Independent filmmaking at its roots was not as refined and polished as independent films are considered to be today (at least for the mainstream independent films). John Cassavetes has been labeled the godfather of independent films, taking control of producing, directing and writing his films. His second independent film, 1968's Faces, is by no means a conventional, constrained, studio movie. The basis of the movie is rooted in the decade's sexual revolution - both gender-wise and intercourse-wise.
Plot is hardly the focus in the movie. The main conflict dealt with the modern marriage in all of its dissatisfied glory. Sub-plots involving prostitutes and hate sex merely emphasize the disillusion of the American love life. Long scenes, albeit well-directed long scenes, are the stylistic focal point of the film, along with interesting camera work. Appropriate use of tracking shots and close-ups gave the movie a realist tone, as if the camera were simply an observer in a room. Interestingly enough, the movie's most memorable dialogue is no dialogue at all, but in fact laughter. Laughter and jokes reign dominant over most scenes. This is significant since many of the scenes are also realizations about a failed or tainted love life. Although the movie rivals any other in seemingly pointless and excessively long takes, the character development gets payed special attention.
Yes folks, the heroic prostitute is back and ready to rule the independent scene! Jeannie, played by Cassavete's wife Gena Rowland, juggles cardinal sin with true love when she meets Richard, a clearly older, married man seeking another outlet for love outside of his faithful wife. Although their relationship should be discredited, it is almost impossible not to feel sympathy for Jeannie. Obviously certain shots are manipulated in order for the audience to feel sympathy for the otherwise distasteful couple, but it reflects a skewed mentality birthed during this time. Sacred vows were no longer sacred as divorce gained popularity. Infidelity was not as taboo as before. Liberation was not limited to the mind, but also to the pants.
Regardless of the implications of the movie, one theme remained the most obvious: realizing and understanding unhappiness is the most satisfaction a person can get. No matter how much effort is put into "feeling better", there will always be discontent. It's what you do after you realize you're unhappiness that matters. Grim, yet realistic.
4 comments:
I am curious. I do feel like Jeannie is a character to be sympathetic with, but it seems like you almost pity her.
I personally thought that it was a wise move by Cassavetes not to get the viewer feeling extremely emotionally sad for Jeannie. I mean the 'wronged prostitute vs. men' is not that original of a story. Maybe I'm just not understanding this title of the first independent filmmaker?
I love your opening statement about how independent films are a little more "polished" and "refined", I think that is a good way to put it, and like you said-at least for the mainstream independent films. I also really liked how you titled the main plot conflict: "modern marriage in all of its dissatisfied glory". That is so true. I always feel like when I watch movies either made or set in the 60s every family and marrried couple is so "happy/dandy/chipper" 24/7, which, most families are not like that. Especially now a days the definition of family has really changed, and the meaning of marraige and happiness. So, props to your post.
The thing that you said about laughter dominating the conversation is a very key part of the movie in my mind. I agree that the movie is an examination of the radically different expectations for social situations in the 1960s in contrast to the 40s or 50s. I think that Cassevetes is trying to point out how people go off the deep end when they finally find an outlet for their pent up social/sexual tensions. There is something very real about how the characters give up on saying anything respectable or decent and resort to laughter. I am probably misreading Cassevetes (hard to avoid) but i think he may be condoning the let loose and have fun mentality that replaced the rigid social expectations of the early decades. If thats what he's playing at, i think its cool.
And as for the whole pitying the hooker, i dont think that cassevetes necessarily provides the viewer with an inherently right or wrong opinion of her (in this, or any case), so its up to the viewer to decide what they think of her. To say that feeling a certain way about her is right or wrong is missing the point of Cassevetes work.
Post a Comment