I think you’re right, Nate, from what I’ve seen of Cassavetes his films are more about having to live with compromise, the end of the dream, etc., rather than the idea that “love conquers all.” I’m not surprised, though, that viewers want to see a happy ending, or at least a catharsis, after being so wrung out emotionally by the fighting and the domestic drama.
Maybe. The marriage wasn’t going to end well after the credits rolled, but now that we know that the relationship extends beyond the confines of the film, it might be easier to see that it was built on a loving foundation. Nick obviously wants to spend time with her, and I don’t doubt that he’s a good father, but he comes totally unequipped to the situation that unfolds with Mabel.
I don’t think his pleas for her to be normal arise out of malice, but ignorance. And here:
“she’s not crazy… she cooks and cleans and takes care of the kids.”
Cooks/cleans/takes care of kids is what a normal wife is capable of in the eyes of Nick and his pals. He means what he says there: that she’s not crazy. He’s not talking about a happy, healthy marriage.
You mention the scene where he takes the kids to the beach – he pulls them out of school and on the way back he gets them drunk. To me that reinforces Nick’s abnormalities. Like you say, he doesn’t know what normal is, or he can’t find an outlet for his emotions. The scene where he invites everyone over to the house to welcome her back is a great example of this. I don’t think that’s a reason to despise him. I’d imagine he would be uncomfortable talking about the mental institution, seeing as it was a last resort that he evidently regrets. I do think that he’s fighting for her to be “normal” because he loves her and can’t bear or comprehend what’s happened to her (even though his neglect of her needs contributed to the breakdown), and not because he wants onlookers to acknowledge the normality in their relationship.
I don’t know if I’ve answered your question. I do know that Cassavetes would never want you to hate or judge the people in his films; he would encourage you to understand them, but I don’t know if that’ll encourage you to look at the film in a different light.
Great film, this one.
“Can anybody defend Nick or point out where there is actual love in their relationship?”
Nick doesn’t need defending. Life is messy. Are you perfect?
Of course they love each other.
Sorry to interrupt, but can someone please tell me how to make words italicized or bold in this forum?
There is really no unobtrusive way to ask this question, so there it is. =)
All that aside, the scene near the end, where Mabel says “Dad … will you stand up for me?” is one of the most gut-wrenching scenes in modern cinema. Such an amazing dramatic turn.
Nate – Thank you. Interesting threads are a rarity nowadays
Max – Bookmark this page
Throughout the film Nick, and Mabel show deep affection for each other. They have moments (when Nick gets home and lies down on the bed, and Mabel, and eventually the kids, and Mabel’s mother (I think it was Mabel’s mom) join them) that show a great love for each other, but neither understands the other. This is an underlying cause for the problems in the relationship, neither knows what the other wants, or feels, or needs and instead substitute their emotions for the others. It’s not that they don’t love each other, but rather, as others have said, neither can find a healthy way to express their love, and both end up forcing their feelings, and ideas on each other.
Thank you.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1234
This interview on Charlie Rose reveals a lot. While I do believe Nick deeply love his wife, Rowlands & Co. argue that it is Mabel who loves TOO much. It is Mabel who shows too much love – both to her kids and to her husband – which can be just as damaging as not showing enough love. Very interesting notion. Cassavetes was solely interested in love and the idea of it.
Here is a great quote from the doc, “A Constant Forge.”
“I have a one track mind. I’m interested in love and the lack of it.”
- John Cassavetes
Its a very complex film, which is what I love about it. You can’t get a read on Nick, especially toward the end. He takes her up the stairs and tells her to “be herself” in one of the most heartbreaking scenes in the movie, as if he’s done something he can’t undo. Later he wants her to talk about the weather like a “normal” person. My reading of it is that there is a distinct separation between their public and private lives. Nick wants her to be emotional when they’re alone but dignified and “normal” when others are around. Mabel obviously cannot function in this way. Its easy to see that Nick gets embarassed by Mabel when they are with others, but there are moments of true tenderness when they are alone. The ending, where they simply go to bed and ignored the ringing phone (outside complications to their personal moments) is an example of this. Like someone else said, Nick isn’t perfect, neither is Mabel, he doesn’t need defending or explanation, he is a human trying to navigate a troublesome situation. But I believe there is a kind of love there, there are too many scenes that display that he truly cares about her.
I HATED this movie to the point that i had to encourage myself to finish it. The first time it aired on TV I recorded it and then watched the first half the following day. By the time Nick yells to Mabel after the interminably long spaghetti lunch I had had enough. Gena Rowland’s full on retarded performance (including her hissing and other nonsensical babbling) was ludicrous and Nick’s constant yelling for the ENTIRE movie was irritating beyond words. The man had a glass eye for fuck’s sake! Why do you guys like this film so much?!
Well, Cesar, because it reaches an emotional and psychological depth that most films don’t. Cassavetes is not for those who are looking for entertainment. He confronts the worst in human behavior and asks, “How can we be better, or worse, but how do we live with these aspects of ourselves?” Many people agree with you, but time has proven that Cassavetes wasn’t up to just bullshit. Gena Rowlands’ performance is simply one of the best in all cinema. And what does Peter Falk’s glass eye have to do with anything?
