43

To access Ray Carney's complete website, go to http://www.cassavetes.com/

Subject: crazy jobs and other concerns

Hi Ray,

Good to see you up and active. It was getting a bit quiet in your little corner of the web recently.
I got a job in Hollywood, reading scripts. It's actually not as bad as it sounds. I get to "pass" on just about everything that comes my way, which is pretty much what the executives do anyway. I'm hoping for a rare "gem" script like Junebug to come around so I can get serious about it. I won't hold my breath. Still, it's not a bad job and I'm making some connections. Doing the old Hollywoodnetworking thing.

But I still haven't lost the faith! In my spare time, I study Faulkner. Ingest everything. Chronologically. I write constantly, in the margins, in a notebook. All about the Faulkner I'm currently reading. Sentences, paragraphs, pages. I have no idea what I'm doing with all this, but I love going back and reading my thoughts on his fiction. Maybe after this, I'll take a step up and tackle Henry James. Gimme a couple months to master this first. And then a couple years (or more) for James. Something about Faulkner speaks to me, though, and I'm not resting until I find out what. I've never even BEEN to the South. Crazy.

Hope your world is full of good thoughts and circumstances. Thanks for the MySpace mention earlier, by the way. Got quite a few hits on my page from that. Not that my page is anything special. A few crappy blogs and that's about it. Still a work in progress.

Take care, and I hope all is well.

Darren

RC replies:

Darren,

Thanks for the cheering words. We owe it to ourselves to be optimistic, hopeful, positive. Make it a religion. The world is inside us (a great Buddhist truth) not outside. Everyone we know is in there, and we make it what it is and deal with what we make.

Oh, while I'm in my spiritual pontification mode, playing Yoda, I might as well communicate another secret. Did you know that in a few years the existence of the soul will be scientifically proved? Scientifically. In physics terms. Equations and all that. And that the surprise, to some people at least, will be that the soul is not inside us where all the great religions place it, but just a hairbreadth above our skins, outside us as a spin layer of electrons in quantum superposition. And that it survives our death. Isn't that weird and amazing? But we must build it by giving a personal identity to it. We must change the spin of those electrons to put our personal imprint on them, to create our personal taste, our ontological flavor. That's what makes it our soul and not someone else's. In other words, we are not born with spiritual identities (souls) ready made. We make them, gradually throughout our lives, by working on and with our consciousnesses.

I was just having a discussion with a friend about that minutes ago, so I throw that in for free, since it's still on my mind. Did I say on? I mean on. But I better not say more or you will think I'm demented. (But take my word for it: the above is all strictly, absolutely, scientifically true, though it hasn't been discovered quite yet. It's not a metaphor or a figure of speech.) But I'm not really afraid of sounding weird. It's important to stay crazy. By the world's definition of it, at least. That's the only way to be sane in a crazy world. (Cassavetes and I used to talk about this on occasion and his first draft of Woman Under the Influence, the play that the film was based on, has extensive discussions of it; the film leaves out most of it.)

But the other reason I mention all this stuff is that this is actually relevant to your letter. What you are doing with your work on Faulkner is building your soul. Synchronizing the spin of those electrons to make them yours. The struggle for verbal consciousness is your way of doing that. (D.H. Lawrence has some great stuff on that.) So yes, by all means, write all of your observations, thoughts, feelings down. Question yourself. Question them. Work through the great artists. Scan Faulkner; puzzle Faulkner; wrestle with Faulkner; master Faulkner. Then go on to do James: from The Sacred Fount onward and upward to the moon! Then do Mozart: the Piano Concertos from 1784 on, the Da Ponte operas (Figaro, Cosi, Don G.), the quintets, the middle and late symphonies. And, if you are able to get that far, is you really want to shoot for the stars and change those quantum states, go on to do J.S. Bach (BWV 1042, 1043, 1052, 1053, 1054, the Brandenburg Concertos, the Goldberg Variations, the complete organ work, and so much else). Work, work, work, on it. Work, the work of creating consciousness I mean (and there are other ways to do it of course; it doesn't have to be with art) is the way we build our souls.

I love something Freeman Dyson once wrote. He was asked about SETI, the project to communicate with alien intelligences, extraterrestrials, and what we should beam back if we ever heard a signal from out there. He said something like: "If we want to get their attention, we should stream Bach, all of Bach, out into the universe. Of course, we would be bragging."

Anyway, keep building your soul. And never stop. Artists are the glory of the planet. The highest achievement of disinterested, curious, ever responsive human consciousness. We can't let the politicians and businessmen represent us. It's too embarrassing. They're too stupid. Too narrow-minded. Too self-interested. Too selfish. They are followers, not leaders and creators. The artists are the ones we should send out as our Ambassadors. They have the souls we can be proudest of. That's another reason art matters. I say, with Freeman, broadcast Bach and brag a little.

RC

Subject: FOX is Looking For The Next Great Filmmaker

From: "Marissa Flores"

Good Morning,

My nameis Marissa Flores and I work in the Publicity Department at FOX Broadcasting Company. I want to let you and your students know that the network is currently accepting submissions for ON THE LOT, an exciting new reality/competition series executive produced by reality maestro Mark Burnett ("Survivor," "The Apprentice") and Academy Award-winning director/producer Steven Spielberg. Scheduled to premiere next spring on FOX, home of television's most watched program, AMERICAN IDOL, ON THE LOT is looking for the next great filmmaker and will give aspiring directors from around the world the chance to earn a $1-million development deal at DreamWorks.

Your students can take the next step toward fulfilling their dreams of becoming a Hollywood director by applying to participate in this new series. On-line video submissions are now being accepted via the website www.thelot.com.

Thanks so much for your time and please don't hesitate to come to me with any questions.

Best,

Marissa FloresFox Publicity 10201 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90035 O: 310.369.3049 F:
310.396.4748
marissa.flores@fox.com

RC replies:

Subject: Life is short. Please don't waste it trying to make money

Marissa,

Any student who wanted to appear on Fox should have his/her head examined. And anyone who won your competition should look to the state of their soul. Or their work. If they please both Steven Spielberg and Mark Burnett, I'd say they are definitely in trouble. (Where's Bill Gates, how about pleasing him too while you're at it?) There are always people ready to sell their souls to the devil, but I do my best to tell them the consequences. The devil always gets the best of the bargain.
But you must already know that. You've clearly made the pact yourself. But don't give up. I'm sure you can do better. May you move on to greater things in the future. Life is short. Don't waste it trying to make money. There are much better things to do.

Very very sincerely and honestly (and please don't take this as sarcasm--it is from my heart),

Ray Carney

Prof. Carney,

I'm looking for the names of the three stage productions Cassavettes ran simultaneously with
Cassel, Faulk and others in early 80s(??) in LA. I don't see them on your otherwise very helpful cronology. Hope you can help!

Thanks,

Tristan

RC replies:

Tristan,

I have complete information about Cassavetes' stage productions and ten thousand other things in my Cassavetes on Cassavetes book, available through the site, via Amazon, or by ordering in any decent bookstore. All the information you seek is there. The chronologies on the site deliberately do not duplicate most of what is already in this book or others. I have written ten or a hundred times the amount of material about each of the subjects and filmmakers covered on the site. As I tell everyone: Don't rely on the site! It is just a taste. A starter kit. A sampler. The books are the real work. Including three major forthcoming books that are not yet listed on the site. Stay tuned. Click on the Bookstore icon (the blue ticket) in the left menu of any page to see a listing of some of the books I am referring to. Many are available through the site at special, discounted prices and with free shipping.

All best wishes,

RC

P.S. Though you suggest he did (and perhaps he has suggested that he did), that boundless self-
promoter and bloviator, Seymour Cassel, had nothing to do with any of these productions, for your information. He was in jail at the time.

A note from Ray Carney:

If anyone needs further proof of the superficiality of American culture, the way it willfully trivializes anything of substance, the following article appeared on the front page of today's Boston Globe to illustrate the point. To give a fair summary, I quote the opening and two final paragraphs. They not only turn Noam Chomsky's life and work (one of the greatest achievements of contemporary thought) into matters of public relations and celebrity gossip, but include the criticism that they are doing so (articulated by Chomsky's wife) in the article and make a joke of it.

To add insult to injury, assuming Boston University Professor Andrew Bacevich is being quoted correctly and fairly, like most other university professors when contacted by the media, Prof. Bacevich is glad to turn himself into a performing seal, or clown, and play along with the whole sick media game. If they want him to talk about Chomsky's writing in terms of PR and advertising and gossip, well, sure, that's what he'll talk about. Don't ever dare tell a reporter you think he's an idiot for asking those sorts of questions or he won't call you again. And, God knows, then your own book won't sell like Chomsky's. If the world is a PR circus, make sure you don't miss the train yourself.
What is wrong with us? Is everything a Leno or Letterman or Saturday Night Live skit? Is everything about marketing and public relations? Have we failed to see what has happened to our values, our culture, our work? How can we dance our way to the apocalypse this way? Does nothing really matter?

And even if Mark Shanahan is this stupid and shallow, aren't there any editors at the Globe (or any of the other 1000 newspapers and media outlets who treated the story similarly) who can see what is going on when he treats things this way? The article follows:"Why couldn't Hugo Chavez hold up one of my books?" — Andrew Bacevich, Boston University professor and author

Chavez's tirade makes Chomsky a best seller

By Mark Shanahan, Globe Staff September 22, 2006

No one is more bewildered or, frankly, bummed by all of the attention suddenly being paid to Noam Chomsky than Andrew Bacevich."I've written a few books critical of US foreign policy, too," said Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. "Why couldn't Hugo Chavez hold up one of my books?" Why, indeed. Thanks to the Venezuelan president's surprise endorsement of "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" during a vitriolic address at the United Nations, the paperback edition of Chomsky's 2003 book has catapulted to No.1 on Amazon.com's list of best-sellers, ahead of such eternally popular authors as John Grisham and Lemony Snicket. Suddenly, the left-wing linguist who taught for years at MIT is a celebrity.

