Al
Ruban and Gena Rowlands claim that Cassavetes did not want the first version
of Shadows shown. (Click
here
to read Rowlands’s response to Prof. Carney’s discovery of
the long-lost first version of Shadows.) They are simply wrong.
Read more to find out why.
To
read a chronological listing of events between 1979 and the present connected
with Ray Carney's search for, discovery of, and presentation of new material
by or about John Cassavetes, including a chronological listing of the
attempts of Gena Rowlands's and Al Ruban's to deny or suppress Prof. Carney's
finds, click
here.
To read another
statement about why Gena Rowlands or anyone else who acted in Cassavetes'
films or someone who knew Cassavetes is not the ultimate authority on
the meaning of his work or on how it should be cared for or preserved,
click
here.
To read about other unknown Cassavetes material (including recording studio master tapes and an unknown film by Cassavetes) Ray Carney has discovered, click here.
Click
here for best printing of text
What
were Cassavetes' feelings about screenings of the first version of Shadows?
Did he want it to be suppressed? Did he suppress it?
Since Gena Rowlands's and
Al Ruban's basic position about the first version of Shadows is
that Cassavetes never wanted it to be shown, several people have written
me to ask the source for the statement that I quote at the
head of the following page on the site.
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/shadows/news.shtml
The text they are asking about reads:
"Now, a lot of film buffs heard about the two versions of Shadows so they said, 'We want to see the first version, which was the great
version of Shadows!' .... So we showed that first version of Shadows and they championed it. They thought it was great.... That other version
exists and ... is allowed to be shown at any time...." —John
Cassavetes in an interview with Andre Labarthe, when he was asked whether
he didn't want people to see the earlier version of Shadows or had suppressed
the print of it.
Gena
Rowlands's whole position is that she is honoring Cassavetes’ wishes
by not showing the first version, and that I "have failed to respect
John Cassavetes' wishes." Peter Becker's email firing me uses these
exact words and says that that is why Rowlands insisted I be fired. Well,
the Labarthe interview quote is one refutation of that, but I want to
emphasize that Cassavetes' statement to Labarthe is not mere verbiage
or empty talk. It's a little known fact, but a fact nonetheless that Cassavetes
actually did conduct screenings of the first version of Shadows
even after he had finished and screened the second version. I have in
my possession detailed information about regular theatrical screenings
(in other words, real, public, commercial screenings, not private events
for friends and relatives) of the first version of Shadows that
Cassavetes approved and conducted before the first version was lost on
the subway car. (Of course he couldn't conduct any more after the film
was lost.) There is no doubt whatsoever that these screenings took place.
I have tracked down every detail about them: the advertising, the box
office ticket sales records, the attendance figures, and the rental payments
made to Cassavetes. I have in my possession the documentation approving
the screenings and naming the payment terms with signatures on it. And
Gena Rowlands has knowledge that these screenings took place, because
I myself sent the information to her months ago, along with dozens of
other pieces of information about the early history of the first version.
But don't confuse her with the facts! She still denies there was a "first
version"—let alone that Cassavetes ever allowed it to be screened
for the public! (As evidence of the falsity of Rowlands's position, and proof not only that there is a "first version" of Shadows, but that it is a complete and finished work of art, not a work in progress or a rough assembly, click here to view three brief video clips from the movie.)
In summary: Ruban and Rowlands are wrong, wrong, wrong. As the above
statement by Cassavetes establishes, he was not opposed to screenings
of the first version of Shadows. And as the screening records in my possession
establish, he actually did hold public screenings of the first version.
For what it's worth, he also told me, near the end of his life, that
he would love to have the film found and screened again. He wished he
knew where it was. He wished it weren't lost. In short, ALL of the evidence
says the same thing. The filmmaker himself did NOT want the first version
destroyed, suppressed, or hidden away for no one ever to see. (As Gena
Rowlands and Al Ruban claim and as they are having their lawyer attempt
to do by seizing the print from me and taking it out of circulation.)
