Ten years later, after their brilliant debut, which was the film Shadow, Cassavetes and his wife Gina Rowlands funneled the money earned from their acting fees to fund a dream that Hollywood accountants said could not be realized. One of them told Cassavetes, “You can’t build a rocket ship to the moon in your garage.” The artist who struggled with the system gained genuine independence—eventually he began distributing his films himself—though the often ruined director admitted that the process required a “deep disrespect for money.” He won. The dream came true. John Cassavetes' second independent film, Faces, went to the court of critics and audiences and did not disappoint.
The shooting took 8 months and 2 years to edit. Cassavetes encouraged his actors to freely interpret the emotions suggested in his script, resulting in a piece that was spontaneous in form and dramatic in content. Distrusting a fixed style, Cassavetes' paintings break the elegant framing and smooth pace of Hollywood. His films are often mistaken for improvisational, but they are usually shot according to exact scenarios with rough camera technique and long plans.
This work does not so much violate the rules of traditional studio filmmaking as completely ignores them. There are no frames around what is happening, nor any representations of the characters for the sake of the audience. We immerse ourselves in the action with a 16mm handheld camera that sways and wriggles like a prize fighter around performers in black and white. The amorphous scenes stretch into seeming eternity, following the characters' sharp mood swings from noisy, back-slapping cordiality to frighteningly sudden bursts of hostility. There are elements of the French New Wave here, but even for an arthouse it was unusually free, like Ingmar Bergman's out-of-control household drama.
This is an incredible film about an older generation facing the new freedoms of the 1960s, torn from the consumer comfort that used to keep the main characters from the fundamental emptiness of their lives. "Faces" show how an alcohol-soaked night can turn upside down, and how insights experienced after midnight often seem empty and silly the next morning. If none of the people here find satisfaction, it is because what they are looking for is not love, but youth, gone forever.
The film by John Cassavetes “Faces” / Faces, 1968, shot in the style of Cinéma vérité (film truth), tells a seemingly quite banal story of not very successful family relationships. There will be spoilers all over. Richard Forst (John Marley) and his wife Maria have lived together for 14 years, he is a film distributor, she is a bored housewife. Once after another viewing, Richard, along with his friend Freddie (Fred Draper) went to a pretty girl on a call Jenny (Gina Rowlands). Being no longer very young men, they were furious and broke off, as they say, in full, and it was noticeable that Jenny clearly sympathizes with Richard, and he her. After coming home and a little fooling around, he suddenly told his wife that he wanted to divorce and went to meet with Jenny, who, however, did not come to the bar, he went to her house, and there was already her friend and other customers. After some clarification, the others left, and Richard stayed there for the night. His wife Maria also did not waste time, along with her three friends she went to some club, where they met with a rather windy guy Chet (Seymour Cassel), who tried to dance with Maria, she evaded, unlike her friend, who literally hung on him, after which they all went to Maria’s house. There was not so much fun, there were all sorts of conversations in which the tops of some problems appeared. In the end, Chet spent the night with Maria, and the next morning found that she tried to commit suicide, he managed to bring her to life, and then inappropriately and the husband came in a good mood, although the day before he threatened not to come again. The couple managed to slip out the window, and the couple remained in the house. No one knows how it ends. The complicated thing is family life. The original version of the film was 183 minutes long, then Cassavetes shortened it to 130 minutes (I was watching this version), but later another version was discovered, the film is listed on the National Film Registry as "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant." Has several prestigious nominations, including three Oscars, as well as several awards. So if you like Cassavetes movies, you should watch this one.
Come on, Billie-May
Make it any day...
Weeping Lynn Carlin, just about to get away from a terrible attack and regained consciousness. Seymour Cassel zealously jumping on the bed or hastily falling out of the window. John Marley exquisitely grooms young Gina Rowlands. These are all portraits of people, not shadows. Here's the sweet life of Sixties America. The camera is shaking again. She seems to follow the actor, trying to catch his every emotion. The predominance of close-ups and no static angles - everything will be dynamic here. A lot of utilitarian dialogues in which a simple narrative is drowning. Everyday life eats up the classic “tragedy”, offering something qualitatively new – a realism close to the chronicle. However, Cassavetes has already successfully tried all this in “Shadows” and in his other films. This time, it only consolidates the already conquered heights.