But couldn’t Gena Rowlands have played the character’s insanity in a sort of, shall we say, more adult way? She seems to have the mental capacity of a five year old, and it’s exasperating to watch. If she had any normal moments throughout the movie and then we saw a decline into insanity with depression, lashing out at the husband or the kids for example, or even hallucinations, it would have been much more satisfying for me. But instead all she does is play a hyperactive, ADD-ridden grown up who lapses into temporary moods and fits. I’ll give this to her, I have never seen anybody play crazy the way she did in this movie.
Cesar – What you’re asking for, to see a steady decline into madness, is storied cliche. What Cassavetes was going for is what we might experience in life. Unfortunately, life isn’t as easy as watching someone fall into a consistent, predictable spiral of madness. It just doesn’t work that way.
Exactement, Fredo. Cesar, I don’t know how old you are (not that it matters) and I don’t want to judge, but maybe you should give this film a few years and then watch it again. Who knows, maybe you’ll never like it.
But I should point out that part of what Gena Rowlands was doing was showing someone who is so eager to please that she ends up tearing at the seams of her own sanity. She is childlike, but insofar as she is a child trying to please the grown-ups around her. Watch the scene with the kids in the backyard, dancing to “Swan Lake” and you’ll see how at home she is. But when the adults interfere (Peter Falk and Mario Gallo) she ends up getting slapped. Her actions are large and childlike and even somewhat grating and embarrassing, but the journey Rowlands portrays is very subtle. It should be uncomfortable to watch, as that is what Cassavetes was trying to achieve. But, as I said, that sort of thin is not for everyone.
As over the top as her performance seems to be on the surface, it’s a very subtle film and a very subtle investigation into behavior and relationships. You might think I’m crazy but I’ve known people like Mabel and her behavior is not all that unrealistic in my mind.
The only time I liked her was after she comes back from her hospitalization and we can see her struggling to fit in with the rest of the adults. Her pain in those scenes is palpable and incredibly moving. But pretty soon she reverts to her old self and we see that brilliantly in her talk about “Did you see how big Tina’s ass is?” Apart from that I really couldn’t empathize with her or Nick the husband. They were irritating and polarizing. Maybe I’ll watch it again in a few months.
Another thought, more to the origin of the thread: Cassavetes originally scripted and shot scenes where Nick and Mabel were walking down the street and laying in bed, talking about their dreams. It showed a gentler, more loving side to their relationship, and was a relief from the harshness of the rest of the film. Cassavetes cut them because he thought, I suspect, they soft-sold the story, that instead of having to earn their intimacy, it showed it up front. That’s Cassavetes. He recut “Husbands” and “Opening Night,” among others, because the audience were enjoying them too much and weren’t getting what the film was about.
But in the film as is, Nick is obviously inapable of showing his love for who Mabel is. He must love her, in order to stay with such a difficult personality, but simply can’t articulate it. Even sending her to the loony bin is an act of love, because he can’t understand her. But it is still an act of love. He wants to be able to stay with her, and in the world he lives in—the “normal” world—she is an aberrant personality, a kook. But Mabel doesn’t live in his world, she lives in a world where love is unconditional and easily shown. In a typical Hollywood product, she would be the hero and would, in the span of an hour and a half, cheer up the curmudgeonly Nick. But In Cassavetes’ world—which is our world but with the difficulties magnified—she is sent away for a cure, told to be different. By the end, Nick no longer wants her to be different, he wants her to be happy. And he realizes, I think, that that means allowing Mabel to be the loving, difficult person she is. Whether he continues on that path is up to our guess, which is another thing that makes it a Cassavetes film. Look at all the husband/wife relationships in his films and you’ll see they are variations on Nick and Mabel.
“Her pain in those scenes is palpable and incredibly moving.”
It was familiar? A failing on Cassavetes’ part, perhaps, if the rest of the situations and emotions weren’t. Give it a few years.
“He recut “Husbands” and “Opening Night,” among others, because the audience were enjoying them too much and weren’t getting what the film was about.”
I love that about John; how he would get angry when test audiences would enjoy the film too much. Yes, Husbands is the most well known example, where audiences were really responding positively to the film and that upset John enough to recut it so they wouldn’t enjoy it so much. To me, that’s a true artist – where you’re willing to jeopardize success in favor of getting your original intent across.
“By the end, Nick no longer wants her to be different, he wants her to be happy.”
Reading this brought a tear to my eye because I think it perfectly encapsulates what the film is. I’d never thought about it in this way, but you’re absolutely right Greg.
“But couldn’t Gena Rowlands have played the character’s insanity in a sort of, shall we say, more adult way? She seems to have the mental capacity of a five year old, and it’s exasperating to watch. If she had any normal moments throughout the movie and then we saw a decline into insanity with depression, lashing out at the husband or the kids for example, or even hallucinations, it would have been much more satisfying for me. But instead all she does is play a hyperactive, ADD-ridden grown up who lapses into temporary moods and fits.” – Cesar
That is probably the most unintelligent thing I’ve ever read on these forums. You say Rowlands doesn’t play insanity in a mature way (whatever the hell that means) and that she should start having hallucinations … Tune into the next season of House if that’s what you’re into.
