Anthony Iessi
When John Cassavetes walked on to the art scene in the late 1950's, he did something revolutionary to the art of cinema. He spent his private money, casted his personal friends, chose locations without permission, and made what was unquestionably the first independent film. To every filmmaker that led after him, they have to give him many thanks. To make extraordinary pieces of cinema out of nothing at all is something that has changed the entire process of making movies. No longer were the big Hollywood sets, and the big Hollywood executive approval needed. All you needed to do was to pick up a camera and tell a story. For Cassavetes, those stories focused on the fascinating relationships that we have with each other as friends, neighbors or lovers. How social dynamics shift and clash on occasion. It was a small undertaking, but what came of it was a genius, introspect of the American social experience within his films. His first film was "Shadows", and it got a lot of people talking. It was a poorly filmed, poorly audio recorded and uneven piece for viewers even at that time. But, has it reached its cult appreciation today? Well, not exactly. Quite frankly, I was lost, and genuinely uninterested in movie.To start off with, we already understand that Cassavetes hired his close friends to act in his first feature. Huh, really? He needed better friends. The three siblings seemed to have a shaggy, inner-city charm to them, but it's watered down by their delivery. The fact that the movie centered on their close-nit relationship, and their protective nature against the white guy that their sister Leila dates, wasn't as believable as it should've been. These three should've had a strong chemistry. They should have had a connection that made everyone believe that they were a true family, looking out for one another. Honestly, they couldn't be more apart. To say nothing of the screenplay, which encourages the use of improvisation to create character, and doesn't do a particularly good job at it. A lot of the dialogue just ends up being a lot of rambling conversation. Somehow, the main idea of the plot gets lost in the mix. To make the film so unpredictable, when it centers on race relations prior to the Civil Rights Movement, the potential power of the piece gets tarnished when the actors just decide to do what they want to do, and loosely follow the actual narrative. For example, when the two brothers are coaching each other on how to warm up the crowd at the Jazz concert, it was completely disconnecting. It didn't contribute anything profound or interesting to the story; it just seemed like a way to let the two actors riff for a little bit. The positives of the picture, though, are many. I really liked the jazzy soundtrack, as the film roars it's opening titles in the midst of a swinging nightclub. It gave the film an attitude. It also puts you right into the spirit of the urban beatnik scene of Manhattan in the late 1950's. A new, happening scene is being shown to us very realistically. That is credit to John Cassavetes's use of cinema verite to establish the environment. He does it especially well when one of the brothers is walking out the nightclub and into a 50's Time Square. It's a New York scene at it's finest. We see hundreds of working class citizens walking the streets, unknowingly being filmed, as well as the camera swooping past old-style theatre marquees and dining establishments. This is unique, because the rest of the film relies so heavily on theatrics and performance. I'd definitely consider this the marriage between Cinema Verite and the Hollywood SAG feature. It combines a strongly focused performance, while capturing the micro-actions and nuances of real urban life in the 50's. It's a balancing act that to Cassavetes's credit has done much better, later on in his career. In the end "Shadows" remains to be a unique and interesting experiment by John Cassavetes, but not one that I think has much longevity for younger audiences. It's not as fresh as it was in the late 50's, and not nearly as well made. We happen to be all sticklers for the best visuals and audio qualities, but we also like stories that capture our attention, and make us feel, and I think that this movie did neither.
ElMaruecan82
A strange feeling, reality in its purest and most authentic awkwardness, in its uncertainty, in its clumsiness, in the way it makes you feel ... but it's right here happening before our eyes … guys, young hipsters, try to get women on a bar, the talking is so disjointed, it seems like going nowhere, you wonder where this will lead … nowhere, in fact. And why not? Life is like a jazzy score, you know, the one that punctuates this movie every now and then with the feeling that every thing is so cool, nothing is to be taken seriously unless this little thing that makes you enjoy the way you are, and the people you love … it's just … in the air, you know …Yeah, who said whatever happened should mean something when it's happening, no one. We got so used to the 'plot for the plot' concept but what we've got here … it's … well they call it cinema verity, authenticity, reality … but maybe I'm wrong but is this movie from 1957, 2 years before the over-praised "Breathless", two years before modern cinema was invented? I can't believe that … well, I know it is … And this is the truth for me, that "Shadows" is the pioneer of modern cinema, and maybe "Breathless" took the honor to be considered the milestone, but I don't care … because "Shadows" didn't have the pretension to even be taken as a movie, yet it managed to create something so blindingly new, people didn't even realize Cassavettes had just made what cinema needed, poor old fools … Truest and greatest artist are never recognized in their time … But I realized I make the movie sound like an exercise in originality, while this was more the case of "Breathless" which beyond the undeniable artistic creativity, wasn't like the most meaningful movie ever made. "Shadows" brings a new dimension to cinema as the first movie whose main characters are colored people, yet it does indirectly deal with racial issues without the preachy aspect of reverse moralistic racism and of course, with absolutely no stereotypes. It's a superb movie about races, because it's not even about racism, it's about misconception, like the whole film has been also misconceived, which makes it, an incredibly well- made self-referential film, well, let's go back to the film, will you …The central character is named Bennie, a trumpet jazz musician, a hipster, with the demeanor of a young rocker, he could be a Latino but from his brother, an entertainer singer with darker skin, we understand he's Afro-American. Then we meet Lelia, their sister, a beautiful girl, the cutest cinematic character ever … Again, these are not details, they'll serve the plot in a very uneasy way, that'll make question our approach to racial issues. This is not really about racism, but more about our inner conception of "difference", I mean "physical difference", about color of skins, about black and white … and how, ethnicity can fool anyone in such a way, there's no black and white when you think of it, it's more nuanced, more subtle, there's no dark or light, only 'shadows' …This is where the heart of the film relies on, the romance between Lelia and Tony, a powerful relationship that evokes those weird interactions driven by racial misconception… Their chemistry when they meet at the party feels so real and natural we believe they'll automatically form a perfect couple, then you realize that Tony might not be the most honest man in the world, probably sincere by the way he manipulated Lelia's feelings leading her to his home, but the respect he showed was only inspired by a strong desire not to respect her, after. When she understands she was just a body, her distress is so heartbreaking, you feel for her. The shadows is precisely this kind of misunderstanding that undermines relationships between people, it's all about the way you see it, in a way, and I respect Cassavettes' intelligence so much I'm sure this was intended ...One can see this movie as a self-referential masterpiece, it's juts a bunch of people, talking and interacting, that's all, no precise goal, no plot whatsoever, yeah … but remember the museum scene, weren't they all laughing at a statue supposed to be Art? And supposed to be respected just for the sake of that? And this is how "Shadows" works, and I'm not even afraid to say the word, it's iconoclast … it puts into perspective every cinematic conception, what is art? What is cinema? Is it just entertaining people? That's all? Cassavettes, in his directorial debut, decided that cinema was more than showing stuff in a screen while people were eating pop-corn …Art opens your eyes, and now, in 2011, while I'm watching this stuff that happened when my parents were babies, I realize that Cassavettes created something I could relate to, and if a guy like me could relate to, even 50 years after, then all I can said is Kudos to Cassavetes, the pioneer of independent films!Well, it's a special movie, John. You were too ahead of your time, but don't worry, there are people out there who know about "Shadows" and will talk about this film and give it the greatest publicity, whenever some sophisticated movie snobs will bring out a Godard movie as the most influential cinematic thing ever made …You were too great and came too early for cinema, they didn't deserve such a film, I guess they still had to wait 10 years until "Bonnie and Clyde" and "In the Heat of the Night" were made … it's okay, this was the way …The review you just read was an improvisation
