John Cassavetes

Dialogue in Hollywood movies abides by conventions that do not pertain to regular conversation. This essay considers four prominent conventions that help explain why the dialogue in the films of John Cassavetes is so interesting and peculiar: (1) unlike real conversations, conversations in Hollywood movies unify into an overriding narrative purpose; (2) characters in Hollywood movies communicate effectively through dialogue; (3) whereas real people tend to adjust what they are saying as they speak, movie characters tend to speak flawlessly; and (4), when a film violates movie dialogue convention, the transgression serves the causal progress of the narrative. The dialogue in John Cassavetes’ movies does not sound like conventional movie dialogue. Without an evident overriding narrative purpose, Cassavetes dialogue follows narrative detours. Rejecting the unity, effective communication, efficiency and flawlessness that characterize Hollywood movie dialogue, Cassavetes’ dialogue fixates on narrative dead ends, irrelevancies and impediments to straightforwardness.

La réalisation de « Gloria », en 1980, marque le retour à Hollywood de John Cassavetes, fondateur du cinéma indépendant américain. Succès public à sa sortie, le film obtient le Lion d’Or à la Mostra de Venise, mais nombre de cinéphiles y voient une « dérive commerciale » du maître qui aurait trahi son esthétique anti-hollywoodienne. Il faut admettre que ce polar irréaliste, initialement écrit pour un enfant-star de la MGM, Rick Schröder, semble d’abord irréconciliable avec la veine expérimentale et autobiographique de « Faces », « Husbands » ou « Opening Nights ». Pourtant, une figure centrale les unit, celle de Gena Rowlands, qui est à la fois la femme et l’actrice fétiche de Cassavetes. Car qui voyons-nous vraiment sur l’écran, l’actrice ou son personnage ? En la chargeant d’un passé équivoque, celui des autres figures féminines qu’elle a incarnées, Gena donne corps au mystère de Gloria. A travers l’analyse détaillée d’une séquence [1:08:50 - 1:13:58], cet essai voudrait dégager les enjeux génésiques, narratifs et symboliques du film.

To begin with, I do not use the phrase “race traitor” in its negative or pejorative sense, but instead I use it as an emblem of a certain kind of selfless artistic heroism that honors an individual white filmmaker’s sacrifice of immediate commercial interests in the effort to shift narrative focus from whites to African-Americans within a film. In the analysis that follows I am primarily concerned with white filmmakers who have taken it upon themselves, so to speak, to explore universal humanist themes by shifting narrative focus from whites to African-Americans.  This deliberate choice that goes beyond the commercial considerations of the film reveals that the auteur of the film is using the work as a means of personal expression and not just as a means of generic entertainment.  Moreover, in my analysis of the form of the films we will see that how these filmmakers break familiar and conventionalized film grammar is how they actually establish their authorial voice and express themselves within the medium of film beyond just the content and the shift of narrative focus from whites to African-Americans.  Two films from two White filmmakers will be the major focus of this study: John Cassavetes' SHADOWS (1959) and Rainer Werner Fassbinder's WHITY (1970).  I will also discuss perhaps the first genuine race traitor filmmaker in American Film History, King Vidor and his film HALLELUJAH, as well as, a more recent race traitor filmmaker, Lance Hammer and his film BALLAST (2008).  Yet the overall aim here is not to separate out friend from foe in regards to racial sympathies throughout the canon of highly regarded auteurs, but rather to examine the strength of particular auteurs to surmount certain ideological, political and financial obstacles as they made the narrative shift of racial focus.  This is a chapter from my book: Slave Cinema: The Crisis of the African-American in Film 2nd Ed.

In the 1960s, independent filmmaker, John Cassavetes, challenged cinematic art by incorporating contemporaneous lightweight 16 mm film and sound technology. The iconoclastic Cassavetes ignored classical form, focus and line-crossing rules drawing upon Cinéma Vérité conventions to show the flawed beauty of the human face. Using such innovations, he created performance authenticity of such raw honesty it remains disturbingly real even by today’s standards. Indeed, Cassavetes’ unique films incorporated many elements akin to Russian theatre practitioner Michael Chekhov’s ideas on improvisational body movement and spontaneity to a degree rarely matched. In this way, Cassavetes used the camera, not just as a box for recording images, but as a kinaesthetic device. This included his own physical gyrations whilst operating camera–effectively imitating the actor’s point of view (Carney, 1994), thus creating a spatial metaphor for the emotional distance between characters. This paper revisits some of Cassavetes’ innovations, illuminating them by reference to: the dramatic principles of Chekhov; a practical workshop in kinaesthesia and improvisation conducted at Sapienza University in 2014. The Sapienza workshop utilised principles of spontaneity and kinaesthetic interaction through simple participatory exercises. In an era when digital film form still mostly emulates classical cinematic form, the workshop demonstrates how the use of modern digital media may plunder such rich history from inter-disciplinary sources to enhance new and alternative filmmaking practices.

Ανακοίνωση με θέμα «Ο κινηματογράφος κατά τον Gilles Deleuze» στο διατμηματικό σεμινάριο (Τμήμα Θεωρίας και Ιστορίας της Τέχνης & Τμήμα Εικαστικών Τεχνών) «Η μαθητεία της τέχνης» της Ανωτάτης Σχολής Καλών Τεχνών, με διδάσκοντα τον Π. Πούλο.
Αθήνα, 19 Απριλίου 2018.

This MA thesis is the first essay ever published on the mumblecore phenomenon as a whole from its birth to 2012. It is written in Italian but it also includes an interview with director Andrew Bujalski that is in English.
I took up an archeology of the word "mumblecore" in order to approach a chaotic world as the contemporary American independent cinema is. 
I noticed the link between traditional dominant American ideology and what is considered "independent" and I described how mumblecore films are included in this paradigm.
I also described how the figure of John Cassavetes has been manipulated in order to fulfill the need of a Forefather for the American indies.
I finally tried to prove how American critics felt uneasy with amateurish elements in mumblecore films and how they tried to neutralize these subversive elements converting them in some kind of poetic flairs.

