Letters about Criterion and Rowlands (Page 3

This is only the "To Print" page. To go to the regular page of Ray Carney's www.Cassavetes.com on which this text appears, click here, or close this window if you accessed the "To Print" page from the regular page. Once you have brought up the regular page, you may use the menus to reach all of the other pages on the site.

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.

Mr. Carney,

I came across your website last week and I've been devouring it at a steady pace. You remind me a lot of the literary critic/teacher Howard Bloom-- knowledgeable, controversial, and inspiring. I read his book on Shakespeare and went back to Hamlet with a new slant on things, and I enjoyed it a great deal more. Reading your stuff about Cassavetes-- I have a friend who's going to lend me CASSAVETES ON CASSAVETES-- has given me a new slant and I think I can enjoy his work a lot more than I did when I first tried to watch it, back in High School. I was not ready for it yet.

I'm a director myself, and I don't pretend that I'm any sort of genius. I'm not going to create anything new, different, or revolutionary. I can tell stories and I can create characters. I've learned to be content with that-- but I know that life doesn't have endings, except for death, and then nothing is really resolved, is it?

I enjoy some of the work that you dismiss as tricks-- Tarantino (though his contemporary Roger Avary at least provokes SOME thought), DePalma, and even Spike Jonze-- but I enjoy it for what it is, an aesthetic experience with nothing deeper. Yes, it's manufactured, button-pushing emotions. No, it doesn't challenge me. I value substance over style, but I still like the style. To each their own.

The only two points that I really disagree with you on, or take umbrage to, from what I've read so far, are as follows:

First, Gena Rowlands, Roger Ebert, Martin Scorsese all say Cassavetes makes his films about love. I never really got that myself, and I agree that films are never "about" anything. And, from what I remember-- there are certain images from Faces in particular that have stayed with me after all this time-- it did seem to be "about" life and people. But what I disagree with, intensely, is the idea that Rowlands (who does seem a bit blonder than most), Ebert, and Scorsese are WRONG. I don't think any response, emotional or intellectual, is the wrong response to a work of art. Olivier thinks Hamlet is about "a man who couldn't make up his mind"; Bloom thinks, more or less, that Hamlet is a character in the wrong play. Neither one is wrong. Granted, there are people who just don't get a particular work of art-- for example, I look askance to anyone who says Straw Dogs is a fascist film, or that it endorses violence as a solution. In my opinion, they've misread the film completely. But that's my opinion, just as it's their opinion that I've misread the film completely. That's part of what makes it interesting.

The other thing I disagree with you on is the proposal that for "arthouse" fare, the ticket price goes up to forty or fifty or hundreds of dollars. Yes, I do believe that film is an art, not just an entertainment. But it's also the art that reaches the highest number of people, the masses. If the arthouse stuff was forty bucks a pop, then it would cost me and my wife eighty to see a Bergman or an Ozu or a Cassavetes. We don't go to concerts or operas or sporting events (the last one we have no interest in) because we can't afford it. We're lower middle class. To raise the price is to deny the lower classes access to the art. In Shakespeare's day, there were expensive seats for the upper classes and cheap seats, or even standing room, for the lower classes. The reason why many (sadly) see opera as an outdated, white European's art form is that it is unavailable to the masses, except perhaps on video or compact disc, where it loses all its power and glory. That's the only exposure I've had to it.

Also, just as Hollywood high-jacked the independent label to include everything from the new Star Wars prequels (which were, technically, produced out of Lucas's own pocket, if you want to look at another definition of the word) to Pulp Fiction and Shakespeare in Love, isn't there the danger that they'll high-jack the arthouse or "prestige" ticket prices? Tarantino's next flick would cost us fifty bucks a pop if the idea catches on.

So, what is there to do? My films are low-budget and character driven, shot on digital video-- I've been saving up for seven years to buy that camera. And now it's time to try to sell this one, while I'm making the next one. And, if I do sell it-- and it has been and will continue to be a struggle-- how many tickets is it going to sell? Is it even going to play in Michigan, which has been denied some of the arthouse stuff because all we know how to do is eat, get fat, get drunk, start riots, and make automobiles?