"It's amazing that a tin-horn dictator could have this sort of influence," said Bacevich, who may be doubly bitter because he panned Chomsky's book in a review for the Washington Post."Shows you how much I know." Whiile it's true that Chavez's shout-out is garnering Chomsky a lot of attention, if not quite acclaim, he's hardly toiled in obscurity. A longtime professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- he's since retired from full-time teaching--Chomsky, 77, has written more than 100 books an dis well known for his far left media activism. He has argued, among other things, that the United States and Israel have been the main impediments to peace in nthe Middle East, that capitalist globalization was partly to blame for 9/11, and that marijuana should be decriminalized. In some European circles, Chomsky's popularity rivals that of "Baywatch" actor David Hasselhoff, and he's a sufficiently iconic figure in his own country that a poster with his likeness occasionally appears on the TV show "Gilmore Girls."

"All the media hoopla -- I don't know what else to call it -- is not entirely pleasant," said Chomsky's wife, Carol, who picked up the phone at the couple's Lexington home after just one ring today. "Noam is flooded, absolutely flooded." The problem, she said, and the likely reason her husband of 56 years would not return our call, is the nature of the questions Chomsky is being asked. They're not serious enough, she said. Rather than talking about the book, which asserts that US foreign policy relies almost exclusively on the threat of force, the media wants to talk about the author's feelings.

"Everyone wants to know what his reaction is," Carol Chomsky said. "And that's on the level of gossip and of no consequence at all." .....

....Bacevich , the BU professor whose own books about US foreign policy aren't flying off the shelf, said publishers should be frantically trying to figure out how Chavez managed to make Chomsky's book a best-seller. "Because something magical happened in that moment," Bacevich said.
© 2006 The Boston Globe

Ray Carney highly recommends two recently published books:

Owen Gingerich, God's Universe (Harvard University Press)and

Edward O. Wilson, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth (W.W. Norton Publishers)

Both books break free of the misuse of science (and the abuse of Darwinism in particular) practiced most egregiously by Daniel C. Dennett (Breaking the Spell), Michael Shermer (Why Darwin Matters), and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), in which the open-ended and free-floating experimental methods of science are forced to congeal into ideological stances. Gingerich and Wilson ask us to set aside the nihilist intellectual fashions of the moment (and specifically to reject the hardening of evolutionary theory into a belief system as rigid and intolerant as that of any terrorist), and dare to look, carefully, caringly, and with an open mind, at what is. (How hard that is to do.) Both books remind me of something I myself have always been convinced of--namely that we are God's eyes and ears, his arms and hands and fingers, his taste buds and nostrils, his consciousness (when our own consciousnesses are pure enough to see what really is and not what we want to be), and, most importantly of all, his agents, his means of acting in and on the world, his only means, and that without our vigorous, passionate, whole-hearted action, we are in imminent danger of losing everything that matters. (For the more scientifically minded, I'd recommend another book that is more technically demanding than Gingerich's: Michael J. Denton's Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (Free Press). Denton's book is path-breaking, but it requires much more scientific background than Gingerich's popularization.

Re: Abbas Kiarostami

Mr. Carney,

Have you written anything on filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami? Is it available online? Please let me know.

Sincerely,

Dash

RC replies:

Dash,

I adore Kiarostami's work, as you know, and screen and discuss his films in class frequently. But I have not had the opportunity to write about them. But you don't need me. Artists are teachers too--better teachers than professors in most cases--and you can use their work to help you deepen your understanding. Here's what I would recommend. View the following films and pay attention to the styles, and you will learn more about Kiarostami than most Film Professors know:

DeSica, The Bicycle Thief and Umberto D (study the use of space, the relation of the foreground and background in the frame, the structure of the narrative, and the presentation of character)
Rossellini, Germany Anno Zero, Stromboli, Voyage in Italy (again study the narrative structure, what precedes and follows what, and what we see and don't see but have to imagine)

Then view Taste of Cherries and Life Goes On. Cross reference the DeSica and Rossellini qualities and effects.

And there you have it. A crash course in Kiarostami. For more, come and audit some of my classes! (Only kidding.)

RC

P.S. For another "unmissable" experience, immerse yourself in Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker and The Sacrifice (the latter spookily relevant to the "end times" we are now going through). He too saw more and saw farther than almost anyone else. But that's the definition of being an artist, isn't it?
PPS. The "available online" comment is ominous. Go to a library. The best things are there. Things Google has no idea of.

Prof. Carney,

I just happened to see the page where you state your observations about the difference between preparing students for a career and preparing them for life. I noted you added a section I hadn't seen before in a box. An interview with some of your students and Hollywood producers who are teaching them on the Los Angeles campus of Boston University. It is really scary!!!! (Click here to read the interview text.)

Great example of the shallow superficiality of the Hollywood system. Made me think of talking heads dutifully spouting their brainwashing on cue. Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell...
The other thing that occurs to me (other than how wonderful and meaningful what you have to say is), is why are students so afraid to try something new, outside the mainstream? Reminds me of a few sayings: (1) if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you've got, (2) insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, and (3) if what you're doing isn't working, TRY ANYTHING ELSE!

What have they got to lose by exposing themselves to a different viewpoint, trying something new? It just might totally transform their life. From Clark Kent to Superman, Diana Prince to Wonder Woman. Just think, they may be missing the greatest adventure of their lives by passing by something off the beaten path... The "heart of the studio system is in LA"... Does the studio system HAVE a heart? Doesn't anyone care what's IN that heart of darkness???? The horror, the horror.
Keep up the good work, Prof. Carney. We need more of you in the world.

Elaine Briggs

RC replies:

I am not hard on the students or critical of their answers. They just know what they are programmed to know. What their teachers teach them. But, yes, the teachers should know better. It just proves my point that this is what you get when you hire people who are part of the problem to teach the next generation of students. You perpetuate the system, the status quo--all the old ways of thinking and feeling--when education should be the opposite of that.

RC

P.S. On a lighter note, I might as well admit that I had to read your email three times before I figured out who "Diana Prince" is. (Never saw the TV show.) I learn something everyday. A bit of "trivial pursuit"for me. So now I have a trivia stumper back at you: What is the origin of the name of the board game? "Trivial Pursuit," I mean. Now that's a real piece of trivia! (I throw the challenge out to any of the readers of my site. Where did the name of the board game come from? There is a specific source that the guy who invented it took it from.) And no cheating by using Google to find it!

42

To access Ray Carney's complete website, go to http://www.cassavetes.com/

Ray,

Thought you might like to read this. I posted it on my site and the general consensus has been that it has changed or at least altered people's perspective of Paris Hilton (and other media figures in general). In fact, the more I study someone like Paris, the more I understand what Capra was doing with Meet John Doe. You'll probably see what I mean.

Hope all's well,

-Matt

Paris Hilton: person or pose?

To put this situation simply: Paris Hilton is a very bright and intelligent human being at odds with a
very ditsy, dumb and delinquent public image of herself.

Who's to blame for this? Her? Yes, maybe to some extent. She did, after all, agree to do "The Simple Life," even though her mother and other family members warned her that the show was essentially meant to poke fun at her (yes, I read Confessions of an Heiress). And it's basically from the "Simple Life" that her dumb blonde persona stems from - a combination of her actually playing dumb and the manipulative editing of Fox television that portrays her as being dumb.

But the general media is probably more to blame for Paris' negative influence on our culture than Paris herself. There are several interviews out there (if you look hard enough) where Paris not only explains to people that the Paris Hilton she plays on "The Simple Life" is just a character, but where she also says a variety of very bright and intelligent comments that totally undermine her dumb blonde image. This side of Paris, however, doesn't get very far. The media needs to preserve the false image of Paris Hilton as a dumb blonde because this is what people are more entertained by. To present Paris as saying anything the least bit intelligent only demolishes the very Paris Hilton persona that rakes in so much money for the media companies.

Paris, in fact, is now trying very hard to shatter this false image of herself. Her new album (which, in my opinion, is fantastic) is one of her ways of doing this. She wrote all her own lyrics herself - except for one song - and all the songs truly are products of free individual expression (that is, they express very unique and genuine feelings, which is all you can really ask for). Nobody wants to admit this, though: especially members of the media. They don't want to accept the fact that Paris Hilton is intelligent and talented because that image isn't as bankable as the dumb-blonde image.
The media realizes that people in our culture need stupid characters like the Paris Hilton persona so that we can feel better about ourselves. We look at her and say, "Oh, look how dumb that person is. At least I'm smarter than her." We like to have an 'other' to use as a punching bag for our own problems. Why work to change ourselves for the better when we see a person like Paris Hilton out there who is so much more stupid than and inferior to us?

But the problem is that the Paris Hilton we're comparing ourselves to doesn't exist. She is a media construction, an unreal entity that exists for the sole purpose of making us feel better about
ourselves and, in turn, attracting our attention, energy and, ultimately, our money.

Paris may have made a mistake when she did "The Simple Life" and she may still be making
some mistakes now in how she presents herself to the public, but the media (and, in a lot of ways, ourselves - the media consumers) are to blame for any bad influence her persona has on our culture. Or, in other words, the flaw with Paris Hilton is a flaw in our media-controlled culture. Or, to be even more general, it's a flaw in human nature.

I for one appreciate and respect the fact that she's working hard to create a better image of herself by writing her own songs and expressing genuine emotions through her music. I think she still needs to become more secure with her real self, but at least she's trying to break her dumb-blonde mold and that's key here. She's TRYING, but the media isn't helping her. The tabloids and newspapers and TV programs and, in many ways, ourselves refuse to let the real Paris Hilton come through.

We see what we want to see and, right now, everyone wants to see Paris being dumb, not smart. But to see her this way is to be blind from the truth. She's smart! And you don't have to take my word for it. Listen to her album!

RC replies:

I take your point about Frank Capra's Meet John Doe. And agree. But....................

I have to confess to hardly knowing who Paris Hilton is. Some (bimbo) movie star, right? I guess the blog could be right, and she might be a little Einstein, but I'd still ask, who cares? Who cares if she's smart or dumb? Who cares if she has been unfairly maligned by the press? Who cares if the media have made mistakes about her personality? Why in the world should I care about any of this --- with the war in Iraq, with the destruction of our skies and waters, with all the people who don't have houses because of hurricane Katrina, and all the people in this country and other parts of the world who don't have houses at all, separate from Katrina, with the lies and deceit and corruption of the Bush White House --- well you get the idea.

