The pages in this section of Ray Carney's www.Cassavetes.com site contain letters written to Prof. Carney from artists about the Shadows, Faces, Criterion, and Kiselyak situations. The letters written to Prof. Carney are in black; his responses and comments are in blue. The letters on this page are only a small sample of the ones he has received pertaining to these issues. Note that another large section of the site, "The Mailbag," contains many more letters about other matters. To go to "The Mailbag" click
here.
To learn more about the events these letters are commenting on, consult the links in the top menu of any of the pages in this section, which tell the story of Carney's discoveries of a new print of John Cassavetes' Faces, his discovery of a print of the long-lost first version of Shadows, his work on the Criterion DVD box set of Cassavetes' films, and his work as the scholarly advisor on a documentary film about Cassavetes.
To read specifically about Gena Rowlands's response to Prof. Carney's discovery of the new Faces print, click
here. To read specifically about 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, and the attempts of Gena Rowlands's and Al Ruban's to deny, suppress, or confiscate Prof. Carney's finds, click
here.
Page
1 / Page
2 / Page
3 / Page
4 / Page
5 / Page
6 / Page
7 / Page
8 / Page
9
Page
1 < 2
Click
here for best printing of text
Dear Ray,
Just read the terrific interview
"Caring For Art, Caring About Art" on your website...(Click
here to open a window to that section of the site.)
I have heard stories about
Gena Rowlands behavior, and have no trouble believing them. Sounds
like she should get together with Beatrice Welles! If you have tapes
of such things as the 4-hour CHINESE BOOKIE, the 4-hour FACES and the
original version of SHADOWS, why not send them to one (or more) of
the 'grey market'/public domain video distributors? Once these versions
become available on the video underground, it will no longer be possible
for Rowlands to deny their existence, or prevent interested parties
from obtaining them. This would certainly put an end to all talk of
destroying existing prints, and might even force Al Ruban's hand. How
long would Ruban be able to get away with licensing a 129-minute version
of FACES to potential distributors once it is known that a 240-minute
version is available from grey market sources?
I recall from our previous
correspondence that you had longer versions of CHINESE BOOKIE which
Cassavetes gave you, but were unwilling to copy it for anyone, because
you felt it would be a betrayal of trust. And while I can understand
and respect that, I personally believe that the best way for you to
honor John's memory would be to make copies of all these things available
to as many people as possible.
These sites claim that they
can offer otherwise unavailable films due to a provision contained
within the Berne Act. According to SuperHappyFun, "The section
of American copyright law known as "The Berne Act" clearly
states: films unreleased in the United States, including original version
of films altered and/or edited for release in the United States, are
not protected by American copyright; thus, they are considered public
domain."
So, of course, you could simply
run off copies of SHADOWS, FACES, CHINESE BOOKIE, etc. and sell them
through your website, claiming the Berne Act as your justification.
Legally, you should be on pretty solid ground, since Rowlands and Ruban's
attempts to destroy the longer versions of these films sounds like
exactly the kind of situation this Act was intended to deal with. And,
of course, you would have a better claim than most to being motivated
by scholarship rather than profit. But two things should be considered:
a) I'm no expert. I only
know what I've heard from a few friends (none of whom are experts either),
or read on the Web.
b) In any case, my understanding
is that this is legally a gray area (hence the term 'gray market').
In other words, if you should start selling DVD-Roms of the original
version of SHADOWS through your website, and Rowlands should decide
to sue, it's quite possible that you would win in court (and thus set
a precedent). But I guess it's equally possible that you would lose
and go to jail. This is why I suggested that you simply send copies
of these tapes to one of the already existing Public Domain/gray market
sites, and let them worry about it.
Best wishes,
Brad Stevens
PS - It's actually quite funny
to learn that Al Ruban is exactly the character he played in CHINESE BOOKIE.
What is it that Cosmo says to him? That he has no style?
***
To
read about Ray Carney's discovery of of the first version of Shadows that these letters are commenting on, click
here.
To read about Gena Rowlands's attempt to suppress Prof. Carney's
discovery, click
here.
A few comments about Gena Rowlands
that occurred to me from this reading of your PostScript in the "News"
section of the Shadows pages -- about your struggle to show the
first version of Shadows to an audience and Rowlands' attitude:
1) Do you know about something called the Myers-Briggs temperament typing
scale? Gena Rowlands is an example of an extreme, off-the-chart "J"
- once she makes up her mind, there is no changing it, not ever. She is
Right with a capital R and that is the end of it. As bull-headed as they
come. (I suspect George W. Bush is one as well...)
2) It amazes me that she has never read your Cassavetes on Cassavetes
book. Their relationship must certainly have been less than idyllic. You
would think if she loved him she would want at the very least to read
every word he had said. And your book is full of such living, beautiful
soul thoughts, an exploration of John Cassavetes's soul. I know she is
with another man. So rather than wanting to remember her first husband,
it seems more like she is trying to forget him. C'est la vie, her loss.
From: Henri Fellner
To: raycarney@usa.net
Subject: A french reader under the influence of Cassavetes
Well, first a little story:
two days ago I went to the criterion website to see if there was any
Cassavetes films in their catalogue. There was none. Then I went to
your website to see if there anything about video and dvd (as in the
Tarkovski website). I read the interview you gave about video editions
and rights and I was SO SAD!!! Such an injustice!!! We are (in France
too) submerged under so much useless dvd of already forgotten movies
and nothing was done about Cassavetes films! Even by those who were
his friends (I thought Al Ruban was)! So I went back to criterion website
and send them a "suggestion" to work on such a project, as
they seem to be a kind of "reference" for dvd editions).
I had a standard mail back but at the end of the day I went back again
to their website and guess what I saw?
John Cassavetes Box Set Slated
for Fall 2004 Criterion is preparing a boxed set of five films by legendary
American independent John Cassavetes. In addition to new high-definition
transfers of Shadows, Faces, A Woman Under the Influence, The Killing
of a Chinese Bookie and Opening Night, the set will include Charles
Kiselyak's award-winning 200 minute documentary, A Constant Forge,
along with exclusive new interviews with Cassavetes collaborators Gena
Rowlands, Peter Falk, Ben Gazzara, Seymour Cassel, Lelia Goldoni, and
others. The set is slated for fall release. Watch this space for more
details.
I WAS SO HAPPY!!!! And that
you are a part of this project and that you will be a kind of guide
for the edition : "faces" two versions? longest copies available
and restored? "woman" original soundtrack? bonus with Cassavetes
tv interviews trying to sell his movies (as you write in your book)?
I spent most of last summer
with your "Cassavetes on Cassavetes" and thank you for it:
for destroying the false and unreal statue he has become (at least
in France where your book is not translated which doesn't surprise
me) and about his ways of using people but most of all for giving life
to his thoughts, to his battle, to his faith, to his dedication to
his work! I could continue for a long time because you book was such
a great trip through his world!
Thank you for your work and
again I am glad you are part of the dvd project and happy with it!
Respectfully
Henri Fellner
Ray
Carney replies:
I include the
above letter strictly for the humor of it. It was written before Gena
Rowlands made her move against me. I subsequently wrote Mr. Fellner and
told him about Rowlands' acts of censorship—first, that she had
me fired from the Criterion project and had much of my work expunged (my
voice over audio commentary and other things); and second, that she had
insisted that for the part of my work that remained, credit would be withheld
from me. My name would be expunged as the scholarly advisor, my input
into the box set would be denied, and payment withheld.
posted by pete on http://kawara.blogspot.com/
In Other Cinematic News [Read:
This is Not a Post About Disney & Michael Moore]
So I went to Ray Carney's
site to see if there was any information regarding the Cassavetes box
set. I go to his pages at least once a day, but it's difficult finding
new information since there is no "Updates" section of his
site. I snooped around a bit and found much more than I expected. Apparently,
Carney gave commentaries for the Criterion releases of the movies but
Cassavetes' widow, Gena Rowlands, stopped him dead in his tracks. Scroll
to the bottom of this page to read a letter from the prez of Criterion
Video regarding the matter. I dug around a little more and found something
even more disturbing - it seems as if Rowlands is on the warpath and
Carney is her bright red target.
