in the situation at hand. This seems to force the audience not to think about the cause of the emotion, but to experience the fullness of the raw emotion itself, the mixed-up, exhilarating fullness of it. His characters seem to strive to achieve this exhilaration of the moment itself as well, many turning to drugs to achieve it. In this way, his movies mirror Junky and Last Exit to Brooklyn. His movies are not concerned with the causes of actions or motives or the root of emotions. Rather, they focus on the moment itself, the fullness of the emotions portrayed on the screen and nothing else. The zoom ins on only faces and the cutting off of the body in many shots in Shadows brings the audience into this corporeal experience, immersing them in shots of the most emotional part of the body: the face. Similarly, the reader often questions the motives and reasons for what the characters do in Last Exit to Brooklyn. Often, their actions seem outlandish, grotesque. Yet, Selby’s book doesn’t focus on the cause and effect approach of emotions, but on the moment itself, resulting in a mixed-up and honest style of narration which mirrors the moment itself. Furthermore, the movies of Cassavetes don’t seem to have much plot at all. Though they have the illusion of having a plot, like in Killing of a Chinese Bookie, the movie often feels static, focusing heavily on conversations in rooms and interactions. This reinforces Cassavetes’ intense focus on his characters. He zeroes in on everyday conversations, everyday people in his time, and portrays the experience in an everyday, real way. His focus on the actor allows the audience to see a more authentic and real scene, which is precisely what he wants. Unlike other Hollywood films, which have dense and thick plots and more creative characters, Cassavetes strips away plot as a storytelling device and instead chooses actors who are capable of portraying a character who seems real and tangible. This is similar to Junky, where Burroughs portrays characters in a very corporeal way with detailed physical descriptions and strips away plot from his story. Cassavetes’ style of depicting his characters, then, does not seem critical. Instead of making value judgements on people’s actions, like many Hollywood movies do with their “good guy” “bad guy” plots, Cassavetes rejects a moral lens in favor of simply depicting people in the most real, tangible, and present way.
LikeLike
Cassavetes focuses on intimate moments of dialogue between the actors to progress his narratives forwards, in turn he highlights a larger message regarding ones faith in humanity. He has a unique style of storytelling, as he uses the camera to invade and escape into the lives of his characters, therefore making the various film’s plots mainly about their mundane lives; one could argue that his films actually has no plot. Yet, through alcohol, drugs, and sex, a climax of truth is reached within each storyline, therefore giving a subtle structure to his films. I believe that Cassavetes tackles monumental themes such as infidelity, race, and debt, through immersing the audience in an empathetic relationship with the characters; therefore, they leave resonated, through understanding their motives and actions behind their struggles, instead of leaving entertained.
Through close-ups, the camera moves with the performers in their space, which makes the audience listen and observe their interactions, in order to understand their relationships. I believe that this creates a dialogue between the audience and the characters, since one is forced to question the subjectivity of the film’s lens. For example, during ‘Shadows,’ after Tony finds out Lelia’s family is black, Tony freaks out and tries to flea her apartment, as well as her for good; Cassavetes show this sad departure through a single confining shot. The interaction occurs within their apartment doorway, and Hugh is telling Tony to leave. The audience must take away the pain that Tony is feeling while pressing his body against the door, while also understanding the anger Hugh is feeling by Tony leaping Lelia; in turn, they are left to decide whose actions are more reasonable. I believe these intimate moments that rely on the performers’ emotions is a unique style to Cassavetes, and, which, allow him to portray his overriding concern of allowing the audience to have their own subjective lens.
I believe that Cassavetes does like his characters for the most part, since he choses to humanize their behaviors. I believe that he is critical of their actions, and that is represented through the intimate shots, that makes the audience question the lens they are understanding the characters through. But, for example, in ‘The Killing of a Chinese Bookie,’ Vittelli commits murder, yet Cassavetes leaves the audience to question his innocence and motivates. In the final scene, he is walking out of the club with a gunshot wound on his side, while, the club’s audience claps and the announcer praises him by saying he is “not just the best night club owner,” but he “practices the best thing there is in this world — to be comfortable” (‘The Killing of a Chinese Bookie’ 1:43). The audience is left to question whether his actions, and his lifestyle of comfortability, will lead to his death or save him. And, I believe that the film ‘Requiem for a Dream’ has a similar stylistic tone. Darren Aronofsky uses close ups to enter the minds of the characters, who are frantic drug addicts, in order to humanize their behavior. The audience is taken out of reality through fast ending and intimate shots, that do not allow the viewer to enter the film’s environment; in turn, they must enter and empathize with the limitless mind of these characters through their various high stake, and fast pace situations. I also believe that Selby does this through his writing in ‘Last Exit to Brooklyn’; he makes the audience follow each characters stream of consciousness, therefore humanizing and justifying their behaviors and identities. In all, I believe that both artists are allowing the audience to be critical of the characters actions through providing an unbiased and humanized representation of their consciousness.
LikeLike
One of the most captivating characters in Cassavetes’ films was Lelia. With Lula’s decisiveness and Georgette’s earnest innocence, Lelia is a flawed and fascinating character to watch. Lelia reminds me of Georgette in her eagerness to fall in love, but differs in her inability to stay in love. What makes her character so interesting and unique is her want for romance but does not allow herself to give into it. This combined with her independence, mind, and expectations creates a character not often seen in film, not during Cassavetes’ time nor today. This might have to do with the improvisational component, or how human and raw her character is, seeing as it was one of Cassavetes first films.
Toxic masculinity is present through all three films, with a similar sense to the group mentality seen in “Exit to Brooklyn” between Vinnie and his friends. Furthermore, Vinnie and his need for appearance, violence, and emotional distance reminds me of Cosmo’s need for formality and the constant illusion of calm. Towards the end of the movie, as Cosmo is sitting in the club, in a suit despite his near fatal injuries, he says, “your falsehood is my truth and vice versa.” This stuck out because it felt like the first genuine idea Cosmo shared. Similarly, even though Vinnie is seen in almost everyone’s story, Vinnie’s characterization remains vague and distant opposed to characters like Georgette or Harry. Despite watching him for two hours, the same distance is felt with Cosmo, as if he is still a stranger.
In Cassavetes’ films, alcohol allows for a barrier to come down. With Richard and Maria Forst, many times seen drunk, there is unabashed honesty in every conversation. With Ben, the addition of alcohol brings out a violence. It is very striking to see his normal drunken attack mode juxtaposed to his ability to diffuse the tension and de-escalate the interaction between a racist boy toy of Lelia’s and Hugh. You can see how flawed and captivatingly human each character is, rather than an ideal and somewhat artificial.
These films somewhat reminds me of Adaptation in the closeness you feel to the characters and the rare unfettered access you have to the character’s mind and emotions. With similarities in choppy editing, extended monologues, and prolonged close up camera shots, these films feel more like a documentary of sorts than a modern-day drama.
LikeLike
Cassavetes’ films seem to largely concern the actors’ emotions and their relationships with one another rather than narrative tension, as is traditionally seen in “Hollywood movies”. In his films, Cassavetes’ main focus is on the characters themselves. The shots are long and continuous, moving slowly or rarely at all. The conversations are not quickly cut to save time, as is often done, but are instead allowed to play out in their full, sometimes awkward length. This can be seen in movies such as “Shadows” after the opening scene, when the camera shows the various couples flirting with one another. The sound of the film further contributes to this “natural” style of filming by focusing on natural sound effects. For example, in the opening of “Shadows”, screams and shouts from the crowd can be heard over the top of the music, giving it a more “realistic” feeling. Furthermore, drugs and alcohol allow the actors to dramatically display emotions, especially the “less kind” ones. By doing this, Cassavetes’ shifts the focus of the movie from the plot itself to the characters. The characters themselves are hardly developed at all throughout the films; they largely stay the same. Cassavetes’ seems to want to show the realism in relationships, with all of its ugly vices and awkward pauses. By doing this, Cassavetes’ is criticizing the characters, but I believe that he is also trying to demonstrate the complexity of humans by showing how people can be both good and vile. By making his films actor-oriented, the audience is given much more time to consider the characters themselves. Instead of being quickly dragged along a narrative, the audience can take in each character and how they interact with one another. This allows the audience to slowly build a picture of the on-screen characters throughout the movie, despite the characters themselves not changing much. In a similar vein to this style of movie, “There Will Be Blood” also contains many of these long, awkward scenes. Furthermore, the movie also seems to lack a plot, as it largely concerns the relationships between the protagonist and those around him. Both of these films privilege character over plot in that the characters are the plot. In relationship to the novels we’ve read so far, this novel also seems want to capture a complete picture of life by not avoiding its seedier parts. It focuses on average characters with ugly struggles. Cassavetes’ films are a great demonstration of the power of character-driven plot in film.
LikeLike
Cassavetes capitalizes on unspoken meaning through the facial expressions of the actors and implied significance based on the interactions between characters rather than their explicit dialogue. In the scene where Richard returns home to Maria at the beginning of “Faces”, they sit at a dinner table and discuss how Richard’s friend Fred cheats on his wife. This conversation is communicated through seemingly uncontrollable laughter which quickly turns into aggression and anger about the sexual lives of the couple. Because the audience is aware that Richard is cheating on Maria, the laughter communicates a far different meaning than true glee. With this knowledge, the quickly changing facial expressions of Richard give far more in-depth meaning than simply the conversation they are having. Thus, I believe the overriding concern of his films are focused on showing the true feelings of the characters in the various situations they find themselves in. This focus on the characters and their interior selves reminds me particularly of Burroughs book “Junky.” Obviously, the reader is not able to physically “read,” or infer meaning from the faces of the characters in the book, but the unique character descriptions and the dragged on dialogue and scenes allows the reader to understand the characters in much of the same way. In both the movie and the book, the extended dialogues seem to function less as a means of plot development and more as a means of deeper exploration into the intricacies of the characters. While the plot does not develop like a conventional Hollywood film does, the plot relies on the extensive development of the characters.
Similar to Cassavetes’ characters, Selby’s characters in “Last Exit to Brooklyn” make up the development of the plot. While these characters are described as doing unpleasant things, I don’t believe Selby meant all of this in a negative way. By showing all dimensions of these characters, I think Selby is trying to communicate an exhaustive portrait of them and their lives. Cassavetes mimics this approach. Although all of the characters in his movies are shown in unpleasant situations, I feel a sense of empathy for each of them. Even as Richard is cheating on his wife with Jeannie, his character is fairly likeable, such as when he is drunk and discussing the importance of friendship and meaningful human connections. By using these abrupt changes in characterization of the actors, even recognizable in their facial expressions, Cassavetes forgoes the quintessential Hollywood movie plot structure and produces movies that embody true human feelings and experiences.
LikeLike
Human emotions and relationships in Cassavetes’ films seem to be a negotiation, a push and pull between people. In Faces in particular, there are several chase scenes — between Maria and Chet, Dickie and Maria, et cetera — while sexual and romantic attraction is being negotiated. The balance swings when one person catches the other; then, it usually swings the other way with an escape. In Faces people try to connect, but the line between laughter and argument is shown to be very thin. Conversations frequently swing back and forth between the two with no warning whatsoever. The same thing happens at times in Shadows, such as when Ben becomes angry at the party and throws a drink on a woman, causing Hugh to attack him. This could be influenced by alcohol; alcohol seems to feature frequently, especially in scenes where characters make fools of themselves or begin to argue, like the scene where Maria and her friends bring Chet home. The women’s sexual competition, mixed with alcohol, leads to Florence falling all over Chet and crying on Maria. At other times, places of revelry are really just opportunities for characters to feel alone in a crowd of people. Shadows begins with shots of Ben, wearing his sunglasses to separate him from the world, looking uncomfortable alone in a club. Isolation and the inability to connect are, therefore, consistent themes.
I don’t feel that Cassavetes is always criticizing his characters, but rather attempts to show them as nuanced people. Florence, for example, in her messy drunken state, still manages to be human and vulnerable. She says that “one of these days I’m gonna croak… and some goddamn preacher’s gonna preach a goddamn sermon over my goddamn body!” Immediately after, Chet appears, and she throws herself at him. Her behavior is given context and explanation, and connected to a universal fear of mortality. She’s definitely humanized, regardless of her embarrassing behavior. So, like Selby, whose characters (particularly Georgette) seem to be treated with sympathy, I think Cassavetes looks for ways to humanize people, even minor characters.
On the other hand, at times Cassavetes’ characters can be inscrutable. As is the case with Cosmo in The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, sometimes characters’ personalities are kept under wraps. Cosmo lies so much, and tries so hard to keep up a good front, that it’s difficult to tell who he really is. This was one thing I related to Burroughs and Junky. In Junky, Burroughs maintains a detachment that extends to most of the characters. Even the protagonist tells us things about his childhood (his rich parents, et cetera), but we don’t find out he has a wife until someone else brings her up. He seems a complete mystery to me, and in that way I really related him and Cosmo.
LikeLike