cirving

I would love to know people's thoughts on this John Cassavetes Criterion Box Set.

If you aren't familiar with the situation... It can be found at www.Cassavetes.com

Basically... Nick Ray is a HUGE Cassavetes fan... and has practically devoted his life to the guy and his work. He wrote books on him, and spent like 40 thousand dollars of his own money, and 17 years of his life trying to track down an alternate version of Shadows (in the meantime, by coincidence, he also found a completely different version of Faces)

Criterion sought him out to contribute to the DVD box set (a 40-page essay was gonna be included, he recorded audio commentaries, and wanted to provide the alternate versions of BOTH Faces and Shadows...which probably would've made each of them 2-disc sets probably.

Anyways, Gena Rowlands is being a jerk and won't allow Ray Carney's efforts to be used on the Criterion DVD... all the work Mr. Carney did was pulled...

So that leaves me with the question? Exactly WHAT features are gonna be on this Criterion DVD? I mean Ray Carney was the expert, so who are they going to bring in to do a commentary now... Roger Ebert? Sigh... (Hey I love his commentaries, but this is just too dissapointing)

I know Criterion hasn't really announced the features yet, but I'm wondering. Has this influenced anyone's decisions to buy it? I mean, yeah.. okay, Criterion will still probably do a pretty good job on this set because they have such high standards. And who can resist the concept of a John Cassavetes box set.... but it's just so damn frustrating that this box set could've been the BEST thing in my ENTIRE dvd collection, and now it's gonna be 10x less what it could have been (or what is was going to be).

What do ya think?

cirving

http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/shadows/chasing.shtml

FilmFanSea

I have followed this saga on Ray Carney's website and various internet discussion groups (particularly on the Criterion Forum). I should say that I know none of the parties involved. My feelings:

1. John Cassavetes entrusted his cinematic legacy to wife (and star of many of his films), Gena Rowlands. She is functioning as his proxy. Whether or not this was a wise choice or not on his part is irrelevant; those were his wishes.

2. I think it is unfair to draw comparisons between Ms. Rowlands and either Beatrice Welles (Orson's daughter) or Suzanne Lloyd (Harold's grandaughter), as some have done. I don't see any financial motives at play by Ms. Rowlands (and, for all I know, there may be none by Ms. Welles or Ms. Lloyd).

3. I respect Mr. Carney's singleminded (obsessive?) scholarly pursuits on behalf of Cassavetes. He is universally acknowleged as *the* authority on the actor & director's films. That said, he has committed the cardinal sin of the film historian: he has formed an adversarial relationship with the one person (Ms. Rowlands--the Keeper of the Flame) he truly needs on his side. By publicizing their dispute on his website, he has burned bridges beyond repair.

4. I empathize with Mr. Carney's desire to trumpet his dogged, unbelievable discovery of the first cut of Shadows, but his subsequent actions may have prevented the world from ever seeing this first cut (outside of one film festival, and the course he teaches).

5. What purpose would be served by boycotting Criterion's upcoming boxset? It would only hurt Criterion as I see it. We consumers have little hope of forcing Ms. Rowlands to relent and either: (a) Allow Carney's full participation; (b) Allow alternate cuts of Shadows and Faces to be part of the set; or (c) Both. I also think it's silly to pray for her demise, in the hopes that that may change the outcome.

6. My plan is to:
(a) Purchase the Criterion set
(b) Purchase Mr. Carney's books
(c) Enjoy both

7. In consultation with his lawyer, Mr. Carney could perhaps re-record his commentaries, and make them available on his website (either for free, or at a cost). It's not an ideal arrangement, but it's perhaps the best we can hope for.

cirving

Well spoken; thank you!

I agree, it's hard to pass up this box set, not to mention Criterion did TRY to include Ray Carney, and were dissapointed they had to pull the plug.

Still though, I wonder what supplementary material would be included now that all Carney's stuff was pulled.

moviezzz

Wow. I had no idea of this story. To be honest, reading Carney's stories about finding the two films is more interesting than the films themselves (which are interesting on a historical level, but not much else).

I understand Criterion's side of the case. If Rowlands doesn't want them seen and will sue them if they will release them, what can they do? More people know about Rowlands than Carney.

Thanks for the link!!

HistoryProf

as has been discussed at the Criterion forum...she is being a jerk according to Carney....hardly an opinion worth taking as gospel. It seems to me that she's a) acting on the wishes of Cassevetes himself, and b) taking the high road and not publicizing the dispute - something mr. Carney can not say. He is the one dragging this into the public in order to make himself look even more beleagured - if not somewhat of a martyr. But this much is obvious: the man has devoted his life to Cassevetes and has produced much good work, but in the end he kind of scares me in his obsession with the whole thing. I don't think he's very stable. He's somewhat of a megalomaniac who seems to think that HE owns Cassavetes as an intellectual property or something...it's just wierd.

slop101

It'd be nice to know Rowlands' reasons, though - it's not like Carney's work is going to detract from Cassevetes' oeuvre. All it will do is supplement and strengthen it.

ukywyldcat

I think his movies are some of the best ever, no doubt about it.

