No respect for her handling of Cassavetes' legacy
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Gena Rowlands
tlcarpenter — 16 years ago(September 06, 2009 04:20 PM)
Let me start by saying I love Gena's performances. But revisisting her husbands films I became angered at her treatment of his legacy.
She is blocking the release of a longer version of Faces and the first version of Shadows. In fact she denies the very existence of the earlier Shadows. And the foremost authority on Cassavetes, Ron Carney, is the target of her most of her abuse. She had him fired from the Criterion Collection boxset after he did most the work because he mentioned the earlier version of Shadows on the commentary. She.well the list is endless when it comes to this poor man.
What's up Gena? Love your performances, but C U Next Tuesday.
If you think I'm being too harsh (maybe I am), check out the info first:
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/discoveries/discrowlandsfaces.shtml
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/discoveries/discrowlands.shtml
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/discoveries/discletters7.shtml#dvd -
teamartfag — 16 years ago(September 15, 2009 10:24 PM)
you're not being harsh at all, i came here just to check if anyone else was riled about this.
i think she's shown herself to be a pretty nasty person throughout this whole affair and im afraid that the only way these films will see the light of day is after she is dead and buried, although how much of it is really her and how much of it is Al Rubens (is that his name?) manipulating her i dont know, but she seems very shortsighted if she can't see that people want to see these films (and read his unpublished novel) because they love her husband's work and want to further understand and enjoy it!
i feel sorry for prof. carney, he's dedicated decades of his life and multiple thousands of dollars in unearthing this stuff and at every turn she threatens to sue him. poor guy! -
WarpedRecord — 16 years ago(October 06, 2009 06:46 PM)
What's up Gena? Love your performances, but C U Next Tuesday.
Whoah there! Now
that
is a little harsh. Actually, it's a
lot
harsh!
As for your argument, I have scanned the links, which are very one-sided, and I'm torn. Can you tell me why you think Ron Carney is better qualified to present and preserve John Cassavetes' legacy than his widow, who also was a lead in most of his films? And can you explain the importance of the first version of "Faces" and the longer version of "Shadows"?
I'm honestly not clear on why we need different versions of these films when we already have the "director's cuts." And I'm not clear on what Carney's commentary would add to the films. Granted, I don't get excited about "special editions" and I rarely listen to commentary tracks. I just want to see the film, and these films are available the way Cassavetes released them.
So please tell me why these releases are important and why you think Ms. Rowlands merits a sexual slur for holding them back. -
tlcarpenter — 16 years ago(November 05, 2009 02:37 PM)
She deserves the sexual slur for having Ron Carney fired, miring him in litigation and wanting scenes deleted from the "Husbands" restoration that she didn't like, even though she's not in that film.
And if you think the information on Ron Carney's website is one sided then check you reading comprehension. -
HolyShackles — 16 years ago(November 15, 2009 09:56 PM)
Honestly, if Cassavetes were still alive there is a good chance that he wouldn't let most, if any, of his work be released. In his final years he didn't allow his films to be released on video from what I have read since he thought that would denigrate their artistic quality and only let them be screened in select showcasings and musuems. Perhaps he would've changed his mind over time and released everything in its full length, but we can't be certain and given the great amount of releases in recent times there isn't much reason to complain, just be happy with what we've got for now because past generations had practically no access to any of the films even in their studio edits, and even seeing those required either strenuous measures or good timing. There are several versions of Husbands that exist, and while the current release has about 10 minutes cut from it, it's still the most lengthy version that has been seen in decades and we are very lucky to even have it at all. If it hadn't been for Gena's approval of releasing the others on Criterion, Husbands probably wouldn't have been released at all in any length since there wouldn't likely be enough of a market for it due to lack of interest which was generated largely thanks in part to the box set. Like I said before, be happy with what we have got for now and just keep your fingers crossed that maybe in the future there will be definitive full cuts of Shadows, Faces, and Husbands released rather than releasing a bunch of your anger at an old woman. If you take all of Carney's writing at word, you'll know that John, for all his talent, did put her through a good deal of Hell during their marriage and it's pretty remarkable that she's managed to stay loyal to him in wanting to protect his reputation after all these years.
-
WarpedRecord — 16 years ago(January 01, 2010 08:43 PM)
Very well said!
If you cannot tb68rust a director's widow and key actress to make the decisions about his estate, whom can you trust? There seems to be a big sense of entitlement among fans of certain artists, and Cassavetes is no exception. Gena owes us nothing, and we should be grateful for the releases she allowed.
What is the nature of the unreleased footage, anyway? Is this Cassavetes' equivalent of the Zapruder film? It sounds like it, judging from the invective directed at Gena.
I respect Gena for what she gave to John's films, and we know by his work and everything else we've heard that he couldn't have been an easy person to live with. Gena has earned the right and responsibility to treat his legacy the way she feels it should be presented. If she chooses not to release every outtake, the estate has spoken. Would John have give us more? Would he have even allowed DVD releases? I doubt it. -
death_jamm_productions — 16 years ago(January 07, 2010 04:33 PM)
Gena owes John for having an acting career fullstop, he could have made the career of any other actress in his flms but chose her; look at her body of work, the most distinguished work is a direct result of being married to him
No Justice Just Us -
WarpedRecord — 16 years ago(January 07, 2010 04:48 PM)
I'd credit her body of work more to Gena's tremendous talent as an actress in a variety of roles than to her marriage, but certainly John's films provided an outlet for her talent. I doubt the films would have been as memorable with just "any other actress."