I don't think raising ticket prices is the answer. I think the public needs to be educated. Which is what you're doing. So, god bless you, sir.

And thank you for your time. I have a tendency to get verbose when I get going, and, well, I did. Sorry. Just wanted to offer some thoughts while they were still bouncing about in my cranium.

--Tom Russell

Ray Carney replies:

Tom,

Thanks for the thoughts. As to the arthouse tickets, you are being denied these films right now. By the forces of commercialism in our culture. You can't see them anywhere. Wouldn't it be worth it to pay a little more and be able to see them?

The "everyone's entitled to their opinion" thing is a mistake, but an understandable one, since it is one that is very common. There are right and wrong facts, opinions, views in film. We accept this in other areas of life. A plumber can be wrong when he repairs your pipes. A mechanic can be wrong when he diagnoses your car. A physicist can be wrong when he says nothing can move faster than the speed of light. But somehow when we deal with art we get all squishy soft and think everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. I'm ok, you're ok. Don't dare correct anyone. Don't say they're wrong. That's just not correct.

I'm a teacher. If I didn't tell (or tactfully point out to) my students when they were wrong, I'd be like all those other "that's an interesting point of view" teachers. All the ones I wouldn't trust to do my plumbing or car repairs. There are better and worse, truer and falser, righter and wronger interpretations of films. Everyone is not entitled to an opinion. Many opinions are shallow, uninformed, stupid, false, bogus, wrong.

Why do you want to live in an I'm OK, you're OK world? Bin Laden has a point of view. The Israelis are not wrong to bomb Palestinian children. North Korea is not wrong to sell nukes and rockets to others. Let's not judge Bush on pushing them to do it. Wrong. False. Uninformed. Why would film be the one area in all of life where everything goes? Where there are no wrong reactions?

But I have much more on this in my writing. You can't go by the site. It's just excerpts. Read my three books of interviews. Read Cass on Cass. Audiences were wrong about him. Critics were wrong. And many still are!

And the following is wrong too. Movie stars should not have the power to censor what I say or write. Gena Rowlands should not have the power to make Criterion remove my work. And Criterion should not give in to her "movie star" tantrums. People should have principles of action that rise above these things. In other arts they do, but in film, celebrities—the rich and famous and powerful—still call the shots. This is immoral, unethical, and wrong.

Click here for information about Gena Rowlands's legal attempt to confiscate the first version of Shadows and her successful pressure on Criterion to deny Prof. Carney credit as "scholarly advisor" for which he devoted hundreds of hours of work on the Cassavetes box set and eventually to have him removed from the project when he didn't write and say what she wanted him to.

Click here for information about Rowands's suppression of Prof. Carney's discovery of the long version of Faces for three years. Why the Library of Congress did not screen it for the public.

Click here for information about Prof. Carney's work on Charles Kiselyak's Constant Forge and Prof. Carney's having his voice-over script material used without payment or permission. Read also about how the film itself was designed to please Rowlands and to sanitize the details of Cassavetes' life and turn it into a string of funny anecdotes.

Subject: Shadows Screenings and All Around Congratulations and Thanks

Dear Professor Carney,

Just got the Criterion box set only to learn via your website what it Could have been. What a terrible shame.

I and some of my Cassavetes-loving friends live in New York City, but would be on the first train, plane or automobile up to Boston if we thought we might get to sit in on a screening of the original 'Shadows' cut. Is this even a remote possibility?

Anyway, I can't thank you enough, one JC fan to another, for all of your tireless dedication to properly preserving and documenting the man's legacy. It was shocking to read your account of how much trouble GR has caused you; i suppose an old woman is entitled to remembering things her way, but trying to destroy a man's work just because it doesn't jibe with her rendition of the Way things Were, well that's just unsettling. Please keep fighting the good fight, and if you're ever in New York for a JC event, I hope that you'll add my email address to any event update lists so that I might attend.

thank you and keep the faith!