To get caught up in a debate about Paris Hilton's IQ or the media's image of her is like debating the merits or demerits of Oliver Stone's or Steven Spielberg's or the Coen brothers' movies: "Spielberg's AI is better than critics said." "WTC is Nick Cage's greatest acting performance." "Fargo or The Green Mile is a brilliant this or that....." Who cares? It's all some Tinseltown railroad village under the Christmas tree to me. A little Plasticville village with plastic people and plastic issues being debated by plastic reporters for plastic newspapers.

The debate--about Paris Hilton, Hollywood movies, or practically everything else the media focus on--only keeps our attention in the wrong place. That's the game. Distract the people from things that matter. Preoccupy them with trivia, while the world ends. Tell the crew of the Titanic to re-arrange the deck chairs. Moral: the Media are donkeys (or should I say, Paris Hiltons?) All of them. Everywhere.

If you want to talk about the stupidity of the media, you're just scratching the surface if you talk about their estimate of Paris Hilton's IQ . That doesn't matter. You're missing the far more obvious, more important stupidity of the media when they did their 2006 Commemorative pieces on 9/11, and focused on all that nostalgia for an America that allegedly (but never really!) existed before 9/11 and encouraged us to bathe ourselves in gallons of self-pity (woe is me; poor innocent, good-intentioned me--what disgusting sentimentality we Americans are capable of!), and for the victims of the World Trade Center events -- all the while, of course, not saying a word about the tens of thousands more victims of our Middle East policy since 1967 or before. Those dead bodies, those homeless people don't matter. They don't exist. They're foreigners, for God's sake. Who cares about them?

Look at the stupid Ken Burns movie about 9/11. It was rebroadcast recently on the 5th anniversary. I almost threw up when Burns allowed someone to say on camera that just before the planes arrived, the twin towers of the World Trade Center rose up in a crystalline, clear blue, cloudless sky, when anyone with a brain knows for a fact that those towers and all of the U.S. was covered that morning (and every other day that half century) with the roiling, turbulent, threatening clouds of fifty years of hateful, destructive, foreign policy disenfranchising the Palestinian people, supporting Israeli paranoia and vindictiveness, and propping up dictators in Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. A clear day? A clear conscience? Not exactly. We were propping up and sending money to the obscene Shah and the Royal Families of Playboy Mansion sheiks for decades. Where was that in the 9/11 memories? They said America lost its innocence on 9/11. Give me a break. We're still as stupid as ever if we don't come to grips with those kinds of facts. Or have we lost our minds entirely? Doesn't anyone learn anything from anything? Are we all that stupid, and that unable to learn anything, even from 9/11? If so, we're far, far stupider than Paris Hilton could ever be accused of being.

Now THAT'S stupidity that matters. Stupidity that you'll find on the front page of the New York Times. And if Paris Hilton wants to prove her high IQ, why doesn't she talk about that? What is knowledge disconnected from reality, from action, from event? Is that in her songs? Is that in the "genuine emotions" of her music?

RC

RC:

I was prowling around your website to find an article about Mike Leigh to show Andrew Bujalski., and caught that you've finally begun to update it again. Very glad to see it!

Re: Half Nelson, which somebody had contacted you about... It's the indie-darling of the year, out at the Kendall Square Cinema now. It's okay, maybe even good, but not great, and most certainly not a masterpiece. I finally caught Nine Lives too... Very good, with several wonderful sections, though I have some reservations overall. Anywho, catch The Death of Mr. Lazarescu when it comes out on DVD sooner or later -- that's the one to be waiting for.

How's your new Cassavetes book coming along? I'm almost done with the Capra book -- did the man himself ever read it or give you feedback on it? Would be very curious to see what he said...

Alex

RC replies:

Alex,

Thanks for the info on Half Nelson. I'll have to see for myself. As you know, being popular is always a mixed recommendation. Half Nelson's popularity definitely counts against it; but of course it just might be good anyway, even if a lot of people praise it. I'll have to see.

God knows how stupid most fans of "indie" film are. They are trapped by the same mind-forged emotional manacles as the rest of the population. Look at how worked up young people got over trendy silliness like The Royal Tenenbaums, Sideways, and Napoleon Dynamite. Self-pity and narcissism are the curse of our culture. The recent 9/11 anniversary tributes proved that. Feeling sorry for themselves is apparently more important to most people than doing anything actually to change the world they live in. Emotion replaces action. That's my definition of sentimentality.
Nine Lives is a great film. But it's a film of moments. There is really no overall structure. It's a mistake to treat it like Altman. As Emerson said, we can read for the glimmers, the glistenings, and sometimes a work that sparkles in bits and pieces, and doesn't really "add up" at all or try to, is greater than one with miles of structural ingenuity and complexity, which are often just names for intellectual preciousness.

RC

Prof. Carney,

Your site is wonderful. I just saw page 8 of your syllabus page. Your Cassavetes class sounds ABSOLUTELY AMAZING! (Click here to go there.)

I can't resist sending you a great compliment I found about you on the Internet this morning. And I quote:

"...I'm not as fiercely discriminating as Ray Carney..."

"Fiercely discriminating." I love it. What a great description. I can just see you brandishing Excalibur.

And I also found this article about your writing on JC today. It's by Matt Zoller Seitz and was written in March 2006. I thought it might interest you.

Carol Millis

RC replies:

Carol,

Thanx for the kind words. I guess if you care enough about something (film, life, art, honesty, truth-telling) it can come off as ferocity. But it's still just caring.

Unferociously,

RC

I am interested in viewing some of the French New Wave filmmakers (namely Godard, Truffaut, and Rohmer especially) and while I will see them regardless, I was wondering how you feel these director's works compared to the others you've recommended that I really enjoyed (Cassavetes, Gallo, Kar-Wai etc...)?

Also, since I'm Canadian I was also curious if you've seen any of Larry Kent's work. Quite amazing I think, he's always referred to as the "Father of Canadian Independent Film" and made three amazing films while attending the University of British Columbia in the early 60's all bridging the beat generation to the counter culture movement of the late 60's, and he's self-distributing his first film in 12 years, The Hamster Cage after no distributor would step up. It's very difficult to see his films unfortunately, it took me nearly 2 years of taping them off of Bravo! Canada, but check out The Bitter Ash, Sweet Substitute, and When Tomorrow Dies if you get the chance.

Thank you very much for your valuable time.

Clark Grieve

RC replies:

Thanks for the recommendation on Larry Kent. The French New Wave question would take too long to answer, but the (overly) short answer is that the reviled Rivette in his more extreme works (Out One, Spectre, Celine and Julie Go Boating) is a crazy genius, while the sanctified, canonized Truffaut is not. But as to who is the greatest of the greatest of all the artists working in that period of French cinema? It was, neither Jacques Rivette nor Francois Truffaut nor Erich Rohmer, but.... (a trumpet flourish and snare drum roll, please): Robert Bresson. Just shows the hazards of thinking in terms of "movements," "periods," "schools." Bresson was not anything but "Bressonian." But that was good enough. More than good enough.

RC

Subject: Criterion collection and rowlands

i saw your site and you mentioned in this video on youtbue. thats terrible what they did to you both criterion and rowlands. i hope thing are getting better.

here is a link to the vid i s aw you on

Weeba Macentire

RC replies: Thanks for the tea and sympathy.

Much appreciated. But I have to tell you that my computer is too old and creaky and its hard drive too bulgingly overloaded to access or play videos. Or do much else, other than type emails and book manuscripts on. And I have neither the time, the interest, nor the money to upgrade it.
I'd rather spend my bucks on something else, like a Mozart or Bach CD or score. Just technologically behind the curve I guess. So in short I'll have to take the link you sent me on trust. I can't look at it. (I tell that to all the young filmmakers who send me video links too.) But, yes, the Criterion and Rowlands situation sure is a doozy. Takes the cake, doesn't it? I have more than you want to know about the gory details on the site. Just type in "Criterion" or "law suit" or "Rowlands" or "fifty thousand dollars" and the site search engine will whisk you away on a magical mystery tour that will make your eyes bug out.

Who are you? What are you? Filmmaker? Teacher? Student? Cinephile? All of the above? Drop me a line and tell me about yourself. I'm always interested. I've met the most interesting people I know through this site.

All best wishes,

RC

A Note from Ray Carney:

Donal Foreman, the student who contributed the essay "What's Missing from Irish Cinema" that I posted on the site last year (click here to read it) , has sent me one of the papers he recently wrote for a class he was taking. It has an ungainly title -- "The present state of Irish television and the Irish film industry from the view point of people with creative ideas who wish to exhibit or show their work and make some money from it -- but is simply a thoughtful series of reflections on the fate of non-Hollywood filmmaking. I recommend it. Click here to read it.

41

To access Ray Carney's complete website, go to http://www.cassavetes.com/

Hi Ray,

You don't know me or anything I am just some person on the Internet. Sometime last year I managed to stumble across your web site, I can't remember how.

I guess I was looking for more information on John Cassavetes, having recently heard about him at the time. Anyway I am glad I found it. I have become addicted to reading your genuinely alternative point of view. I respect that you are not afraid to be critical of big names and darlings of the critics. Hell I even like most of those guys and enjoy their films, but I can see that there is a lot of truth to what you are saying and some of it really resonates. Sometimes your writing can be down right inspiring, for instance:

"If your work is even a little original, it is doomed to be misunderstood. Reviewers' criticisms will generally cancel each other out anyway: what one loves, another will hate. But read their reviews carefully. Read between the lines. Learn from their objections. Study what they can't understand about your work and go further in that direction. In particular, if several of them agree about some particular problem with your work, cultivate that aspect. It is probably its strongest and most original quality. Make it even more central next time."

That is pretty extreme. If you were a journalist they would kick you out of the press club for writing that. you would be tarred and feathered and ran out of town too. Thank god for the Internet. That brings me to the subject of why I am writing. I wanted to ask why do you not update your site anymore? Have you been asked not to by your employers? Maybe you are just on your summer vacation, or busy with life. I suspect that there are other anonymous readers out there like myself wondering the same thing, and want to read more, even if it is just the wonderful letters section.

Sincerely,

XXX

P.S. I can't imagine you would want to publish this short note, but if you do, please change my name.