For years, 17 to be exact,
Carney has been on a search for the original version of Cassavetes' directorial
debut, Shadows. The first cut of Shadows was screened, only once, for
a small audience and was met with such a negative reception that Cassavetes
re-shot the entire movie and made it much more accessible. This version
of the movie is the one you can rent from any video store and despite
its polishing, is still regarded as the first genuine American independent
film. After an obsessive search, Carney found the lone, beat-up, fragile
print of the first version. He made a digital copy of the film and screened
it for the Rotterdam film festival. Carney's persistence is some beautiful
sh**, but things quickly turned for the plumb weird. Carney got in touch
with Rowlands and told her about his find. Instead of expressing joy,
she flatly denied the existence of the original version and ordered Carney
to excise any mention of "the first version" from his site.
It gets worse. She has prohibited Carney from screening the original cut
publicly and as of now, the only way to see it is to attend one of Carney's
classroom screenings at Boston University. It gets even more strange when
Rowlands claims not to have even read Carney's Cassavetes on Cassavetes,
arguably the definitive book on the man and his work thus. I found it
strange that Rowlands has never, to this day, watched A Woman Under the
Influence. I figured it was because the film probably hit too close to
home. Now I wonder if there are other, more curious, reasons.
posted by pete on http://kawara.blogspot.com/
From:
Peter Becker
President of Criterion Video
The Criterion Collection
Subject: Bad news
Dear Ray,
I'm sorry to have to tell
you that we won't be including your commentary or essay in the Cassavetes
box. Gena Rowlands feels that you have violated her rights and failed
to respect John Cassavetes' wishes, and she has informed us that under
the circumstances, she will not participate in or approve the release
with you as a part of it. Cassavetes entrusted his legacy to Gena,
so for us, her word is final. I wish it hadn't come to this.
Sincerely,
Peter
Dr. Carney,
Unbelievable...
Well I can tell you now that
I will NOT be purchasing this box set. I'll rent 'em via netflix or elsewhere,
but I won't buy them...
What a terrible shame. After
all the work you've done in keeping JC alive, this is your thank-you.
But I guess it makes sense as anything worth doing in this life is nearly
always met with ignorance or just flat-out ingratitude. I do hope you
fight this till the bitter end. You are in the right. JC's art is too
important to be betrayed by these personal and imbecilic motivations.
John Yanez
That's an unbelievable turn
of events. Your struggle has to be told. People need to know what's going
on. If a mag was interested in the story, would you talk to me about all
this?
Keep up the good fight and
I'll be in touch. By the way, I don't know if you saw the FILMMAKER
piece but the link is below.
Click
here
Jason Guerrasio
Ray,
I was absolutely crushed to
hear the news about Gena Rowlands's inexplicable behavior towards your
maverick recovery of the Shadows print and, furthermore, your involvement
with the upcoming Criterion releases. Why? Has the old girl really
just lost it? It all smacks of some kind of petty personal grudge.
And against the truest champion of her husband's legacy (not to mention
her own!). Alas!
Any possibility of acquiring
the voice-over work you recorded for Criterion? Would you be willing
to distribute such a thing commercially? I'm at a loss as to how to
console you, but I'm determined that some good should still come of
all of this.
I realize you are, as ever,
busier than any individual should be. In this difficult time, I just
wanted to reiterate my continued support for you and your work, which
has touched my life so profoundly.
David Kang
Professor Carney,
I know I haven't checked in for a while, but I wanted you to know that
your work is still very important to me. Not only do I learn so much about
Cassavetes, Dreyer, Capra, Leigh, but as a burgeoning college Prof myself,
you give me so much hope for my own future. I look around at my fellow
students and listen to the crap they are interested in - all the kitsch
nonsense legitimized by theory, and I know that's what the academy is
about and I know that's not what I'm about. I often wonder how the hell
am I ever going to be able survive writing about artists that I love when
everyone else is writing about "texts" with which they can "do
things." That's when I turn to your works. I remind myself that you
did it, that you are continuing to do it somehow, even when everything
is against you, and that gives me hope.
I apologize, professor Carney, if I seem to be rambling. Last night Dave
Kang tipped me off to this ordeal with Rowlands and the first version
of Shadows, so I read it as soon as I got in the office this morning,
and I'm still a little excited and flustered. So take my comments for
whatever they may be worth.
Sincerely,
Dan Jones
Dear Prof. Carney,
I am shocked by the pettiness
of your critics who attack you for doing nothing less than devoting your
life for John's Cassavetes' art as well as dedicating your energy to preserving
his legacy as any honorable art scholar/historian worth their salt would
do. I would ask these critics if they have given as much and as passionately
of themselves in their lives as you have done to spend seventeen years
finding the first version of Shadows out of devotion and belief
in Cassavetes' greatness as an artist. Shame on them if they have not!
I would also ask them if they have done as much to preserve Cassavetes'
art. Good stewardship is all about preserving, not destroying - especially
not destroying for monetary gain. John Cassavetes may have willed the
rights to his films to his wife Gena Rowlands, but as I see it, you are
and have been the only one so dedicated to preserving his art and telling
the truth about Cassavetes' life. What a shame Gena Rowlands and Al Ruban
do not have your goal of preserving the integrity and film quality of
Cassavetes' legacy intact in its entirety for future generations. What
if Leonardo da Vinci's wife had done the same and suppressed some of his
early works, allowed them to deteriorate, or even worse, changed them?
It's appalling to think that art has so little value to some people...
I have sent you a contribution
for your "Shadows Defense Fund." Bravo for your
courage in the face of the critics and naysayers, not to mention for
standing up to Gena Rowlands and Al Ruban re: the first version of Shadows.
Go for it! Some of us out here value and appreciate all that you do,
and understand that you give your all to love of art.
Thank you, Prof. Carney,
for all of the wonderful knowledge and inspiration you have given me
all these years. You have taught me that some things are worth giving
your life for and being passionate about. You have my unqualified support
for all of your endeavors. I sincerely hope that all who feel this
way and believe in you will let you know of their support.
Best regards from your student,
MJ
Ray
Carney replies:
 I
have printed the above letter from MJ, and am sincerely grateful
for the support and offer of a contribution to the "Shadows
Defense Fund," but I would ask that other readers not send me contributions.
This is not about money. It has never been about money. Simon Field, the
director of the Rotterdam Film Festival, Peter Becker at Criterion Video,
Peter Scarlet at the Tribeca Film Festival, Helene Zylberait at Cine Classic
in France, and all of the scores of other Film Festival programmers who
have contacted me about presenting the first version of Shadows
can verify that I have never asked for a penny from any of them. Not one
cent. Ever. I am not in this to make money. Money is no doubt what motivates
others who are opposing my release and distribution of the first version
of Shadows ("Oh my God, it might cut into the bookings of
the other version! How horrible!"), but money is not why
I am in this. I am in it for other reasons. Money
is the wrong reason to do anything.
To reiterate:
Please do not send me money. If you are so moved, do something else. Write
a chat board and express your support. Write Rowlands and tell her you
believe in the importance of what I am doing to preserve and protect her
husband's work. And if the Shadows issue is not at the center
of your interests, then do something else for art. Contribute your time
and effort to help an artist you know do his or her work. Support your
local museums and orchestras and dance companies. Convince others to support
them. Those are the things that count. Not money. Not profits. But the
preservation and appreciation of art. The encouragement of and help for
artists. Those things are worth a struggle.
