Catching up with a few things that fell between the cracks in recent weeks: A passable edition of Douglas Sirk’s “Summer Storm” from VCI Entertainment, a handsome transfer (with a questionable aspect ratio) of Luis Bunuel’s French-Mexican co-production “Death in the Garden” from Microcinema, and A&E’s stunning Blu-ray edition of Patrick McGoohan’s seminal British television series “The Prisoner.” All under review here, in the NY Times.
Michael, the import DVD of LOVE STREAMS is pretty terrific – Agnès B. did it. I forget exactly where the old Cannon library is at now.
Jonathan was responsible for A PAIR OF BOOTS being shown in the New York Film Festival back when – a half-hour Civil War drama Cassavetes made for The Lloyd Bridges Show, or something like that. Jonathan thought, at the time at least, that it was his best “Hollywood film,” and whiole I think that accolade certainly belongs to HUSBANDS, I remember it being pretty good. Maybe you’ve seen JOHNNY STACCATO? I have now, thanks to good old Professor Echo, who no longer graces this site.
I’m also a fan of Barbara Hershey. The fan club now has six members I believe? When shall we have our first meeting, and does anybody volunteer to invite our guest of honour? Maybe we can invite Michael Caine and Max von Sydow as well? But I must protest about the way Streep’s films have been degraded here. She’s made many very good films, and worked with many good directors, ever since JULIA and Zinnemann.
I love SCHAMPOO, it completely altered my opinion of Hal Ashby.
Why, exactly, is Kubrick a topic of discussion week efter week? Surely that must mean something. I’ve never been a huge fan myself, but PATHS OF GLORY for me is flawless.
And between you and me, I believe Bergman is overrated, which, considering my line of work, is something I usual keep to myself. Don’t tell anyone.
I’m sorry to that Emilie Bickerton’s “short history” of the Cahiers is an embarrassment, with serious errors on practically every page. This is a major disappointment after the intelligence and sophistication of many of her earlier pieces in New Left Review–including, ironically (even paradoxically), an especially good polemic called “Adieu to the Cahiers”. I’m not sure why or how the book came out so ill-informed and thrown together, but that’s clearly what happened.
I LOVE MELVIN is also scheduled to air on TCM on January 27th.
I’ve knocked Cassavetes’s late work here for its extreme self-indulgence and its scattered dramaturgy, but I think A CHILD IS WAITING is deeply moving. This may surprise those who have read that it is a compromised Hollywood production and that Cassavetes was suffering under constraints. Maybe some constraints were good for his working methods, heretical as that may sound.
As a great fan of Cassavetes’ “late work” (did that mean everything after 1968?) I happen to also admire A CHILD IS WAITING, which I praised quite a bit at length in 50 ANS. I don’t think there’s any reason to view a “before constraints” and “after constraints” Cassavetes with the purpose of suggesting that the former was better for him than the latter.
Well, we can disagree on his independent work, which is what I was referring to, but I am glad we both like A CHILD IS WAITING. Not many people have praised it.
I always say if Stanley Kramer absolutely had to make a film about the treatment of mentally challenged children, thank God he put Cassavetes in the director’s chair. Even though the two famously clashed (supposedly, after seeing Kramer’s cut, Cassavetes grabbed him by the throat), it’s clear that JC’s approach is ideal for a story in which several roles are cast with real “special needs” kids (the lead kid, Bruce Ritchey, was “normal,” but he gives an extraordinarily touching performance).
Kent,I have indeed seen Johnny S which I find fascinating. However I have never seen or heard of A Pair of Boots. Let the hunt begin…
Cassavetes said that his disagreement with Kramer was that he thought that it was the normal people’s responibility and interest to adjust to the “special kids” while Kramer believed that the kids could be taught to be normal and just like everybody else. Cassavetes later said that he didn’t think A Child is Waiting was all bad it just wasn’t his film after he made it.
My favourite Cassavetes film is Opening Night so that would classify me as a “late Cassavetes” fan. He famously recut that film after a preview because he thought it went “too well”.