Tim Adams

Ray Carney replies:

Thanks, Tim for the good words and kind thoughts.

It would be bad enough if this were merely a "difference of opinion," but "the widow" is costing me tens of thousands of dollars defending myself from her lawyer (and the print of Sh. from destruction). As a millionaire, she can afford it. Probably doesn't even notice it. It's different at this end. I'm a low-paid academic, unfortunately. But I will NEVER turn over the print for her to suppress or destroy it! Never. I don't care what the cost or effort. This is about art, not cost-benefit analysis.

So it's more than a matter of "hurt feelings." It's more than "upsetting." It's more than "an old woman remembering things her way." She is playing Gloria. Norma Desmond. Hardball. Shoot to kill. Not a metaphor either!

But to quote Zelmo: I go on. I go on. Trying to tell the truth in our culture of unreality.

Try to make some trouble. It's the only way to go!

Subject: Cassavetes box set woes (Charles Kiselyak's Puffed-Up Puffery)

Hey there. I just wanted to say hello and let you know that I really appreciate the candor on your Cassavetes web site. I have been a big fan of his films since seeing Shadows in college and a fan of your work since it was introduced to me by my colleague Ted Baron a few years ago (he took me down into the basement of the Coolidge Corner Theatre where I devoured the press kits and stills for the touring retrospective, which came to the theatre just a couple of years before I moved to Boston).

I was really pleased to see that Criterion was releasing the new box set - finally replacing some of my well-worn Anchor Bay videos - and rushed to order one. The first thing I did was put in A Constant Forge, excitedly looking forward to seeing a three-plus hour documentary on such an extraordinary talent and interesting man. I have never spent a more excruciating three hours in my life.

How could a film about a man who pursued artistic truth be such a false piece of fluff? Not a single thing in that film rang true to me, perhaps because I had read your book and knew the true stories - but I think it was more than that, and hope that others can see the flaw in this over-sentimental piece of crap (pardon my crudeness).

While is was nice to see some interviews with Cassavetes collaborators and companions, those that were interviewed just didn't seem to ring true (well, Peter Falk was good, but he has that delivery style you just can't resist) - especially Gena Rowlands who I felt didn't really say anything, and in fact came off a little cold and disinterested in his work. I know there is amazing footage of Cassavetes out there - old interviews, the infamous Dick Cavett show, etc. But this film contained nothing but obvious clips, with considerable lapses at that. Where was Minnie and Moskowitz, Husbands (my personal favorite), Mikey and Nicky (or an interview with Elaine May for that matter), Gloria, or any scenes from his acting roles in other films? And what in the heck did those lousy poems have to do with anything? By hour three they pulled out a few little gems (like the lyrics to "Almost" - which I didn't know he did), but they felt so heavy-handed and obvious that my loathing for the film only grew.

Anyway, I liked the interview segments with you (unlike Annette Insdorf, whom my roommate and I hissed for being completely pretentious) and went to your website afterwards since I hadn't visited it in a while. Boy, did your description of the film (especially the horrifying description of the filmmaker who knew nothing about his subject), the box set, and the suppression of your work by Rowlands explain a lot. I wish I'd read that before I popped that DVD in my machine and ruined my evening (though, I still would have jumped on the box set because...you know). I haven't watched the rest of the box set yet, but I think I'm going to stick mostly to the movies themselves and avoid any more disappointing supplements.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for all your hard work spreading the word of Cassavetes to young pups like me - and here's hoping that someday you get to be the person in charge of making a REAL documentary about the most original, honest, and fascinating son-of-a-bitch that ever picked up a camera. Well, my favorite one, at least.

-------------------
Clinton McClung
Program Director, Coolidge Corner Theatre
www.coolidge.org

PS - A few years ago we did a special BFVF screening of Shadows with Lelia Goldoni and yourself. I was unfortunately out of town that day (I think I was at the Sundance Film Festival). Needless to say, I was deeply disappointed to miss that event.

