Thoughts on John Cassavetes

1. The only thing I felt the TV show and the movie had in common is that they were both dramatic. The movie was dramatic because of the mother's craziness and the effect it had on her family. The TV show was dramatic because it was a mystery/detective show and I wanted to know who was going to do what to whom. This reminded me of clue: Ms. Scarlett in the library with a candelstick. The TV show was plotted out like this, as any detective show would be. The movie however unfolded slowly and I was not quite sure what she or her husband was going to do next.

2. To have a detective show, you have to follow a formula. I'm not too sure if it would be successful if you did not. Events have to happen in order to create something that needs to be found out so a formula makes perfect sense.
I think Cassavetes tried to break away from a formula in his movie so that he could leave people in a little bit of supsense as to what she was going to do next or what was going to happen to her next. Watching the events un-fold slowly was interesting and kept me waiting for the next thing to happen.

Thoughts on Meshes of the Afternoon

'Meshes of the Afternoon', was a creepy short film. I had no working speakers at the time I watched this film so I watched it silently. It was interesting and I actually enjoyed the film because I was able to make sense of the different events happening to her.

The first image I really liked was her taking the key out of her mouth. To me this symbolized her holding the key to her destiny, which ended up being death.

The second image that struck me as interesting was the grim reaper figure with a mirror face. I loved this. Its weird, creepy and sort of scary, especially if you're watching this alone, at work, with no sound. I also have an active, wild imagination so that works against me sometimes. I would be pretty freaked out if I walked up stairs here at work and found a person standing in a black cloak who turned to me and all I saw was myself in their face. I felt this symbolized herself and what she was about to do to herself.

ASSIGNMENT FOR FINAL

For your project for the final, I want you to address yourself to this question: what is the relationship of art to reality (and in particular what is the relationship of cinema to reality)? What are the uses of reality for art --in formal and/or ethical terms? Of course, "reality" can be a very ambiguous term -- sometimes when people talk about "reality" that word is a stand-in for associated words: truth, sincerity, authenticity, subjectivity. For the purposes of this project, you can define "reality" as you see fit -- but be clear about what that definition means to you.

We've seen a variety of approaches film-makers have used to attempt to bring films into closer contact with reality, among them:

• The use of improvisation
• The use of real locations rather than sets
• The use of non-professional actors (using instead people who have had experiences similar to the experiences of the characters they play)
• Giving performers leeway to draw upon their own experiences to inform the dialogue and situations of the characters they are creating
• Documentary-style filming techniques (such as handheld camera work)
• A "transparency" of style: straight-on framing, no camera flourishes, just letting events play out in front of the camera without imposing a flashy style
• "Subjective" style -- using camera and editing techniques to make the viewer feel the subjective states the characters are feeling (of course this is in direct opposition to the previous approach -- each approach serves a different idea of "realism")
• Digging into subject matter (whether types of characters, classes of people, or even difficult emotions) that are ordinarily ignored by mainstream cinema
• Doing research into a place or a social situation, and letting that research shape the story
• Letting a story follow its own organic logic, without fitting it into a formulaic structure

In your final project, you can make a broad argument about reality and cinema. Some choices for a theme could be: Does art need the "real"? Does society need art that attempts to come to grips with reality? Some of the film-makers whose work we've watched use art as a way of combating what they see as an artificial, delusional or hypocritical mainstream culture. Is this a legitimate use of cinema, or is it a misunderstanding of the social function of cinematic fictions? Do people just naturally go to the movies to escape reality, rather than to encounter it?

If questions of this type seem too abstract, you can be far more specific in your project -- for instance, focusing on a film-maker (or making a close reading of a particular film), and describing the way the relationship between film and reality is worked out -- through film technique, through script, through performance. Describe the way reality is either approached or repelled by the film-maker's choices (and perhaps it's not an either/or: for instance, "Do The Right Thing" presents an interesting hybrid -- a script and dialogue that feels very real and conversational, placed in a visual style that is very deliberately artificial).

You are not restricted to "realism" as subject matter; if the surrealistic or deliberately non-realistic films were more interesting to you, you could make your final project about non- or anti-realistic films, film-makers or strategies. This could still be framed in terms of the "real" (though not in terms of "realism"); some anti-realist film-makers address themselves to truth, using their surprising or shocking images to materialize ideas that ordinary films would ignore, suppress or repress. And yet, even beyond this, perhaps it's the very flight from reality that appeals to you -- perhaps you feel it's important that art isn't contained by reality, that art is a space for the impossible to happen, a space where a new, more flexible, more strange reality can be invented.

Again, you can take a broad approach (as indicated in some of the ideas in the previous paragraph), or you can be more focused and specific, narrowing down to a film-maker or film, and explaining what techniques and choices are used to break reality, or it re-invent it toward the film-maker's ends.

If you're most comfortable writing a paper for the final project, then write a paper -- it should be at least 2,000 words (and be prepared to post it on the blog, with accompanying stills or clips from the work or works you're writing about). However, I'd be equally (if not more) interested in a non-typical way of addressing these questions. Feel free to make a video essay (of a duration somewhere between 4 and 10 minutes), or to give an artwork response (just give me an idea of the intention and scope of your artwork by next week's class). You can talk about your own art, and the relationship it has to reality, as well as drawing on examples from other art disciplines (painting, photography, sculpture, etc) -- but I do want you to address cinema directly. You can use the films we've seen as class as examples or jumping-off points, but don't restrict yourself to those films -- I want you to cast a net that's wider than what we've watched in class. On the day of our final (scheduled for Thursday, May 5, 3-6pm), be prepared to present your paper or your artwork with the class, as an oral presentation

Instead of responding to a short film or piece of criticism for next Wednesday's class, I want you to write up a one-paragraph summary of your ideas for your final project, posted to the blog.