The old Cannon library is, alas, at MGM, which means it’s at Sony…or is it Fox…or…well, where ever. Cannon titles such as “The Apple” and Mailer’s “Tough Guys Don’t Dance” have popped up over the years on DVD, on the MGM label. Other interesting/important Cannon pictures, such as Godard’s “Lear,” Ruiz’s “Treasure Island,” and “Love Streams” continue to languish. Ugh.
Arthur S., OPENING NIGHT’s the one. I found that film’s blurring of fantasy and ostensible reality so compelling and unnerving that I didn’t go back into a movie theatre for two weeks afterward. And this was when I was a working film critic. Sometimes it’s best to take some time off and sort a couple of things out.
Glenn, I can’t tell you how thankful I am for any update on the status of Godard’s KING LEAR and Ruiz’s TREASURE ISLAND, the second of which I’ve never seen. To the best of my knowledge neither of these are available anywhere on DVD, whereas Cassavetes’ LOVE STREAMS is on French import as Kent reported. I know that Duke University has a Ruiz collection which includes a complete print of TREASURE ISLAND, but I don’t live in that part of the country and don’t know under what conditions Duke screens it. Knowing that the Godard and Ruiz are in possession of major labels at least gives me a bit of hope they’ll get their day on my DVD player, sooner or later. Ruiz recently published a book, in English, having something to do with his film. I haven’t read it and was sort of hoping to see the film first.
Arthur S. there’s a similar story about the recutting of HUSBANDS.
I’m someone who also likes pretty much all of Cassavetes’ work, and I’m very fond of A CHILD IS WAITING. I’ve done a lot of work with autistic children, and it’s the only movie on the subject that rings true to me.
Michael, he also did another episode called MY DADDY CAN BEAT YOUR DADDY, which I’ve never seen.
Regarding Cassavetes, I think it’s interesting to note that two of his greatest admirers were Akira Kurosawa and Sergio Leone. Less surprising than it seems, I think.
Has Cassavetes’ supposed cameo in A CHILD IS WAITING ever been definitively confirmed? If so, it’s one of the more jaw-dropping director cameos in film history.
Some covers of Cahiers from the Toubiana years
Francesca, L’enfant secret, Victor Victoria, Jeanne la Pucelle, Love Streams, La palombella rossa, Goddbye south goodbye, Bird, Adieu Bonaparte,Soigne ta droite, Nouvelle Vague, La belle noiseuse, Les roseaux sauvages, Le val abraham, Shoah, A nos amours, Yeelen… I remember being a subscriber of the magazine in my teens, between 1982 and 1984. I had never heard of Garrel, Oliveira, or Tsui Hark before reading the magazine. The “Moonlighting” cover was quite a revelation. So was that 1983 cover on “L’argent” by Bresson. Hardly a “premiere” selection, non ? Actually, as I recall, CAhiers was the “coolest” magazine around. They had a special coverage of the Cannes film festival on television that same year and I was really fascinated : 10 minutes with Bresson, with no editing, a portrait of Ann Hui interwieved on Boat People etc… It was stuff that you’d never see on mainstream television at that time. It aired at 10 o’clock pm. It was quite something.
“I’m sorry to that Emilie Bickerton’s “short history” of the Cahiers is an embarrassment, with serious errors on practically every page. This is a major disappointment after the intelligence and sophistication of many of her earlier pieces in New Left Review–including, ironically (even paradoxically), an especially good polemic called “Adieu to the Cahiers”. I’m not sure why or how the book came out so ill-informed and thrown together, but that’s clearly what happened.”
Mr Mc Bride, I have a particular fondness for A CHILD IS WAITING and I actually realized that it belongs to a whole series of a Hollywood “sub genre”, which includes films such as LILITH, DAVID AND LISA, THE MIRACLE WORKER.
Kent, we should mention GLORIA, a film tat I adore and that was ripped off by LEON without anyone in France mentioning the blatant “stolen scenes”. I understand that GLORIA is not very highly appreciated in the States but it’s a cult film here. I really love it, especially in its combination of tension and emotion: you can draw a parallel between the train scene of HIGH AND LOW and its heartbreaking “denouement” (with the cop crying as he watches the father and son reunion) and the tube scene in GLORIA. It must have hit a chord in Kurosawa’s heart.