ÖZET John Cassavetes'in başyapıtlarından biri olan "Etki Altında bir Kadın"da yönetmenin eşi Gena Rowlands ile dostu ünlü aktör Peter Falk "üç çocuğu olan orta sınıf bir Amerikan aile"yi canlandırır. Akıl sağlığı giderek bozulan bir kadını oynayan Gena Rowlands, filmde hayatının performansını sunmuştur. Mabel Longhetti (Gena Rowlands) alt-orta sınıftan Los Angeles'lı bir ev kadınıdır; kişilik duygusu öylesine zayıftır ki, kendini sadece kocasının sevgisi ve çocuklarının bağlılığıyla tanımlar. Kocası Nick (Peter Falk), bir inşaat ekibinin şefidir; coşkulu bir yapıya sahip, insanlarla birlikte olmayı seven bir tiptir. Mabel, umutsuzca onu hoşnut kılmak ister ve yalnız olduklarında bunu yapar da. Uyuşurlar ve birbirlerini severler. Ama çevrede insanlar varsa, Mabel biraz kaçık bir hal alır. Nasıl davranması gerektiğinden emin değildir, çünkü kim olduğundan emin değildir. Mabel, çevresindeki her tür etkiye karşı savunmasızdır; güvensizdir, hiperdir, maniktir. Fazlaca güler ve kendini zorlar. Etrafta başkaları olduğunda iyi değildir… Ailesini çok sevmesinin, onlar için her şeyi yapabilecek olmasının yanı sıra bu sevgisini, ilgisini, düşkünlüğünü göstermenin farklı yollarını seçmekte, sosyal standartlara aykırı, aklına geldiği gibi davranmakta ve kendine güvensizliği ile öne çıkmaktadır. Nick'in çalışma arkadaşlarına göre ise Mabel "delidir". Ancak bunu ironik bir şekilde "arkadaşlardan" hiçbiri söylemezken, Nick durumu inkar ederek aslında kendi düşüncelerini ortaya koyar: Mabel "normal" değildir… Bu yüzden de kocası sonunda yapması gerektiğini düşündüğü şeyi yapar ve onu bir akıl hastanesine yatırır. Akıl hastanesine kapatılan Mabel, altı ay sonra evine geri döndüğünde durgunlaşmıştır. Toplum tarafından zararlı görülen aşırılıkları (ki Mabel'ın zararlı biri olduğunu söyleyemeyiz) büyük ölçüde baskılanmıştır. Çocuklarından ve hayatından bir süre koparılan Mabel'a klinikte öğretilmeye çalışılan ise uyum sağlamaktır. Uyum sağlamaz ise topluma eklemlenemeyecektir. Mabel, klinikte kendisine elektroşok uygulandığını anlatır; toplum, normal olmadığını söyleyerek ötekileştirdiği Mabel'i böyle cezalandırmıştır. Oysaki tedavi edilmesi gereken, kadının içine hapis olduğu düzenin kendisidir. John Cassavetes, kadınları ev işlerine ve çocuk bakımına mahkûm eden düzeni eleştirmek yerine, kadını eleştirmenin kolaycılığına kaçan toplumu anlatır "A Woman Under the Influence" filminde. Normalleşme kisvesi altında tek tipleşmeyi öneren, aşırılıkları törpülemeye meraklı toplum, histerik bir heyecana sahip, tek derdi iyi biri olmak olan Mabel'ı geri dönüşsüz bir biçimde acımasızca hırpalayacaktır zira… Alıntılar:

In the wake of a recent, short retrospective of John Cassavetes and Shirley Clarke at Seoul Art Cinema, I was asked to contribute an article.

After mulling over for a while, I decided to narrow down my initial, avowedly grandiose scale down to 'notes' on <Shadows>(1959) and <Faces>(1968), two of his early, powerful, electrifying and often hypnotic films. 

While I draw on Godard and Deleuze, along with Jean Rouch, toward the end of the piece, I note how his films no less strikingly resonate with <Titicut Follies>(Frederick Wiseman, 1967) and <Portrait of Jason>(Shirley Clarke, 1967) in terms of 'performative documentation/documentary' or 'documentary of performace.' Rhyming with Deleuze, I draw attention to grave implications of these volatile faces and bodies, whose precarious, mercurial states steadfastly ask if we have faith in them as sheer surfaces and, by extension, the world.

Note: In retrospect, this essay partakes of my decade-long fascination with and reflections on the genealogy of 'face as sur-face' in contemporary art and culture, a topic to which two of my scholarly articles readily suscribe, along with a long overdue article on contemporary Korean cinema. One day I hope I can turn them into a separate book on its own.

Cassavetes’s movies are about the re-education of the senses through the recognition of the fragility and vulnerability of human presence within the political landscape of middleclass conformism. His movies are about what happens after the removal of masks and alibis takes place as the individual comes face to face with its own conscience

Richard Rorty’s project of discarding philosophy as a whole suffers a contradictory, self-defeating problem that I call philosophical exorcism. Since Rorty’s understanding of radicality is misleading, when he criticizes philosophy in its entirety, his criticism returns to itself so that his project itself is to be discarded. As a remedy for the exorcism, a different radicality, found in Dewey’s concept of quality, is examined through two films directed by John Cassavetes and David Lynch. The radicality at stake contains a paradox of sharing the unsharable, which distances philosophy from Rorty’s self-defeating pragmatism.

ΚΟΜΜΟΥΝΑ
Ιστορίες Κινηματογράφου
Κινηματογράφος του σώματος

23 Απριλίου 2019 – Jean-Luc Godard,
Ζούσε τη ζωή της [Vivre sa vie], 1962

14 Μαΐου 2019 – John Cassavetes,
Gloria, 1980

Τι μπορεί να σημαίνει ένας κινηματογράφος του σώματος;
Αν μια τέτοια «στιγμή» των κινηματογραφικών εικόνων, πράγματι, μπορεί να ανακτηθεί, τότε σε αυτήν, όχι μόνο οι ήρωες, αλλά και ο χώρος ακόμη εμφανίζονται μέσα από σωματικές σχέσεις, δηλαδή μέσα από ένσαρκες συναντήσεις. Και εάν ανακτήσουμε τον ρυθμό αυτών των συναντήσεων, εάν τον χαρτογραφήσουμε, τότε μπορεί ενδεχομένως να έχουμε ανακτήσει τον ρυθμό μίας ζωής.

Fortement influencée par l’œuvre de Jean-Luc Godard, Histoire(s) du cinéma, j’ai organisé une série de projections de films à l’Institut de recherche sociale, économique et historique « La Commune » à Athènes. Dans le cadre de la première thématique intitulée « Perception et illusion », j’ai choisi les films de Dziga Vertov, L’homme à la camera (Vendredi 25 Janvier 2019) et de Jean Renoir, La grande illusion (Mardi 26 Février 2019). Dans le cadre de la seconde thématique sous le titre « Hommage à un cinéma du temps », j’ai choisi les films de Wim Wenders, Les ailes du désir (Mardi 26 Mars 2019) et de Theo Angelopoulos, L’éternité et un jour (Mardi 9 Avril 2019). Enfin, dans le cadre de la troisième thématique intitulée « Le cinéma du corps », j’ai choisi les films de Jean-Luc Godard, Vivre sa vie (Mardi 23 Avril 2019) et de John Cassavetes, Gloria (Mardi 14 Mai 2019).

Opening Night van Ivo Van Hove. Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: Record Details. Record ID, 916663. Record Type, journalArticle. Author, Sofie Verdoodt [802000325590] - Ghent University Sofie.Verdoodt@UGent.be. Title, Opening Night van Ivo Van Hove. ...

S’inspirant à la fois de la critique deleuzienne du « nouvel Hollywood » et de la dialectique métaphysique de l’apollinien et du dionysiaque telle que pensée par Nietzsche dans La Naissance de la tragédie, nous souhaitons interroger ici quelques-uns des modes sur lesquels le théâtre habite le cinéma. Par suite, afin de déplacer légèrement l’angle sous lequel on envisage habituellement l’adaptation et pour profiter ainsi d’un changement de point de vue, nous préfèrerons à la problématique du théâtre filmé le concept de « filmer le théâtre ». Nous explorerons celui-ci à partir d’une analyse du film Opening Night de John Cassavetes (1977), où la crise d’une actrice qui se trouve entre deux âges constitue, pour le réalisateur, et donc pour le septième art, une occasion de produire de la nouveauté théâtrale.

John Cassavetes' debut directorial feature 'Shadows' has been heralded as the start of American Independent cinema as a congruent movement, supposed to the prior one-off low budget film projects. David E. James argues that whilst the film's production values did diverge from the norm at the time, it was not enough to call into question the industrial feature. This paper counters James' argument.

Richard Rorty's project of discarding philosophy as a whole suffers a contradictory, self-defeating problem that I call philosophical exorcism. Since Rorty's understanding of radicality is misleading , when he criticizes philosophy in its entirety, his criticism returns to itself so that his project itself is to be discarded. As a remedy for the exorcism, a different radicality, found in Dewey's concept of quality, is examined through two films directed by John Cassavetes and Da-vid Lynch. The radicality at stake contains a paradox of sharing the unsharable, which distances philosophy from Rorty's self-defeating pragmatism.

