"Shadows" ** (out of ****)John Cassavetes is quite an interesting guy. When I was in college I took a class on his films. Prior to the class I had seen a few of his films, but never considered myself a fan of his work. I thought the class would allow me to better understand his work and who he was as a artist. I quickly found out no one would ever be able to understand Cassavetes. He is a constant salesman. He is always "on". He's always given a performance always selling something, always trying to influence you one way or another.
I've seen nearly all of his films. His catalogue is a mixed bag to me. Some films work, others don't. I would argue his best films are "Faces" (1968) and " A Woman Under the Influence" (1974). I had to watch "Faces" three times before I was comfortable saying I liked it. I watched "A Woman Under the Influence" twice. The second time I saw it I discovered a lot I hadn't noticed the first time. Both films improved with multiple viewings. Perhaps "Shadows" (1959) is such a film too.
"Shadows" was John Cassavetes' debut film. Cassavetes had hoped the film would be a break from your normal Hollywood fare. And I must admit it is. In some ways it is quite ahead of its time. The film was released in America before any film by Godard, Truffaut or Chabrol had been released, three of the most famous names in the nouvelle vague. The film was totally improvised, as is usually Cassavetes' style. His performers have a naturalistic quality to them. Cassavetes has always been interested in capturing the everyday lives and problems of most people. The issues which Hollywood films avoid. The problem with "Shadows" is, it makes no statement about anything.
The film follows two brothers and a sister. They are a black family, but two of the siblings are very light complected and can actually pass for white. Ben (Ben Carruthers) is a wanna-be jazz trumpet player who hangs around his two white friends, Dennis (Dennis Sallas) and Tom (Tom Reese), who go around from place to place trying to pick up girls. His sister, Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) has been trying to expand her horizons by soaking up culture. She seems to only date white men. The third brother is Hugh (Hugh Hurd) a washed-up singer, 10 years passed his prime, still trying to break out. He and his manager, Rupert (Rupert Crosse) work third rate nightclubs, opening for strippers.
Lelia starts dating David (David Pokitillow) a white man, who says he loves her. After spending a night together, David finds out Lelia is black after she introduces him to her brother Hugh. David immediately excuses himself, saying he has an appointment which he has forgotten about. Hugh knows what is really at play. David is a racist.
The rest of the film shows Ben and his friends engaged in their usual pick up games and Hugh playing various clubs. But there is no social message on race or society. According to Ray Carney's book "Cassavetes on Cassavetes", the film was not about race, Cassavetes says the film was suppose to show "the aimlessness and the wanderings of young people". But what about them? What does Cassavetes want us to think about young people? What does Cassavetes think about these characters? Cassavetes continues to say the film "has no message", "the thing people don't like is having a philosophy shoved down their throats."
What I don't like is when a film is preachy and overly sentimental and has nothing original to say. But, I do like a film to at least have a view point. Be about something. Even if the film doesn't answer all of its own questions at least understand your characters and make the audience care about them. You don't have to shove a philosophy down my throat, but at least have a philosophy. Know what you want your film to be about. Cassavetes gets the "aimlessness" and "wandering" correct but I kept wanting more from the story.
Cassavetes says the style of the film was inspired by the Italian neo-realist movement. "The neo-realist filmmakers" he says "were not afraid of reality; they looked it straight in the face." That's true, but even those films had a message. They were actually about something. Cassavetes doesn't seem interested in that point.
When "Shadows" was first released in 1957 the film opened to very negative reviews. In fact, the reaction was so bad Cassavetes even went back and re-shot much of the film. That still didn't improve reaction by much. Only after many years did critics re-examine the film and begin to praise it. But I wonder how much of that was because Cassavetes had already had a few films under his belt.
"Shadows" was an experiment and nearly didn't get made in the first place. John Cassavetes has always had a hard time getting his film financed. He is not a mainstream filmmaker. He actually went on a radio show "Night People" hosted by Jean Shepherd and asked callers to send in donations in order to get the film produced. That's what I meant when I called him a "salesman". How many directors today would pull off such a stunt? Call you imagine Martin Scorsese doing that?
The problem I've always had with Cassavetes' films is they actually don't ring true for me. I find them sometimes phony. The improvised nature of the films often hurts them. The dialogue is usually incredibly bad. They repeat themselves over and over again. Improvisation is a very hard thing to do. I don't care how talented an actor is, it is a challenge. Unless you are a Robin Williams, folks, don't try this at home. I recently wrote about Henry Jaglom on here. He too is an independent filmmaking maverick. But his films "sound" better than Cassavetes. Often I don't like the naturalistic style. It is a style of acting I call "people trying to act normal in way they find other people think of as normal".
But in "Shadows" defense it doesn't really suffer from these problems. The film is actually more "tight". The structure isn't as loose. The dialogue isn't that bad. The actors are pretty focused and don't stray and go off message. The only thing that is missing is a view point. And that is a shame. This could have been one of Cassavetes' best films. But who knows with a guy like Cassavetes. Maybe I should rewatch the film a couple of times. Maybe I wasn't in a "John Cassavetes mood", whatever that may be.
I wouldn't start off my Cassavetes movie experience with this film. The only reason I'm reviewing it before others like "Faces" or "A Woman Under the Influence" is because I have seen "Shadows" recently and didn't feel like rewatching those other movies. Watch "Shadows" only after you have seen those movies and want to see every movie he has made. The only thing to admire about this film is the technique not the story.
Posts