RC
Prof. Carney
I just read your newest addition on your website Chasing
Shadows and P.S. pages, beginning with the first Postscript
all the way through to the end. It seems to me that the key issue here
is one of censorship. I find it ironic that any scholarly, critical
analysis of Cassavetes' work and thoughtful study of his life and what
"made him tick" is being censored. What has happened to the
independent spirit and freedom of expression in our society? Isn't that
what Cassavetes was fighting for?
I hope you get positive response
to it, but I imagine emails and phone calls will probably be about
the same as the reactions to your keeping the Shadows film. I think
people on the Criterion chat board are just getting the latest thrill
for the moment before moving off to applaud or stab the next victim...
I guess it makes them feel important to state an anonymous opinion.
But I hope independent film
artists understand the consequences of Gena's position... They all
ought to be fighting for freedom of expression! And can't have it both
ways...
Sincerely,
Matt Reed
Hello, Professor Carney:
I wrote to you once before,
and received a kind response, and wouldn't bother you again if I didn't
feel compelled to by having just read the story of the first version
of SHADOWS on your web-page.
First, I should say that it
is one of the most compelling pieces of writing I've read about a personal
quest, suspenseful and funny and with a (largely) happy ending. If
only more people put such writing out on the Internet! You're right
about how Jamesian the obsession must have gotten. I remember the scene
in "The Figure in the Carpet" where the narrator briefly
considers marrying the woman who might have the secret, and then pulling
himself together says something like "Down that road madness lies." I'm
only glad you didn't need to compromise yourself in such a way!
I am obviously horrified that
the re-release of this early version of SHADOWS is being suppressed,
as I am at the suppression of other definitive or alternate versions
of Cassavetes' films. To this day I've deliberately avoided trying
to hunt down the video of Love Streams, as I hope to see it first in
a complete form. As you say, the treatment of these films has to do
with the status of film, particularly in North America, as a mere entertainment
which doesn't warrant the close consideration of other art forms. Something
close to criminal prosecution would take place if ANYONE suggested
throwing out Matisse sketches for a painting, simply because the sketches
didn't properly represent his final vision. I recently read The
Ivory Tower, complete with James' working notes, and all I can
say is thank heavens we have this document, for the art contained in
the fragment, and the insights into his artistic process.
The fact of an artist not
necessarily being certain about where revision of a work should end
is hardly new, and is something any sophisticated audience should be
able to deal with. Few 19th century orchestral composers are more highly
lauded than Bruckner, and in many cases he left an original version
as well as a revised version. Somewhere in the liner notes it's usually
stated which version the conductor is using. No one has suggested a
definitive answer to the problem and no one has suggested one set of
manuscripts should be disposed of because they misrepresent his best
intentions. Bruckner Symphonies haven't suffered for it.
As a Bostonian and literary
enthusiast I'm sure you're aware of the recent publication of Robert
Lowell's Collected Poems, edited by Frank Bidart. One of the reasons
it took 25 years to collect this work is the fact that so many of Lowell's
poems exist in a number of versions, and often each version has it's
own virtues. When asked about the problems of having two versions of
a poem in different publications Lowell answered: "But both versions
exist." How simple. Similar problems exist with W. H. Auden and
we've dealt with that too.
Having read many of your books
on Cassavetes, it would seem that this is the kind of situation we're
dealing with. The films of John Cassavetes don't have smooth edges;
they don't make final statements, they don't have the answers, they
aren't "perfected". He knew that life didn't have those qualities.
He didn't "know" exactly what he was doing. That's part of
the reason he was such a great artist.
All this is perhaps overstating
the case. The advent of the DVD has made it possible to see "The
Directors Cut" of any Hollywood schlock, at little extra expense
to the distributors. In most cases we get self-indulgent additions
to a commercial product that hardly needs to exist in the first place.
Why then is it such a problem with Cassavetes where almost any strip
of celluloid he left is going to contain some excitement?
This brings me to the main
point of my E-mail, regarding Rowland's attitude to alternate versions.
The fact of estates exerting control or repression over works of art
is hardly new. What's alarming is her wish to have these versions destroyed!
