Dear Professor Carney,
I re-visited your website. Though
I have not looked at every word that is there, I get the general feeling
that you value the art value of film very much.
Do you think the educational value
of film is equally important as its art value?
Back in the 70's and 80's, movies
were used as a kind of propaganda to promote communism
in China; and it turned out to be quite effective. People
of my parents' age were deeply affected by what they see on the
screens. Do you think that film has the potency to influence
the masses, besides revealing the artist's inner thoughts and feelings? My
personal experiences tell me so. Therefore, I always
intend to use film as a means to expose my countrymen to the
advanced cultures in the world and to educate them by appealing to
their senses using moving pictures. All the while I have been
feeling the urge to be a truly educated man, who, like Henry
van Dyke said in his speech in Harvard, contributes himself or herself
to the service of society.
Just like you, I have not studied
art subjects in school before I take the course in film. My strengths were in
the mathematics and science fields. I also know that my level of appreciation
of art is low at the moment. Some of my opinions may appear naive
to you but those are what dwells in my mind now. The one-sentence
paragraph above is what I want to ask you today. I hope I can hear
your reply.
Thank you in advance of your time
and effort!
I will let you know when I arrive
at the campus.
Sincerely,
Tianzi
Ray Carney replies:
The "artistic value" of a film is its "educational
value." There is no difference.
But note that American film can be just as corrupting, false, or deceitful
as film from less "advanced" countries. Hollywood teaches people the worst side of capitalistic
behavior: competition, ruthlessness, individualism, greed. Those forms
of corruption are what my writing deals with.
But there is too much to say in an email.
All
best wishes.
Dear Professor Carney,
I understand that you have much
work to do in school, but please allow me to clear some of my doubts
with you. Please take your time. I can wait.
1. Not everybody can discern the
actual messages that artists want to convey in their work. If someone
sets out to educate the masses, will he or she fail to do so because
his or her films transcend the comprehension level of most of the
people? I remember some of my friends say after they watched a difficult
movie, "Oh, I don't understand at all."
2. Everybody is supposed to
have his or her own interpretations. Am I forcing them to accept
my values if I intend to use film to educate them? Am I wrong?
At this moment, I do not want to
comment on American film, because I may have known too little
about it. What I have watched are mostly blockbusters. I will
read your books.
Have a nice day! Thank you too!
Sincerely,
Tianzi
Ray Carney replies:
I
appreciate the questions but they really can't
be answered by email. Suffice it to say: all any artist can present
is his or her "values." Even when the artist doesnt
realize it, that is what is being presented. And even when people
don't get it, that is what is in the work. The question that
matters is: what is the value of the values:
good, bad, compromising, heroic, fierce, competitive, mean, uplifting,
cheapening, trashy, etc?
The rest will have to wait for school. But bear in mind that many
American students are not interested in these important questions.
Their values are just to have a career or make a lot of money and
get famous. They wouldn't admit it, but that is what they really want. Their
teachers also wont admit it, but that is
what they are teaching them to do. At Boston University and most other universities too. If you ask them what you asked me, they
won't even understand the questions. Most
students and teachers at Boston U and elsewhere are this way. Not
all of them of course, but most. I of course am only really interested
in the other reasons to make film, the reasons you are interested
in. Your questions are the right ones.
RC
Dear Professor Carney,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful e-mail of a month ago and sending
those books along, they arrived yesterday and no harm done. I'm surprising myself with the speed at which I'm reading "Cass
on Cass". I have the feeling I'm going
to be upset when I'm finished reading it, due to the fact that I won't
be able to read it again for the first time.
Now I'm wishing that I'd picked up "The
Films...", "Shadows" and the one about Carl Th. Dreyer.
A day or two before your books arrived I watched "The Passion
of Joan of Arc" it was a fantastic experience and it made me
feel unlike any film of that period which I've
seen. Although, I admit I haven't seen many
silent films. It made me wonder about the possibilities of a modern
silent film.
Also, I recently saw "Abigail's Party" and I'm not sure if I'm biting your line in saying this but it
was "devastating". I had no idea that what, at first, looked
like an episode of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" could
resonate so strongly or that I would be able to empathize with, hate,
grow to like, be amused by Steadman's character but of course she
is very real or should I say dangerously close to the truth. Powerful
stuff and I'm glad you recommended it.
One of the best things about living here is the fantastic selection
of bootleg films, not to mention the price. When I was living in North America I couldn't even afford to rent a film anytime I liked, let alone
purchase one, I think I owned about four DVDs tops. Now, I'm a bourgeois pig living in communist China. Despite that, I feel like I'm
on a good path.