As before, the actors at Cassavetes give everything. There are no spectacular solos. Even in the background, the actors are in tone, live the role. No drama. Although, unlike the first three films, this time the actors of Cassavetes allow themselves much more mannerism. They allow themselves a little even to curve, which, however, brings the ribbon lightness. The film is carried by – easily and effortlessly, as if “about nothing”. The topic raised is certainly universal.
Divorce and infidelity are much more understandable to the general public than the themes of John’s previous films (sick children, reverse racism). The husband, carried away by the impulse, declares a divorce and two adults decide to spend several evenings freely. Do you need details? Probably not. Their main face, vanity and trifling are assumed initially ( young mistress vs. young lover). In general, it seemed to me that in this tape Cassavetis enters the territory of Bergman and unfolds everything there in its style: a nonlinear structure, detailed attention to both “empty” conversations and the most intimate moments, an almost documentary desire to penetrate the very essence of the characters showing only the superficial part. And it's always great. At least the first three films in Cassavetes seemed to me many times more powerful.
...Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers
John Cassavetes, one of the main founders of American independent cinema, in “Faces”, probably worked best for the entire biography of the director, collected independently from the grains of acting fees. There is a complete basic set - and ragged editing, and shooting from hand, and the confrontation of close-ups with each other, and a stupid, worn-out morality that crumbles and crumbles through the inadequacy of the characters, their simultaneous openness in search of freedom and isolation in committed confessions.
“Faces” is an outrageous version of the set of all kinds of creative materials of the “French New Wave”, reworked by Cassavetes with infinite enthusiasm, since he occupied a niche in the dynamics of movements and their incoherence, but it will lead to the weight of viewing, from which you get tired in the first half hour after the start, apparently not. There are traditional men and women in conflict, and the dialectic of their relationship is nothing more than a cover for their own cover. Heroes laugh here almost more often than running from corner to corner. Is it not a screen, is it not a safety cushion - to pretend laughter to not accept the crisis?
As befits the heroes, they run to be forgotten in other, simpler people, who in general serve for the illusion of this forgetfulness. At the same time, their haste leads to root stupidity - each scene consists of pretentious behavior of the characters, deliberate theatricality of their actions and inconsistency of the current turns. Heroes have nowhere else to stay - from year to year, society offers them two ways of action - alcohol and adultery, to meet which they rush, having no other chance of salvation. “Faces” is the anthem of a “ridiculous” tragedy, where in essence only fatigue from each other leads the whole surrounding world into instability and chaos. If you look only at the scene of the conversation of spouses in the kitchen, where there is a search for the reasons for the lack of love intimacy, you can see how long the mating period causes misunderstanding of the characters as each other and themselves, where to escape is the best solution for stopping self-torture.
Discarding the technical details and elements, with the same pseudo-destruction of the fourth wall or alternating overlay of close plans, we can confidently say that this film is about psychology, or rather, about the absence of the only true criteria for the psychological state of a person in the field of building a family and preserving it not only as a cell of society, but also as a connection of understanding between two personalities. And living feelings that actually don't exist. About the motor emptiness of these feelings.
In a nutshell, we see the theater caught on camera. The actors are most likely professional theatrical celebrities who ate more than one dog on different theater stages. They act out all emotions wonderfully – crying, laughing, suffering and even overplaying places, which really gives us a sense of fake reality. Dialogues are good, witty, but too long and boring.
This is how the spinning theater scene appears, which shows us changing apartment locations, diluted with inserts from music and dance clubs.
Watching the film in 2014, it seems that this language is outdated and is now being shot in a different way. Since the 70s of the last century, European directors quietly made successful films with non-professional actors and people far from art, who nevertheless filled the film with the necessary existence, set the right tone. Cinematography in our time is more sophisticated, emotional and thoughtful (the films of Bell Tara or Germanics).
Examples of a new movie - "Delta" Mundrutso or "Schultes" Bakuradze and there are many more masterpieces.
Although the last scenes when the gigolo Chet appears (I think he was played by the producer of the film) very much liked, especially his flirtation with an elderly cheerful lady - their tandem "pulls" the whole film. With humor, Casavetis is in perfect order.
My friends liked the movie, who love good old Soviet films. In this regard, I would like to recommend to fans of this genre, in my opinion, a more successful version - the TV show "The village Stepanchikovo and its inhabitants" shot by Dostoevsky, where Durov chicly plays the role of Thomas Opiskin.
This is my first encounter with Cassavetes-director. He is considered one of America’s leading independent authors. Being a famous actor, he considered directing his main business and spent his own money on creating films.
This picture has a talking name "Faces". The structure of the film is torn, in fact "Faces" is broken into several parts. But the plot fades into the background. What heroes say and do is unimportant, you can’t believe it. You can only trust faces. The director with the cameraman is filmed in a pseudo-documentary style, the camera constantly shoots large faces of the characters, and only by the expressions of their faces you can understand what these people feel.
The story revolves around an ageing couple. They're in crisis. A husband (a big businessman) announces that he is leaving his wife. He's on his way to a young prostitute. The wife also meets a young man. The plot itself is not very interesting, the director’s approach is interesting. The actors had a hard time, but they did. Everyone is playing very well.
Which ultimately... The movie has a lot of advantages, but somehow it didn’t really hook me. Therefore
"Let's go to the movies, Bergman is shown there today".
- I don't want to get upset today!
John Cassavetes's Faces (1968) would now be instantly called the "art house of the art house" and, taking into account the country, would fall into half the apple. One of the most popular and technical pictures of the not popular American actor-director John Cassavetes, is an American neck of many TOP European directors 50-60, which is not hidden by the presence of obvious pointers. Star-striped cocktail gives this unique ability, without creating copies of rewright (or the tangible presence of Warhol(?)), while introducing a special spray of his own style. Bergman from Cassavetes, of course, did not come out, but here Romer-Godard Truffaut and echoes of some eminent Italians flash.
The film, which begins and ends with a staircase, with virtually no plot, shows an excerpt from the life of a multi-age couple and their fading relationship. The gender separation of “walking” shows how a man rushes towards the first easily accessible woman, ready to do anything for one single night, while a woman, with the first stranger, starts a new “love”, instantly and portionwise weaving drama.
“Faces” are good because all emotions are transmitted in the traditions of silent cinema – through faces (logically), and all dialogues are mediocre and set only the plot outline. There is a lot of laughter in the picture, behind which the characters so carefully try to hide their feelings, turning into a scandal or tears and vice versa, and thanks to super-close plans, and the brilliant play of the actors, the viewer is given the opportunity to independently determine the sincerity of this emotion and see the true feelings.
There are no pros without cons. Sumburity of the plot, and a similar change of frames multiplied by timekeeping - this is what I personally, after some time, began to kill interest, bringing a special flavor of "Warhol" in what is happening. At a certain point, I began to think that I was watching not Cassavetes, but an unreleased project “Blink” by the famous New York blonde.
But, nevertheless, “Faces” – not to say that brilliant (due to its secondary nature), but very high-quality work that left a significant mark in the history of American cinema and deserves special attention.
It is known that the actor John Cassavetes was so passionate about directing that his fees spent on filming full-length films that were at odds with the generally accepted at the time vision of what a movie should be. Whether it was an expensive hobby or Cassavetes knew exactly what he was doing, this popular actor and marginal director was a discovery not for the film industry but for the art of the same name. In the person of Cassavetes, America received one of its most significant authors, giving way to independent cinema.
His fourth film “Faces” tells the story of an aging couple who, in search of new sensations, wander in different directions and settle on alcoholic aftercare. Weary of family life, Richard asks for a divorce from his wife Maria and is about to leave for a young prostitute who is "smarter than she seems." In upset feelings, Maria goes with her friends to the club and shoots an equally young stallion. Dancing, fun and laughter could last until the morning, but the camera now and then grabs the faces of heroes filled with suffering, and at some point this suffering breaks out, through the screen.
Describing “Faces” seems like a difficult task. This is a fairly avant-garde film, the fabric of the narrative of which is a series of parties and a stream of barely coherent speech. And the plot unfolds on two levels at once: the level of actions of the characters and the level of expression of their faces. The first level is as fake as possible. It is so false that the viewer is tired of the meaninglessness of what is happening. Alcohol is pouring, not thinking to end until the very end, and perhaps this plot layer could exist on its own, however, the faces of the characters speak their truth, which gradually, drop by drop, captures space on the screen. And it's not a figure of speech. Cassavetes is incredibly successful in verbalizing facial expressions. Using the technique of improvisation on the set, he achieves the most authentic emotions, which, when inserted into a feature film, form a gap between the falsehood of even good acting and the truth of life. The effect is deafening. You watch as a simple hidden human pain for an hour and a half accumulates and suddenly bursts. Here, even if you previously watched the film through the force, you do not want to, and cling to the screen.
There are no happy or at least somewhat satisfied people here, despite their considerable fortunes. Behind every chopped phrase in the dialogue lies a frustration. You can guess what's wrong. For example, a woman over forty refuses to dance with a young guy, but she is still persuaded. She makes a couple of awkward moves and he makes a comment or laughs. It was obvious from the very beginning that the woman was very ashamed of her age and inability to dance, but suddenly she began to talk about it, almost screaming, and this sincerity became uncomfortable. When faces, not masks, start talking, it's scary. It is frightening because the character is close to the viewer, because the gap between the mask and the face that Cassavetes opens is definitely there for every person, but no one can look at themselves from the outside at this moment of truth. To make matters worse, no one will answer the question at what point your face turns you in.
This is a picture of vulnerability and a life that was wasted. The misfortune of everyday life and laughter as an attempt to conceal it. Cassavetes commits a real directorial mystery and with stroboscopes pulls this misfortune out. Masks fall and a human abyss opens beneath them.
The film crew gathers to view the assembled picture. The lights go out, the screen lights up and the movie begins. We will join this action.
Two aging ladies meet in a cafe with a girl not of the first freshness, but still not bad herself and decide to continue the banquet at her house. Starting with jokes, laughter and memories of the joint school years of friends, the party smoothly slid into a banal confrontation between two males for the right to own a single female, which eventually led to a quarrel between friends. They leave, but later Richard returns, having previously informed his wife of his intention to divorce.
John Marlin, who later starred in The Godfather, plays Richard. His hero is the chairman of the board of directors of a large financial and insurance company. A person is witty, sometimes sarcastic, with a firm, decisive character. He is fed up with family ties, but there is nowhere to go, because everything is limited to infrequent cheating, only adding problems to an already complicated relationship.
Lynn Carly played Mary, Richard's wife. She's younger than her husband. Nothing is said about her occupation. They probably don't exist. Not particularly upset by the news of the divorce, she finds no other way out than to change the same evening with a stranger from a nightclub.
Gina Rowlands, the wife of John Cassavetes, played the lonely woman Richard left for, but when he came to her, he discovered another campaign. She explained that she was afraid to sleep alone.
An important role in the film is given to laughter. It is very much, sometimes almost hysterical, but almost always ends in tears. Heroes try to hide from problems behind the mask of laughter, but thanks to the work of the operator, we constantly see faces close-up. It is impossible to hide true emotions. Facial expressions give off.
John Cassavetes in the film adaptation of his play tells about marital relations in families with many years of experience. When sex has become a routine habit, but to confirm their viability need periodic forays to the left, and some enough rumors about their amorous adventures, which is brilliantly shown in one of the scenes.
A real life story, author's film at its best.