Perhaps I'm missing some information.
I'm reminded that when Alban Berg died, having not quite completed
the opera Lulu (now a good candidate for greatest operas of
the 20th century) Helene Berg forbid any use of the third act, saying
that it existed in an uncompleted piano score with large gaps, and
that any use of it would harm the reputation of the composer. When
she died in the 70s the manuscript was found to be nearly complete
even in terms of orchestration, and with substantial notes on the gaps
in orchestration, leaving little guesswork for a competent arranger
with a good idea of Berg's musical vocabulary. It seems a good deal
of the opera was inspired by a relationship with a woman Berg was close
to for years. Helene's bitterness at her lack of involvement in his
life at that point was the real motive for sabotaging the opera.
It's obviously none of my
business, but for the sake of the films I wonder if there's extra-aesthetic
agenda in terms of Ms. Rowland's attitude to your work and the integrity
of Cassavetes' work in general. Most of what I know about Cassavetes
derives from your books, so you probably have as much of an answer
as anyone. That's neither here nor there though.
In the case of Gena Rowlands
the problem is compounded by the fact that I consider her an important
actress and an important player in many of his films. In a very pragmatic
sense, his work wouldn't be what it is without her.
I should say, as a sideline,
that your book Cassavetes on Cassavetes , is a model of what
artist biographies can be. It doesn't whitewash the man, nor is it
muckraking. It makes him a large, vibrant, flawed and complex person
and most importantly, takes us into the films. It tells, if not THE
truth (an impossibility for any biographer), then A truth. In an age
when I've almost stopped reading biographies of artists, which so often
come across as a revenge of the small person against a giant, your
book aspires to Boswell's Life of Johnston, my gold standard of biography.
My questions are, how can
I help save these films, and better yet, bring them to more people?
I'm more than happy to write to Ms. Rowlands, in whatever manner you
think would be most effective. To mention you or not mention you, whichever
you feel would be most likely to get results. I don't particularly
want to come across as picking a side in a battle between yourself
and Ms. Rowlands. The side I'm on is the preservation of the films
in all their variants. Is there a way of banding together with other
Cassavetes enthusiasts? I regard Cassavetes to be an American artist
ranking with Henry James or William Faulkner. I think he's the only
North American filmmaker so far who ranks with giants of world cinema
like Dreyer, Renoir, Ozu, Tarkovsky. And Cassavetes' world is very
much the world I've grown up in and to some extent live in. It has
helped me see myself and the particular discontents of my society,
sometimes painfully, sometimes joyously, always profoundly. Is this
the argument I should make to Ms. Rowlands, who's contribution, I'll
repeat, I have a high regard for? I suspect not, but since I don't
know what motivates her, you might be able to guide me here.
I closing I'd like to say
that whatever happens, the work you've done for contemporary art is
incalculable. In an age when humanities professors increasingly insist
on being the gravediggers of culture, you've tenaciously worked at
bringing appreciation of difficult works to anyone who cares to make
the effort. Keep up the good work.
Regards
Mark Fenton
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Dear Mr. Carney,
I would like to introduce myself. My name is Jordan Ivanov. I am 34 and
live in Toronto, Ontario. I am a great fan (appreciator) of John Cassavetes'
work. Despite the fact that I was very young (in some cases I wasn't even
born) when John Cassavetes made some of his first films, I am greatly
thankful to John for his mind opening work and to you for your long standing
commitment to documenting his life and directorial career.
Like most people, I had always heard of John Cassavetes (the actor) but
never anything about John Cassavetes the director, and I can't tell you
what a shame that has been for myself, and God only knows how many people.
Until I saw the documentary, "John Cassavetes: To Risk Everything
to Express it All", back in 1996, that was my first introduction
to a great man and artist, my life changed. I then discovered two of your
excellent books "The Films of John Cassavetes: Pragmatism, Modernism
and the Movies" and "American Dreaming" which have become
my "bibles" of John Cassavetes. And now your website.