Ray Carney replies:

Dear XXX:

Funny coincidence. Caveh Zahedi just wrote me about the same thing a week or so ago. Your instincts are correct. The last few years have been tough ones for me and for the site. Several new university administrators, appointed in the past few years (I suppress the names and titles to, I hope, forestall further punitive action) have objected strenuously to things I have posted. They want to censor the site (making me change or remove certain things), check and approve what posted, and force me to take down parts they object to.

These attempts at censorship are particularly unfortunate in a university. If a university is about anything, it is about the open and free and unimpeded exchange of ideas. But universities are often not really much different from the rest of the culture. People want to stamp out what they don't agree with. They want to censor ideas and feelings they don't understand. I've resisted the administrators. But it's not been easy. They have said nasty things to me about the web site, written abusive memos to me about it, yelled and screamed at me on occasion, and penalized me in other ways to try to get me to take down parts of it. I'll leave the punishment and retribution to your imagination; it shouldn't be too hard to figure out some of the kinds of things higher-ups can do to an employee to punish him or her.

If you are interested, I have a slightly more detailed account of the series of events in the "Necessary Experiences" packet I sell on the site (click here to buy it) and some of that same material is in a recent book titled: Your Life is a Movie: Alternative Visions of Film, Media, and Culture, edited by Don Thompson and Nicholas Rombes (click here to buy it).

Since the site has been a labor of love from the start and costs me a fair amount of money out of my pocket just to keep going (though I get thousands of emails like yours and hundreds of videos to review in the mail, I don't receive any payment or compensation for running it since it doesn't have advertising or any other form of corporate sponsorship), it has been an extremely discouraging past few years, and, yes, last year, after all the abuse and criticism, I just plain lost heart in keeping it up.

However, all of that is about to change. I plan to start adding more material soon. I shall post your letter and my reply to let others know what has been going on, since you are not the first one to ask me about this.

All best wishes. And thanks for the kind words. They matter more than you can know.

RC

Re: Would Cassavetes like "Lucky Louie"?

I was watching this new HBO sitcom by stand up comedian Louis C.K. and by the 6th episode I was noticing a lot of complex elements that reminded me of the tonal shifts in prime Cassavetes stuff... as well as Noonan. I was wondering if you'd seen it. In my estimation, certain episodes (especially the 6th episode, "Flowers for Kim") contain passages that equal the brilliance of HBO's other good comedy, "Curb Your Enthusiasm," only in a different style. Louie feels much more 'stagy', directly opposed to the former's documentary feel. Maybe I'm way off the mark, but if you happen to see it I'd love to hear your thoughts.

JD

Ray Carney replies:

Sorry to say I don't get cable TV. I had it for a few years but felt like I had an open sewage pipe draining into my living room and didn't like the smell so I cancelled it and have lived on DVDs ever since. Smells better and I never miss the beginning of anything.

But to your question, Lucky Louie (if that's the title) sounds interesting. And I have seen "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and agree that Larry David's show is good. (So good that I showed the pilot in class three or four years ago just after it first aired; HBO sent me a copy before it was out on DVD) The only thing to keep in mind is that it takes more than "tonal shifts" (Lucky Louie) or "tonal irresolution"/"tonal suspense"/"confused identification strategy" (my definition of "Curb Your Enthusiasm") to make art. Something must be at stake. Something really important that the viewer is emotionally invested in and that the work changes, threatens, adjusts, messes up. That's what art does. The technical devices are always in the service of doing something pretty radical to change how the viewer thinks, sees, understands his or her life. If Lucky Louie does that (and, just to be clear: comedy of course can do it wonderfully--I saw a stand-up comedian two nights ago who did it to my understanding of dozens of aspects of my experience) then it is doing something that John Cassavetes and Tom Noonan do.

All best wishes,

RC

Mr. Carney,

Thank you for all that you do for independent film. I am twenty-two and just made my first film. I
cannot imagine what the experience would have been like without Cassavetes on Cassavetes. The book has changed my life. Not only with my filmmaking, but it has had a real effect on my day-to-day existence. My film stars Larry Holden, another big fan of yours. I will send you a copy, but realize you might never actually get to watch it with the amount of mail you get. Thanks again and I look forward to reading more of your work.

Rob

Ray Carney replies:

Dear Rob,

Larry is a great guy and fine artist. Thanks for the good words about my work. I'm getting a lot of resistance here at my school from certain individuals in the administration and some faculty but I guess that comes with taking a stand and saying anything different from the mainstream.

All best wishes.....

Ray

A note from Ray Carney:

A recommendation.Derrick Jensen's Endgame, Vol 1: The Problem of Civilization and Endgame, Vol. 2.: Resistance.Murray Bookchin's The Ecology of Freedom

Hi Ray -

I thought you might like to take a look at this book notice - there's an internet address to click on. It's by an old friend of mine, and I read it in ms. - quite civilized and interesting.

http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/faculty_pages/rhu/cavell.html

I read a new book on Kiarostami recently by Alberto Elena - it's the most thoroughly researched and helpful work on him - and it praises repeatedly an article on Taste of Cherry by our own Michael Price (grad. student in the Boston U. Film Studies program)! I got in touch with Mike to tell him about it.

Charles

Dear Prof. Carney:

A graduating student in the Master of Theological Studies program, I'm currently creating a course
on the Beat Generation that I'd like to offer through Tufts's Experimental College. Titled "The Beat Way and Fellow Travelers" (sample syllabus, minus course description, attached), the class will approach the phenomenon of the "Beat" movement, of momements it was related to and which it spawned, and its influence on American culture through literature (mainly), religion, and history. I'd also like to add film, and here's where I"m stuck. I plan to end the course with "Down By Law" from Jim Jarmusch, who owes quite a bit to the Beats. However, I would like to add another film.
Bryan Stone, currently my professor for "Faith and Film", directed me to your "Beat Generation on Film" website. After looking at your site, I plan (if I can find it) to add "The Beats: An Existential Comedy" as a documentary (I believe it's one of the docs I saw when I took a course on "The Beat Generation" as a Penn State undergrad). I want something to provide some background for my students, and I think this would help. However, I want to add one other full-length film from the "Beat" period, perhaps something underground though not exactly "Beat"--and after having read a review in Sunday's GLOBE on his work, I'm thinking about something by John Cassavetes? Can you suggest something, either by him or by some other related auteur, that could fit my class?
I was also thinking of "Pull My Daisy", but I've not yet seen that either. When I presented a paper at a Beat conference in China two summers ago, the movie was originally to have been screened (and David Amram was in attendance). However, due to some of the subject matter, the censors yanked it at the last second. I think my suggested "musical interlude," however, will provide my students with a good sense of Dave's contributions. (Also, I'm not sure whether or not it's in print.)
I'm trying to cover everything possible in this class (hence the "fellow travelers" mention in the title)--and Tufts only gives me thirteen weeks to cover it! I know this is awfully close to the break, but this is due one week from Friday. This is something I've long wanted to do and, should I go into teaching, would like to offer regularly. Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much for your time.

Yours,

Matt Stefon

Ray Carney replies:

Cassavetes' Shadows would be ideal. But not as a first film on the movement but as a last one or an "aftereffects" film. The reason to save it for later is that, if you view it subtly (and it is a very subtle film), it is a critique of the movement. The character of Ben is definitely Beat, but represents an ANALYSIS of the flaws of the Beat position. Don't tell the students this, but ask them to discover it. Or you could put it as a paper topic for them: "Use Shadows to discuss how Cassavetes understands the movement....... etc."

So many Beat works (including PMD) are self-indulgent, narcissistic, celebrations of irresponsibility, selfishness, disengagement. So Sh. is one of the VERY FEW critiques. Much smarter than the other works.

PMD is a great film though (with all of the above flaws). See my page on the web site about it and Shadows. I contrast them.

You should show both. I haven't time to look at the syllabus you attached but I hope that answers your questions. Don't know how Pull My Daisy could have offended anyone or upset the censor. It pretty much neutralizes any critique it contains by wrapping it in goof-ball goofiness and humor. (That's one of its weaknesses.) But America is in moral trouble and our fear of anything different or even mildly unconventional is proof of it. Even in the bland, mild, comic Pull My Daisy, I guess. But I assume I am speaking to the choir about this subject.

Dear Professor Carney

Hello. I am a local independent filmmaker. Over the years I have gobbled up much more of your
writings on film and art than I care to admit, and they've played no small role in shaping and unshaping my cinematic impressions.

A few months ago I completed my first feature-length film, 'The Hole Story', which was made without lights, formulas, money, homages, compromises or excuses. It's currently playing at film festivals and this Thursday evening it will screen at BU as part of the Cinematheque Screening series. If you'd like to come by and watch it, I would be most delighted. It would be a genuine pleasure to meet you.

Best,

Alex

For more info on the film you can visit its website at www.theholestoryfilm.com

Ray Carney replies:

I recommend this film.

Subject: Wanda on DVD

A quick head's up: Barbara Loden's "Wanda" has finally been given a respectable video release.
Also -- Mitch pointed this out to me, I'd imagine you've seen it before, but if not, here's a link. The author cites you and your work a number of times.

How's all your writing going? If you need anybody to proofread, research, etc., I've got nothing to do the latter half of September, once my work for Andrew is completed.

Hope all's well!

Alex

Ray Carney replies:

An amazing movie. A life-changing viewing experience. And about time for it to hit the video stores: thirty-five years after its release. One of the six or seven supreme masterworks of the first generation of American indie filmmaking -- from the mid-1950s through the mid-1970s. Here are the titles on my "Top Ten List" and, alas, more than one of them is still not out on video, even at this late date in the so-called media era:

Morris Engel, Little Fugitive, Lovers and Lollipops, Weddings and BabiesJohn Cassavetes, Shadows (both versions), Faces, HusbandsMilton Moses Ginsberg, Coming ApartJohn Korty, Crazy Quilt, Funnyman, RiverrunElaine May, Heatbreak Kid and Mikey and NickyClaudia Weil, GirlfriendsRobert Kramer, Ice and Milestones Barbara Loden, WandaBruce Conner, A Movie, Marilyn Times Five, Mona Lisa, Mongoloid, Valse TristeMark Rappaport, Casual Relations, Mozart in Love, Local Color, Scenic Route, Chain LettersShirley Clarke, Bridges Go Round, Portrait of Jason Paul Morrissey, Trash, Flesh, Heat, Lonesome Cowboysand about ten others I don't have time to list.

Subject: movie list

I posted a list of must-see films on my myspace page at www.myspace.com/darrenpardee. I know I missed a bunch, but if you can think of anything further that I might just be totally missing (I.e. films that I've seen but for some reason excluded from the list) I'd appreciate it.

Darren Pardee

P.s. Hope everything is going well. Kick Gena Rowland's ass. Peace.

DP

Subject: have you seen the film Half Nelson?

I'd love to hear your opinion about it . . .

Hope you're well.

Dana Yeaton

(A note from Ray Carney: Dana Yeaton is an important "younger generation" playwright. I highly recommend his own work.)

Ray Carney replies:

No. But you got my attention. What is it? Current release? Out on DVD or what? I'll try to get a copy if it's out already. Who directed? Who is in it? Best year-old film I've seen in the past month is Nine Lives. Rodrigo Garcia. Son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but totally different from his dad's novels. Straight drama almost as if on a stage. But brilliant. Brilliantly acted, beat by beat, moment by moment. Check that one out yourself. The supermarket scene, the two couples in the swanky apartment scene, the funeral scene, and the parents with the shuttlecock daughter scene are especially amazing. Rodrigo Garcia is someone to watch.

Term began today. A bit hectic. See ya,

Ray

Reply from Dana Yeaton:

It's a current release, directed and co-written by Ryan Fleck. Apparently it was selected best film at Sundance this year, though I know that's a dubious distinction. It was a story I'd never seen before -- at least not told this honestly. It certainly would never get made in Hollywood. If you get a chance to see it, please let me know your thoughts.

Does it avoid Neil Labute-style contemporary cynicism?

All the best,

Dana

40

To access Ray Carney's complete website, go to http://www.cassavetes.com/

Subject: Gena Rowlands at UCLA

hi ray,

this is david chien from los angeles. how are you? how was that film festival you flew out to? which one was it - any good movies to look out for? thanks for writing back a little over a month ago... i've since been able to get some work going. i do some part-time radio announcements at a local station, and i've been trying to get a position as an assistant to an art school near LAX. all of which seem to be promising.

your advice was helpful, and i can't thank you enough. you've been one of the few voices of reason - and in a way it has been redemptive for my well-being.

in a week, there's a screening of a 35mm print of Faces. and gena rowlands will be there, along with seymour cassel. i'm very tempted to ask about the Shadowssituation, but i don't want to make a needless scene. besides, i fear going only because i gather that the audience will be mostly there to cater to this live appearance of gena and seymour (and curtis hansen, who's moderating) - but it won't really be about the movie. or john.

anyway, thanks for listening. please keep in touch and let me know how everything is in boston. in these crazy times with senseless political intrigue (i.e. korea, lebanon, iraq), and terrible movies about them (i.e. world trade center by oliver stone), it becomes ever more important to focus on the little things.

the little things which, in fact, are the most important: friends, family, love, brotherhood, work, art, food, truth.

luego,

david.

Ray Carney replies:

Subject: Telling the truth

David,

Since I have had absolutely no success on the telephone or in many pleading letters I have written attempting to persuade Gena Rowlands to allow me to screen the prints of Shadows and Faces that I discovered (and she has only sicced her lawyers on me in an attempt to confiscate the film in response), I think the best way to proceed is to show her that other people care about this issue too (and it is not just me). Therefore it is critical that people ask Rowlands or Al Ruban or Seymour Cassel or any of the other figures connected with Cassavetes' work about this situation at public events they attend. That's the way to make her realize it matters. If enough people ask about it, it is sure to make a difference. I'm convinced that it would help VERY MUCH if you and everyone else who cares about Cassavetes' work raised a few questions about my Shadows and Faces finds and why Rowlands will not allow them to be seen. Or a question or two about the stewardship of his work after his death. Appropriate questions:

1. To Gena Rowlands: Three years ago, after almost twenty years of searching, Boston University professor Ray Carney re-discovered the legendary lost first version of Shadows. Why won't you let him show it at film festivals or in movie theaters?

2. To Gena Rowlands: Just a short time before that, Professor Carney found an alternate print of Faces. Why won't you let it be screened? Why did you tell him that he was forbidden to announce the discovery and write about it?

3. To Rowlands: Why did you have Professor Carney fired from the Criterion Cassavetes DVD box set project after he had put six months of work into it and done his voice-over commentary, which you prevented from being included in the set? (By the way, I really would like to know her answer to this question, since when she had me fired, she gave no reason and has refused to respond to subsequent requests that she explain why she did it.)

A related question in terms of Ray Carney's absence from film events. Why have you banned Prof. Carney from being invited to Cassavetes events? Why is he not at this event? He has said he is willing to go anywhere to speak about Cassavetes' work or show the films he has discovered. Why have you told programmers not to invite him? Why are you trying to censor and control him? What are you afraid of?

4. To Seymour Cassel: Why do you say on the British DVD of Shadows that there was no first version when Prof. Carney has found it? Don't you have the obligation to know what you are talking about when you offer commentary on a DVD, specifically when you attack Professor Carney's work and discovery, and get the facts all wrong?

5. If time allowed, after the above questions: Gena Rowlands should be asked about why she told UCLA that she didn't like the Leola Harlow scene in Husbands and that they should shorten and cut out some of it, which they did when they restored the print. (Click here to hear the audio of twelve minutes that were cut at the end of the singing scene and the beginning of the men's room scene in Husbands.) And why has Rowlands allowed other cuts and defacements of her husband's film by others? Both film and video releases of more than one of her husband's films have been shortened or re-edited. Scenes are missing. Shots are changed.

Note that it isn't an adequate answer for her to plead ignorance or to say that she didn't know that these cuts or changes were being made to Cassavetes' films. Not to know about these things, not to carefully supervise or speak out against cuts and changes, after they are pointed out (as I have pointed them out for years) is to collaborate in them. To keep silent in the face of artistic mutilation. To put money ahead of artistic integrity.

In terms of all five questions: don't let Rowlands, Cassel, or a guy named Ruban who is sometimes at these events get off with evasions or lies or misrepresentations in their responses. Read the relevant pages on my site, especially the page that is in the "legal issues" section. There IS a "first version" of Shadows. Cassavetes talked about it and said he had no objections to having it screened. It is a complete, perfectly edited, final print completely different from the second version. And Rowlands and Cassel can view it anytime they come to Boston at a screening I have offered to arrange. (But of course I can't send the only print in the world to them in Los Angeles. First because Rowlands has said she has no intention of showing it and might well destroy it. And second because of its fragility.For a brief taste of the film, click here to view three video clips.)

Bring friends and ask them to ask the same question or to follow up on yours, if Rowands or Cassel tries to lie about the film or how she has prohibited its screenings and come after me with lawyers to stop them.

Any audience member who cares about these films and ever seeing these prints, owes it to him or herself to ask both of them these questions. This is not about me or about you. It is more important than either of us. It is about the fate of John Cassavetes' work and the care (or lack of care) to present and preserve it. That is what matters. Not my ego or yours. Not Gena Rowlands's feelings or mood. It's about caring about the films and trying to make sure that they are preserved for another generation to see, preserved in their true, original state, I mean. Not edited or changed or hacked up or suppressed.

If audience members say (as you suggest) that the event is just a "celebrity love fest," then they are part of making it that. If no one ever questions the outrageous positions Rowlands and Cassel have taken on these films, they will have no incentive to change their positions, nothing will change, and the films will never be seen. If you treat this as a "love fest" and avoid asking tough questions, you'll have collaborated in making it a "love fest," just as much as the reporters who don't ask George Bush hard questions about the invasion of Iraq or the suck- up journalists who don't ask people like Curtis Hanson why they make such junky exploitative movies.

Each filmgoer who believes that Cassavetes' work should not be suppressed or censored must stand up to her attitude. Not to ask the question--over and over again if necessary, at every event she attends--is the irresponsible thing to do. To say that it will "spoil" the love fest is just being afraid to "speak the truth" to the rich and famous. It's just to play the Charlie Rose, UCLA, film festival suck-up game.

For what it's worth. Those are the principles I've based my life on.

RC

PS. FYI: Seymour Cassel is a complete "bullshit artist" and will say more or less anything that he thinks will please a crowd--anything!--so don't expect much from him. But it is still worth asking him the questions, since he bashes my work on the British DVD and should be held accountable for his words and actions.

P.P.S. A note about the Oliver Stone movie, since you mention it: It is beneath contempt. Stone was clearly terrified of offending ANYONE. The movie plays like a pork-barrel congressional bill: One scene after another inserted to please everyone, flatter everyone, pander to everyone. Careful: Make sure there's something in it to please and not offend the fire department, the Puerto Ricans, the mothers, the sons, the wives, the husbands, the Arab Americans, the Italian Americans, blah, blah, blah. All the more ironic in a movie that is supposedly about human courage, as a filmmaker Stone shows himself to be the biggest scaredy-cat coward on the block. I go to movies to learn things, to be taken beyond the cliché view of events and emotions, to be forced to see things and think about them in new ways. In World Trade Center, Oliver Stone shows he is as stupid as Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld.

hi ray,

good to hear from you. i got both e-mails. you know, i am now very motivated to bring these matters up. i think i was otherwise lethargic about this. i am glad that you are a constant reminder of the very sad and terrible things that happen to art based on money, ego, and insecurity. and with the time you invested into researching and promoting john's work, it's high-time that others be as adamant about knowing the truth.

besides, they are good questions and worth probing for anyone interested in the movies and cassavetes.

i'll let you know how the screening goes on saturday. i doubt i'll be getting any direct nuggets of truth, but even their lies and their efforts to showboat in front of a crowd will be telling and (in its own way) a form of truth-telling...however unintentional it may be.

btw...any good work to look out for? i was curious if you saw drawing restraint 9, since i know you were a fan of the "cremaster" series.

take care, ray. thanks again.

- david.

Ray Carney replies:

Haven't seen the the Matthew Barney film, since it hasn't made it to Boston as far as I know, but NYC friends say it is great. Keep up the good fight. It's always worth it.

RC

Subject: Question about the prints used for the Love Streams and Minnie & Moskowitz DVDs Allow
Subject

Hello,

I received a copy French 2-DVD set of A Child Is Waiting and Love Streams yesterday, and while the presentation of A Child Is Waiting looked very good, I wanted to ask you about the print used to make the Love Streams DVD. Specifically, I was wondering about the dream sequence at the pool near the end of the film. There are one or two spots where the screen goes black for a second or so (yet the soundtrack is still present...this happens once right at the beginning of the sequence, when Seymour Cassel enters, and once when Gena Rowlands offers the "popcorn" to Seymour), as well as the sudden appearance of the daughter in the frame at one point (it is difficult to describe, since I have only seen the film once so far). Is this how the film was originally edited, or is this a technical flaw with the transfer? I've noticed missing frames here and there in Cassavetes' other films, but this is quite a bit more jarring.

Also, while I realize (thanks to your site) that there is an entire scene chopped from the Minnie & Moskowitz DVD, there's something else that strikes me as odd. After the initial burst of credits, we settle into the film for about ten minutes or so, only to have the credits re-appear after Seymour Cassel meets Irish. Is this the way that the credits originally appeared? It seems bizarre to me that Cassavetes would intentionally disrupt the film like that.

I realize that you are a busy man, but if you have the time, I would really appreciate your answers. Also, good luck to you with the battle over Shadows. History has a difficult enough time surviving without man's desire to destroy it.

While I'm thinking about it...Regarding your tidbit about Orson Welles fans balking at the prospect of a re-mixed soundtrack for Citizen Kane [I'm sure I just killed any credibility that I might have had by mentioning Orson Welles in an e-mail to you...though I'm inclined to ask you if you have ever watched a decent print of Chimes At Midnight, which is far better than Kane]...well, something worse than that has already happened, thanks to Beatrice Welles-Smith. Back in 1992, a copy of Orson Welles' film adaptation of Othello was found in a warehouse in Jersey, and BS (excuse the pun) decided to invest over $1 million in a "restoration". Though the print wasn't completely worthless, there were better prints in existence [Criterion issued a LaserDisc in the mid-90s using the Library Of Congress print], yet they didn't try to locate any of them. They decided that the original, post-synched soundtrack was mostly worthless, so they hired somebody to transcribe the score by ear [I'm not sure how much you know on this subject, but let me just say that transcribing an orchestral score by ear is an imperfect prospect, to say the least], without even bothering to track down a copy of the original manuscript [which still existed], re-recording the foley effects in stereo [mono is a no-no, you know], and made speed adjustments to the dialogue in an attempt to "correct" the synchronization problems [while deleting a few pieces of dialogue for whatever reason while leaving the film intact...so you get to see actors speaking without actually hearing them]. Of course, since this "restored" version has been produced, all subsequent releases [aside from the Criterion LD] have been based on this "restoration"...

If you do have time, I'd like to know what exactly you mean when you say that Ruban re-mixed the soundtracks for Woman and Bookie...was he at least using the same elements? How exactly does it differ from the original soundtrack? (also, what is the missing seven-minute portion from Woman)

Thanks in advance,

Kevin Loy

Ray Carney replies:

Kevin,

One of my new books, an intellectual biography of John Cassavetes: John Cassavetes--A Life Lived in Art, will have detailed answers to all of your questions and thousands of others I am often asked. So this will have to be the Reader's Digest Condensed Edition:

1. The Love Streams effects you describe are in the film. They add to the "dream" aspect of the scene, so that's good news, but ..... (there's always a but) most film prints and video transfers have small changes and elisions (missing sections) in the scene precisely because the video transfer folks use the same logic that you do and try to "correct" the print! (Shades of Beatrice Welles.) I will have a complete description of the differences between JC's original release print and all subsequent video transfers in my book, second my second, shot by shot.

2. Credits to M and M are correct as they stand. JC moved material around after the credits had been inserted and never had the credit sequence re-done. He ended up thinking it was "funny" the way it was. And it is. A series of credits more delayed than a James Bond movie.

3. Your description of Beatrice Welles's butchering of Citizen Kane and the video company
collaboration with her butchery by releasing it is important for everyone to contemplate. That is exactly what Gena is doing or trying to do with John's work and is the reason I am refusing to go along with her on it and "blowing the whistle" about it. The Beatrice Welles story is proof that this sort of thing can take place and almost no one object or notice. That is why I have to fight for the integrity of John's work in every way I can: with lawyers, with appeals on my web site, with appeals to film archives and video releasers. But the Welles story shows how, even with artists like Cassavetes and Welles, "money talks." The rich and powerful almost always get their way and principled appeals by people like me are ignored. In the case of JC: UCLA collaborated with Gena in cutting Husbands. (Click here to hear the audio of twelve minutes that were cut at the end of the singing scene and the beginning of the men's room scene in Husbands.) Criterion collaborated with her in releasing the prints she wanted. And not one American film magazine has stood up for my attempt to preserve the first version of Shadows from destruction. It's a lonely fight, but all the more important since if I don't do it, who will? It is shocking to me that when Gena Rowlands makes public appearances, no one cares enough about Cassavetes films to ask her about any of this stuff. It says a lot about our insane, movie-star suck-up culture that I am apparently the only "nut" to object to the mutilations of these works of art when it comes to Cassavetes. Others have tried to raise questions about the Welles re-edit and the other ways she has prevented scholars from having access to Welles's work, but when it comes to Cassavetes, no one else seems to give a damn. No one but this fool.

By the way, the New Yorker had an interesting piece sometime in the spring of 2006 about the way one of James Joyce's heirs has prevented scholars from working on his material or writing about it, so I guess you could say that this goes on in other arts as well. But at least when it happens with James Joyce, the New Yorker takes notice. To the best of my knowledge, no magazine or newspaper has written about the Cassavetes situation.

4. About the Ruban re-edit of Woman: It was not from the same elements. He made a new edit.
5. About the other films' cuts and versions, you'll have to read my book when it is out. I have extensive detailed descriptions of thousands of pages and hundreds of hours of unknown Cassavetes material: the play versions of Faces and Woman Under the Influence, the Husbands novel, screenplay drafts of Killing of a Chinese Bookie and Opening Night and Love Streams that are significantly different from the released films, sections of other people's films he re-wrote, previously unknown works he wrote and directed, and too much more to list.

All best wishes,

RC

A note from Ray Carney: A new book Your Life is a Movie has an approximately 100 page interview with me about the state of film study in our universities and the state of film reviewing in our newspapers and magazines. It is available at the following Amazon link. Click here.

Subject: A Woman Under the Influence-35mm

Dear Prof. Carney,

We traded notes back in the late '90s when I was publishing my little 'zine Cinecism. Since then, I have been actively involved in film programming and lecturing here in the D.C. area. I am currently consulting with a non-profit organization that is planning to host a film series, and they have expressed interest in A Woman Under the Influence . Do you offhand happen to know what distributor is handling 35mm print rentals of that title these days?

I was very sorry and quite appalled to hear about the shabby way you were treated over the whole Shadows situation. I am glad you held your ground and am confident that you will have an opportunity to screen the original version without fears of intimidation from the filmmakers' estate.
In any event, I hope this note finds you well, and I appreciate any information you can share on Influence.

With every good wish,

Kindest regards,

Max Alvarez Washington, DC

Ray Carney replies:

Max,

Good to hear from you after so long! I LOVED your "Cinecism" publication. Good stuff. To rent any of the following five films by JC: Shadows,Faces, A Woman Under the Influence, Killing of a Chinese Bookie, or Opening Night--contact Castle Hill Films in New York City. I don't have their address or number handy, but I am sure they are either on the internet or in the phone book, area code 212. Make sure you inspect the print you rent before screening. I have dealt with them dozens, nay hundreds, of times over the past twenty years and when it comes to Cassavetes' work, they have sent me every form of incomplete or mutilated print: prints with missing or mislabeled reels, prints with bad sound, prints with bad color, prints for one film misplaced in the box for another, etc. etc. It's really a disgrace the way these films have been treated and are being distributed, but as I have said a thousand times, no one seems to care or notice. So be careful! But they are the ones to get those five prints from. Just for the record, good quality 35mm prints of Minnie and Moskowitz, Husbands, or Child Is Waiting are even harder to come by. And a 35mm print of Love Streams is virtually unavailable altogether. There was a new one struck early in 2006 for a few screenings in Canada and the US, but wouldn't you know, it was a re-edited version with a slightly different shot selection from the release version of the film. No one seems to be supervising these things. Stay well and stay "cine-cal"!!!

Best wishes,

Ray Carney

Subject: Looking for Kramer's ICE

Dear Ray

I am teaching an American Indies: the first Wave course at NYU in fall -- and really want to show ICE by Robert Kramer. NYU will not pay for film copies or projection -- so am forced to show everything on DVD or video.

I cannot find any mention on the web of the film available in DVD or even on video -- and thought you would know.

Your essay on your website is terrific -- and I will use it for part of the Readings.

thanks in advance for any help with this.

wanda Bershen
Red Diaper PRoductions

Ray Carney replies:

Wanda,

Good to hear from you, but sorry bad news: Not only Ice but the monumental Milestones, surely one of the indisputable classics of indie film is not on tape or disk. Alas--most all of Robert's work is still not on video. I tried to port it over about a decade ago with a company called VideoActive that one of my students founded but the deal fell apart when Robt. wanted more money than the company was able pay.

Tell your chair to "ante up" for a film print. (I sometimes pay out of my own pocket when I rent things like this, but it's just too important not to do.) Tell him or her that, even at this late date in the video revolution, a lot of the best indie work falls into this category. How about Mozart in Love and Casual Relations? How about Lovestreams? How about Crazy Quilt and Funnyman? But I better stop since I could go on forever.

Thanx for the nice comment on the site. It drags in hundreds of emails a week, which is why you would do best to use this other email address in the future. The web site one is just overwhelming for me to keep up with and your messages will not be noticed.

Ray

P.S. Give me a report on whassup down at NYU. I've lost track of who's still there. And, by the way, if anyone is interested, I'd love to come down and show both versions of Shadows back to back to students, and talk about Cassavetes. It would be a real draw since the first version hasn't played in the city yet. You'd get a crowd for sure.