EDIT: And I agree mostly with the original poster’s point. I also expressed my dislike for Nick in a previous thread and was lambasted unanimously, so I’m glad you were spared.
There are many ‘truths’ in this thread.
If I were ever to meet Gena Rowlands, I would ask her one question:
Where did she learn of the “characterizations” (i.e. the movements) come from?
As is found in von Trier’s Breaking the Waves, this is a compelling portrayal of Borderline Personality Disorder as one will ever see.
Trying to relate BPD to a normative reality is futile. And yes, Nick did love her – the only possible approach is to ignore the crazy stuff and find joy in the sublime moments, and there can be many, shared with a woman afflicted with this disorder.
“To me, that’s a true artist – where you’re willing to jeopardize success in favor of getting your original intent across.”
I agree, depending on what your original intent was. I will refrain from pushing another semantical argument, however :)
^ That’s erroneous as well, Mike. Fredo’s quote is very accurate I think because he said “true artist” not “good artist” which I think is where you’re taking it. He’s saying a true artist doesn’t compromise his vision – now whether his vision is “good” or fully realized is up to each individual viewer. We’re not talking talent necessarily, but intent. Cassavetes’ intent by making A Woman Under the Influence I think was realized and presented in the best and most effective way it possibly could.
Well, yeah, I grimaced a little myself at using the term “true artist” and you won’t hear me using that term very often. But my point is that I think it was honorable of John to use the test screenings as a way of gauging whether people were interpreting Husbands the way he intended and not using the screenings as a way to make the film that the most people will “enjoy”. I think Cassavetes’ intention was not to make a light buddy comedy however those earlier cuts were getting interpreted that way. So he recut the film trying to keep it more in line with his intention of what he wanted the film to be – which is much heavier and serious in tone.
What I was trying to articulate was that I think it was refreshing to see a director who is committed to their vision and getting that vision out, even if it’s at the expense of success or being popular. Cassavetes didn’t recut the film b/c he didn’t want people to like it; he recut it because he thought he had failed as a director to impart the vision that he had intended.
“^ That’s erroneous as well, Mike. Fredo’s quote is very accurate I think because he said “true artist” not “good artist” which I think is where you’re taking it. He’s saying a true artist doesn’t compromise his vision – now whether his vision is “good” or fully realized is up to each individual viewer. We’re not talking talent necessarily, but intent. Cassavetes’ intent by making A Woman Under the Influence I think was realized and presented in the best and most effective way it possibly could.”
I read a positive connotation into “true.” Point taken. Semantics is the devil!
Deckard – I know I can use the term “true artist” around Spence when talking about Cassavetes. However if I were to use that term in a discussion about Tarentino, I know I’d better run for the hills! haha
But alas, I admit it’s a pretty stupid term.
True. In the end, it’s just as subjective as “good artist”, but I thought I’d point out the difference, heh.
@ Deckard, I simply meant that it was impossible for me to like Mabel because she behaves like a hyperactive child and not like an adult, and that gets on my nerves. You didn’t have to be an asshole about it. For the record I don’t watch House
Just saw this movie recently. I had the feeling that Nick is himself a little bit crazy, and that Cassavetes was making some sort of point that everyone focuses on Mabel’s craziness while ignoring Nick’s more masculine craziness. I guess I’m alone on this, but otherwise I can make no sense of Nick’s completely bizarre behavior.
For the record, I also didn’t like this film, although I don’t necessarily agree with Cesar’s criticism. The love/relationship aspect of the story just didn’t do anything for me, and I saw the film mainly as a portrait of a messed up woman (and her husband), and it just bored me. I also gave up by the end of the spaghetti dinner and forced myself to finish. But I did think that Rowlands was superb.
Side comment: Is it exploitative to have a naked child in your movie?
Nate
I strongly disagree with the reviews of A Woman Under the Influence that talk about the unconditional love in the marriage of Nick and Mabel. People seem to interpret the last scene before and during the credits as saying that with love they can get over all their problems. Rather, I think it’s showing them ignoring all their problems and trying to just function. People say that Nick loves his wife in spite of everything, but I think his motivations are given away at the scene in the beginning where he tells his friend something like “she’s not crazy… she cooks and cleans and takes care of the kids.” Nick is constantly forcing his idea of a happy existence on everyone else, including Mabel. He does not love her, he loves the idea of having a woman at home to do chores. I feel like the scenes where he takes his kids to the beach and the dinner after Mabel comes home demonstrate his unhealthy view of what he thinks is “normal” and how important this “normality” is. He insists at the dinner that normal conversation is “talking about the weather,” betraying his desire to push all his problems under the rug. His wife just got home from six months in an institution, and he doesn’t want to know what happened there, how she’s feeling, or if she’s actually better, he just wants to return to his forced idea of a happy family. There is no resolution in the final scene to the violence and drama that had just taken place. They internalize their conflict and pretend to be happy. Can anybody defend Nick or point out where there is actual love in their relationship?