I have been a regular visitor to your site for some time now and I can't
tell you how important your books and site about John Cassavetes are.
I didn't want this to be a typical fan mail type of letter, going on and
on about how great you are and what you are doing (even though it is..).
I have been wanting to write to you for some time now, but I was never
able to find an email address on your site, until now. As your site is
so rich with information, I must have overlooked your email.
Anyway, what I want to tell you is that I have always known that I have
been different from most people, in terms of how I see the world. I have
never been one to go with the flow and do what everyone else is doing.
I never saw the point in that, if I didn't believe in what was going on.
There is a lot of hardship when you don't do what everyone else is doing,
a loneliness and a feeling of low self worth. I have always believed in
doing the right thing, speaking the truth and being truthful to myself
and to others as best as I can. Like John, I hate phoniness and anything
that isn't genuine. As you quoted what John said about himself, he said
that he was the least phony person in the world (I would like to think
that I am in the top ten).
 What
I am trying to say is that I really feel that I can relate to John in
terms of having a vision and believing in it so much, that it becomes
a part of you, if not all of you. I have always been a technical person
by trade, but spend a great deal of my time reading and thinking and observing
the world and people. Trying to make sense of it at the best of times.
Photography has been the only kind of medium that I feel I can express
myself with. I have been experimenting in Photography for years now, trying
to develop a skill at capturing life. Those everyday, seemingly insignificant
moments that most people would overlook. I believe in the drama of everyday
life, living the day to day existence and I have such a desire to capture
it and show it in new, fresh ways. John Cassavetes and your books about
him have been such an inspiration to me. They have given me hope in that
there are people out there that can see what is wrong with the world,
i.e. The Hollywood system, mainstream films and the public's gravitation
towards them, and can speak out against them. I really can't think of
another voice out there other than yours that is taking a stand and fighting
to bring truth to people's eyes.
Hollywood and the studio system are really not unlike things such as politics
in the workplace, shallow friendships, materialism, and other everyday
challenges that make life into its own soap opera. Like John and yourself,
I have been speaking out against these things that kill our souls and
our individualism. I have learned from you that life and art can intersect.
How art can make life more interesting and abundant. How it can bring
beauty and hope into this trying existence. However, I have also learned
how much it hurts when people can't see what you see. When they can't
see the freshness and beauty of a different perspective, and when they
gravitate towards the familiar, the run of the mill, the media controlled
and conditioned way of life and looking at things. It's really sad to
think how many of us have been brainwashed to the point of hating anything
new, original and untried.
One more thing I wanted to mention was the subject of the DVD releases
of some John Cassavetes films, and the struggles you went through on your
own time, money and effort to do them the respect they deserve, as you
mentioned in the excerpt "Caring For Art, Caring About Art".
First, it is appalling that companies such as Pioneer and Anchor Bay have
no appreciation for great art, not to mention the more than generous offer
of your time and effort to do their jobs for them, in releasing worthy
re-masters of his films with expected liner notes and other extras, that
are standard for even the most terrible that Hollywood has to offer. Mr.
Carney, you certainly deserve a medal for your efforts and these companies
should hang their heads in shame as they are not worthy of being associated
with you or John Cassavetes.
My hope is that one day, the light bulb will go on in everyone's heads,
they will wake up and see what a great treasure awaits them. Until that
day comes, we have your books and your website to remind everyone what
the definition of art really is.
Once again, thank you for your commitment to art, truth and to John Cassavetes.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Sincerely,
Jordan Ivanov
Mr. Carney,
Thank you for the reply and
your words of wisdom. It was a great treat to read them. What you say
is very wise and rings true. It's very hard not to let the world's
values get to you, especially when you are bombarded by it at every
waking moment. But I know we have to take it one day at at time.
I actually haven't read Cassavetes
on Cassavetes, but I look forward to doing so. I have been essentially
taking bites out of each of your books, some sections I like to read again
and again as I will watch one of the films, and go back to the book to
pick up anything that I may have overlooked. Again, I enjoy your books
and website very much.