-
acastor-2 — 16 years ago(February 16, 2010 05:44 PM)
As much as I would love to see more of Cassavetes work, I too believe that Gena has every right to control his legacy.
For whatever reasons she has, it is not for us to abuse her over it !
Not only was she his devoted wife, but without her brilliant performance contributions in most of his films, Cassavetes and his works would not have reached the "deity" status they hold today ! -
WarpedRecord — 16 years ago(February 16, 2010 06:38 PM)
Absolutely. When I think of my favorite Cassavetes films, "A Woman Under the Influence" and "Opening Night," it is Gena's stunning talent that stands out most sometimes with the aid of John's direction, sometimes in spite of it.
John was notorious for tinkering constantly with his films, the versions available are the ones he intended, and he stated quite clearly his wishes to Gena before he died. We should respect and honor both of them by accepting the films as released. -
death_jamm_productions — 15 years ago(May 21, 2010 04:05 AM)
tbh the bottom line is she was married to him, not Carney (although he probably would have loved to have been lol) and she has every right to feel disparaged by Carney's particularly harsh personal comments directed at how 'unhappy' John was in their marriage and his life-end of the day she lived with him, had his children and supported the family financially when he couldnt (and most of the time he couldnt) so im not surprised someone as high and mighty as Carney comes along acting like he knows everything there is to know and perturbs her..
carney is just a bitter smark who thinks he knws everything and should but out of the family business
No Justice Just Us -
WarpedRecord — 15 years ago(May 31, 2010 12:36 PM)
You got that right! Gena has always struck me as an extremely dignified woman, especially for a Hollywood actress, and as such she's not likely to talk about her private issues in public the way certain outsiders are. Regardless, she was Cassavetes' wife and she's now his widow, as well as the star of his finest films (in my opinion), and that leaves her more than qualified to make decisions about his estate.
-
clavinet27 — 13 years ago(June 26, 2012 11:46 AM)
I'm sure this topic is old hat for JC fans, but I have to throw in my two cents after I finally read Carney's book and online rants in full. I have to side with Gena. Carney did some amazing research, but him going online and attacking her is childish, especially since she doesn't strike me as internet saavy - one who will hop on Twitter or Facebook to issue a public rebuttal like a lot of stars nowadays do.
As for expanded versions of "Shadows" and "Faces", it's odd that she denies them existing when there's proof of the contrary, but 1) how much will this extra footage add to the enjoyment of these two already excellent films and 2) did Carney ASK HER BEFORE going on his expensive journey? It's like driving 50 miles to a store to buy something, finding out that it is out of stock, then blaming the manager for wasting your time and gas. God invented phones for a reason, you know
As for his beef with her because she "sanitizes" the story of her and John: what the hell is he talking about?!? Gena has participated in numerous film festival, television and DVD special feature interviews where her relationship with him, his drinking, financial troubles and his argumentative nature is touched on. Granted, she doesn't go into gory detail, but does she really need to? Will knowing more about some nervous breakdown she had 50 years ago or that John trashed some guys office in a fit of rage (two things in 'Cassavetes and Cassavetes' which I'm guessing Gena refused to allow to be detailed in print) really help us gain more insight into John's films? Is it not enough that John's films are deeply personal and semi-autobiographical? It seems like Carney just wants a "scoop". There are enough Hollywood Babylon, sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll tell-all books out there (Steve McQueen, Elizabeth Taylor, Cary Grant). We don't need another one. Horrible look for Carney. -
jagheterjack00 — 13 years ago(July 01, 2012 01:08 PM)
To this day Gena celebrates John and his work. It would be foolish to release extended versions of Cassavetes' films when he's not here to supervise any of this.
And as for whoever commented on Rowlands career being down to Cassavetes' is talking utter nonsense. Rowlands is a fine performer whom was rarely out of work.
As great a talent as Cassavetes was, it's been well documented that he was a very flawed and difficult man. -
death_jamm_productions — 13 years ago(September 11, 2012 01:47 PM)
^
silliest thing I've read in a while
http://www.mickey-rourke.com/ -
Droncin — 12 years ago(September 21, 2013 09:51 PM)
I assume you me RAY Carney. He is intelligent but profoundly arrogant and seems to think he is uniquely placed to know what Cassavetes would have wanted. I think Gena is in a better position to know her husband's wishes. Carney has a history of trying to lay claim to materials lent to him rather than given. Also he is intolerant of any film that is outside of the Cassavetes-esque style of storytelling. Not that arrogance is a sign of being in the wrong but I would place myself in Gena's court over his if I had to.
-
Prom_Queen_Carrie — 10 years ago(February 14, 2016 11:04 PM)
Carney is annoying and entitled. I saw an interview where John himself said the true version of Shadows is the second version. He didn't care for the first version, and Gena is trying to honor his wishes by not putting it out there. She knows what her husband would have wanted. Carney is just excited because he feels there is this holy grail to be uncovered that he knows something about.
He's also said disrespectful things about Rowlands, trying to downplay her contributions to her husband's films and seeing her as incapable of knowing anything insightful about her films with John. I heard an interview where she seemed to know more about her character Mable and her relationship with the Peter Falk character in A Woman Under the Influence than John even did.
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.