CANDIDATE NO: 0015075 COURSE – MA3074 – CINEPHILIA EXAMINE THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE IN THE FILMS OF JOHN CASSAVETES.

This essay is concerned with the place of performance within the films of John

Cassavetes; to aid the discussion I will evaluate three of Cassavtes films. A Woman

Under The Influence (1974) where a discussion will centre on Mabel’s performance,

considering the proposition that; to perform is to be under the influence, to be out of

one’s self. I will suggest that Mabel’s performance is in a sense about a way of letting

go and therefore natural and unsuspicious in comparison to some of the film’s other

more ridged characters. I will also examine Shadows (1959) and Opening Night

(1975) for their representations of performance. Within the evaluation of Shadows a

discussion will consider the way the film associates the question of performance in

cinema with the performances of everyday life. I will further this discussion by

considering the role of experimentation within the film and will argue that the young

people of Shadows experiment with their lives and with different ways of living. I will

develop this proposition by generally comparing the young people in Shadows with

those of other films of the same period. In Opening Night, performance becomes more

literal, and Cassavetes finally turns to address its place directly. I will draw on Open

Night briefly in order to develop the previous discussions on performance. I intend to

then further this discussion by comparing Myrtle’s character to that of Mabel and

Lelia, and by considering the different problems, which crossing the border into a

performance, can throw up for them. I intend to start the essay, by briefly examining

the background to which Cassavetes makes his films. This is in order to give the essay

depth for the further analysis of the three films. Within this evaluation I will consider

the general production, methodological approach and theme, within Cassavetes’

work. I will assert that Cassavetes directorial style is much different to what we might

traditionally expect from the director, and will briefly discuss this proposition through

a comparison to the techniques of Fritz Lang.

It is worth noting that the production of a Cassavetes film has many

differences in methodological approach when compared to the methods that certain

other directors employ. For example, Fritz Lang would use a fixed schedule for the

shooting of his films, mapping out all of the shots accurately on a plan before

shooting would begin. Likewise all of the actors would be briefed on their exact

positioning within the scene before it began. Their movements would be carefully

measured and orchestrated within the scene so that they could follow the camera

easily and accurately. Fritz Lang would consider the prior detailed planning of a set,

and the blocking of the actors to be the most productive way to shoot a film. The film

itself would be structured and the organization of the narrative would be central to the

production. Every thing would be very clear-cut and in focus and the lighting would

always be set to a specific mark. Cassavetes on the other hand, employs a very

different methodological approach. It could be argued that as a director Cassavetes

goes against the traditional norms of the trade, in a sense becoming a non-director of

sorts. Cassavetes liked to create a production that had a feeling of freedom within it.

Where it might be usual for the lighting and camera to be set up before a scene began

with the intention that the actor would fit tightly within the pre-organized space.

Alternatively, Cassavetes would often arrange for the set to be lighted more generally

allowing the actor to move around more freely and for the camera to follow them,

rather than the other way around. This allowed the actors to move according to their

own natural impulses rather than direction. Adrian Martin (2003) says of his

appreciation toward Cassavetes unorthodox approach:

Cassavetes…stands for one sort of extreme that I love and cherish in cinema: a kind of arte povera fixed on the minute fluctuations of intimate life, on the effervescence of mood and emotion, and the instability of all lived meaning. A cinema which is a kind of documentary event where the energies of bodily performance, of gesture and utterance and movement, collide willy-nilly, in ways not always foreseen or proscribed, within the dynamic, formal, figurative work of shooting, framing, cutting, sound recording. A cinema open to the energies

and intensities of life – and perpetually transformed by them. (Rosenbaum, J. et al, 2003: p.5-6)

With the intention of making filming simpler, generally, Cassavetes would not hold

rehearsals for the cameraman; often the cameraman would be expected to get the shot

the first time around. Alternatively Cassavetes would sometimes run through whole

scenes again from start to finish to get the material he wanted. Hand held cameras

were also commonplace within a production allowing greater manoeuvrability when

shooting in the street like in the filming of Shadows or a confined space like the

filming in the truck, in A Woman Under The Influence. Carney says of Cassavetes

method:

