April 19, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I hope they promote this because not many people know about him or his movies.
Cassavettes more consistent than Scorsese??? No way. I don’t buy that. What has Cass ever done that competes with Raging, Taxi, Casino, Mean Streets and Goodfellas?
The Criterion Collection box set of these films, plus A Constant Forge came out in September of 2004. Aren’t we all a little late for the party?
I’ll buy it since I’ve really never seen much of his work.
You don’t hear him mentioned in the same breath as the others. But he is ten times better than Altman. And comparable to Scorsese.
It’s not hard to be consistent when your films are in the more modest side. I appreciate what Cassavettes has done, but I’m not a fan of stripped-down cinema. I like my directors to be great visualists, and ambitious on top of it. You’re a lot less likely to be consistent the higher you aim.
In the end, he’s made NOTHING that touch the masterpieces of any of the directors you mentioned. In fact, I find it insulting that you would even put him among those names, most of who are gods of the medium. And since you’re talking auteurs, I’m wondering if you didn’t include Welles because you know he was just as consistent in his brilliance as anyone, or if film’s most towering figure just slipped your mind…
Orson Welles might be the most towering figure. He makes everyone a little smaller when compared. He also took a lot of chances. Something John C didn’t do as much of.
I think this is just to point people to the Criterion Collection boxset, otherwise, ???? (and all the text is from the NY Press…these aren’t Dave’s words, so don’t blame him for the list of auteurs).
I watched A Woman Under the Influence and, heresy, only thought it was “okay.” I’ll give the others a shot, though. I suspect it was more “wowing” at the time of release–so many of the techniques/ideas have been incorporated into US cinema since then. Any recommendations for #2? Shadows? Faces?
i’ll give this a shot and a buy. adds to the collection.
Well I’ve never seen any of his films and am definitely interested. I’ve read a bit about him and I like Gena Rowlands, so…
I won’t say whether he’s comparable to anyone.
Although, surely he’s on the level of Scorsese when you’re talking about low-budget filmmaking. Or is my reading outdated?
Further proof that, if your movies aren’t backed by the Hollywood publicity machine, mass audiences are going to forget about you and not take you seriously.
Do you really think he didn’t get offered any big movies?
The Hollywood publicity machine? Is that who we blame for the Ratners of the world? Get me their names and numbers.
He is far more consistent than Scorsese, but then he did only a dozen features. Scorsese – who curiosly work on the crew on Minnie & Moskowitz – would be the first to agree. Actually he has a very fine testimony on the booklet that came with the box.
Cassavetes was more consistent than Scorsese but only because Cassavetes made so many fewer movies. Even so, Cassavetes had his share of misfires and mistakes. A Woman Under the Influence and Faces rank among the very best films of the twentieth century. Husbands is the only one that still needs to be put on DVD, in my opinion. Here’s how I would rank them:
ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECES
1. A Woman Under the Influence
2. Faces
GREAT FILMS
3. Shadows
4. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
5. Opening Night
FLAWED BUT FASCINATING
6. Husbands
GOOD FILMS
7. Minnie and Moskowitz
8. Love Streams
MEDIOCRE
9. Gloria
10. Too Late Blues
DOWNRIGHT BAD
11. A Child Is Waiting
12. Big Trouble
How is he more consistent than Marty?
Name me one film he has done thats even on the level of anything Marty has done.
Have you guys seen Cassavetes’ films? He was a great director but his films were wildly inconsistent. Anyone who relies so much on improvisation will produce films that vary greatly. His films mixed great searing moments of truth with boring, even banal moments.
If we’re talking “consistancy” then Martin Scorsese isn’t exactly the man to talk about. He ain’t exactly consistant himself. Sure, he’s made some bloody brilliant movies but he seems to make some royal shit in there as well.
When I interviewed John Cassavetes years ago, he joked that, long after he was dead, some of the people who would still be calling him a maverick would be folks who had never actually seen any of his movies. Maybe he was right?