Thanks for everything,
Dan Lower
Ray Carney replies:
Dan,
Thanks for the kind words. Glad you are enjoying C on C. I have so
much more no one will publish. Some day maybe it will see the light
of day...
RC
Dear Mr. Carney,
I've
just recently discovered John Cassavetes' work as a director, due
to the recently released Criterion box set, and have been truly amazed.
Over the past few weeks, I've watched several
of the pictures and documentaries multiple times. I enjoyed your comments
in "A Constant Forge," and understand why you are considered
an expert on Cassavetes and his work.
Now my understanding has grown even greater, having just spent some
time at "The John Cassavetes Pages" web site. I enjoyed
the insightful excerpts available on the web pages. As a young independent
filmmaker myself, Cassavetes is clearly a great source of inspiration
and creative fuel.
I do, however, have a question that perhaps you may be able to provide
an answer. The Criterion set includes two versions of "The Killing
of a Chinese Bookie." Yet, I have not found anything that definitively
says why Cassavetes released a second version. I know it's
stated in "A Constant Forge" that he would have only made
this alternate cut for his own reasons, and not the persuasion of
others. However, I would like to know if there was any reason in particular
he wanted to do this. Can you provide any information regarding this,
or perhaps recommend any of your published works that discuss it?
Once again, I very much enjoyed all of your insights into this terrific
filmmaker. I hope to hear from you.
Sincerely,
David Sayre
Ray Carney replies:
Thanks!
But...if you are interested in JC, you should read my books. Not the
tiny excerpts on the web pages, the books! If you
are serious. (So many aren't of course.
They don't read books. They are the generation misled by Bill Gates
and idiot teachers to believe in the value of web pages. Sorry, just
giving you the facts.) Break free of web pages!
 |
My Cassavetes on Cassavetes book has much more on the making of the
Killing of a Chinese Bookie. The Criterion set is a botch job, full
of errors and omissions. Don't go by anything that is said on those
disks or in the pack-in material. Once I was thrown off the project
they didn't know what they were doing. They give the wrong dates,
wrong information, wrong credits, etc. for films. They have Shadows being finished and released in 1958. They do not explain the relation
of the two versions of Bookie. The Kissass documentary romanticizes
Cassavetes and his works. The Jonathan Lethem essay in the booklet
is laughable. The piece by Gary Giddens contains factual mistakes.
But I won't go on. Read my books. They have the facts. The truth.
The reality. Criterion wasn't interested in that. It was interested
in sucking up to Rowlands, who is afraid of facts and not interested
in the truth, only interested in creating and maintaining a mythical
version of her husband's life and work.
All best wishes and thanks for the kind words.
Dear Professor Carney,
You don't know me, but several years ago
you ruined my life.
In the summer of 2003, I was halfway through my film education at
Wesleyan University. While flipping through the pages of an
amateur film how-to book, which film majors get for every conceivable
holiday, I came across an introduction written by you, a list of anti-rules
for filmmaking. It really clicked for me, and so I sought out some
of the other essays on your website.
To my horror, I found myself agreeing with a number of them. My gut
feelings about Hollywood, Quentin Tarentino, and my own shallow filmic experiences were distilled
in these essays, and it terrified me, because I realized I had lost
a certain amount of cinematic faith. I couldn't
look my DVD collection in the eye. Fargo? American Beauty? Forget it. I dreaded the sight of movie theaters;
a screening of '28 Days Later' nearly caused my friends to kick me
senseless. I was suddenly able to see clearly, and it made me an unbearable
cinema companion for several weeks.
I finally calmed down and began to disagree with some of your points,
but my own inner change - the one begun when I first didn't
understand the hype about Saving Private Ryan - that change was complete.
I needed something more substantial than the cinematic brain candy
I had been consuming all my life. Fortunately, I had a guide. Your
essays pointed me towards Tom Noonan, Mike Leigh, Jean Renoir and
even John Cassavetes: an entire world of film I had never known existed.
In a few months, I will graduate from Wesleyan as a Film and Theater
major. I do not know where I am going after that, but my experiences
as a director on stage and on set has left me hungry for more. With
this in mind, I am applying to the Boston University Film Program,
primarily because your work has inspired me even as I wrestle and
argue with it. You have already begun to lead me towards an understanding
of film as medium capable of surprising truths, and I think studying
with you would help me come to terms with an art form I have both
despised and adored in the same instant.
Wesleyan is not so far from Boston, and while I'm sure you are very busy, I would really enjoy the chance
to meet with you. My phone number is XXX and I check my e-mail frequently.
Thank you again for giving me such necessary grief.
Sincerely,
-Jeremy Paul
Ray Carney replies:
Jeremy,
Thanks for the eloquent letter. I like the wit of your writing. And
appreciate the compliments.
You don't say whether you intend to apply
to the Film Studies or Film Production program. I assume the latter.
Is that correct?
You might include a printout of your email to me in your application
if you haven't mailed it already. It provides
evidence of your seriousness. But if you have already sent the application
in, tell me and I'll insert it into your
dossier if you want.
As to a meeting, that will be possible after you attend, but before
might be dicey. I come to all of the Graduate Open Houses (Visiting
Days) but the last was last week. The rest of the time, I'm
very busy with my current classes and students.
Thanks for the kind words in any case. I hope we meet!
RC
Dear Mr. Carney!
My name is Vladimir Gojun, I am a film
school graduate from Academy of Drama Arts in Zagreb, Croatia and I am preparing my thesis on John Cassavetes.
I am a huge admirer of Cassavetes' work and consider him one of the
most exceptional filmmakers. I have read both of your books, "Cassavetes
on Cassavetes" and "Films of John Cassavetes: Pragmatism,
Modernism, and the Movies". Both helped me to understand
the nature of his work, his original way of working with actors, and
the perspective of film directing and storytelling.
In my thesis I want to concentrate, on the example of a few of his
most important films, on his directing methods, and the way how he
used editing (since my field of specialization is editing) in his
films.
I wanted to ask you if you could be available sometimes to instruct
me on some aspects of this matter and if you could recommend some
more literature regarding his work and his methods. Since you've
been considered and well-reputed as the biggest expert and connoisseur of
Cassavetes' work and an authority when it comes to this subject and
I find you the most appropriate person to turn to.
I sincerely hope that you will find some spare time to help me through
this. I would be very grateful in that case.
Thank you in advance and I apologize for any inconvenience caused
by this e-mail, if any.
Sincerely,
Vladimir Gojun
PS - One more thing, I am very interested in Cassavetes' stage work
and I wonder if it's possible to get any
of his written stage plays, in any form, of course if they were ever
published. Thank you.
Ray Carney replies:
Dear Vladimir,
Id
be glad to read what you write (in translation of course) and give
you my response.
As to recommendations on what to read: there simply is not much that
is worth your time. Nicole Brenez has written
a few essays and a book, but they are French in the worst way
uncontrolled metaphoric free-associations with no discipline. George
Kouvarouss book is hopelessly jargon-ridden
and abstract. Cassavetes would be laughing his ass off if he were
alive to see it. Tom Charity has a few interesting anecdotes about
JC's life, but his treatment of the films
is unremarkable. And that's almost everything.
It's too bad. But film studies is
that way. Very immature intellectually. How
else could a popular entertainer like Hitchcock be taken to be a great
artist?
I'd
recommend reading Casss words in Cass on Cass. He is the often best
critic of his own work. Like D.H. Lawrence and Henry James in this
respect.
And look at the films of course. Again and again.
They teach you things that no critic yet understands. So I'd
say make the films your bible, not the critics!
As to the plays and other things, I've pleaded
with Gena to make them available, but she
hasnt done so in fifteen years, so I wouldn't hold my breath over
her doing it tomorrow. And her attitude makes it impossible for me
to share all the things John himself gave me. Someday they will see
the light of day, but not now.
RC
Ray,
Forgive me for bitching, but what does it say about film in America when one has to resort to look for bootleg
copies of Robert Kramers Ice and Shirley Clarke's Portrait of Jason
in order to see crappy looking versions of them. Thank god I have
a decent copy of Wanda and Killer of Sheep and Rappaport. His video's are like trying to find something original
at the local cineplex - nothing doing! I
did manage to get Casual Relations and Scenic Route both brilliant. Time to stop complaining
now; I'm off to see that Clint Eastwood boxing
movie. Just kidding!
All the Best,
Paul Baagiotti
Ray Carney replies:
Paul,
I helped issue some of Rapps work on video a few years ago and began
talks with Kramer about doing him next, then
the company went bankrupt. We can blame the metroplexes
and Miramaxes and Spielbergs,
but should never forget that they are US. Not you and me
maybe, but people just like us everywhere. The problem is not elsewhere.
It is not corporations. It is the people who watch movies, the audiences,
the video renters and buyers, the TV viewers like you and me and our
mothers and brothers. They voted for George Bush, too. The problem
with
America is not in the White House. It is with the
people in America
. And maybe everywhere. I don't know
enough about that.
But don't despair. Go on joyously, hopefully,
affirmatively, lovingly, continuing to be different. We must live
our lives for ourselves in the best way possible for us. Even if the
whole world is doing something else, running in the opposite direction.