If
we are going to play the rhetorical game that Rowlands has begun, it would
be more accurate to say that SHE is ironically enough the one who is "not
honoring Cassavetes' wishes" and that I am the one who is struggling
against the lawyers to defend his wishes. Cassavetes himself said the
first version could be shown. He rented the first version out for regular,
public screenings. And now she wants to fry me for doing what he himself
endorsed and did, while herself contravening his wishes.
But, to get back to where
I began, the question at hand is where does the quote that I have on
the site, the quote that I have transcribed
above—the quote from Cassavetes saying that he has no objection
to the first version of Shadows being screened—come from? Well,
my answer follows. I've sent it to several different people who have
asked about it, but to avoid having to write the same reply over and
over again, I am posting the text of my reply to one of the inquirers
below. Where can you find the statement by Cassavetes saying that he
has no problem with the first version of Shadows being shown? It's in
an unexpected place. Read the reply that follows to find out. I hope
it gives you a chuckle.
Dear xxxx,
You're right. That
statement by Cassavetes completely refutes Criterion's and Rowlands's
positions.
I'm delighted to give you the source. And you
know the joke? You'll laugh when I explain it. The quote is included
in the Criterion box set! It was my "Trojan horse." A little "Easter
Egg" hidden away on the disks, waiting to be found.
Here's
the back story: the box set's producer knew very little about Cassavetes
and I more or less worked out the contents of the box set for her, which
means all of the material eventually included, plus a lot more that wasn't
included. (Unfortunately, some of the best stuff didn't make the cut thanks
to good old Al and Gena and Peter Becker.) Over a period of months I did
hundreds of hours of research and made dozens of recommendations for supplementary
material to be included with the disks. Among many other things, I suggested
the Cineastes de notre temps documentary (which I had one of
the only copies of in America—and which a few years before I had
already suggested to Kiselyak to use in his documentary) where Andre Labarthe
interviews Cassavetes about Faces. It's an interesting piece
in itself, but one of the reasons I thought it would be especially amusing
to include it was because around 42 minutes into it (just after the point
it switches from Faces' 1965 pre-release to its 1968 post-release
period, where John is sitting in a chair with a tie on) John starts talking
about why he was unfairly charged with "suppressing" the first
version of Shadows. Labarthe asks John something to the effect
of: "Why did you suppress the first version of Shadows?
Why did you refuse to make it available to all the people who wanted to
see it? Why don't you want it to be seen?" And you can hear John's
answer with your own ears. It's the one I quote on the site. He says he
didn't suppress it, and that it can be shown any time. He says he prefers
the second version of the film, but has nothing against screenings of
the first.
Well, as Criterion's scholarly advisor, I thought it would be a great
joke to have this on the release, since they were giving me such a hard
time about including the first version of Shadows. And Criterion took
my advice and included it, probably without ever listening to the piece
carefully enough to realize that they were including something that refuted
their own and Rowlands's and Ruban's position on Shadows! I thought it
would be good for a laugh.
Even though Rowlands had my name removed from the box set, I really
truly was the scholarly advisor for everything that went into it and
that's what scholarly advisors are for: to know the material inside and
out, to make recommendations on what to include and what not to include,
and to make sure that important information gets onto the disks. And
that's what I did. This is important information. I got it into the set.
: )
What larks!
Side issue: Does Peter Becker actually pay attention to what his company
is issuing? Don't answer that.....!
All best etceteras,
Ray Carney
Uncredited "Scholarly Advisor" to the Criterion Box Set
To
read more about Gena Rowlands's response to Prof. Carney's discovery of
the first version of Shadows, click
here.
To
read a chronological listing of events between 1979 and the present connected
with Ray Carney's search for, discovery of, and presentation of new material
by or about John Cassavetes, including a chronological listing of the
attempts of Gena Rowlands's and Al Ruban's to deny or suppress Prof. Carney's
finds, click
here.
To read another
statement about why Gena Rowlands or anyone else who acted in Cassavetes'
films or someone who knew Cassavetes is not the ultimate authority on
the meaning of his work or on how it should be cared for or preserved,
click
here.
To read about other unknown Cassavetes material (including recording studio master tapes and an unknown film by Cassavetes) Ray Carney has discovered, click here. |