Faces (John Cassavetes)
There is something Warholian about “Faces”- the actors Cassavetes chose are a unique ensemble. He mixes the classically beautiful with the traditionally unconventional. He presents every character for his/her unparalleled attributes, giving all of them close up shots, or profile shots. Warhol’s films never had much dialogue, if any. I like the blend of camera snap shots over extended erratic dialogue. I got this constant feeling, like I was flipping through a talking magazine. The conversations could work as short magazine articles, and the acting performances are alive and animated much like a play. No sequence feels like it could be replicated. The overall vibe of the film is improvisation, but anyone who's read about Cassavetes' methods knows all of the dialogue was scripted. If this is all the workings of John Cassavetes, he was deliberately breaking the rules of screenwriting, with no 3 act structure, and very little structure to grab onto other than the ending of a relationship, or 24 hours in the life of a man and a woman. I like that the stories run aimlessly. Every word is totally unexpected, and nothing is explained. We don’t know why Forst wants to leave his wife. It happens so abruptly with little or no emotion. The thing that makes these characters interesting is their unexpected conversations. Sometimes, I felt the scenes were so realistic, I questioned whether this is reality captured on film. Do we really talk like this? Sporadic and blurting? I think it’s a masterpiece of cinema that Cassavetes could be so self-indulgent and NOT turn the viewer off. I found the film to be very thought provoking and self reflective, whether that was Cassavetes intention or not. The title- “Faces” almost suggests he was aware of this appeal, and audience reaction, that we would watch everyday life on film, then question ourselves. “Faces” is a classic example of Jean-Luc Godard’s infamous quote- “nevermind the story, what’s the film about?” In a way, the dialogue is irrelevant, and it’s the movement of the camera on each actor that affects the viewer. This is a movie about style over substance. After exploring different mediums through “Shadows” to “A child is waiting”, I think Cassavetes found his signature style in “Faces”. His films after, would keep that insignificant-to-a-plot drama, but within the lives of different characters in different culture settings (i.e. “woman under the influence”, “killing of a chinese bookie”). But he went for broke with the exploration of abstract cinema with “Faces”. It’s a complete turn around from his past movies, and I think this is the 1st film he felt he got right.
It’s wonderful that this movie was nominated for awards, and now recognized as a classic, as weird and unnerving as it may be. He completely eliminates the need for conclusion or resolution, which would lead to so many great films like this. Funny though, I think if I brought this script to a screenwriting class, I’d get an F! But Cassavetes already field-tested commercial cinema and proved he has an ideology of what he wants, that he’s in control of whatever narrative mayhem is on screen. The more I watch “Faces”, the more I get it. And my overall comment on this film, is it’s WAY ahead of it’s time! I can’t think of any other films around 1968 that move this way. It’s hyper-realistic and natural, everything movies of that era weren’t supposed to be.
Comments
Post a Comment