'The Killing of a Chinese Bookie' (1976)
The Killing of a Chinese Bookie is a 1976 movie written and directed by John Cassavetes. The story follows Cosmo Vitteli (portrayed by Ben Gazzara), depicting his life as a night club owner as his gambling addiction seems to spiral out of control. To salvage his debts, he is asked to kill a chinese bookie, who turns out to be one of the most important figures in the mafia world of California. After learning he has been set up, he understand that his life is then in danger.
Before commenting specifically on the movie, I think it's best to offer some background on Cassavetes. He is considered one of the pioneers of independent cinema in America. Born in New York, Greek-American, he confessed his dream of wanting to be an actor to his parents. He was expelled from college due to his lack of academic progress. In 1950, however, he graduated in the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After several years as a theatre and television actor, he directed his first movie in 'Shadows' (1959), funding the movie with his own money, as well as with help from family and friends. After that, he directed several movies and TV episodes that were poorly received until he wrote and directed 'Faces' (1968), which received three Academy nominations. This movie was made mostly in Cassavetes home, taking several years to make, which helps us understand his drive to make movie; a desire that would help him navigate financial or production difficulties. To me, 'A Woman Under the Influence', made in 1974, is his finest achievement, which he financed mortaging his own house.
He was known for portraying characters with complex motivations, with fascinating psychological profiles. Often, he would employ fairly unknown actors (it is not the case in this movie), which is something that I have always loved (it is the same with Bresson, or Italian Neorealists such as De Sica). One thing that, and I add this as an attachment, can be achieved by casting non-famous actors is that it allows the spectator to be sumerged more easily into a movie, and it might be easier for the spectator to forget he is watching actors in a screen if he has never seen the face of those actors in other movies. His goal was never to please the audience (not if it meant compromising what he wanted to say with a movie). He once said: "I don't care about being on top. I just make movies for a few suckers in the audience, anyway." He rejected commecialism in movies, aspiring (and achieving) to make personal movies: "Commercial movies have no feeling, no sensitivity. Most people tell me people won't understand films with feeling." He allowed his actors to improvise, althought his movies were carefully scripted. Regarding acting and the creation of a movie, he underlined this: "I'm a great believer in spontaneity because I think planning is the most destructive thing in the world."
Now, back to The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. The story is quite interesting, on paper. But I think the movie puts no emphasis on the story itself and more in the performances, specially with Ben Gazzara. Just by the plot, one would expect a classic noir film. But the movie, Cassavetes being who he is, becomes a study of Cosmo, the main character. During the later part of the movie, the emphasis shifts to plot development, but the pace feels a bit odd throughout the movie. The story is, in my opinion, too interesting to use so much time on the study of the main character. But then, I guess, it would not be a Cassavetes film. Nonetheless, it still is probably stylistically one of the most unconventional compared to the rest of his work.
Upon his realease, the reviews were mixted. Vincent Canby, from the New York Times, wrote in 1976: "The story doesn't always make sense, but supporters of Mr. Cassavetes can argue that narrative coherence is not his bag. My suspicion is that either the film has been sloppily edited or that the director has no film idea on how to film the sort of sequences in which one actor with a gun stalks another actor with a gun in a dark garage. In the trade this is known as an action sequence and it quickly becomes rather too existential if you can't figure out who is stalking whom, or why."
The interest in his characters emotions can be clearly observed by the use of extremes close ups. Cassavetes is more interested in the crudeness of a face than in creating visually atractive compositions. These deep focus on faces and expressions, often fixing the camera on one face and staying there, zooming, oblivious to the rest of the room, recording the small nuances and fluctuations in its expressions, gives the audience a more in-depth and intimate portrait of what the character is feeling. Often, it doesn't matter that the character is not an active protagonist in the scene, or that the action or the conversation is located somewhere else in the room. The camera keeps its focus, interested in the reaction to the rest of the world. It helps, I think, enter the character's reality. It is common, too, that the close ups emphasize emotional turmoil.
The shots feel spontaneous, and not planned, as a reflection of the experience of reality, rather than trying to create a new, calculated set of images for the spectator. This, and the endogenous music, draws the spectator to the reality of the world portrayed in the screen.
Of course, the shots feel spontaneous because they mostly were. The film ows a lot to Gazzara's acting. Joshua Brunsting, from Criterion Cast, writes (about Gazzara): "Turning in yet another top notch performance in what is very much a definitively improvisational picture from Cassavetes. As with many of the director’s films, the script is ostensibly nothing more than a series of outlines, and while that is felt in many ways here, Gazzara’s performance is so wonderfully full of vitality and life that it truly turns the film into what looks."
Another element to the character study is Cassavetes insistence on showing the audience the life and experience of the protagonist. This can be taxing on the spectator, that has to endure purposefully long scenes, scenes which show apparently (or not) useless information, that strech for longer than in conventional movies, which are included to allow for the spectator to experience as close as possible the life of Cosmo, thus making it possible for the spectator to delve into the exploration into a man's psychological state. We see what he sees (including dreadful shows in his nightclub) and understand his obsession in controlling his own corner of the world as everything around him seems to spiral out of control (as exemplified by his telephone call to make sure everything goes according to plan in his night club moments before carrying out a hit, or returning to his nightclub when he has been shot and is being persecuted). Something else that puts the audience in the same world as the protagonist is, as indicated earlier, the lack of exogenous music. There's music, but it is music that Cosmo can also hear. In the sequence showing the killing of the Chinese mafia boss or in the sequence when he is being chased, there is no tense music accompanying the action, making it oddly realistic.
This movie is strange, it feels off at times, but it is clearly important in Cassavetes work. He said once: "I won't call my work entertainment. It's exploring. It's asking questions of people, constantly. 'How much do you feel? How much do you know? Are you aware of this? Can you cope with this?' A good movie will ask you questions you don't already know the answers to. Why would I want to make a film about something I already understand?"
It is certainly a movie more explorative than it is entertaining. As a note, I would like to add that althought I value the importance of this film in Cassavetes ouvre, I didn’t particularly love it. It feels ironic, thus, that I have selected it to do my first movie review. I know it is a weak review. It is my first, but I guess that doesn’t justify it. I understand nothing was said in this review that wasn’t blatantly obvious to any viewer. It is just an attempt to practise, I guess.
Sources used:
"Screen: 'Chinese Bookie':Cassavetes Is Director of Bland Effort", Vincent Canby
"Joshua Reviews John Cassavetes' The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", Joshua Brunsting
"John Cassavetes", Wikipedia
Before commenting specifically on the movie, I think it's best to offer some background on Cassavetes. He is considered one of the pioneers of independent cinema in America. Born in New York, Greek-American, he confessed his dream of wanting to be an actor to his parents. He was expelled from college due to his lack of academic progress. In 1950, however, he graduated in the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. After several years as a theatre and television actor, he directed his first movie in 'Shadows' (1959), funding the movie with his own money, as well as with help from family and friends. After that, he directed several movies and TV episodes that were poorly received until he wrote and directed 'Faces' (1968), which received three Academy nominations. This movie was made mostly in Cassavetes home, taking several years to make, which helps us understand his drive to make movie; a desire that would help him navigate financial or production difficulties. To me, 'A Woman Under the Influence', made in 1974, is his finest achievement, which he financed mortaging his own house.
He was known for portraying characters with complex motivations, with fascinating psychological profiles. Often, he would employ fairly unknown actors (it is not the case in this movie), which is something that I have always loved (it is the same with Bresson, or Italian Neorealists such as De Sica). One thing that, and I add this as an attachment, can be achieved by casting non-famous actors is that it allows the spectator to be sumerged more easily into a movie, and it might be easier for the spectator to forget he is watching actors in a screen if he has never seen the face of those actors in other movies. His goal was never to please the audience (not if it meant compromising what he wanted to say with a movie). He once said: "I don't care about being on top. I just make movies for a few suckers in the audience, anyway." He rejected commecialism in movies, aspiring (and achieving) to make personal movies: "Commercial movies have no feeling, no sensitivity. Most people tell me people won't understand films with feeling." He allowed his actors to improvise, althought his movies were carefully scripted. Regarding acting and the creation of a movie, he underlined this: "I'm a great believer in spontaneity because I think planning is the most destructive thing in the world."
Now, back to The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. The story is quite interesting, on paper. But I think the movie puts no emphasis on the story itself and more in the performances, specially with Ben Gazzara. Just by the plot, one would expect a classic noir film. But the movie, Cassavetes being who he is, becomes a study of Cosmo, the main character. During the later part of the movie, the emphasis shifts to plot development, but the pace feels a bit odd throughout the movie. The story is, in my opinion, too interesting to use so much time on the study of the main character. But then, I guess, it would not be a Cassavetes film. Nonetheless, it still is probably stylistically one of the most unconventional compared to the rest of his work.
Upon his realease, the reviews were mixted. Vincent Canby, from the New York Times, wrote in 1976: "The story doesn't always make sense, but supporters of Mr. Cassavetes can argue that narrative coherence is not his bag. My suspicion is that either the film has been sloppily edited or that the director has no film idea on how to film the sort of sequences in which one actor with a gun stalks another actor with a gun in a dark garage. In the trade this is known as an action sequence and it quickly becomes rather too existential if you can't figure out who is stalking whom, or why."
The interest in his characters emotions can be clearly observed by the use of extremes close ups. Cassavetes is more interested in the crudeness of a face than in creating visually atractive compositions. These deep focus on faces and expressions, often fixing the camera on one face and staying there, zooming, oblivious to the rest of the room, recording the small nuances and fluctuations in its expressions, gives the audience a more in-depth and intimate portrait of what the character is feeling. Often, it doesn't matter that the character is not an active protagonist in the scene, or that the action or the conversation is located somewhere else in the room. The camera keeps its focus, interested in the reaction to the rest of the world. It helps, I think, enter the character's reality. It is common, too, that the close ups emphasize emotional turmoil.
The shots feel spontaneous, and not planned, as a reflection of the experience of reality, rather than trying to create a new, calculated set of images for the spectator. This, and the endogenous music, draws the spectator to the reality of the world portrayed in the screen.
Of course, the shots feel spontaneous because they mostly were. The film ows a lot to Gazzara's acting. Joshua Brunsting, from Criterion Cast, writes (about Gazzara): "Turning in yet another top notch performance in what is very much a definitively improvisational picture from Cassavetes. As with many of the director’s films, the script is ostensibly nothing more than a series of outlines, and while that is felt in many ways here, Gazzara’s performance is so wonderfully full of vitality and life that it truly turns the film into what looks."
Another element to the character study is Cassavetes insistence on showing the audience the life and experience of the protagonist. This can be taxing on the spectator, that has to endure purposefully long scenes, scenes which show apparently (or not) useless information, that strech for longer than in conventional movies, which are included to allow for the spectator to experience as close as possible the life of Cosmo, thus making it possible for the spectator to delve into the exploration into a man's psychological state. We see what he sees (including dreadful shows in his nightclub) and understand his obsession in controlling his own corner of the world as everything around him seems to spiral out of control (as exemplified by his telephone call to make sure everything goes according to plan in his night club moments before carrying out a hit, or returning to his nightclub when he has been shot and is being persecuted). Something else that puts the audience in the same world as the protagonist is, as indicated earlier, the lack of exogenous music. There's music, but it is music that Cosmo can also hear. In the sequence showing the killing of the Chinese mafia boss or in the sequence when he is being chased, there is no tense music accompanying the action, making it oddly realistic.
This movie is strange, it feels off at times, but it is clearly important in Cassavetes work. He said once: "I won't call my work entertainment. It's exploring. It's asking questions of people, constantly. 'How much do you feel? How much do you know? Are you aware of this? Can you cope with this?' A good movie will ask you questions you don't already know the answers to. Why would I want to make a film about something I already understand?"
It is certainly a movie more explorative than it is entertaining. As a note, I would like to add that althought I value the importance of this film in Cassavetes ouvre, I didn’t particularly love it. It feels ironic, thus, that I have selected it to do my first movie review. I know it is a weak review. It is my first, but I guess that doesn’t justify it. I understand nothing was said in this review that wasn’t blatantly obvious to any viewer. It is just an attempt to practise, I guess.
Sources used:
"Screen: 'Chinese Bookie':Cassavetes Is Director of Bland Effort", Vincent Canby
"Joshua Reviews John Cassavetes' The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", Joshua Brunsting
"John Cassavetes", Wikipedia
Comments
Post a Comment