Glenn & Peter,
Godard’s Lear was recently issued by MGM in Italy, albeit cropped to 1.85.
j, what’s the alleged jaw-dropping cameo of JC in CHILD IS WAITING? A very underrated film, by the way. Esepcially underrated by Prof Carney.
J McBride: thanks for giving a clearer picture of what happened at the Astaire AFI. I didn’t know Astaire had that dismissive attitude about Rogers, or that he had snubbed her previously. And it was very nice to see Eleanor Powell, who didn’t go to many of those events.
Regarding Cassavetes’ “Hollywood period,” TOO LATE BLUES also has some terrific stuff in it, including a good performance from the producer of JOHNNY STACCATO.
I like JOHNNY STACCATO, although I think the segments Cassavetes directed may represent his only flirtation with (flashy) style for its own sake. I prefer the two LLOYD BRIDGES SHOW segments and especially his hour-long CHRYSLER THEATER, “In Pursuit of Excellence,” which covers some typical Cassavetean themes, and is also (as far as I know) the only script he wrote for television.
(Kent, feel free to contact me via the web link on this post if you’re actively looking for any of this stuff.)
JM, That’s my big fear for a DVD release of Godard’s LEAR. In fact, it was theatrically released in the U.S. in 1.85. But we can see from the open-matte Cinematheque Collection VHS tape what glory and balance the film opens up in Academy ratio. Notice too how the intertitles are elegantly dead centered this way, with an equal distribution of blank space all around the words. The arguments are long for a consistent period in the ’80s and early ’90s of Godard sticking to the small frame. Clearly it is a soft-matted film, meaning it can be shown wide and matted but the optimal presentation for this film is 1.33.
I like A CHILD IS WAITING pretty much the same as others here, but felt Cassavetes’ inclinations toward his particular bold long takes were hemmed in by commercial considerations. I agree with Kent, I basically like all of the features directed by him, but I’d place the three commercial works (including TOO LATE BLUES and GLORIA) toward the bottom. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen WAITING and I’d like to revisit.
Adrian: There’s a quick shot in A CHILD IS WAITING of a man rather jerkily walking toward the camera, his hair slicked down and a beatific grin on his face. This is supposedly Cassavetes, though imdb categorizes it as “unconfirmed.” I ran it back several times, trying to decide, and finally concluded that it is probably him. If it is indeed a lapse of taste, it’s the only one in the film.
Radical change of topic (sorry):
There is, apparently, a new Clint Eastwood film coming out in a matter of weeks: INVICTUS (great title). And I have heard absolutely nothing about it.
Has anyone here seen it?
Stephen – Thank you very much. It’s very kind of you. The site doesn’t seem to have accepted the link, but I’ll find your website.
Peter, you forgot BIG TROUBLE. I think the only people who would disagree and prefer Cassavates’ commercial films to his independent work are the people who look at the latter and see “extreme self-indulgence and…scattered dramaturgy,” as Joseph McBride and many others do
Connor, I’ve seen INVICTUS and I like it very much – in fact, I prefer it to last year’s Eastwood films. It’s about Nelson Mandela and the 1995 Rugby World Cup. The title is from the William Ernest Henley poem.
I’ve just new heard that a restored version of Nicholas Ray’s WE CAN’T GO HOME AGAIN will be screened at the 2011 Venice Film Festival. Can anybody shed any light on whether this is the version currently circulating on youtube and elsewhere or the revised one Susan Ray has been trying to get funding for years?
Tony, I think this will be the revised version.
Here’s the press release from Venice about the Ray film:
.
Late as usual. A few quick notes:
“Zodiac” might be one of the best American movies of the new century — I keep coming back to it and re-appreciating its deliberate pace in handling the passage of time.
Count me in on the Barbara Hersey fan club, for “The Stunt Man.”
And as the last on my block to see a Dario Argento movie, I loved Jessica Harper in “Suspiria.”
well, I guess I’ll have to be in Venice this september. the press release is actually suprisingly informative, taking time and space to get into all the details (some of this will never be a copy\paste material – see the thin Screen International news feed at their main page). I wonder what they ment by “the intensity of the exchanges between students and teacher while improvising the scenes, turned a simple exercise into something with its own life”. What were Ray’s origianl intentions? To just film the artistic process of the film or to knowingly mix it with the scenes from the actual script and the improvisations? Anyone knows?
As long as Kent brought up the subject this week, I’ll mention that I saw A SERIOUS MAN this afternoon. I thought it interesting that it was set in the 60s as it felt to me to be of a piece with the books that novelists like Bruce Jay Friedman, Philip Roth, Wallace Markfield, Joseph Heller and others were writing at that time.
As I recall, those writers were also sometimes charged with anti-Semitism, or, more accurately, Jewish self-hatred. However, I imagine that there is a different kind of impact in reading such characters on the page and seeing them embodied by actors on the screen.
In any event, that would seem to be one of the least cogent points of entry to a film that, to me, did try to grapple in a serious way with all of the issues dealt with perfunctorily by MAGNOLIA, and, coming from a different direction, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
I’ve also seen “Invictus” and I’m very taken with it. It’s a terrifically smart piece of filmmaking that’s quite different from Eastwood’s other work and at the same time very recognizably his. I can’t say much more about it at this point.
Eastwood was at the Pacific Film Archive a few months ago showing LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA and said he was intrigued by the film project that became INVICTUS because he’d never made a sports movie before. I wonder how it compares with John Huston’s VICTORY, which is usually dismissed, though I like it.
‘I thought it interesting that it was set in the 60s as it felt to me to be of a piece with the books that novelists like Bruce Jay Friedman, Philip Roth, Wallace Markfield, Joseph Heller and others were writing at that time.’
Barry, maybe this is interesting review from what you said above.
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau11132009.html
Hmmm, hard to say Junko. Mr. Landau seems to be a lot more certain of what is right and wrong (organized religion is a sham, the protagonist of this film is a putz) than the Coens do. The randomness of fate and near impossibility of distinguishing what is truly evil seem to me to be taken very seriously here rather than with some form of ironic acceptance as is usually the case with the Coens.
As for the anti-Semitism stuff, I would go back to viewing rather than reading the characters on the page. And that may be some kind of collaboration between the Coens and the audience. I’ve had people tell me at various times that Elliott Gould, George Segal, and Jeff Goldblum irritated them because they seemed to be too distinctively “Jewish” Well they would all seem like Max von Sydow compared to the cast of this film. If that is a problem, I’m not quite sure whose it is.
Cahiers du cinemaThanks, Nicolas, for the list of covers. The list serves as an interesting corrective to Bickerton’s premise. In her book, she cites a cover with Apocalypse Now and later Batman Begins as supposed signature moments of the publication’s decline. I am not versed enough in the history of the magazine’s or its times to know what is right or wrong in the book, so I look forward to a review of the book by Jonathan Rosenbaum if he chooses to write one.
‘I’ve had people tell me at various times that Elliott Gould, George Segal, and Jeff Goldblum irritated them because they seemed to be too distinctively “Jewish”’
Barry, I cannot understand what is too distinctively Jewish about those actors. It must be nuance that foreigner like me cannot see.
About Landau review, thank for commenting on it. I haven’t seen the movie, but I will see it.
It took IMDB trivia of all places to educate me – but Larry Gopnick may not overtly question God but he does (unbeknownst to him) reject him – from IMDB: “In his argument with the Columbia House records employee over the phone, Larry Gopnick repeatedly rejects the album Abraxas by Santana, in a variety of ways. He did not order Abraxas, he doesn’t want Abraxas, he won’t listen to Abraxas. Abraxas is a Gnostic term for God, particularly a God who is encompasses all things from Creator of the Universe to the Devil. Abraxas is also the etymological root of “Abra Cadabra”. Larry Gopnick is vehemently rejecting God and magic.”
skelly, Larry Gopnick’s constant refrain is that he didn’t DO anything. Is that a proclamation of innocence, as he seems to think; or a negation of what exists as IMDB tells us?
Junko, I would think that it is certainly a cultural distinction. Who in America could identify ethnic and regional differences among the Japanese?
Barry – fair point, I think I would agree that it is closer to a proclamation of innocence than a negation…
Later in the film when they play Jimi Hendrix’s “Machine Gun I thought for a split second that they were going to play something from Santana’s Abraxas – which would have been kind of funny. Anyway, great movie.
“I’ve had people tell me at various times that Elliott Gould, George Segal, and Jeff Goldblum irritated them because they seemed to be too distinctively ‘Jewish.’ Well, they would all seem like Max von Sydow compared to the cast of this film. If that is a problem, I’m not quite sure whose it is.” I think that’s extremely well put. It’s a very good movie, and I look forward to seeing it again. Grows in the memory.
J. McBride, I like VICTORY too, and I have a feeling we both like it more than Huston did. I have to say that I found the rugby scenes the least interesting stretches of INVICTUS. I found the rest of the movie absorbing, touching, very rich on of political strategizing, some terrific scenes of emotional reticence and quiet humility, like the American flashbacks in LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA.
I agree with the posters here about A SIMPLE MAN, and in fact posted something brief about it on my web site a little over a week ago, if anyone’s interested: http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=17236
Jonathan, this is really interesting. I would take issue with your caveat about period, though. Granted, I am not Jewish and did not grow up in the Midwest, but the feeling of the period rang powerfully true to me. Also, I wonder what’s “faulty” about the opening sequence?
I never believe in the Coens’ uses of period; the dialogue and other details rarely convince me–and in this case, I didn’t even notice it was during the 60s until fairly late in the picture. I guess it’s just too post-modern to me. It’s not about being Jewish or growing up in the Midwest (I didn’t either), although it seems pretty implausible to me that the Jews in Minneapolis could live in such isolation from everyone else, in any period.
As for the opening sequence, I just didn’t get it or find it funny, but maybe that’s my fault–or the fact that, once again, I don’t buy their handling of period.
Well, it was the mood that felt right to me, the sense that you always had to be looking over your shoulder to be reassured that you were doing the right thing, the idea that there were higher authorities you could go to for verification, interpretation, validation. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was roughly the same age as the boy in the film at the time. But I’ve seen plenty of movies set in the late 60s with kids in them that meant nothing to me at all.
I was fascinated by the opening sequence. It was interesting to work out how exactly it related to the rest of the movie. Since it was about a guy searching for the right interpretation of what’s happening to him, it seemed right to open with a parable that we’re left to interpret. In a nutshell, I think that the parable embodies a kind of clarity that the guy believes is available to him or believes should be available to him but really isn’t. How do you keep evil out the door when you don’t know who, what, when, where or even if it is?
Other than that, I found the film funny but also painful and moving. I was moved by the dream where he sends his brother away in the boat. And by the moment when the parents smile at each other with pride after their son starts to speak at his bar mitzvah – funny and moving at the same time.
Jonathan, I didn’t find the opening sequence funny and I’m not sure if I got, but I didn’t find it faulty. It seems to be a parable that contains all of the issues that the rest of the film will explore
Is the visitor an evil demon or an innocent victim? Is the wife a wise protector of her home or a superstitious murderer? Is the husband passively innocent or an inert accomplice? How can you tell what is evil and whether doing nothing is right or wrong given how little we understand as human beings?
Glad to hear that INVICTUS isn’t a CHANGELING-style disappointment. That one was a bit jarring after the consecutive brilliance of MILLION DOLLAR BABY, FLAGS and LETTERS.
Come to think of it, I’ve had a pretty great time at the cinema this season, as far as Hollywood films go. I just saw FANTASTIC MR. FOX which greatly exceeded my expectations–better than Anderson’s last two movies, I thought. And then there’s WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, which continues to impress me every time I think about it, by far the best thing Spike Jonze has ever done.
A “very good” Eastwood movie would be a great way to cap off the year. His next movie, HEREAFTER, sounds…strange.
When I interviewed Eastwood in the seventies, I thanked him for putting out violent movies during the Christmas season. I said it was soothing to me to see Dirty Harry fighting gun battles with criminals because it was so removed from all the depressing feel-good propaganda of Christmas. Eastwood was surprised and said he hadn’t factored that into his release strategy.
Just in time for Christmas: Joseph Losey’s BOOM! will be playing at the Brooklyn Academy of Music on December 7th.
“When I interviewed Eastwood in the seventies, I thanked him for putting out violent movies during the Christmas season.”
Joseph, this would make for a pretty good first sentence in a novel or short story.
Connor, and the final sentence could be, “Eastwood grimaced and blew me away.”