I can't imagine why you would
get hate mail as I think you are doing everyone a great service. I
also will read your letter on the site. I am anxious to see who else
is as great as John Cassavetes.
Thank you again Mr. Carney
for your thoughts and time.
Sincerely,
Jordan Ivanov
Mr. Carney,
I was very excited to hear
that Criterion was releasing a box set, and I was eagerly looking forward
to your contributions! After all, how could you NOT be a part of this?
Impossible!
Then I read the details on
your website. I could go on about your influence on me as an artist,
about Cassavetes' influence on me as an artist, and my anger at the
shabby treatment you are receiving from the Cassavetes' estate, but
I won't. Instead, here is a copy of the letter I sent to the arts editors
of the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Weekly, Boston
Phoenix, Chicago Reader, Village Voice, and Austin Statesmen:
Today, the Criterion DVD company
posted the first details for a John Cassavetes DVD Box Set to go on
sale in September. John Cassavetes is considered to be one of the pioneers
of the American independent film movement. This box set includes several
interviews with cast members, producers, and scholars. However, there
is one glaring omission.
Ray Carney is a professor
of Film Studies at Boston University's College of Communication. He
is unquestionably the foremost scholar of John Cassavetes' films. He
has written several well-received books about the man and his work,
including: The Films of John Cassavetes: Pragmatism, Modernism, and
the Movies (Faber & Faber), Cassavetes on Cassavetes (Faber & Faber),
Shadows (BFI Film Classics), and American Dreaming: The Films of John
Cassavetes and the American Experience (Berkeley: University Of California
Press). His articles have been published in Film Comment, Post-Script,
and The Kenyon Review. He has curated festivals of Cassavetes' work
for the French-American Film Workshop in Avignon and the Cinematheque
Francaise in Paris. There are too many festivals, articles, and lectures
to list here; his dedication is total and tireless. Sadly, he has been
completely and deliberately shut out from any further participation
in Criterion's plans for the box set, even though he has served as
an advisor to Criterion on the project. He had even recorded audio
commentary and written material for the booklets to be included in
the set. Why was he left out? Why is he being verbally and legally
threatened by the caretakers of Cassavetes' estate?
His side of the story is available
here:
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/shadows/chasing.shtml
The other side of the story
belongs to Criterion, and the caretakers of John Cassavetes estate,
Gena Rowlands and Al Ruban.The whole story is worth investigating.
Sincerely,
Chris Velazquez
Mr. Carney,
Will this change anything?
I don't know. Am I naive to think it can? Perhaps. You've taken these
lumps with dignity and decent, rueful sense of humor. All the same,
I'm only too happy to take up the sword on your behalf. Not that you
need me to, or that you'd want me too, but because frankly, Mr. Carney,
you deserve better.
Sincerely,
Chris Velazquez
The pages in this section of Ray Carney's www.Cassavetes.com site contain letters written to Prof. Carney from artists about the Shadows, Faces, Criterion, and Kiselyak situations. The letters written to Prof. Carney are in black; his responses and comments are in blue. The letters on this page are only a small sample of the ones he has received pertaining to these issues. Note that another large section of the site, "The Mailbag," contains many more letters about other matters. To go to "The Mailbag" click
here.
To learn more about the events these letters are commenting on, consult the links in the top menu of any of the pages in this section, which tell the story of Carney's discoveries of a new print of John Cassavetes' Faces, his discovery of a print of the long-lost first version of Shadows, his work on the Criterion DVD box set of Cassavetes' films, and his work as the scholarly advisor on a documentary film about Cassavetes.
To read specifically about Gena Rowlands's response to Prof. Carney's discovery of the new Faces print, click
here. To read specifically about 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, and the attempts of Gena Rowlands's and Al Ruban's to deny, suppress, or confiscate Prof. Carney's finds, click
here.
Page
1 / Page
2 / Page
3 / Page
4 / Page
5 / Page
6 / Page
7 / Page
8 / Page
9
|