On rare occasions, if an actor was having trouble playing something, Cassavetes might surreptitiously start film a walk through scene – whispering to the operator ‘start filming’ when the actor thought he was just working something out. But the impression that events and relationships are evolving spontaneously and that the actors are genuinely reacting to events was more commonly achieved by not having movements and blockings completely worked out in advance. The actors were allowed to experiment with ways of playing as the scene was being filmed, and by the same virtue, forced to think on their feet. (Carney, R, 2001: p.323)

Cassavetes’ is not, a cinema of the perfect image, or a cinema of looking. Cassavetes

interests are more concerned with a physical cinema, or when compared to Fritz

Lang’s, whose it could be said, is a cinema of looking, Cassavetes’ would be a cinema

of the body. For Cassavetes it is the physical surroundings and physicality of the

actors that is important rather than the organization of narrative and film structure.

Cassavetes in Labarthe states:

I am more interested in the people who work with me than I am in the film itself, than I am in filmmaking. For me, making a film is something that involves all those who participate in it. I never think of myself as a director (in fact, I think I’m one of the worst directors) I don’t count, I don’t do anything. I am responsible for the film only insofar as all those participating in the film want to express themselves in it, and feel that their participation in the film is essential to themselves first of all… Films are not very important to me. People are more important. (Cassavetes in Labarthe, 1969: p.46)

It could therefore, be argued that Cassavetes creates an open cinema where there is no

fixed manoeuvres or particular editing patterns where chaos, improvisation, and

experimentation, all fall into the mix. Therefore it could be said that the theme of a

Cassavetes film would be, reality based, made with Cassavetes own life experiences

in mind. His films are made through the experience of problems he himself has faced

or been through. ‘ Cassavetes, by stepping outside the usual process of contextuality,

was injecting a new version of raw life and lived experience into the cinema…’

(Rosenbaum, J. et al, 2003: p.2) By including performance events within the film’s

fiction Cassavetes becomes close to collapsing the difference between fiction and its

other. By working in this way and with his particular approach to performance it

could be said that Cassavetes works on the border that separates the fiction from the

real event of the production. It could therefore, be argued that Cassavetes fascination

is more directly tied to the actors and their performances than to the importance of a

conventional directorial style.

In the case of A Woman Under The Influence, Gena Rowlands performance as

Mabel provides an interesting platform from which a discussion on performance can

be approached. I would assert that Cassavetes interests in performance are not

committed to the drama of people being fake, or untrue to themselves, as this would

work on the supposition that; people have fixed and fully formed identities which they

could be dedicated to. For him it is not about the conflict between being your self and

pretending to be someone you are not. Cassavetes’ interests are committed to the idea

that performance is an event in its own right, for him the performance event is no less

real than any other event. I would argue that in Mabel’s case, she is not aware of her

strange behaviour as a performance. Rather, her performances are a way of letting go;

she is under the influence, out of herself. She is not pretending to be something that

she is not; there is no distinction between the true Mabel and the false Mabel.

However, although her behaviour is presented as problematic she is not presented as

suffering from a particular condition. Throughout the film Mabel’s behaviour takes on

physicality through an apparent inability to articulate her thoughts and feelings. These

gestures and noises appear to belong inherently to Gena Rowlands rather than to

Mabel, which arguably, contributes, to the collapsing of the border between reality

and its other, bringing a kind of truth into the situation. Fine states of Rowlands:

As she submerged herself in the character, she brought out a series of tics and mannerisms that might almost be seen as a kind of tourette’s syndrome. Mabel would make the raspberry sound, or Bronx cheer, with her tongue, as she used her thumb to signal, “your out of here,” like a baseball umpire, or perhaps, “take a hike, bub.” It was not a planned gesture but something that bubbled up as Rowlands confronted the frustrations the character was struggling with but lacked the words for. (Fine, 2005: p.293-4)

Mabel’s behaviour is not shown to be a symptom tied back to any particular cause;

the film is depicted in present time. Mabel’s role is always changing; her social

performance is one of a mother, hostess, wife, and lover. Kouvaos says of the scene

where Mabel walks through the house conducting the music:

Throughout the film it is Mabel who enacts, through her gestures and actions, the expressive possibilities marked out by the music. Her responsiveness to others and willingness to take on multiple forms of relation (“Tell me what you want me to be…I can be that. I can be anything”) make her both the narrative trigger and the corporeal embodiment of the theatricality at work in the film’s formal process. As she paces through the house, conducting the music that is both in her head and through the whole scene, she gives its tensions and force a bodily rendition. Mabel allows herself to get carried away. She behaves like a prima donna or a clown using her voice as an extension of her body, touching, mocking, and imitating those around her. (Kouvaos, 2004: p.107-8).