I would buy this set without even having to think about it.

W-Mans

I haven't really been keeping up with this saga, but--that said--here's my opinion:

Cassavetes was very particular when it came to editing a film. I can understand if Gena Rowlands is trying to protect the final cut of his fims, whether the new cuts are alternative versions or not. Cassavetes most likely didn't want earlier cuts to ever be seen again. Now, like I said, I'm not completely familiar with Mr. Carney's stance. Is he claiming these new cuts are Cassavetes' preferred cuts? If not, I would venture that Rowlands is merely carrying out her husband's wishes and not letting these versions see the light of day.

Now, I have corresponded with Carney in the past (he answers all his emails) and I remember discussing the "Constant Forge" documentary that aired a few years back. I felt that it, ironically, sugar-coated the life of a man who was determined to show unrelenting truth. Carney blamed this on Rowlands' desire to show John in a positive light. One of the most rivetting aspects of Carney's "Cassavetes on Cassavetes" was the portrait of Cassavetes as a fallable human, instead of the saint that the documentary portrayed him as being.

If Carney's telling the truth about Rowlands' distortion of the truth, then it is truly a crime that his commentaries will never be used.

philo

She should be thanking him for his dedication in tracking down this earlier version that might have been lost forever. It's invaluable to fans and scholars interested in the evolution of the filmmaking process by a great independent director. Instead she denies its existence then demands he turn it over and phones her lawyers to seize it from him. She's the one who has complicated this whole matter. It's a shame Criterion had to cave to her selfish demands.

ctyankee

We are only getting one side of the story. However, I disagree with the poster who said that Rowlands is taking the "high road" in all of this. Hiring lawyers to force an agenda doesn't seem like the high road to me ...

Also, calling the second release the 'final cut' is nonsense. Final cut only applies to what is theatrically released ... period which both films were. Call it final version but let's not put octane charged words like 'final cut' into this. It seems like a big enough mess as it is.

As Hitchcock said "it's just a movie" and we should all remember to keep things in perspective. To me, the issue of someone's right to work and suppression of their trade is by far the bigger issue here ... if true. If Rowlands is being a bully in this thing perhaps she deserves some public questioning. Has she responded in public to this stuff?

ThatGuamGuy

Fair point. Counter-point; if she denies that there ever was an alternate cut of either film, and threatens to sue people who claim otherwise (even though such threats run counter to history, since any number of critics who reviewed the original version can be pointed to), then what is she suing to possess, exactly? Either it exists and she wants it (in which case, you'd have to wonder why she said it didn't) or it doesn't exist and she's been truthful the whole time (in which case, you *really* have to think she's crazy, hiring lawyers to stop something imaginary).

Either way, she's clearly trying to clean up his legacy as best as possible because she knows that once a record is expunged, it's harder to ... um, re-punge? You know what I mean, fix. Whatever her motive is, we can question, but it's quite clearly *not* based on wanting the most accurate portrayal. Thus, if one actually feels Cassavetes films are historically important (which, assumably, she herself does), they would be entirely unable to support her in this matter.

On top of that, I don't think she has a legal leg to stand on (even beyond her own public denial of the existence of the things she's demanding); any ownership Cassavetes might have had of that print of 'Shadows' was lost when it was left on the subway. (As for 'Faces', I'd assume that it belonged to the Library of Congress once it was donated, right?) She may well have an intellectual right to suppress it for the length of the copyright (assuming it was copyrighted), but it's not her print to sieze.

Richard Malloy

Anybody here ever read Nabokov's "Pale Fire"? It's easily one of his finest novels (which is saying a mouthful), and ever since I became aware of this whole controversy I can't help but think of that book.

I know that's sorta cryptic just hanging out there without exegesis, so just trust me and read it if you never have!

HistoryProf

who says that GR is denying it's existence? Carney? We can hardly take that at face value....she obviously acknowledges the existence of the early version, but she is doing the bidding of Cassavetes and keeping it from being released....He wanted the final cut to be THE cut....seems pretty simple to me....

Rivero

No Killing of a Chinese Bookie? No sale.

cokeguy

Criterion is preparing a boxed set of five films by legendary American independent John Cassavetes. In addition to new high-definition transfers of Shadows, Faces, A Woman Under the Influence, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie and Opening Night, the set will include Charles Kiselyak’s award-winning 200 minute documentary, A Constant Forge, along with exclusive new interviews with Cassavetes collaborators Gena Rowlands, Peter Falk, Ben Gazzara, Seymour Cassel, Lelia Goldoni, and others. The set is slated for fall release. Watch this space for more details.

Dan

philo

I suspect this has more to do with money or most likely personal grievances with Ray Carney than it does with protecting a cinematic legacy. The discovered film is apparently two thirds different from the current version and there is no claim that it should replace the 1959 release.

When an early sketch by Da Vinci or manuscript of Beethoven is discovered do people throw it out because its not the final work of art? To just cast this film aside is to ignore the great potential for insight into this filmmaker. I hope some sort of arrangement between the two parties is worked out. Only time will tell.