Subject: PhD help

Dear Professor Carney,

I am not sure that you will even read this or whether you are contactable on this address. My name is Anna Rogers and I am a current PhD student in film and philosophy at Edinburgh University. My thesis is on modern, independent, American film (Jarmusch, Van Sant and Coppola (Sofia))...I am not sure how you would feel about me labelling these diverse filmmkakers as 'independent'; it certainly seems to be a fluid term that is rather 'trendy' to use these days. Anyway, suffice to say, I love your writing which brought me to the great, great gift of John Cassavetes' work. In my quest to 'define' what the term 'independent' might mean these days (I am indebeted to your website which will be fully acknowledged) I am trying to see as many of the films you mention. Unfortunately, websites such as amazon are rather fruitless when it comes to trying to buy works by Clarke, May and Rappaport. I wondered if you knew of a good american site form which I might try to purchase these films?

Many thanks for everything,

Anna Rogers

Ray Carney replies:

Anna,

Good to hear from you. Get the Edinburgh film fest. to invite me next year and we could meet!! (A friend of mine, Dena DeCola, is showing a short there right now and another friend, Paul Cronin, has shown his documentary work there in the past, but they've never asked me to sit on a panel or be present, so put in a good word for me. I'd love to show the first version of Shadows there.)

Re: the films you request: There are still many great indie films that are just not on American video. John Korty (you don't name) and Mark Rappaport (you do) are two of the best. Their work is just not available (though I show my own personal copies in class and Mark Rappaport has given me many things connected with his work).

I just remembered: I helped to issue about four or five of Rappaport's films on video about ten years ago. They almost bankrupted the company that issued them! They have long been out of print, but you might look for them on eBay in old videotape copies. The company was videoactive and the titles were Casual Relations, Local Color, Scenic Route, Chain Letters, and one or two more.
If you are in the US or I am in Edinburgh, I will let you see anything I have, including the first version of Shadows, but I don't know what else to suggest.

All best wishes and please stay in touch.

Ray

PS. Tell me more about your work or studies. I am interested. And definitely let me know if you are ever in the area.


My goodness!

This really is such an honour. I honestly never envisaged receiving a reply from you! I just watched Mikey and Nicky and was thinking about it in connection to the present moment and the metamorphosis of the body. My research is a melange of my own interests in European philosophy and my love of film. I am using Gilles Deleuze's two books on cinema as well as Sartre's Being and Nothingness, Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception and the the work on the ritual process by Victor Turner and Arnold Van Gennep as an approach to film. My working title is 'The Crisis-Image in modern, independent, American cinema'. Deleuze seems to dismiss much of American film in Cinema 2 and frankly, this upsets me (although he does talk at length anout Cassavetes and litlle bit about Clarke...I am sure you've read it). I decided to use his theory as an approach to films that I love and see what comes out of it. Basically, I am trying to show how moments of crisis can initially precipitate a sense of alienation but can also guide us back to the world through the body, perception and modes of choice as well as encouraging more open ways of thinking about film. I am trying to focus on 'liminal' figures in film, those characters who are between two states, between choices and don't have fully formed identities. It's all very much a work in progress and I constantly feel like it's not something I am ever going to finish, it will have to finish me (if that makes any sense). The Edinburgh film festival is rather curious this year. They have this season called 'They Might Be Giants' season which are lost gems of 70s American cinema that are hardly ever screened. I have seen Milos Forman's Taking Off and am going to see Arthur Penn's Night Moves next week. I was really surprised that there was no mention of Cassavetes or Clarke. Portrait of Jason was screened at the London film festival last year so I was kind of shocked that no one had spread the word further up north. I know that the curator is changing this year so next year may have an altogether different flavour. I would so love to see 'Shadows' on the big screen; in fact, any Cassavetes would be a treat as I have only seen them on DVD. One of my fellow PhD students is quite 'in' with the festival 'people', I could suggest to him about you coming over?

Sorry for rambling, I am so excited that you actually wrote back to me!

Anna

RC replies:

Dear Anna,

Thanks for the good report. Sounds like an interesting project. I wish you well.

But be careful about the French approach to American film. It's so.....je ne sais quoi.... so French, I guess I could say. Not at all American.

The Shadows print I was referring to was the "lost" first version. I wasn't sure that I made that clear.
I could have given the fest. some lost masterworks of the indie movement that are really forgotten, not just the pretend forgotten titles you name. But they should have asked me.

Sure, tell your friend to mention my name to the current and the next curator. Can't hurt.

Fondly,

Ray

I know, the French approach can be a little obscure...i am trying to steer clear of as much jargon as possible!

I am going to contact the admin department of the filmhouse (the home of the festival) to see if I can get in touch with the programmer. I will let you know if I make some progress.

Is it the original improvised version of Shadows that you have?

Anna

Ray Carney replies:

Yes to your last question. Only one print ever existed. It was lost for the past fifty years. I found it in an attic. JC's real first film.

Ray

Mr. Carney;

It's a pleasure to be posting you. Please allow my introduction. I'm 26 and I make films here where I live in rural Missouri. I'm currently finishing my third, self-funded feature, entitled Sinner Come Home. It's a sort of fable story, with religious undertones, about a young marriage on the brink of collapse, set to the backdrop of a rural, weather-beaten town.

It was recently suggested to me by Jon Jost's former producer, Henry Rosenthal, that I should consider approaching you (and Jonathan Rosenbaum, if I can reach him) in regard to taking a look at my film. I'm well aware of your words on indie film and on Cassavetes in particular. I'm not sure just what you could do outside of letting me know what you think, but it'd be a pleasure to hear any such comments.

With final work on the sound mix drawing close, I hope to make some decent festivals with this film, but I haven't had much luck with exhibition in the past, and at this point, distribution seems a near impossibility. Several producer reps have seen the film, several even liking it (that was sort of surprising), but nobody will run with the film. As Ronna Wallace (producer of films including Reservoir Dogs, Bad Lieutenant, and Bob Roberts) told me just recently, "I liked your film, was never bored, but I can't do anything with a film like this...you have no stars and it's black and white. I could send this to 150 distributiors around the world and none of them would touch it. But, good luck, I really liked it." Luck...I need more than that. I'm happy to let anyone willing take a look at this film that I feel "hits it." Although just exactly what "it" is, I'm not sure. Maybe just a ring of authenticity, but even still, I'm probably biased.

If you're obliged, I'd be most happy to provide a screener for your review.

May I hear from you?

Very truly yours,

Blake Eckard

Ray Carney replies:

Dear Blake,

If Ronna Wallace can't do anything, I doubt I can either. She's more powerful than I'll ever be. And of course I can't promise anything in advance (even liking the film, which puts her ahead of me on that count as well). But if you want to send me a copy, feel free. The address at the bottom of this email or on the web site is the best one.

Sorry to hear about your distribution woes. The most I can say to console you is first that you are not
alone, and second you are in very good company. The best films of the past forty years have all had problems getting widespread distribution and some of them still haven't succeeded. Sad but true. That's the way America works: massive misallocations of funding, attention, and critical promotion. Sorry to hear about it one more time.

Best,

Ray

Subject: Vertigo: A Visual Romantic Poem.

Dear Professor Ray Carney,

I am a teacher of Mathematics living in Athens,Greece.I would like to say that I am an admirer of Hitchcock's Art and i consider Vertigo,not only, the Master's masterpiece,but a work of Art with strong connections to Romanticism on the one hand and to Pre-Raphaelities-Symbolist Painting on the other.Inspired from the subject of Professor Richard Allens' forthcoming study "Hitchcock's Romantic Irony",i would like to say that Vertigo is a visual poem full on Romantic Irony.Its a crush between Romantic Idealism and Skepticism.At once a celebration of the creation of a Romantic Ideal,of the beautiful illusion of timeless Beauty,that is Madeleine and an Ironic closing of the Gap,the Abyss between Subject and its Object of Desire.Ultimately the Destruction of Romantic Ideal.

A scene from Hitchcock's Vertigo that made a great impression on me, was that of the mirror image of Carlotta's jewel that gives Scottie the key to the mystery and of course that extrardinarily beautiful scene gives and "means" much more.I would like you to explain,if you like,the game profound game of representations that is being played in that scene.I think that it is one of those scenes that signal the culmination of Hitchcock's visual design in the film.The themes of life-death,the doubles,mirrrors-portraits,forward-tracking movement versus backward-tracking movement and the themes of the original and the replica.In other words Scottie recognizes not in looking directly to Madeleine,but looking to the mirror image of Judy tranformated as Madeleine for a second time.I first saw Vertigo as a student of Mathematics in 1990.And from that first time i had that question in my mind.I always knew that this moment of illumination and the starting point of the final moments of the film,was not a moment of chance.It had to do,of course,with the previous scene,the transformation and the return of both Madeleine and past time. The connection in the "mirror scene" of the both the reflection on the mirror(the double),the portrait and Madeleine suggests that we have again a scene in which time is in "stasis",in infinite present as you wrote of the previous scene in the hotel room.

Inspired from Richard Allen's essay on camera movement in Vertigo,i will suggest that there is another pair of camera movements,the combination of forward-tracking with backward-tracking in the scene at the art museum and its "mirror image" ,the mirror-recognition for Scottie scene after the transformation.The first created the beautiful illusion of Madeleine and her connection with Carlotta, and the second destroyed(for Scottie) the beautiful illusion of a ghost coming to life,of the Eternal Beauty,that is Madeleine.

I would like to have your profound thoughts on that subject. Are you preparing a book with a chapter on Vertigo? It would be great pleasure for me to read your thoughts!

Yours sincerely!

Minas Aziloglou.
Athens.Greece.

Ray Carney replies:

Sorry. You're asking the wrong guy. I'm not big on crossword puzzles and rebuses and acrostics. As I said in a recent interview, the problem with the approach you and Richard Allen take is that you are so delighted with what you can do to and with Hitchcock that you never get to the more important question of what Hitchcock can do to you and for you (beyond giving you the sensation of having solved a puzzle or a math equation I mean.)

Note to my readers: To be fair to NYU Professor Richard Allen, I include a link to the piece about Vertigo written by him that I am referring to. In my view, it is symptomatic of so much that is wrong with film criticism in our colleges and universities, and so much that is wrong with our technocratic culture in general, where technological sophistication attempts to take the place of wisdom. Click here to read it.

What does any of what you (or Allen) have written about Hitchcock tell us about our lives? How does it help us to understand them differently? How does it help us to live them? What important new ways of feeling (the feeling of solving a puzzle is not an important one) does Hitchcock give us? How does he reveal important truths about life that we have forgotten or neglected?
Eternal Beauty, Dopplegangers, Mirror Images, Forward tracking movements contrasted with backward tracking movements, Originals and Replicas, the Stasis of Time--what are these but ideas, abstractions, theories. Ideas have nothing to do with the complexity and sprawl of life. Nothing. Theories clean up and straighten out life's "strange, irregular rhythms." Abstractions are releases from life's mess and duration. That's what is wrong with both Hitchcock's films and the essays about them. They take us away from life. Like Hichcock's camera, they glide ABOVE life, never touching it, never sullying themselves with contact with life. That's why Hitchcock's work is a lot like a math equation. I'm not surprised that a mathematician would love his work. All that brilliant ingenuity arrayed in the service of a set of formal procedures and manipulations. He makes films that are a lot like math equations (or chess games). But I don't go to mathematics or chess to understand life. They are not arts. Like math and chess, Hitchcock's films are displays of intellectual cleverness and ingenuity and elicit immense answering efforts of cleverness and ingenuity on the part of the viewer (or a critic like Allen). Another word for cleverness and ingenuity is entertainment. In other words, Hitchcock is an entertainer. I see that he gives a great deal of intellectual entertainment to you and to Allen. But art does more than that.

I leave aside the cynicism, the cold-heartedness, the brutality, the self-satisfied smugness, the narcissism, the life-denying formal chilliness of Hitchcock's cleverness. That would take me too far. And I am sure I have lost you (and Allen) several paragraphs before this point, in any case.

For life,

RC

P.S. Please do not take the above as a personal attack. I am not attacking you; I am attacking Hitchcock (and, equally, the "cult of Hitchcock"--in critics and viewers). I think it has done irreparable damage to film studies, to the history of film (what films are made), and to our culture. I cannot remain silent about that damage, that distortion of values, that perversion of our humanity. But if you disagree (and I am sure you do), the way to respond is to write your essay (and for Richard Allen to write his essays and chapters) and show me and anyone who agrees with me where I am wrong. How has Hitchcock inspired us, educated us, shown us new and wonderful possibilities of life? How has he raised us up to become better, more perceptive, more aware people? How has he enlightened us and encouraged us to improve our lives and our world? If you and Richard Allen show me that I will retract my words and bow down in awe, wonder, and humility before his work. But don't show me complexity for the sake of complexity, and cleverness for the sake of cleverness, and cinematic wit and jokes as ends in themselves. Those things are hateful. They are no different from the atomic bomb builder's delight in the intricacy of his achievement or the politician's satisfaction with his own verbal cleverness at avoiding the issues. Those things are what are destroying our culture and eroding human relationships. Those things are forms of mental illness--of letting our minds take the place of our hearts. And, make no mistake about it: our culture and our emotions in these United States are in big trouble. We are heading toward a very nasty fall. My point is that my revulsion from Hitchcock (and the cult of Hitchcock--which includes all those essays about and tickets bought to see the works of Tarantino and the Coen Brothers and so many similar others in contemporary cinema) is fueled by the recognition that these phenomena are contributing to the problems we will face.

Advanced Seminar: Vertigo H72.0700 Seminar 4 Credits Instructor: Richard Allen

This seminar will provide the opportunity for advanced undergraduates to study an individual film in great depth. Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958) is widely perceived as one of the greatest achievements in the history of film. It has had an enormous influence on the work of other film-makers as well as being the subject of countless critical articles. The seminar will approach Vertigo in several ways: By examining the cultural origins of Vertigo as a work in the romantic idiom through study of the work of romantic poets such as John Keats, Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, and writings of the fin de siecle such as Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray; by examining the film in relationship to Hitchcock's oeuvre as whole, but with particular attention to Rebecca (1940) (and the influence of du Maurier), and Rear Window (1954); through close study of the forms and structures of the text, including its transformation of the source novel by Boileau and Narcejac, D'Entre les Morts; and by examining the influence of Vertigo on films ranging from Jordan's The Crying Game and De Palma's Body Double, to Lynch's Blue Velvet. Course requirements will be a group project of close film analysis and a final, longer research paper.

CINEMA STUDIES MAJORS ONLY.

A follow-up note from Ray Carney:

I try to be fair. Therefore I want to include an email I received from the previous writer after he read my reply. After the above posting was on my site a few weeks, he wrote me the following response to what I had written. There is really too much to say on this subject--and it is too important--for an email correspondence--or a series of brief web site postings--to deal with it in any depth. All I will say in conclusion is that I completely stand by my previous comments. I wish Minas and Richard Allen and I and all of the rest of the Hitchcock fan club had a chance to debate this subject at length. As much as ever, I truly believe that Hitchcock's work is trivial and unimportant in the final analysis. He is just not good enough. Even more than that, even more importantly, I believe that the "cult of Hitchcock"--those dozens of books and hundreds of essays about his films and those tens of thousands of filmgoers who adore his work reveal something deeply flawed in our emotional and intellectual culture, something symptomatic of much larger cultural problems, problems that play themselves out in realms far beyond the realm of film.

I print the writer's response to my criticisms of Hitchcock's work at full length and unedited below. I will not reply to his response. I will give him the final word.

--RC

Dear Ray,

I am sorry not to check at your site for your reply.First i want to thank you for spending your time to read and respond to my message.

I must admit that the over-enthusiastic tone of my feelings about Vertigo ,may in fact provoked your rather polemical reaction.I know that it wasn't a personal attack,but it was a radical expression of your (highly respected for me) thoughts on Vertigo and Hitchcock.

I must confess that i am a great admirer of Vertigo and Hitchcock's Art since 1990.Then at the age of 20 and while i was a student of Mathematics at the University,i attended a screening of Vertigo at a "summer" theater in Athens.Believe me ,it was, for me, a life-changing experience.Since then i have seen some 40 of the Master's Films and of course some of them many times.But it was also the starting point for me to become a cinephile,an open-minded film lover and to reach and explore many other prominent film artists.It happened in 1993 to see and buy a book on Hitchcock written by David Sterritt and i noticed for the first time your name.The title belonged to the Cambridge Film Classics Series and you were Series General Editor at the time.As a result when in the following i found your books on Capra and Cassavettes(a Great Film Artist with Greek roots), i managed to read large parts from these at a library.As far as i can make an opinion,these books were original and profound explorations of their subject matter.I noticed ,at this time ,that in order to propose an alternative film canon of rather neglected Film Artists,you sestematically used the work of Welles,Hitchcock and other darlings of the critical Establishment in comparison,often accusing film critics and scholars abiut the current status of Film Studies.So i sent you the message,as to see how you respond to Hitchcock and Vertigo at this moment.I must confess that i didn't expect such a polemical reaction.

My high respect for you as a significant and radical, with strong opinion and arguments, Film Scholar has not changed.Indeed i like your fighting attitude towards what you dislike and i think that your thesis is not a negative one,because you propose as an alternative another system,another canon on Cinema,of what is important and develops humanity through the Arts.I tend to agree with you with everything you say about Tarantino and the Coens. Alos for example Psycho's huge popularity gave birth to many slasher and trash movies.De Palma's Art (or mannerism) is ,at its most parts , a boring "exhibition" of camera movements and full of misanthropy.But the Master's Art did NOT have only those "bad" imitators.Hitchcock's Romantic Poem,Vertigo also inspired some of the most significant films around the world.For example Chris Marker's 'Sans Soleil" from 1983 was hugely influenced from Hitchcock's Masterpiece and it alluded directly to Vertigo and its most profoundly mysterious and poetic scene,the celebrated scene at the Sequoias, the giant Redwood trees.

"Somewhere in here I was born. And there I died. It was only a moment for you, you took no notice."
Those few words accompanied with Hitchcock's visuals and Herrmann's haunting music express,for me,the most profound Philosophical Truth ever depicted(and in SUCH POETIC form) on the Screen. I will put into words,sometime in the future(soon,i hope) my feelings on Vertigo and send a message to your Email.For now,i have to say that my previous message and Richard Allen's were formal and structural analysis for a few particular scenes and not the rich thematic analysis that this film requires.To be fair,Allen's is only a very small snippet of his forthcoming two-volume study of Hitchcock's Art,which would be published by Columbia University Press.The first book will be published next year under the title "Hitchcock's Romantic Irony:Story Telling, Sexuality and Style".Richard is a brilliant Film Scholar and i am sure he will give us a profound and original study of the Master's Art.

Finally i would like to say that, in my opinion, Hitchcock did NOT create either Art or Entertainment.Indeed he is one of the very,very few in the History of the Cinema,who managed to achieve both Art and Entertainment.All i am proposing is that his main aim was NOT to create Art and ,equally, Entertainment.I totally BELIEVE that he, SIMPLY wanted to create CINEMA.He PERFECTLY ACHIEVED to CREATE FILMS that combinedhigh quality Entertainment with the greatest DEPTHS of HIGH ART.In other words he never created Art Films,but ,instead,he created GREAT CINEMATIC ART.He was,after all,not only the Master of Suspense ,but one of the two or three SUPREME MASTERS OF THE CINEMA.

And Vertigo is NOT an intellectual puzzle and mystery.Hitchcock solves the plot's mystery right after the middle of the film.Vertigo's Mysteries are infinitely more PROFOUND and PHILOSOPHICAL than puzzle solving and win in a chess play.Vertigo goes very deep in its exploration of the human condition,indeed it goes to dizzying Depths so as to underlie that Scottie's fear is NOT ,actually,one of heights,but a fear of depths (as the esteemed Slovenian Philosopher Slavoj Zizek proposes), with all the vertiginously profound consequences.

I will return to Vertigo in a forthcoming message.Also i do have a plan to read and study deeper your excellent studies on Cassavettes and Capra.

Al the Best!

Minas Aziloglou