Mabel has trouble being both loving, and at the same time, behaving within social

barriers, in a sense she over does it, and in her lack of inhibition, becomes too

affectionate. It could be said that Mabel’s problems arise from an apparent social

ineptitude, and I would assert that this can be witnessed in the spaghetti breakfast

scene. Throughout the scene Mabel appears contradictorily shy and overt, reserved

and flamboyant. When the workers are first introduced to Mabel in the hallway,

gradually we get the feeling that they have actually met before. However initially, it

seems as if she is just naturally reserved, or shy but as the scene develops Mabel

becomes excessively more familiar. When recognising Clancy, one of the workers,

she leans in for a warm lingering hug until Nick breaks up them up. During the

spaghetti breakfast Mabel’s quirky behaviour becomes more obvious, and even

childlike, in the way that she relates to the workers. She asks Gino what his name is

even though it transpires they all had dinner three weeks previously. She then tells

him, a little rudely, that she remembers his wife but not him. She then proceeds to go

around the table pointing at the workers and asking their names much in the same way

that a child might. The way she does this comes across as innocent rather than strictly

rude, it is apparent that this is her natural way of communicating. Then what seems to

be out of the blue, she tells everyone to “raise em” making an impromptu toast

welcoming everyone and wishing them to live long. The toast seems a little

inappropriate and out of place, and in suggesting it Mabel appears to be completely

free of inhibition but again this is Mabel, so everyone accepts the toast for what it is.

Nick then proceeds to tell the table about his theory on the current rise of children in

the neighbourhood, Carney states about the scene:

How are we supposed to understand Nick’s “it’s in the air” meditation? In one respect it’s merely nutty and shows us what an intellectual midget he is. His over insistence about it also shows us his inflexibility, his tendency to stop a conversation in its tracks. In another respect, however, it’s surprisingly thoughtful, forcing us to recognize that, sewer worker that he is, Nick is also a kind of poet (Carney, 1994: p.176).

As Carney discusses, Nick’s over insistence about this asserts his behaviour as

strange, he cuts off the conversation to bring it back to his own point even after the

conversation has moved on. I would assert that this appears rude in a much different

way to Mabel’s behaviour, it appears dominating and controlling however it is never

problematised in the way that Mabel’s behaviour is. Mabel’s quirky behaviour is also

played off against and overshadowed by, the unexpected over the top performance of

Gino, who for no apparent reason starts to sing to her. Gino’s performance is then

overshadowed by Willie who interjects and sings louder and higher than Gino does.

Mabel then moves down the table to see where the song is coming from, she then

inappropriately, bends down to within inches of Willie’s mouth as if looking in to find

its exact location. Mabel then tries to carry on the joviality and include shy Billy

Tidroe in the situation by tenderly caressing his face but he becomes embarrassed and

Mabel who seems unable to tell that the mood has changed continues to push the

situation. This results in Nick aggressively telling her to “get your ass down” which

contributes to the end of the breakfast situation. What follows is an interesting

interaction between Nick and Mabel, on the one hand Nick chastises Mabel for her

behaviour and on the other he contradictorily tells her she did nothing wrong.

Kouvaos asserts that one way to understand Mabel’s situation, is one of oppression,

he states that:

Mabel’s life bears all the hallmarks of patriarchal oppression: a thoughtless husband prone to outbursts of violence, an overwhelming attachment to her children, and a seeming inability to function outside the domestic environment that closes her in. Mabel’s general extravagance of gesture and expression – continually producing sounds and intonations that do not translate into words or form the basis of what is usually though of as effective communication – can be seen as a response to this oppressive family scenario (Kouvaos, 2004: p.110).

The scene its self lasts a whole forty-one minutes and although the scene is free from

particularly long shots, it is a very long scene. This adds to the realistic feel of the

scene, the tension of the emotional highs and lows develop at a speed what feels like a

natural speed, or in real time. Mabel continually gets caught up in out bursts of

performance but these performances are presented as her way of letting go, at no point

does she seem suspicious or untrue to herself. This becomes particularly evident when

compared to the other characters around her. When Mr. Jensen brings his kids over to

the party he is uptight and closed off from the outset. He appears uncomfortable and

standoffish but tries to deny this to Mabel, who picks up on it straight away. Mabel

being Mabel takes this as an opportunity to try and bring Mr. Jensen out of himself

and loosen up. Mr. Jensen is presented as suspicious in his up-tightness, he hangs

around stiffly without talking or even saying what he is thinking even though he is

obviously uncomfortable. When Mabel and the children perform their Swan Lake

rendition Mabel tells the children to “come and die for Mr. Jensen”, and they all twirl

and dance around. And yet Mr. Jensen stands looming awkwardly in the background

in his dark suit and deadpan expression. We understand that he is very uncomfortable

but it seems suspicious and unwarranted, although the situation is a little over the top

it is a children’s party after all and hardly a dangerous situation. But Mr. Jensen

comes across as totally freaked out and unable to loosen up here and we are unsure

what to make of him. It seems as though he is restricted in some way, and only

loosens up when he finds one of his children playing dress up. However this is only to

‘cause a scene’ he sees this as an appropriate reason to start shouting and storming

around the house and demanding that the children to go home right away. This

performance strikes the spectator as suspicious, he has gone from introverted to

aggressive so quickly at no point during the scene has he seemed consistent. It is

almost as if Mr. Jensen uses this as an excuse to get out of the house. When compared

to Mabel whose Swan Lake performance, comes across as her way of letting go, and

getting caught up in the situation, Mr Jensen’s performance here, strikes the spectator

as suspect.

Shadows, first shot in (1949) was partly re-shot and re-edited twice and

released in (1959). A discussion on performance can be approached much differently

here to that of A Woman Under The Influence as the act of performance itself is

treated much differently. Here we can consider how the film associates the question

of cinematic performance with the everyday performances of actual life. This can be

seen in Lelia’s date scene with Davey Jones. Lelia Goldoni’s performance as Lelia is

interesting as she knowingly creates a performance within the actual performance.

Here the act of performance becomes exaggerated to make sure we notice it, and it is

played off against the behaviour of the other characters in the scene. The actors are

performing as the people who are performing and this in its self cuts through the

performance with authenticity, again contributing to the collapsing of the border

between fiction and its other. Lelia is aware she is performing throughout the scene. It

could be argued that we can find a performance of sorts, in an everyday life situation

like that of a date. We like to present the best version of ourselves to that person

whom we want to impress. Cassavetes takes this situation and identifies it with the

performance of the cinema. Lelia pretends not to like Davey Jones throughout the

scene, but it is an exaggerated sarcastic performance. When Lelia first opens the door

to Davey she greets him softly “well Hello”, but she waits until he enters the house

and she has closed the door before she really begins the pretence. After asking where

her flowers are, Davey tells Lelia that he didn’t have time to pick them up. Lelia then,

mockingly retorts “well I just don’t think that’s very nice of you at all’, all the while

her facial expression is animated and her posture is theatrical. The scene then caries

on as Davey tries to fit into the awkward situation by introducing himself to Lelia’s

brothers, who initially pretend to ignore him. Again this pretence becomes apparent as

Benny, tries to conceal his laughter in the corner. Davey then tries to join in with

Hugh’s singing, but Lelia drags him off as Hugh and Dennis watch on amused at the

play. Lelia then walks back into the scene rolling her eyes and exaggerating her

posture by stretching out her arms and shaking her shoulders. They all laugh at the

theatrics but then Lelia looks back to Davey and nods to him, confirming that she

does like him. Kouvaros says of the cast of Shadows:

The cast of Shadows consisted almost entirely of inexperienced or unemployed actors attending the Variety Arts drama workshop, which Cassavetes had established with Burt Lane. The film’s story was based on a series of dramatic improvisations supervised by Cassavetes. The actors were encouraged to develop their characters and the relationships in the weeks of rehearsal prior to filming. Discussing the film two years after it was completed, Cassavetes describes Shadows as an experiment. (Kouvaros, 2004: p.5)

Cassavetes encouraged the actors to experiment with their character roles and decide

for themselves on who their characters were. This included deciding on the characters

back-stories. Cassavetes worked this way in order to make the characters become

‘real’. The actors were encouraged to spend time together off set so that they would

form real relationships with each other, which Cassavetes viewed as chemistry

translatable to screen. However “ …Cassavetes studiously shunned group decisions

on character. Actors developed their characters separately and even kept secrets from

each other about what their characters felt, wanted or knew”. (Carney, R, 2001: p.64)

The characters of Shadows lived their lives much differently to those in other films of

the same period. The young people in Shadows are seen to be experimenting with

different ways of living, improvising as they move along, through life. And they were

encouraged to do this as actors too. Cassavetes says, in Carney:

Before shooting began, the actors went out to do life study. Hugh Hurd went around trying to get a job and finally got one in Philadelphia in a third-rate nightclub. There were other actors, guys I knew. First, I sent them out to get acquainted with the streets down Greenwich Village. I gave them neighbourhoods to go to and then we would shoot in those neighbourhoods. They hung around Broadway and different places downtown. They would listen to jazz musicians or go out and have a beer and try to pick up girls. They kept going out for about a month, observing everything. They saw the way people dressed and acted and they got into it. And when we finally started shooting, they had assimilated. They pretty much became the people they were playing. They had something to say and they took it seriously. (Cassavetes in Carney, R, 2001: p.64)

Arguably the young people in Shadows live their lives much differently to those in

other films in the 50’s. Where in Shadows we see Hugh trying to re-establish his

music career, we are aware that Benny is also a musician and we see him dip in and

out of trouble. Lelia is an artist who seems content in casually perusing her interests

in art and literature. All three live unconventional lives, they live together in a sibling

family unit, party when they want too, and in Hugh’s case, he work’s when he can,

and Lelia and Benny’s case we aren’t really aware of them working at all. The film is

an apparently realistic portrayal of a lower class family unit set against the Beat

Generation in New York. When compared to other films of a similar period like,

American Graffiti (1962) or Rebel Without a Cause (1955) a very different portrayal

of the lives of young people can be seen in. In American Graffiti, a coming of age

movie from the early 60’s, the young people are shown to be pretty unconcerned with

anything other that their flash cars, picking up girls and whether they will go off to

college or not. Their lives are shown to be pretty clean cut, apart from getting up to

the odd jape and a little underage drinking. Life is shown to be a pretty squeaky

representation of what one might expect from the young generation. The film’s

protagonist’s lives appear generally free from struggle and seem to centre on high

school life or being accepted socially. Very different to the young protagonist of

Shadows who appear to be experimenting with different social situations, family life,

and unconventional occupations. Likewise A Rebel Without a Cause, paints a very

different picture of young peoples lives in the 50’s, although less clean cut than

American Graffiti, Rebel Without a Cause still portrays young people in decisively

predictable terms. At first the film appears to criticize parenting, in its portrayal of

Jim’s parents but then it comes back around to insist on the importance of the family

unit. It is only when Jim (James Dean) the rebel in question, finally settles into a

family unit of sorts he becomes ‘tamed’ or socialized. With Judy (Natalie Wood) as

the mother figure and Plato (Sal Minoe) as the surrogate child, the unruly Jim finally

becomes able to assimilate into society successfully. Arguably the film instils the

moral point about the good old-fashioned values that American films were so well

known for around the period. Again this film portrays young peoples lives much

differently to Shadows. Although both films show an unconventional family unit

those units are very different. I would say the middle class family unit in Rebel

Without a Cause makes a moral point about the value of the family and proper

parenting. However I would argue that in Shadows a more accurate portrayal of how a

lower class family might live their lives, is shown by Cassavetes. I would argue that

the young people in Shadows are probably living their lives much more realistically

than those in some of the other films of the period.

I would assert that performance has been a constant concern for Cassavetes

throughout his work and significantly he turns to address its place directly in Opening

Night. Cassavetes sates in Carney:

I differ from the working method advocated by Stanislavski and followed by the Actors Studio, which involves group discussions on characters. For me each role must be an individual’s conception as well as an individual’s creation. If each role is the result of a communal study by director and ensemble, everything will dovetail; it will all be nice and neat and smooth; but the conflict of the characters wont be truthful. The actors don’t discuss their interpretations sitting around in a group. The general theme of the work, of course, must be studied by the whole group so that we share the same overall conception; but each actor must come at his own interpretation of his role, without the sort of group study and mutual criticism that one associates with Method work. . (Cassavetes in Carney, R, 2001: p.65)

By turning to the theatre, Cassavetes centres his interests directly on the role of

performance in Opening Night. Throughout his work it has been the actor’s

performance that has been Cassavetes main concern. This is notable from the way he

lights the set to his directorial style. By allowing the actor freedom within his work

Cassavetes attempts to capture something real in the in-betweens of character

interaction, a natural moment in the performance situation perhaps. The film depicts

the troubles lead actress Myrtle goes through in adopting the performance role. When

considering the characters of Mable, Lelia, and Myrtle, different problems of crossing

the border into performance can be identified. Furthermore I would assert that Myrtles

problems are more direct, or literally related to the role of performance. With Myrtle

she wants to perform, or wants to fulfil her duty to perform at least, but she has

problems submerging herself into the role because for her, the border is too high and

the expense is too much. Her performance comes neither, naturally or easily. In the

film’s opening sequence Myrtle says “when I was seventeen I could do anything. It

was so easy. My emotions were so close to the surface… I’m finding it harder and

harder to stay in touch.” This statement says a lot about Myrtle’s problems with

performance. In order to cross that border into performance Myrtle must go through

an emotional process one which is very difficult for her to achieve. Myrtle’s struggles

with performance threaten her very being, they are inherently personal to who she is,

Kouvaros states of Myrtle’s problems:

They concern her past and present relations with the play’s cast, the weight of opportunities lost or passed by, and her efforts to deal with the approaching middle age. Myrtle’s struggles with these issues serve to open up, although never clarify, the complex network of personal and professional allegiances that bind the various individuals involved in the play’s production. (Kouvaros, 2004: p.131)

For Myrtle, she has to let her defences down in order to cross the border into a

performance. For her she has to except her own middle age in order to become the

‘second woman’ who she is trying to play. This involves literally giving up the

‘young girl’ inside through literally killing her, symbolically in one scene. It is only

through doing this that Myrtle can eventually submerge herself into the performance

and properly take on the role of Virginia. Where in Mabel’s case her performances

come about as a way of letting go, they are a natural reaction for her, an extension of

herself. For Mabel performance almost comes a little too easy, they are born from her

lack of inhibitions or a social ineptitude. This is why Mabel finds these performances

easy, and perhaps why she doesn’t always seem able to understand other people’s

reactions to them. In some aspects Mabel is very un-self-aware she is unable to sense

when the mood has changed, like in the case of the embarrassed Billy Tidroe during

the spaghetti breakfast. But then in others she seems very self-aware like when at the

end of the film she say’s “ You know, I’m really nuts”. However these performances

throw up different problems for Mabel, as the other characters seem unable to deal

with them and she gets a little too lost within the moments of the performance. On the

one hand Nick chastises Mabel for her behaviour and wants her to stop but then on

the other he tells her she has done nothing wrong and even tries to make her revert

back to it after she comes home from hospital. Likewise Mr Jensen is at odds with

how to behave himself when around Mabel during the children’s party. Mama

Longhetti is presented as Mabel’s enemy throughout the film and she seems totally

unable to except Mabel on any terms. It seems as if all of the other characters play off

against Mabel’s performances, her performance appears to be the catalyst for all other

performances. Almost as if, in their lack of understanding or acceptance of Mabel,

they are driven a little crazy themselves. The scene following the children’s party,

when Mabel is committed, sees the children run around the house out of control, Nick

storms around with a bathrobe over his clothes screaming and shouting. And Mama

Longhetti starts to scream and shout and almost breaks down too, screaming at Mabel,

“your children are naked, they’re hungry”. Everyone in this scene acts a little crazy.

With Lelia however, again the performance situation and the problems it creates are

treated much differently to the other two characters. Unlike Mabel, Lelia is aware that

she is performing. For her performance is perhaps a defence, where Myrtle has to

break down the defence in order to perform Lelia, might adopt the performance as a

defence against getting hurt. Throughout the date scene with Davy Jones, Lelia

pretends she doesn’t like him but as the scene develops we learn that she does. For her

this performance causes a problem because she distances her self from Davy through

taking it on. It as if she is testing him to see how much he likes her, Davy goes along

with this because he does like her, but only for so long. In creating the performance as

a defence Lelia breaks down the barrier of where the performance ends and she

begins. In the dance hall scene Davy calls Lelia on her behaviour, which in turn

makes Lelia soften and admit defeat. She lets her guard down by letting go of the

performance and finally she lets him get closer to her.

This essay has discussed the differing performances throughout some of

Cassavetes films and asserted that performance has been a key concern throughout his

work. I have attempted to address this proposition by considering Cassavetes

directorial style in the beginning of the essay, and by asserting the importance the

actors are given on his set. From the way Cassavetes set is lighted generally, to his

insistence on giving the actors room to move impulsively Cassavetes sets up the

performance situation so as to capture the most natural occurrence on film. By

including performance events within the film’s fiction Cassavetes comes close to

collapsing the difference between fiction and its other. I have argued that by working

in this way and with his particular approach to performance Cassavetes works on the

border that separates the fiction from the real event of the production. I have

attempted to assert how Cassavetes interests in performance are concerned with the

performance event as a real event in its own right and not the drama of people being

fake, or untrue to themselves. I have gone on to compare and contrast the differences

between the performances and the problems that performance has thrown up for

Mabel, Lelia and Myrtle. In Mabel’s case her performance is a way of letting go, of

submerging her self in the situation. And the problems she faces because of it tend to

be expanded by the other characters around her and because she lets go a little too

much. With Lelia she perhaps uses her performance as a defence but she uses it

knowingly and playfully but in turn distances herself from Davy in doing so. And

with Myrtle her problems lay quite literally in allowing her self to adopt the role itself

and what she has to give up in order to do this. I would therefore assert that

throughout Cassavetes work the performance situation has remained central to his

concern and has developed consistently throughout his films.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carney, R. (2001), ‘Cassavetes on Cassavetes’, London: Faber and Faber Limited.

Carney, R. (1994), ‘THE FILMS OF JOHN CASSAVETES: Pragmatism, Modernism,

and the Movies’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, M. (2005), ‘ACCIDENTAL GENIUS: How John Cassavetes Invented American

Independent film’, New York: Miramax Books.

Kouvaros, G. (2004), ‘WHERE DOES IT HAPPEN? JOHN CASSAVETES AND

CINEMA AT THE BREAKING POINT’, Minneapolis and London: University of

Minnesota Press.

Labarth, Andre’ S. (1996) ‘A Way of Life: An Interview with John Cassavetes’

Evergreen Review 64.

Martin, A. (2009) ‘Beyond the Fragments of Cinephilia: Towards a Synthetic

Analysis’, in Scott Balcerzak and Jason Sperb (eds.) Cinephilia in the Age of Digital

Reproduction: Film, Pleasure and Digital Culture, Vol. 1, London: Wallflower Press,

pp.30-53. (Course pack)

Rosenbaum, J. et al (2003) ‘Movie mutations: Letter from (and to) some Children of

1960’ in Rosenbaum and Martin (eds.), Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of

World Cinephilia, London: BFI, pp.1-34.

FILMOGRAPHY

A Woman Under the influence: 1974, John Cassavetes.

Killing of a Chinese Bookie: 1976, John Cassavetes.

Opening Night: 1977, John Cassavetes.

Shadows: 1959, John Cassavetes.