Advertisement
The Lost Interview: John Cassavetes
Two decades after his death, a 1985 interview with the grandfather of modern independent cinema reveals new truths
(Page 3)
“So I went on this show—Jean Shepherd’s “Night People”—and I said, ‘Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people each sent in a dollar and we’d go out and make a film?’ The next day, $7,000 came in, in dollar bills, and people from all over brought in equipment. It was like a miracle. So then we had to make the film.
“Of course, it cost considerably more than $7,000, but people continued to send in money. Suddenly there were people calling me up and saying, ‘Well, I’m gonna put in $100.’ Hedda Hopper called me up and sent me $35; I thought that was very sweet. But I told her, ‘Fine, I’m taking it. But you don’t get a piece of the profits.’”
Shadows, a highly praised psychological drama, attracted the attention of Hollywood producers. But Cassavetes was less than pleased by the two movies he subsequently made for major studios: Too Late Blues (1961) and A Child Is Waiting (1963). Much closer to his heart is Faces, an ultra-low-budget, 16mm production which took four years to film and edit. (He helped finance the movie with his salaries for acting in The Dirty Dozen, for which he earned an Oscar nomination, and Rosemary’s Baby.) Faces, a drama about the tensions of an upper-middle-class marriage, opened in 1968. Critics and audiences responded with an enthusiasm that took Cassavetes by surprise.
“I was young,” he recalls, “but not that young. We sat around, [producer] Sam Shaw and me, and some of the reviews came in. And they were very important to us, because this was a picture that counted on the press. So we were looking at them. And then we started laughing, ‘cause the reviews were so good. I remember one that Roger Ebert happened to write. Sam and I laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed. Sam started pointing at me, I started pointing at the paper and we were laughing. We weren’t laughing at Ebert, but what he said seemed so excessive in praise.”
Not all of Cassavetes’ movies were met with such a reception. “A couple of pictures later,” Cassavetes recalls, “Ebert rapped me. My first thought was, ‘Where’s that first review? Why is he saying I’m such a bad director after this excessive thing? Maybe he’s trying to balance it?’
“I think that all artists, in some strange kind of sick way, pay more attention to the bad reviews. But with me, it’s like I’m somebody who built a car by hand. Somebody takes a ride in a factory-built car and gives that car a good review. Then he rides in our hand-built car that we spent four years on and says, ‘Well, it’s rough, the shift doesn’t work.’ I wanna say, ‘Yeah, but what about the car?’”
Remember: It’s early 1985 and Cassavetes has been polarizing critics and audiences for more 15 years. Husbands and A Woman Under the Influence, two brilliant movies that are arguably his best, were very well received. (Cassavetes himself was a Best Director contendor for A Woman Under the Influence and Rowlands was Oscar-nominated as Best Actress.) But Minnie and Moskowitz, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Opening Night, Gloria and Love Streams sharply divided critics and failed to attract large audiences.
“Well, if Gena says ‘green,’ I say ‘red!’ If I say ‘red,’ she says ‘blue.’ It’s like clockwork! We’re totally, diametrically opposed on everything. I admire the hell out of her, because this has led me into at least an understanding of the way a person with a totally different background, a totally different cultural understanding of life, feels and thinks. The beauty of working with her is that I think she’s a great actress. I think anybody working with her would know it.”
Trouble is, in 1985, some of her best work isn’t easily available for public scrutiny. Minnie and Moskowitz, which was financed by Universal Pictures, occasionally pops up on late-night TV. Gloria, made for Columbia, is available on VHS. But the movies Cassavetes financed on his own are rarely revived—mainly because he seldom permits them to be shown anywhere but museums and film festivals. Our conversation is timed to a retrospective of his work at The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.
“You know, through the years we financed our own films. And at a certain point, there was a stop put on that by people just not buying them. For any reason. So now, later on, when people come over and say, ‘Oh, we’ll give you $1 for the film,’ well, I’d really rather show them in museums for people. I’ve already taken a tremendous financial loss.”
So, at 55, is Cassavetes still a maverick?
3 of 4 |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT 
- Comment by Mr. Peel on 1/29/09 at 4:52 pm
Great article. And since I’ve always had a bit of a fascination with BIG TROUBLE--part of my blog name even comes from it--it’s great to learn a few things about its making. I still enjoy that film, flawed as it is. Thanks for letting me learn a few things about Cassavetes while he was making it.
- Comment by j oliveri on 3/05/09 at 12:41 am
Great interview with a great director, and quite ironic, this being his last. What a talent Mr cassavetes had. Truly a genius.
- Comment by denver criminal lawyers on 6/02/09 at 10:22 am
John Cassavetes is one of my Hollywood idols as he is not only a great American actor but also one of the most accomplished screenwriters and filmmakers.Thanks to the author for posting his image and article that define his personality.
- Comment by netbook cases on 7/14/09 at 7:08 pm
I only wish that people when commenting would stay on topic. It’s out of respect people. Web 2.0 is about contributing not about posting a bunch of useless comments. Please be more considerate of MM. It’s a great site.
- Comment by Mark Ewans on 2/09/10 at 11:11 am
This is just another reason why I like your website. I like your style of writing you tell your stories without out sending us to 5 other sites to complete the story.
car insurance directory- Comment by Handmade rugs on 3/12/10 at 12:32 am
Cassavetes was indeed an American master. His films can be unrelenting, the scrutiny he brings to bear on his living, breathing characters absolutely ruthless and unsentimental. I think it’s wrong to say that he was looking to recreate reality in his films (that’s too facile for a man of his intellect and aesthetic maturity). But his films are filled with more real MOMENTS than anyone else. Some of the scenes and exchanges within Cassavetes’ oeuvre are so intimate, there is an uncomfortable, voyeuristic sensation one experiences while watching them. “Woman on the Verge…” is an entrancing, horrifying film. Cassavetes makes us endure the anguish Gena Rowlands’ character feels every waking moment of her life. It demands its toll, its pound of flesh…and at the end of the movie (many of his movies) there is a sense of being PURGED…
- Comment by doviz on 6/29/10 at 4:34 pm
Hi,
I really like your topic .. Topics I’ve shared your facebook .. Thank you very much again .. In addition, I gave my site a few below, if you like it, you’ll be glad to sites in and make comments Thanks admin.- Comment by sohbet on 7/05/10 at 12:01 pm
Hi,
I really like your topic .. Topics I’ve shared your facebook .. Thank you very much again- Comment by oyun oyna on 8/22/10 at 9:44 pm
Reply;I’m happy to let others make decisions for themselves, but aren’t they entitled to hear both sides? Oh, right, Scientology forbids that. Know why? Because if people heard both sides, Scientology and Inktip would never have any new members/customers.
- Comment by Crazy Vision on 9/10/11 at 12:09 pm
thanx for shring this ..
please feel free to visit my blog asalah
This story was published in the Winter 2009 MovieMaker Magazine. The headline was:
The Lost Interview: John Cassavetes / Two decades after his death, a 1985 interview with the grandfather of modern independent cinema reveals new truths
Order this issue | Subscribe to MM
posted 05.25.12
posted 05.22.12
posted 05.15.12
SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS
