Left: "America's greatest cinematic maverick" according to Ray Carney: John Cassavetes (1929-1979)I like the fact that they are running a bit of a Cassavetes retrospective , but I'm not exactly sure if it is the best retrospective for this time. There seems to be something easy about it all, like people weren't really trying or capable of coming up with any original festival ideas. But let's consider the clientele, as profiled in Saturday's Herald: pseudo-executive types who do a spot of fashion shopping in between screenings. People who would like to see a bit of the world every year. A Cassavetes retro would be a big thing for patrons of such a radical, cutting edge festival. And an academic like Ray Carney would be appropriately far out.
Right: Professional Cassavetes Critic, Ray Carney
Actually, I think Ray is part
of the whole problem. His introduction to Shadows went twenty minutes
over time. Being a Cassavetes scholar who isn't ashamed to tell all and
sundry of his friendship with the director, who died in 1989, nor of his
exclusive little gossips and little backstage anecdotes (available in
the foyer for the anecdotally deprived), and endless accolades and
hyperboles - a tiresome list of adjectives that would leave Bruce
MacAvaney in tears, Carney made the screening feel condescendingly
academic, as though he was lecturing a bunch of toddlers.
Left: Production still from Cassavetes' first feature, Shadows (1958-59)
It's a little hard not to be disappointed after a twenty-minute indulgence of
accolades: the print was good and its genius was anticipated; it was
made on zero money and acted by friends of the director and labelled a
collective improvisation in tart reference to the free use of Mingus
jazz, and it neatly represents the bored inheritors of 50s America, but
I just couldn't enjoy myself. As an ineritor of 80s Australia these may
seem the words of a tired and jaded cinephile, patiently waiting for the
next Douglas Sirk or the new Almodovar film, whichever comes first; but
the ambience of a meek retrospective left me unsatisfied. Unfair words
from someone who rushed out before Carney indulged in a final question and answer session,
or should that be "tutorial" ? I sincerely hope one of the "writers" of
the media sponsor, the SMH, does at least a superficial analysis of the
retrospective, giving point by point anecdotes of everything that was
good and fashionable about it. At least the Herald may do justice to a retrospective which I
found lacking from the word go.
rino breebaart
comments? email the author
return to Sydney Film Festival 1999 index
read Miller's Crossing vs. Reservoir Dogs, also by rino breebaart