Ray Carney replies:

Clinton,

Thanks for the kind words. May we meet some day. Boston is a big town, but not that big. Too bad you missed the event I held at Harvard three or four years ago. (I guess you hadn't arrived at that point.) I showed a ton of unknown, unavailable, amazing stuff: Cassavetes working with actors, Cassavetes talking about his work, the Dick Cavett wildness, the unavailable "Flip Side" (one of his greatest dramatic performances--which I think I am the only person in the world to have a copy of), and other things he himself personally gave me. What larks! But I have to admit my event ran as long as the Kiselyak film. It was almost four hours. But I think you would have enjoyed it.

Anyway, keep kicking. Keep acting up. Keep the faith. The world needs it!

Ray

PS - Ever shown Andrew Bujalski's or David Barker's work at the Coolidge? You should. The young Cassaveteses are out there still making films, still being overlooked, while the media chase after the next stupid silly buzz.

Dear Pr. Carney,

I'm a mathematics and film-obsessed student at Brown who is dying to come to Boston and see your newly discovered print of Shadows! The syllabi on your website had no future showings listed, but I will come to Boston in a heartbeat to see any other showing in the next 6 months (hopefully sooner.) Please let me know when I can see it. Thank you so much for your time.

~Preston Schiroky

========================================

Dear Professor Carney,

I was an avid filmgoer when I was younger, and was an avid fan of the work of John Cassavetes. I can remember seeing his film FACES and being just thrilled by it. I would be thrilled to see an alternate version of this work, but what I cannot understand is : if this is in your opinion the version of the movie that John Cassavetes felt was the final version of his work, why did he not release it rather than the version that was released? Mr Cassavetes was after all still alive and would remain so long after the release of this film.

It is unfortunate that Ms. Rowlands does not see how significant the study of alternate versions of filmmakers works are to the understanding of the filmmakers' intentions.

Carol Tywon

Ray Carney replies:

Dear Carol,

Nice to meet you! Your first paragraph is based on a mistaken conclusion. I am not saying that Cassavetes did not change Faces (or Shadows for that matter). I am not saying that one version of either film is better or worse than the other. That is not the central issue. What I am fighting for is preserving ALL of Cassavetes' versions of his various films. It is important that they are not destroyed or suppressed by others in a misguided attempt to present only one "right" version. We don't throw out the Quartos of Shakespeare (or suppress them) just because we have the Folio edition. We don't throw out Leonardo's notebooks just because we have his paintings. We don't suppress Henry James's earlier editions just because we have the New York edition of his work. We cherish, we preserve, we make available all of those variants, because of what they can tell us about the artist's mind and heart, his or her changing goals and intentions, his or her revisionary impulses. To change the metaphor, we may be adults but we can still learn from things we did and made in our childhood. Life changes. We have to honor the changes, not deny them or suppress them. Cassavetes himself knew this. In his lifetime he released multiple versions of his work. He knew his feelings and understandings changed. He understood what I am talking about.

But your letter prompts me to focus on a common misunderstanding that has grown up about Shadows in particular, which I fear you with your talk about "suppression" have fallen victim to. Cassavetes did not suppress the first version of Shadows. At some point, he just lost it and it dropped out of circulation! He was not opposed to it being screened and seen. (In fact, he screened the first version even after the second version was complete. Yes. He continued to screen the first version! I have lots of information about that too.) To get the correct information, please see the following answer to several queries I have received. It is immediately below this on this page.

But there's a larger point here: You are depending too much on gossip or conjecture for your information. You really should try to track down the facts before you jump to conclusions. (Just like Al and Gena should!) I suspect you read something on a web site that made you feel Cassavetes had "suppressed" the first version. It's just not true. Be careful about that! I'd recommend that you read my Cassavetes on Cassavetes and Shadows books. They have the facts. The truth. Read books! Not web sites. Most of the internet is junk—stupid, misinformed, superficial, wrong. Go to libraries and bookstores. Anything good makes its way into a book! Read my books, not my web site!!!!! : )

As far as the second paragraph goes, I couldn't agree more! But Gena is completely clueless in this respect. Completely. I got nowhere when I made that argument. And believe me, I made it and made it and made it and made it and made it .....

Ray Carney, Prof. of Film and American Studies

Dear Professor,

I was wondering if you knew a resource where I can obtain screenplays by John Cassavetes. I've searched on the Web and found scripts only by Nick, nothing from his father. I'm interested to know how the read is different from the films - regarding the improvisational spirit of the action in the films: how does it read on paper? Of course I've checked Amazon and Barnes and Nobles but apparently these two venues are too mainstream and nothing seems to be published. Other screenplays resources online proved to be useless also. Do you know? Can you help? Can you point me in the right direction?

Thanks again and my warmest regards,
Matthew

Matthew Marchisano, Artistic Director
The MD Marchisano Cinema Ensemble, Inc.

Ray Carney replies:

None of the unpublished material has been made available in the fifteen years after JC's death. I know publishers who are interested, but Gena Rowlands refuses. Of course, I have all of them or most of them as gifts, but obviously can't go against Rowlands's wishes. She'd probably try to throw me in jail anyway, if I did distribute them. (Not a joke or exaggeration. I assume you have seen her dirty tricks about the lost first version of Shadows I discovered. She didn't exactly write me a thank you note! If you don't know what I'm talking about, go to my web site under the John Cassavetes: Shadows: News section for a good laugh or cry.) Rowlands is not really interested in this material. Guess you could say she just doesn't get it..... in so many different ways...........

Prof. Carney,

Too bad ... and she's such a good performer ...

Thanks,
Matthew

Ray Carney replies:

That's the fallacy! Rowlands is NOT Mabel Longhetti or Myrtle Gordon or Sarah Lawson. She's not even close to being like them. Those were roles....parts she played, all imagined and written by JC. They are NOT Rowlands! They are acting! But you'd be amazed at how hard it is for people, even so-called sophisticated people like critics and reviewers, to understand this. You'd just as likely find Rene Falconetti leading an army or having visions from God as find Gena cooking spaghetti for a bunch of construction workers or walking down the street in mismatched clothes or waiting for her kids to get off the school bus that way. But people can't seem to make the separation. Funny how naive people are. You might as well believe Henry Fonda was a farmer living in the dust bowl or Marilyn Monroe was a singer with a band. But movies make people stupid. Such is life. Such is art. Repeat after me ten times: It's a movie. It's not life. Gena is NOT Mabel! I say this in the C on C book five different ways, but no one seems to take it in, in all of its depth. And it's critical to the understanding of John's work!

Prof. Carney,

I am seeking a filmscript, DVD, or tape, in that order of preference, of the Cassavetes film Husbands. My search so far has been fruitless. Do you know how a filmscript and/or copy might be obtained? If not, have you any suggestions that might be helpful?

Thanks.
Joel Hirsch

Ray Carney replies:

In terms of the scripts, see my reply to a similar inquiry on page nine of my letters pages (just above this on this page). I have three or four versions of the film script, but am not allowed to distribute them, unfortunately.

In terms of videos, it's evidence of the state of appreciation of Cassavetes' work, even fifteen years after his death, that the film has never made it to DVD. A VHS tape was released about five years ago, but in such a small run that I have been told that it is now going for $200 on Ebay or similar collectors' sites. But save your money. What the Ebay bidders and the collectors don't realize is that the tape doesn't have the entire film. More than ten minutes of the version Cassavetes released is missing, just as it is from the so-called "restored" UCLA print. Welcome to America. Money, power, and celebrity talk and art goes begging.

Someday, in heaven (if we're both so lucky) ask me again and I'll show you everything I have, including deleted scenes and outtakes. I describe some of this material in my Cassavetes on Cassavetes book—though in a deliberately veiled way. Check it out. (Click here to find out how to buy it.) While we're still back here on earth, we have to live with what is, not what ought to be. Cassavetes knew that too. It's the genius of his work.

