| Introduction | Chap.1 | Chap.2 | Chap.3 | Chap.4 | Conclusion |
1.1. The Characterization in Shadows
In starting to analyze Shadows, we will briefly look at the background
of the film. As for Shadows, the first version and the second
version exist. The film, which can be seen now, is the second
version.
When Cassavetes held a preview of the first version, the film
was highly praised by the audience.
Cassavetes filmed and edited again saying that he had no intention
to make a film that was so beautiful and highly praised. His intention
was to give people a kind of a shock and to let people notice
something different from the ordinary film. Also he thought, in
the first version, the existence of the characters was not clear
enough. So in the second version, the style in the first version
cannot be seen. According to Thierry Jousee, the mere difference
is that the second version includes the scenes of the visit to
the Museum of Modern Art and the night of love between Leria and
Tony.
Later, we will see the meaning of Cassavetes’ adding these scenes.
Moreover, for Cassavetes, Shadows owes the special meaning because
it is not only his first film but also the film completely made
by his own will. Moreover, Cassavetes said about Shadows as follows;
“La grand difference entre Shadows et autres films, c’est que
Shadows emane des personnages, alors que dans les autres films,
ce sont les personnages qui emanent du scenario“.1
The difference between Shadows
and other films is that Shadows is born from the characters and
the characters in other films are born from the scenarios. As
his words indicate, in Shadows, the plot which seems to be as
common cannot be seen. It draws from a few days of the characters’
common life. To describe the characters’s life vivdly, the characters
had to be characterized such as Hugh as an unknown jazz singer,
Leria as a would-be novelist. Ben, the second brother, was made
up with a complicated figure.
As Sigehiko Hasumi、a leading film critic-scholar noted about him,
Ben may be the typical person who reflectes the time, namely the
late-fifties to sixties. In later films after Faces, no character
appears to represent the time and manners.2
We will turn our attention to what makes the characters living
and striking. In Shadows, the tie of the family and the fact of
being Negroes connect the three brothers, Hugh, Ben and Leria,
who are the protagonists. The three brothers play their own roles
as the members of a family, such as Hugh playing the father-mother
role and Leria as a baby. The oldest brother Hugh supports his
brothers financially and mentally. He gives them money and protects
them from the outside. Also, for Hugh and Ben, Leria may be a
princess or a queen. In the same way, for Leria, her brothers
should be the knights.
The mere difference of the brothers is that Hugh is the only one
who has the absolute identity as a Negro. It seems necessary that
at least Hugh should recognize his identity because he occupies
the supportive and directive position in his brothers. As the
American film critic Diane Jacobs suggests,“ we see him [Hugh]
as a frazzled father figure (lending his brother money, babying
her sister)”.3
Besides, we notice in him the dilemma as an artist. He used
to be a jazz singer. But his job has been changed and has to be
the introducer of showgirls at a nightclub. It is a very insulting
job for him, but he has to take this kind of job for his and his
brothers’ living. Taking an undesirable job for living can be
considered as the eternal problem for the artist. The thing is
that he is no longer a jazz singer but the outsider of the nightclub
at this point when he has to be an introducer. In another sense,
Hugh may be regarded as inferior to white female dancers in the
nightclub. His identity as a black jazz singer is neglected. Hugh
can be regarded as the pre-figure of Mr. Sophistication in The
Killing of the Chinese Bookie.
As for Ben, Ben repeatedly tries to cross the streets ignoring
the running cars. He looks as if he were making a bet and spoiling
his life. His character is quite difficult to define; whether
he is arrogant or sensitive. His ambiguous character is emphasized
by his sun-glasses which conceal all his feelings. His ambiguous
character might have originated from his ambiguous identity: being
half-black and half-white. The ambiguity that pervaded the whole
film causes the two brothers to be indecisive. The audience cannot
judge whether they are black or white because the screen is ironically
gray. The gray screen effectively emphasizes the ambiguity of
the complexion of the brothers.