How can we measure the ways in which we experience the city in movement and in duration? The cadastral survey from the ground has been replaced by satellite remote sensing offering planametric data beyond human perception. While the synoptic map has been privileged as the mode of accurate measurement from above, the eye level view has been reserved to depict the qualitative feel ing of a particular place at a specific point in time. However, satellites are now
connected to the global positioning of our smartphones, combining both portable maps and cameras. The promise of at last integrating urban map and view within one tool is at our fingertips. This paper, however, goes conceptually further.
By employing Gilles Deleuze's idea of cinema as framing sets of sensorial information, I argue here for new methods of measuring the city not as a fixed physical object, but as a fluid sensori-motor environment.' This paper describes
an international workshop in Taiwan in which three film sequences were closely examined, frame-by-frame, in order to understand how the human sensori-motor apparatus continually reframes perceptions, affections, impulses, actions, reflections and relations of urban space. Cinemetrics', a drawing system developed in between the languages of film and architectural projection, is used as a method to understand the ways in which cities are living extensions of the human sensori-motor system. Based on this research, I call for new tools to understand cities as social and physical extensions of the sensori -motor schema as the first
step in making cities more sensitive and systemic and therefore more humane and sustainable.

DELEUZE, Gilles, Cinema I, the Movement Image, Minneapolis. UniverSity of Minnesota Press, 1986,264 p., trad. Hugh Tomlinson [ED. Paris, les Editions de Minuit, 19831.
MCGRATH, Brian & GARDNER, Jean, Cinemetrics: Architectural Drawing Today. london, John Wiley & Sons, 2007, 171 p.

"The French contemporary artist Pierre Huyghe enjoys international acclaim, witness the many one-person and group exhibitions in which his work has been featured, and the prizes he has been awarded. His workplace in New York City, where this interview was conducted on January 20th, 2017, is an office where research and thinking take place and not a studio where things are made. The work Huyghe and/or others produce following his directives seems based upon raising questions, but what these are is unclear. Therefore, what the answers are is equally so".

https://www.theartsection.com/pierre-huyghe

« Existe-t-il vraiment des metteurs en scène au cinéma ou seulement des réalisateurs ? Faut-il continuer à considérer l'art du film comme un descendant, forcément abâtardi, de la plus ancienne forme de spectacle artistique ? Ou, au contraire, faut-il croire que le cinéma a été la chance, pour un art à bout de souffle et embourgeoisé, de se renouveler et de s'adapter à son temps ? » (Jacques Aumont). Cette remarque montre le caractère ambigu du terme « mise en scène » souvent confondu au cinéma avec ceux de « réalisateur » et de « cinéaste » (la dimension interchangeable du vocabulaire). Il apparait pourtant plus productif d’y faire ressortir la différenciation sémantique présente dans chacun des termes. Pour le dictionnaire Robert, réaliser c’est « faire exister à titre de réalité concrète ce qui n’existait que dans l’esprit » et le « réalisateur » est « la personne qui dirige toutes les opérations de préparation et de réalisation d’un film », tandis que la « mise en scène » se limite à « l’organisation matérielle de la représentation d’une pièce, d’un opéra (choix des décors, places, mouvements et jeu des acteurs, etc.). Selon cette conception, la mise en scène ne serait que l’action limitée à l’organisation des éléments – la fabrication du plan à un instant donné – dans le processus de création du film. Dans un geste de retournement, les cinéastes n’ont cessé de chercher à inventer une approche proprement cinématographique de la scène. Ce cours proposera moins une réflexion sur les similitudes ou les oppositions entre le cinéma et le théâtre, qu’une interrogation sur les traces du geste théâtral au cinéma. Peut-on parler de la « mise en scène » comme concept du cinéma ? Au-delà d’un panorama de la question à partir d’exemples variés dans le temps, nous proposerons un focus sur trois cinéastes : John Cassavetes, Eric Rohmer et Lars Von Trier.