Cheers,

Prof. Carney:

A thought about the unfair, unfortunate situation you have been placed in: We live in a capitalistic democracy - the capitalist side is sooo out of whack... That's why "it's all about money and profits" is so strong these days. Americans have sold their souls and their values to the highest bidder. Makes me think of the "pendulum" theory I learned about in sociology class, about the only thing that gives me hope these days. Everything will swing in one direction until it goes too far to the right. Then there will be a counter-reaction that will change the movement back toward the left. Then vice versa, etc., etc., etc. I hope election day marks the counter-reaction to current "business as usual"!!!! We can only hope...

It is extremely hard to be the pioneer and break through rigid structures and concrete paradigms. People either tend to distort anything new to fit it into their existing paradigms or throw it away as having no value. Their thought patterns have to be retrained. Which is what you do! It just takes time. You are a pioneer in spirit, and I imagine that is one reason why you love John's work so much. Keep fighting and swinging away!

MJ

Ray Carney replies:

Thanks for the thought and the moral support. I pray for the future of my country. I despair I mean. Our culture and world are in a bad way. Very sick. Very screwed up. Very confused. And TV and the politicians are wrong about it as usual. The problems we face have nothing to do with Bin Laden, Al Qaida, or the war in Iraq (as wrong as that is). Those things are just the symptoms of the real problem—the surface rash the deathly disease manifests as it kills. What's wrong is our values, our priorities, our failures of knowledge in a thousand deeper ways. The real problem is our neglect of—or ignorance about—fundamental human values brought on by our selfishness, our greed, our fear, our spiritual emptiness, and our failures to love and care about the things that really matter.

It's the job of the artist to break free from the lies and superficialities of the media, the politicians, and the businessmen—and to show us what those real problems are, and to bring us back to the things that really matter. But it's hard. All of the forces of our culture are arrayed against the truths artists reveal, which is why we need artists all the more—to tell us things no one else is saying, no one else wants to hear.

I hope there is a pendulum effect. But I'm not convinced there is. I do know that there is no sanctuary from the forces of money, power, celebrity. Those we would customarily look to as alternatives to the business values of our culture—professors, university administrators, journalists, critics, cultural commentators, and many so-called artists—are as compromised and corrupted as our businessmen and politicians. Well, now that I think of it....there are alternatives: mothers and fathers who love their children, elementary school teachers, nurses, priests, nuns, social workers, ministers, care givers, and lovers of every sort. So maybe, just maybe, there is hope. I hope so.

PS. You might want to read C. Wright Mills on this subject...... he has some beautiful pieces.

Dear Mr. Carney,

I am a big fan of John Cassavetes and, by extension, you. I admire the sheer courage it took him, and now you, to get your work done and out before the public. I have read nearly everything you've written about John Cassavetes... along with chunks of your book on Dreyer and many of your articles in film magazines about the artistic process.

It is very disturbing to read about your difficulties with Gena Rowlands and Al Ruban. Of course I don't have to mention how ironic it is that both Cassavetes and now you have suffered from being blackballed by establishment-type figures.

But the desire to pinup a fairytale-style happy face on life is something that Cassavetes faced in his working life. He refused to yield to it, even when it could have done him some (financial) good. None of his characters were one-dimensional. None were all-heroic, nor all bad, but the general public seems to unable to accept this. The fact that Cassavetes could be abusive to his wife and cast, an alcoholic, and a huckster at times, doesn't mean he was a rat and unworthy of admiration. It simply means he was human, like anyone else. Yet he managed to produce great art. To me that is pretty inspiring.

Of course you know all this. Still, I just don't know why people need to see their heroes as glowing Jesuses or selfless knights in white armor. I think this tendency to for people to view life in a fairytale, unreal, light leads to a hell of lot of problems... look at the presidential race. What makes people so afraid? Is it fear or money, I don't know.

But thanks for fighting the good fight. If it were not for your continued persistence in championing his work and intelligently pointing out its virtues, I am afraid that Cassavetes' films may have been shunned aside and left in the proverbial dustbin of film history long ago.

Jack Florek,
New Jersey