1.

I found the episode and the movie to be very dramatic, thus they related. Although I did not feel they truly related because of the pace. I found the pace of the episode to be rather quick; maybe because it was for television, while the movie, Women Under The Influence, was a lot slower; again maybe because it was a movie. Murder for Credit, seemed very scripted and formulated. I guess what i am trying to say is; theres a beginning scene, introduction to the murder case, the investigation, the arrest, the pleed of guilt, and the end. While Women Under the Influence seemed to have a unique plot. One thing I enjoy about the television show and the movie, they were shot beautifully, great natural light and depth of field in the camera.

2.

As I mentioned earlier, Murder for Credit, followed a formula, a beginning scene, introduction to the murder case, the investigation, the arrest, the pleed of guilt, and the end. While Women Under the Influence had a similar movie plot, although the way the movie actually played out was some unconventional in my eyes. I think having a formula for television is great! The audience can follow what is going on, if one were to change it each episode people would be lost. Where as a for a movie, people are expecting twists, although they do expect to see a beginning, middle and end. The stuff between can be all sorts of mixed up, this in my eyes makes a movie great. I’m sure Cassavetes wanted to break away from this formula after working x amount of television episodes; who wouldn’t.

Cry of Jazz

1. Cry of Jazz portrays the use of music as a political statement in a very compelling way. It directly explains the reasons jazz sounds the way it does, down to some of the more minute nuances and sub-genres, and uses frank imagery to support its case. These various elements combine to paint jazz as a whole in an admirable, disparaging, bleak, then hopeful light. It is also interesting, though, to see the case it presents for the death of jazz-while the relevance is eternal, there is only so much evolution the form itself can make before it becomes redundant and, consequently, stagnates.

2. I really enjoyed listening to the more authentic jazz throughout, as well as looking at the imagery presented. Tribal idols accented the boundless creative merits of the negro people, while Jim Crow signs and decrepit project apartments portrayed their miserable state of being in 1930s America, as well as modern America. It was interesting to see how drastically using the origins and meaning of jazz as context changed the feel of the performances, a feel further driven home by close-up editing and quick scene changes that make the frantic music seem even more frantic.

3. The film is definitely still relevant. Looking at the film, it's easy to take the points raised about the death of jazz and apply them to the ever-changing, yet ever-repeating landscape of music. Perhaps rock as a whole is dead. Perhaps pop and rap as a whole are dead. Perhaps even music itself is dead, or at least dying. Besides that, more relevance is found in looking how white corporate America takes various genres of music, absorbs them into itself, and presents its own take on them, for better or worse.

John Cassavetes

1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.

I feel that the styles were not very similar between "A Women Under the Influence" and the episode I watched. I felt like in the movie he seemed more "real" and not as much like an actor. In the TV episode he felt like he was playing a character that he didn't understand or relate to as well as the character he played in the movie. He seemed like he didn't have much life to him in the TV series compared to the movie. It was interesting to see how different he was on TV and in a movie.

2. The format of a private eye TV show has to follow a formula to some degree -- in his independent films, Cassavetes tried to break away from the idea of formula. Why do you think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula, and what do you think are some of the pros and cons of working within a formula?

I think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula because he was trying to do something different, something that would get peoples attention. If you go out of the box and create something new and exciting it is gonna generate attention. He doesn't just want to tell you a simple story and have it end there. He really wants to create art that makes you think about that you just saw. In a way he is interacting with the audience by allowing room for interpretation which in the end creates a more interesting story unlike a stock TV show. Working with a formula can be tough. Looking at the pros it can produce a a good piece of work that people will enjoy but not be flattered by. The con of using a formula is the fact that there is not much room to try different things or reach out with new ideas that some might think are crazy. It doesn't allow for as much freedom or to take as much risk unlike not using a formula.

John Cassavetes: Assignment Response

Victor G.

1. Can you detect any traces of Cassavetes style or sensibility, as it appears in "A Woman Under the Influence," in this episode? If yes, explain the commonalities you see; if no,explain the differences in tone and treatment.

There are few similarities. How calm he looked while saying his lines made it feel real. He makes a certain look when he is puzzled that I think is recognizable in both films. But there are certainly some differences, In the TV show he didn’t change the tone of his voice at all, not much emotion in it besides playing cool. In A Woman Under the Influence he is a completely different person. His character has a lot of personality and made watching him enjoyable. Seeing the different emotional roles he was playing was very believable.

2. The format of a private eye TV show has to follow a formula to some degree -- in his independent films, Cassavetes tried to break away from the idea of formula. Why do you think Cassavetes wanted to break away from formula, and what do you think are some of the pros and cons of working within a formula?

In his clip about television sucks it shows a lot about him. In how he doesn’t want to be just another TV show or film. Not just and other film where they blow your head open then that’s all. He wants to make a film that make you think and dive into the story. Pros and cons about working with a formula. Well with a formula you follow the steps and once you’re out of steps you’re done and bam a finished product similar to all others that used the same formula. Not much space to mess around with. But when you stay off the formula you get the chance to explore you thoughts and ideas. The final product may take longer without the steps to guide you but it will be your own and not just another answer to the formula.