John Cassavetes directed A Woman Under the Influence in 1973. He was born in New York on December 9th in 1929, the son of Greek immigrants. He went to school at the New York Academy of Dramatic Arts and graduated in 1953. After completing school and having a tough time trying to find work on Broadway he went on starting in roles on television and then into some films. “Cassavetes still refers to himself as a “professional” actor and an “amateur” director, as most of his films have been financed by his acting career.” (Jacobs) He acted films such as Rosemary’s Baby and The Fury.(Erickson) In the case of this movie he actually had to mortgage his house. Luckily it paid off years later. (Jacobs)
Having read a review by Roger Ebert on “A Woman Under The Influence” Ebert felt that Cassavetes was the most important of the American Indi filmmakers. (Ebert) He also noted that John Cassavetes was one of just a few directors whose movies you could identify by the by the dialogue, shots, scenes and characters within it. He noted Hitchcok as an example. Ebert felt that this film was the greatest of all of his films. (Ebert)
The movie actually has his wife, Gena Rowlands, playing the wife Mabel in the movie along with both his and Gena’s mothers playing roles as the mothers in the film. Playing the husband, Nick Longhetti, is his friend Peter Falk. The movie is about a somewhat dysfunctional family where the wife really wants to please her husband but is constantly trying to hold it all together. It is about a mother who loves her children dearly but is also thinking most everything is a crisis. “There is no safe resolution at the end of a Cassavetes film. The characters seek to give love, receive it, express it, and comprehend it” (Ebert)
In 1959 his first film, Shadows, was a low budget film shot in 16mm which was unscripted and not necessarily Hollywood material. In 1960 at the Venice Film Festival Shadows won the Critics Award and stirred interest. Following the success of Shadows Paramount contracted Cassavetes but the partnership did not last long. Prior to A Woman Under the Influence he directed a few more movies about marriages with Faces(1969) and Minnie and Moskowitz (1971). Many of his movies dealt with the struggles of marriage, understanding the opposite sex, and of course troubles with alcohol, sex, drugs, and self-doubt.
In conclusion Cassavettes likes to do movies about the actors and their lives. He was considered the most amateur of amateurs visually in the way he put the movies together with thing like a shaky picture. His movies did not necessarily revolve around a plot but more focused on the characters in it and their struggles.
Having read a review by Roger Ebert on “A Woman Under The Influence” Ebert felt that Cassavetes was the most important of the American Indi filmmakers. (Ebert) He also noted that John Cassavetes was one of just a few directors whose movies you could identify by the by the dialogue, shots, scenes and characters within it. He noted Hitchcok as an example. Ebert felt that this film was the greatest of all of his films. (Ebert)
The movie actually has his wife, Gena Rowlands, playing the wife Mabel in the movie along with both his and Gena’s mothers playing roles as the mothers in the film. Playing the husband, Nick Longhetti, is his friend Peter Falk. The movie is about a somewhat dysfunctional family where the wife really wants to please her husband but is constantly trying to hold it all together. It is about a mother who loves her children dearly but is also thinking most everything is a crisis. “There is no safe resolution at the end of a Cassavetes film. The characters seek to give love, receive it, express it, and comprehend it” (Ebert)
In 1959 his first film, Shadows, was a low budget film shot in 16mm which was unscripted and not necessarily Hollywood material. In 1960 at the Venice Film Festival Shadows won the Critics Award and stirred interest. Following the success of Shadows Paramount contracted Cassavetes but the partnership did not last long. Prior to A Woman Under the Influence he directed a few more movies about marriages with Faces(1969) and Minnie and Moskowitz (1971). Many of his movies dealt with the struggles of marriage, understanding the opposite sex, and of course troubles with alcohol, sex, drugs, and self-doubt.
In conclusion Cassavettes likes to do movies about the actors and their lives. He was considered the most amateur of amateurs visually in the way he put the movies together with thing like a shaky picture. His movies did not necessarily revolve around a plot but more focused on the characters in it and their struggles.
I was scheduled as the audience questioner, but since I did not have the chance to present my questions to you during class, I'll post them here. I wondered what you thought Cassavetes was referring to within the title of this film? Is Mabel under the influence of her anxiety, her husband, society, or maybe all 3? Or could he have been referring to something else within the title? Along those same lines, do you see Mabel as having a "condition" or just being a victim of the times/her environment? In addition, in your research did you find anything that Cassavetes may have drawn from in his personal life along the lines of mental illness? It is a subject that to this day is still very delicate and more rare in film, so why did Cassavetes want to showcase it? Also, do you feel like using non-actors, such as family and friends detracted or added to this film? Hope these questions spark some discussion!
ReplyDeleteGreat questions Carrie. Mabel (although unstable) was under the influence of Nick. From the research I went through it appeared as if Cassavetes likened some of the film to his experiences in his own marriage. His wife did not have mental illness. His using of friends and family he believed made it more real life with real characters.
DeleteCarrie, I believe Imo that Mabel very much so had a mental condition. Her behavior made that very apparent given her quirky mannerisms, very high anxiety and her having a mental breakdown. I don't think all of it was to blame on her mental health issues. I believe the title was playing on both her situation as a wife and mother, as well as dealing with her own personal issues. The father had his issues as well and waa by no means flawless as a parent or husband. I thought the acting was excellent on both Mabel and the dad's (can't remember his name) part. The movie had somewhat of a television drama vibe to it with the long drawn out scenes often times making me feeling a little uncomfortable and emotionally on edge. It was also very personal being in the middle of everything leading up to her being sent away to the hospital. I also felt that the madness of the two together sometimes balanced one another out and it made for sometimes comedic exchanges between the two. Overall I felt the movie lacked a definitive end or solution, leaving everything to go back to the way it was in the beginning even after Mabel was released from the hospital.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mabel had a mental condition. At the time though they did not have the treatments that we have now. It only takes Mabel a matter of hours to become herself again. However, I imagine she had the potential to cause physical harm to herself and others.
DeleteI like the question of what influence Mabel is under. We initially assume alcohol, but eventually realize she's under the influence of Nick, who does care for her, but doesn't know how to cope with her mental instability. Neither does anyone, for that matter. The focus is on "normality" and conventional behavior, things Mabel is ill-equipped to maintain.
ReplyDeleteAfter Mabel returns, she tries to explain her experience, but Nick shuts her off. "Normal talk," he demands. "Hi. How are you." Let's forget the past, as if nothing happened. Which doesn't seem a recipe for resolving Mabel's condition.
This movie was filmed so unattractively that I thought it was filmed in New York City versus California. It was so gritty and realistic. The behavior of Peter Falk showed how men were dominant in society at that time by the smacking of her face and yelling at her. It was definitely an emotional roller coaster ride showing the dysfunction of an American family at that time. Throughout the movie I didn’t know if he was causing her anxiety or if it was in her head. The movie had ended as it had begun showing how nothing had changed but they were going to deal with it as it came. The filming being similar to a play, showed that Cassavetes wanted an intimacy in the family life on film.
ReplyDeleteI'd use a slightly different way of describing the cinematography--loose composition. Cassavetes uses long shots and long takes to allow the actors freedom of movement and expression rather than carefully composed shots that restrict their movement and generally mean much shorter shots. It's one reason the scenes feel "slow" to us. We're used to shots that are seconds long rather than minutes. After our discussion, Bryan connected this film to Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark. primarily for the emotional quality. However, von Trier's Dogme 95 movement, which eschews editing and cinematographic manipulation, fits well with Cassavetes' approach.
ReplyDelete