Regarding Leria, she looks like a timid and innocent child in
the street outside. When we recall the scene in which Leria stands
in front of the theater at one night, looks into the poster of
Brigitte Bardot and then a strange guy says a word to her, she
becomes astonished and frightened. In a way, she is still girlish
and has romantic dreams. After she has slept with Tony, she says,
“ I did not think it (sex) could be so awful”. These two incidents
may teach her the dreariness of real life.
Ben and Leria look very fragile and fluid, for they feel ambiguous
about their identity whether they belong to the white society
or black society. But Leria’s assertion “ I am what I am. Nobody
tells me what to do.” or “I belong to me” may be pervaded in all
the ambiguous characters of Cassavetes such as Myrtle in Opening
Night or Sarah in Love Streams. They never lose themselves even
if they feel uncertainty and ambiguity.
Ben’s friends who hang around the streets with him are white.
The girls whom Ben tries to seduce in the bar are also white.
Leria’s boyfriends, David and Tony are white, too. The literature
party where Leria goes and meets Tony is formed by whites. In
contrast, the party, which Hugh holds at his home, is occupied
mostly by black people. These facts soundly substantiate the fact
that only Hugh recognizes his identity as a Negro. Ben and Leria
tend to decide their identity by the people who surround them.
The negative reaction, which Leria shows to her new boyfriend
Davey, when she has been first introduced to him by her black
friend, is interpreted as her reaction and hesitation on entering
into black society.
1.2. The Film Style in Shadows
Now that we have looked at the protagonists’ characterization,
we must examine what the two added scenes in the second version
mean in the film structure in connection with the characterization.
The scene of the Sculpture Garden at the Museum of Modern Art
is one of the scenes added in the second version.
In the Sculpture Garden scene, we can find an interesting feature
and the meaning of adding this scene. By watching Benny and his
friends freqently walking without destination, we see in them
the figures of the city flaneur. They wonder in the city at night.
In that sense, it seems rather exceptional that Benny and his
friends go to the Museum, because they have a clear destination
and reason to go there. This scene is interesting in that Cassavetes
gave them a clear destination once on this occasion. Benny and
his friends decide to go to the Museum, for Leria slights them
because they cannot understand the art. So to speak, this scene
may be derived from the digression of the conversation. They wonder
in the Sculpture Garden. Finally, Benny and his friend stop to
stare at the black ethnic female statue. The female statue reminds
us of Benny’s origin as a Black African. This scene might have
been added with the purpose of dropping a hint of Benny’s origin.
Another important aspect of this scene is its film style.
If we look at its film style, we will notice that it includes
semi-symmetrical structure. If we briefly epitomize it, the pattern
is as follows: long shot (three people in the same interval)→ middle
shot (three people) → middle shot (separated) → middle shot (three
people in the same interval) → close-up (one person) → long shot
(three people gathered) → close-up (three person) → close-ups
(three people respectively). What we see from this is that Cassavetes
shows three people all together and then puts two or one people
in one frame. They go to the Museum, but their own interest is
different. While Dennis and Tom are talking about the art and
the scholars, Benny stares at the sculptures. Even if they spend
much time together, we may know that they just wonder together
because they do not have a clear aim for life. In a way, this
Sculpture Garden scene supports Benny’s separation from this company
at the end. Besides, this semi-symmetrical structure gives this
scene a kind of rhythm. In the last part of the scene, when they
run to the African-woman-statue (see figure 1), the rhythm changes.
Cassavetes neatly avoids this scene being monotonous by changing
the rhythm. We may find their young rapidness and energy in it.
Most of the shots in this film are filmed in the brothers’ apartment.
We can find only a few outdoor scenes such as the sequence in
Central Park, the scene in the Sculpture Garden at the Museum
of Modern Art and the streets in Brooklyn. They function to make
the brothers’ exclusiveness more salient.
Let us now consider the brothers’ isolation focusing on indoor
scenes. Cassavetes’ “camera underscores its insularity by closing
in on a buzzer“.4 As
Diane Jacobs notices, the close-up shots that show the buzzer
seem to tell us about uncommunicativeness and isolation from the
outside world. Also the white pillar near the door locks the brothers’
territory from the outside. The apartment is doubly locked from
the outside.
If we recall the scene in which Tony revisits the brothers’ home,
we can see that the pillar works like a pivot effectively. Tony
asks Hugh to tell his apology to Leria, but Hugh has no ear to
listen to Tony’s words. In Hugh’s place, Ben tries to listen to
Tony’s words. Hugh and Benny stand by both sides of the pillar.
They change their places with the pillar working like a pivot.
This scene has a symmetrical structure. It embodies Hugh’s words
to Ben that “We are friends, buddies, brothers”.
Also Ben tells Hugh that Hugh’s problem is Ben’s problem, too.
The brothers build their miniature world in the apartment. They
can have a party at home. The home might be a place of refugee
from the harsh outside world for them. When Ben and Leria go to
outside, they are forced to notice the colors of their skin or
their identity whether they like it or not.
From now on, we are going to look at the style and camerawork
in this film. Two points will be emphasized: first, the clear,
visual and suggestive metaphors; second, the relationship between
the close-ups and the story. Let us begin our analysis of the
visual metaphors. In the scene at the Central Park, David, Leria
and Tony walk in the Park. Tony takes Leria’s hand and starts
running when David is not looking at them. (David and Tony are
both fond of Leria.) They continue to run and cross the hedge
until David cannot reach them. Leria and Tony would have a sexual
relationship after this scene. So their jumping off the hedge
has a connotation of their having sex. After they have slept together,
the camera casts a blank, black space. Then it trucks down with
showing the African, weird wooden idol (see figure 2) and later
it shows Leria and Tony. In this connection I may add the fact
that this wooden statue was hung in Cassavetes’ own room. Raymond
Carney considers this wooden idol and the sculptures in the Sculpture
Garden such as the symbol of the mask, which is contrasted with
human skin.5 But I prefer to think
this wooden statue suggests Leria’s original identity as a Black
African. What is common in these sculptures is that their existence
shows their origin. Both appear to be giving the impression of
a giant existence, which cannot be ignored. The statues’ giant-ness
shows the gravity of the brothers’ identity with half-black lineage.
The sex scene between Leria and Tony was added in the second version
as I mentioned before. We can see Leria’s overdone pathetic attitude
after sex. At first, she acts like a tragic heroine, a discarded
woman. And later as she finds Tony’s insincerity, which is his
true nature, she becomes uncertain and pretends like an innocent
girl. Her exaggerated attitude seems curious, because her intention
is obvious that she wants to be treated as a princess even after
sex and needs her lover’s faithfulness. Many critics consider
this scene as the most astonishing one in this film. We may be
moved by this scene, for knowing how less Tony and Leria’s words
tell their true mind and for recognizing that if two persons stay
closer and have a physical relationship, the distance between
them remains the same. In this sequence, what is most astonishing
is that we can clearly see how Leria’s expectation and Tony’s
intention are so different. After all, they would not get along
together.
Also, in the last part of the film, when Tony comes to Leria’s
apartment in order to apologize to her for showing the racist
attitude, he says that there is no difference between Leria and
himself even though Leria is a half-black. At this moment, Leria’s
face is directed with a spotlight on. Her face looks very white
because of the lighting. This device can be taken as quite ironic
in the sense that Leria’s face looks whiter than in any other
scene. As we see, the visual metaphors in Shadows are quite clear
to interpret. This kind of visual metaphor gradually becomes less
and less in later films.
The film-work should be noted at this juncture. Most of the audience
will notice that the close-ups are used very frequently. The close-ups
have many types such as the fragment of the human face or the
body or the whole faces. Raymond Carney analyzes Cassavetes’ close-ups.
His favorite shot at a climatic moment is not an expressive close-up,
nor a close-up at all, but a medium-distance shot that includes
more than one character, in which we don’t quite know where to
look, what we are supposed to see, or what conclusions we are
meant to draw.6
His suggestion seems to tell the point in a way. What Cassavetes’
camera shows us is that not only one character’s response but
also the other characters’ responses around one character can
be put in the same frame.
At this place, to borrow an argument about the close-ups of a
German film critic, Bera Varage, he points out that when a face
occupies all over the screen by the close-up, for a few moments
a face becomes the whole and the drama is included in the face.
Also close-ups show us “a small life”.7
Surely Cassavetes’ close-ups present us a small life and small
feeling. We can say that in his film, the faces are the roots
of his drama. On the faces and by the minimal movement on the
faces, we are able to find Cassavetes-like drama.
Cassavetes might prefer the close-ups of three characters taken
from a short distance. The frames are filled with the characters’
faces. He has rarely used cross-cutting in the climatic moment.
A kind of intensity and abundance born from the character’s body
is taking place in the frame. Normally in the close-up scenes,
the characters’ bodies are disconnected with space, but the characters
are connected with each other on a metaphysical level. Gilles
Deleuze, a French philosopher, wrote about the relationship between
space and people in Cassavetes’ films. ”This is because it was
a matter of undoing place, no less as a function of a face which
is abstracted from spacio-temporal co-ordinates than of an event
which exceeds it actualisation in all ways, sometimes because
it procrastinates and dissolves, sometimes on the contrary because
it comes into view too quickly".8
In Cassavetes’ films, the people do not share common space,
or rather they change into an existence, which is disconnected
with space and connected with each other.
Raymond Carney argues about the connection between the close-ups
and the story. ”The close-ups work to let one character connect
strongly to other characters’ democratically equal group.
Shadows is a film about mutual confrontation of the groups”.9 Or rather, I would say that Shadows
should be defined as the film of the triads. The characters are
parted into the trios. Hugh, Benny and Leria are the trio of the
family. Benny, Denny and Tom form a trio of a company. Hugh, Rupert
and Jack, the jazz pianist, construct camaraderie at the nightclub.
Leria, Tony and David / Leria, Tony and Davey show love triangles.
We can see various types of trios in Shadows. Each trio has its
own problem and when the trios get strangled, another problem
will be born. The fact that the story tells the trios’ life responds
to many shots including three people. We can see various patterns
of shots with three people (see figures 3-7).
Finally every trio except the family trio seems to dissect into
an individual. When Ben and Leria do not figure out their true
identity, they have nowhere to go but to their home or to their
family.
Likewise, when they recognize their identity as Negroes, they
have to go back to their family. From the beginning, the brothers
are the only ties that are certain in the film.
| Introduction | Chap.1 | Chap.2 | Chap.3 | Chap.4 | Conclusion |
Notes
This paper was submitted to the Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, University of Kyoto in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in January 1999. I am deeply indebted to Dr. David Duly for improving the style of this paper.
1 Raymond
Carney, ed., John Cassavetes: Autoportraits. Trans. Serge Grunberg.
Paris: Editions de l’Etoile, 1992. 15.
2 Filmart-Sha, ed., Cassavetes’ Streams. Tokyo: Filmart-Sha,
1993. 120-122. All translations are my own.
3 Diane Jacobs, Hollywood Renaissance. New York: Dell Publishing
Co, 1980. 36.
4 Loc. cit.
5 Raymond Carney, The Films of John Cassavetes. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1994. 36-37.
6 Ibid., 18-19.
7 Bela Balazs, Shikakuteki Ningen: Eiga no Doramatsurugi.[Der
sichtbare Mensch: eine Film-Dramaturgie] Trans. Kiichi Sasaki.
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1986. 91-92.
8 Gilles Deuleuze, Cinema 1: Movement-Image.[L’Image-Mouvement].
Trans. Hugh Tomlinson et al. Texas: University of Minnesota Press,
1986. 121.
9 Raymond Carney, Cassavetes no Utsusita America. [American
Dreaming: The Films of John Cassavetes and the American Experience].
Trans. Yoichi Umemoto. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo, 1997. 46.
All translations are my own because this original book is out
of print now.