The Hot Blog

I hope they promote this because not many people know about him or his movies.

Cassavettes more consistent than Scorsese??? No way. I don't buy that. What has Cass ever done that competes with Raging, Taxi, Casino, Mean Streets and Goodfellas?

The Criterion Collection box set of these films, plus A Constant Forge came out in September of 2004. Aren't we all a little late for the party?

I'll buy it since I've really never seen much of his work.

You don't hear him mentioned in the same breath as the others. But he is ten times better than Altman. And comparable to Scorsese.

It's not hard to be consistent when your films are in the more modest side. I appreciate what Cassavettes has done, but I'm not a fan of stripped-down cinema. I like my directors to be great visualists, and ambitious on top of it. You're a lot less likely to be consistent the higher you aim.

In the end, he's made NOTHING that touch the masterpieces of any of the directors you mentioned. In fact, I find it insulting that you would even put him among those names, most of who are gods of the medium. And since you're talking auteurs, I'm wondering if you didn't include Welles because you know he was just as consistent in his brilliance as anyone, or if film's most towering figure just slipped your mind...

Orson Welles might be the most towering figure. He makes everyone a little smaller when compared. He also took a lot of chances. Something John C didn't do as much of.

I think this is just to point people to the Criterion Collection boxset, otherwise, ???? (and all the text is from the NY Press...these aren't Dave's words, so don't blame him for the list of auteurs).

I watched A Woman Under the Influence and, heresy, only thought it was "okay." I'll give the others a shot, though. I suspect it was more "wowing" at the time of release--so many of the techniques/ideas have been incorporated into US cinema since then. Any recommendations for #2? Shadows? Faces?

i'll give this a shot and a buy. adds to the collection.

Well I've never seen any of his films and am definitely interested. I've read a bit about him and I like Gena Rowlands, so...

I won't say whether he's comparable to anyone.

Although, surely he's on the level of Scorsese when you're talking about low-budget filmmaking. Or is my reading outdated?

Further proof that, if your movies aren't backed by the Hollywood publicity machine, mass audiences are going to forget about you and not take you seriously.

Do you really think he didn't get offered any big movies?

The Hollywood publicity machine? Is that who we blame for the Ratners of the world? Get me their names and numbers.

He is far more consistent than Scorsese, but then he did only a dozen features. Scorsese - who curiosly work on the crew on Minnie & Moskowitz - would be the first to agree. Actually he has a very fine testimony on the booklet that came with the box.

Cassavetes was more consistent than Scorsese but only because Cassavetes made so many fewer movies. Even so, Cassavetes had his share of misfires and mistakes. A Woman Under the Influence and Faces rank among the very best films of the twentieth century. Husbands is the only one that still needs to be put on DVD, in my opinion. Here's how I would rank them:

ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECES
1. A Woman Under the Influence
2. Faces

GREAT FILMS
3. Shadows
4. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
5. Opening Night

FLAWED BUT FASCINATING
6. Husbands

GOOD FILMS
7. Minnie and Moskowitz
8. Love Streams

MEDIOCRE
9. Gloria
10. Too Late Blues

DOWNRIGHT BAD
11. A Child Is Waiting
12. Big Trouble

How is he more consistent than Marty?

Name me one film he has done thats even on the level of anything Marty has done.

Have you guys seen Cassavetes' films? He was a great director but his films were wildly inconsistent. Anyone who relies so much on improvisation will produce films that vary greatly. His films mixed great searing moments of truth with boring, even banal moments.

If we're talking "consistancy" then Martin Scorsese isn't exactly the man to talk about. He ain't exactly consistant himself. Sure, he's made some bloody brilliant movies but he seems to make some royal shit in there as well.

When I interviewed John Cassavetes years ago, he joked that, long after he was dead, some of the people who would still be calling him a maverick would be folks who had never actually seen any of his movies. Maybe he was right?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: