It is a
shame that for various years I have stayed away from the work of John
Cassavetes. I had encountered his name, here and there, but refrained from
watching any of his movies. My knowledge of him was limited and bound to his
role as a so-so actor in Rosemary's Baby (1968). I did not
know that he mainly acted in films to gather money for his own cinematic
projects.
In my
euro-centric view, I had been suspicious of American films because I equated
them for the most part with Hollywood. There are, of course, a number of good
filmmakers, but I had often felt that they lacked the gravitas of the great
filmmakers out there. I like Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, and Woody
Allen, but I felt that they came up short in comparison to those whom I deem
the ultimate and quintessential masters of cinema: Ingmar Bergman, Andrei
Tarkovsky, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, and those illustrious French
masters of the New Wave.
This
would explain why I was literally shell-shocked about how good Cassavetes' Woman
under the Influence really is, the film that was to be my introduction
to the work of a cinematic master! This independent anti-Hollywood film was
made with financial difficulty in 1974 and is about a woman who is struggling
with her daily life, including her roles as a mother and a wife, which seem in
direct conflict with her own self-identity. It is quite an existential film
that looks at madness in such a poignant and piercing way that it breaks your
heart.
Now the
70s is really the golden age of American cinema in my view. Like most of the
classic films of those times, such as Dog Day Afternoon, One
flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, and The Deer Hunter, these movies
strive for authenticity. They look and feel like documentaries and model
themselves, consciously or not, after the cinema vérité style.
In other
words, there is more focus on ordinary life and situations and with little
expository music. The beautifully timed and framed shots of Cassavetes' Woman
under the Influence predate the Dogme 95 style with its handheld
camera and the spontaneous feeling that characterizes them. The acting also
strives to be as natural as possible and is rarely melodramatic, stylized or
over the top. As a result, we are given slices of life set in a clearly American
context.
And in
this American context, we meet a constructor by the name of Nick Longhetti -
played against type by “Columbo” Peter Falk - who has to work overtime due to
an unexpected burst pipe. He was supposed to be with his wife Mabel as she had
charged their children to her mother's care for the night. It was supposed to
be their romantic evening together, which considering they have three young
children must have come about once in a blue moon.
Nick
feels bad about canceling and would rather avoid this sticky situation. Mabel
sees this incident as a blunt rejection and ends up getting drunk at a random
bar. She then hooks up with a stranger who then takes her home and has sex with
her. Cassavetes throws us into the story the same way Michael Cimino in The
Deer Hunter (1978) suddenly throws his characters into the madness
of war; it takes a bit of time to sort things out and find out how one feels
about each of these characters.
In fact,
my first impression was that I liked the hard-working husband and was not so
thrilled about his wife, played brilliantly by Cassavetes' real wife Gena
Rowlands. But slowly, our feelings and opinions shift as we get a glimpse of
their daily life and, more importantly, their struggles.
This
conflict first becomes visible and tangible when after the night shift, Nick
brings home his co-workers for some early-morning spaghetti. The spaghetti
scene seems to drag quite a bit where Mabel asks everyone at the table for
their names and then a couple of the construction workers start to sing
operatic tunes in Italian. Yet when her husband suddenly and unexpectedly
shouts at Mabel to knock it off, the mood shifts and we are left in a similar
state of shock just like the guests. Our sympathies begin to shift also.
Gradually,
the madness of the main character comes into focus. She is struggling hard to
find and define her own identity under the circumstances. She is trying hard to
be a mother and trying to please her husband by being "good" and by
fulfilling his expectations, but as she overdoes and overplays her roles, all
of it turns out to be rather pathetic.
It
certainly does not help that her husband is not averse to using violence; he
hits her a number of times, bullying her into the role he wants her to play for
him. Yet despite their problems, they seem happy when they are alone together
and there are a few glimpses of happiness and love between them. It is when others
are involved, be it Nick's co-workers or their family members, when things get
out of hand and beyond control.
The
documentary style fits the movie's message quite well. This is not an overdone
film like A Beautiful Mind (2001); the madness presented here
is more mysterious but also more accessible and strangely personal. We never
really know what mental illness she is suffering from except that she is often
described as nervous and anxious, and it seems that her husband has his own
mental issues as his parenting style is also questionable (who in his right
mind shares a six-pack of beer with his under-age children?).
The movie
reminded me of Bergman's (movie not the series) Scenes of a Marriage (1973) except
that I found Cassavetes' film more moving and more realistic. Woman
under the Influence captures various themes in an effortless way. At
the center stage is the couple. We sense that they do love each other, but they
find it hard to accept each other and to show and express their love in an
appropriate way, whatever that may be. Perhaps both have become victims of how
others want and expect them to be.
No scene
shows this more than the final one. She is about to return from the mental
hospital after a six-month-absence. To welcome her, the awkward husband invites
all his friends and colleagues over to throw a party because he thinks that is
what she would have wanted.
This
multitude of people in a small house does not impress his family members, and
his mother played by Cassavetes' very own mother criticizes her son Nick in no
unequivocal terms. What was he thinking to invite over all these people? This
was supposed to be merely an intimate family event. What were all those
strangers doing in the house at such a crucial moment? This would only stress
out his wife etc.
He feels
embarrassed and paces wildly in the rain asking his mother to send his friends
away. And so she does. But we can see that he meant good and wants to surprise
his wife. However, it might also be that he wants to show off his “new” wife
and show them that she is fine and not crazy (anymore). His very sensitive and
touchy side regarding the home front and, in particular, her strange behavior
and madness is a running theme throughout the movie.
When
Mabel walks in, she is even less herself. She is too calm and seems to almost
sleepwalk herself through the scene. Then she asks to see her kids and her husband
refuses. He does not want to have a show in front of family members because she
would start crying, and they would cry, and nobody will have a good time.
Whether this is his selfishness speaking or simply a desire to spare her some
suffering is not immediately clear.
As her
behavior remains restrained, her husband takes her to the side and confronts
her. He wants her to be herself again; he wants those nervous and strange
mannerisms and tics to return. According to him, this is how she is, and he tells
her this is her house, that she should not be intimidated by those guests,
their family members. Again, we could say that he wants her to conform to the
impressions he has of her in his own mind. But let's not complicate things.
In a
crucial moment, she asks her Dad to please stand up for her. He takes her
literally and does so. Then she asks him to sit. He does that too in a
bewildered state. Her mother, however, sees through her silent plea for help;
their daughter Mabel must have been asking for protection from her husband. But
what can they do? What should they do? All these wild emotions are insinuated
via a close-up of the father's face.
This
movie has great individual scenes and it is also remarkable that throughout its
two-and-a-half hour running time, it rarely drags (minus the spaghetti scene
but that had its purpose). The acting is outstanding, and we are left in a
state of shock. It is one of the best portrayals of madness I have seen.
In fact,
it is not only about the suffering and helplessness of being mentally ill, but
also about its stigma. At the same time, it shows us that the husband may be
mad also, perhaps even more so if we look at the harm his violent behavior
causes; notwithstanding, it is the woman that is locked away and treated in a
mental hospital.
Finally,
the movie shows us that there is often no cure for mental illness. Yet at the
same time, this ailing couple still love and need each other in their own way
and must fight hard for their sanity and their happiness. A great work by
Cassavetes that has made me his fan already; now I am quite thrilled about
exploring his other films. And my apologies for underestimating him without
giving him a fair trial!
No comments:
Post a Comment