The films of John Cassavetes: part 9 - THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE
August 12th 2010 12:23
THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE
I won't call my work entertainment. It's exploring. It's asking questions of people, constantly: How much do you feel? How much do you know? Are you aware of this? Can you cope with this? A good movie will ask you questions you haven't been asked before, ones that you haven't thought about every day of your life. Or, if you have thought about them, you haven't had the questions posed this way. Film is an investigation of life. What we are. What our responsibilities in life are – if any. What we are looking for; what problems do you have that I may have? What part of life are we both interested in knowing more about?
—John Cassavetes
The year was 1974, and Cassavetes was finally bathing in a glow of praise for his massive success, A Woman Under The Influence. It wasn’t intended, but just happened. At his company, Faces Distribution, Cassavetes was inundated with offers from studios, but never had any desire to make a big film, ‘A Woman’, had been extremely successful, but Cassavetes despite even receiving Oscar nomination for his directing, had no delusions regarding audiences and hadn’t forgotten the regular disinterest American audiences had shown in his films most of the time. For him, nothing had changed and he wasn’t going to let sudden success effect the kind of films he had remained true to.
Cassavetes assistant recalls a story in his office one day when receiving a phone call from an agent, “Sorry, not interested”, he says before hanging up. He gets a grin on his face, “That was Barbara Streisand’s agent, she wants to pay me 2 million dollars to direct her in a remake of ‘A Star Is Born’ ”. A few minutes later he receives another call, “4 Million you say?”, he hung up again, chuckling.
Cassavetes was weary of main stream films, he acted in them but had no desire to deal with studios or make films that he ultimately didn’t care about. It was his next film that would reverse all of the good will he had created for himself with ‘A Woman Under The Influence’. Released in 1976, The Killing Of a Chinese Bookie, was a massive failure. Despite it seemingly being a ‘Gangster Film’, based on it’s premise. The Killing Of A Chinese Bookie is actually one of Cassavetes most demanding film’s, leading to most audiences misunderstanding it and writing it off as simply sloppy or self-indulgent. While the 1976 version at 135 minutes certainly takes your patience to breaking point, Cassavetes re-edited the film in 1978 to a shorter version. Though this may seem on the surface, to be an attempt to appease audiences with a version that plays quicker, it doesn’t change the fact that this is possibly his most challenging and fascinating film.
Despite the story’s commercial premise, it’s not recommended for unseasoned audiences, who are better off being inducted into the man’s films with ‘Shadows’, Mikey & Nicky or ‘A Woman Under The Influence’. Starring Ben Gazzara (The Big Lebowski, Buffalo 66, Anatomy Of A Murder), The Killing Of A Chinese Bookie brings us in to the world of Cosmo Vitelli, the owner of ‘The Crazy Horse’ strip club. Cosmo has finally made the last payment on his business, owning it entirely. Cosmo has a philosophy that he lives by - to look as stylish as possible at all times. He’s escorted, everywhere he goes by a lovely entourage of ladies (including the casting of some of the tastiest looking woman I’ve ever seen on screen), taken by a driver in a limo and he also tries to dress as handsomely as possible in attractive clothing.
One night in a gambling house run by some Mafioso’s, he runs into a large debt. His vices and desire for the appearance of a playboy’s lifestyle coming back to bite him. The gangsters give him two choices when he’s unable to immediately pay off the debt – let them dip into his business at The Crazy Horse and take some of it’s profit or else make Cosmo kill someone for them – hence the title of the film.
Despite all of this, the film as an experience is completely different to how this all sounds. Watching The Killing Of A Chinese Bookie, from start to finish, is like walking through an unfamiliar place with a blindfold on. The director never once takes your hand to guide you through the goings on. As the writer of the film there is almost no exposition and the ambiguities between the characters and themselves are placed heavily on the viewer for them to make sense in their own way over the multivalent behaviour of the characters and situations. Depending on each viewers moods and taste this can prove absolutely liberating or also downright frustrating as you are placed in a world with no map. Each time the story gains momentum, a spanner will be thrown in the works, taking all the air out of the plot. There is a moment in the film where Cosmo is driving his car and suddenly we hear a sound, we have no idea what has just happened, if he’s being shot at, as he is suddenly veering off the road or if he’s seen an accident ahead – after a few seconds of confusion we finally catch up with the film and it suddenly occur to us that his car has had a blow out.
There is another scene in pitch black, inside a car, a now famous scene where the interiors were lit only by Christmas tree bulbs. Cosmo is being given a gun and instructions on his impending act of murder, the scene is lit in a way where we are constantly questioning the actions we are seeing by the four men in this parked car, what is being done, who is it being done by and if it’s being done by who we think, then what? You’ll either find it confusing or exhilarating, a mess or brilliant. Still interested? Then lets travel further down the rabbit hole….
The Killing Of A Chinese Bookie is a thorough study of masculinity and an examination of a man and his desire to always be in control and look good. Ben Gazzara’s character falls into the same category of characters played by actors like Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood or Partick Swayze, the difference is those movies admire that very trait, where Cassavetes is constantly questioning what the consequences of being this way are. Ben Gazzara gives a sizzling performance as Cosmo Vitelli, it’s one the man’s best. We see moments where the pressure gets to him and as a result, we finally witness what’s laid under Cosmo’s mask of poise and control. It’s fascinating to watch Cosmo’s reaction to the extraordinary events around him that he has less and less control over, seeing him perhaps get embarrassed at times or those little moments where he cracks under pressure.
For the observant viewer, we notice how Cosmo’s tuxedo doesn’t fit him around his sleeves or the champagne he serves to his entourage of ladies has been sitting open in that limo for some time. These may seem like trivial details but they all add to the picture of this man who has created a fake world around him, one where he’s now unable to even talk normally to other people as he remains so committed to appearance and a cool answer to everything – leaving him alienated as a result. I would recommend the longer 1976 cut only to viewers who are ardent fans of the shorter 1978 version as it sheds light on some of the film's ambiguities while creating new ones in the process.
It’s been many years since I watched this film and revisiting it brought some pleasant surprises my way. ‘Chinese Bookie’ always had an impressive visual flair to it – but I had always found the film’s road bumps to make for difficult viewing. However, something special happened when I watched the film again after so many years. I had always assumed that those who described it as their favourite Cassavetes film were saying so because of it’s loose ties to the gangster genre – and there are many who praise this film as one of his best (Actors Michael Imperioli and Gary Oldman have sited it as their favourite film and Nicholas Winding Refn has sited the film as his primary influence on The Pusher Trilogy) – but upon watching the film something suddenly dawned on me.
This may seem silly, but it had a profound affect on me when watching this film again. What happened this time that made such a big impact?
I WATCHED IT AT NIGHT....
In a darkened room I sat and suddenly a spell was cast over me. The film’s atmosphere and it’s sumptuously extravagant style was all the more apparent and not only complimented the story telling but was down right overwhelming, as it washed over every frame of the film – Cassavetes style of filmmaking was beginning to evolve, moving past it’s mirroring of life into something else entirely. When I watch ‘The Killing Of A Chinese Bookie’, I see a film where every element comes into sync and an already unique film maker has completely revolutionised the way he expresses himself, and the night time viewing that blanketed over my experience seemed to intensify it all the more to highlight the films strength. Everything in the film, especially the acting serve to provide possibly a thoroughly original take on a genre that that has many a time grown stale.
The cinematography in ‘Chinese Bookie’ was considered revolutionary at the time for a few reasons and it’s not coincidental either that it was shot in an extremely unconventional manner. ‘The Killing Of A Chinese Bookie’ had, not one cinematographer, but three, as well as four camera operators. The result is visionary. Long time Cassavetes cinematographer, Al Ruban shot all the EXTERIORS, with then inexperienced Camera Operator Mike Ferris (Die Hard, Scar Face) and the INTERIORS of the film were photographed and lit most impressively by Cassavetes himself along with a first time cinematographer Fred Elmes (Blue Velvet, Erasurehead, The Ice Storm). The combined effect of this takes a raw film and gives it fascinating layers of visual texture that tell this story on several levels at once, turning this film into something truly special.
If you can cope with the blinders that this film places on you when you watch it, then you are in for a memerising experience that is invigorating and fresh.
Here's a quick moment from the film
An interview with star and regular Cassavetes actor Ben Gazzara, very interesting to notice his similarities to the the character he plays...
| 109 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
You already know how much I love this film and rank it as my fave of Cassavetes Directorial effort. Ben Gazarra is superb. The film was ahead of its time and still feels fresh despite the numerous ideas and atmosphere that has been borrowed since by others. Kind of like John Huston's Prizzi's Honor.
I always make sure to watch films of this ilk at night, it does make a huge difference! Like watching a vampire film, it demands an evening setting to have maximum effect.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
I won't mention the boxset again.............
I can't wait to see this all over again - and then all over again again!!
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
your praise is too kind! I'd recommend starting with the 1978 version, maybe giving it a second viewing after that as well, just to get your head around some of the film's baffling complexities before going on to the 1976 version
OH - and WATCH IT AT NIGHT ONLY
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
I reviewed it on Screentrek some time ago, and one of the stories that struck me at that time was Cassavetes explaining to BG how the gangsters were a metaphor for the people in life who are always trying to take away your dreams (in JC's case, the movie business). Apparently, Gazzara had been struggling with his character, but nailed it from that point on!
It's just very visual filmmaking, which is of course what the medium's all about - awesome stuff.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
I saw that review and commented on it, actually thinking at the time that Mountain Fog had done the review. Watching this again has made me rediscover a gem that I may soon be calling a masterpiece (a term that I'm trying to be more picky when using but I am finding more difficult to in light of how many fascinating films he made)
I dont want to discount the 1976 version though Matt, it's a version I find problematic at times that include some brilliant moments not in the 78 version. It's also an insight into the workings of an important artist finding his own film in the editing.