Shadows (1958) User Reviews

Cassavetes' first

[jpschapira · 8/10 · 27 June 2007]

In the end credits of "Shadows", after we read 'directed by John Cassavetes', some white letters on the screen can be seen: "The film you have just seen is improvised", they say. I am always pursuing the fact that words are so important in movies since filmmakers started using them because, basically, there's no film without a screenplay and many other reasons.

Cassavetes pursued the same goal, and he believed in the freedom of words; "Shadows" is the perfect example. It's a film with no real main characters, with no real main plot lines; it's mostly people in different situations, talking. Yes, some of the situations are connected but Cassavetes, apparently always in a rush to get to the talking, uses a fast forward technique when the characters are going somewhere or escaping from someone and are not speaking.

Appearances are everything in this movie. For example, there's a brilliant score, full of jazz influences and a lot of fantastic solos, and there's one character that says he's a jazz musician and plays the trumpet (Ben, all the characters' names are the same names the actors'). However, we never see him play the trumpet or jam with a band; he doesn't even talk about music and just wanders with his friends around the city. They do talk, a lot, and about anything that's in their minds; going from how intelligent each of them are to the hilarious analysis of a sculpture.

"Shadows" is funny in its intellectual references in parts like the one above, because these friends are not cultured. The only important female character in the film (Lelia), though, wants to be an intellectual. But again, she has one very interesting conversation with an older man at a party, about a book she's trying to write, and about how to confront reality; but nothing to do with being intellectual. At that same party, a woman is actually making an intellectual statement, full of complexity, and asks a guy beside her: "Do you agree?". "Yes", he says, but you can tell he doesn't know what she's talking about.

Another character, a singer (Hugh), talks about his glory days in occasions, and we see him perform only once; but no references to the musical industry there. The focus of Cassavetes is the singer's relationship with his manager (Rupert), which most of the time involves chats about trivial stuff and not real 'musical' talks. So the trumpet player's important deal in "Shadows" is the time he spends with his friends; the intellectual wannabe girl's is her way of handling romantic relationships (one of the movie's strong points) and the singer's is the bond with his manager…Appearances.

The reason why performances are not important in this movie is simple. Cassavetes needed people who could master improvisation, without mattering if they were actually good. I believe some of them aren't, but they surely know how to improvise in a scene, and you can notice how well they do it. "Shadows" is not about performers; it's about a way of making cinema, based on the magic of conversation; and there you could say that performances mean something.

That's why in every conversation the camera is like a stalker, constantly on the eyes of every character, constantly looking for the expressions that come with natural speech. There's a scene where the trumpet player and his friends are trying to pick up some girls. They are three, so each of them sits beside one girl (the girls are three two) in three different tables. They all talk at the same time and the camera shoots through the table, and sometimes the friends look at each other, while they say whatever they are saying…It's natural.

Primitive Cassavetes. Interesting, but no masterpeice

[philfromno · 7/10 · 17 September 2002]

1959 was a landmark in the world of film. Several great directors of the classic era were releasing career capping classics that ranked among their best. Just a look at the titles is instructive, Hitchcock's North By Northwest, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot, Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life. Add a couple from the previous year, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, Hitch's Vertigo, and Nick Ray's Wind Across the Everglades, and you've got a pretty good summing up of what was possible within the classic Hollywood style.

At the same time, two films appeared that hinted at a whole new way of making films. One was Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless, the other was John Cassavetes Shadows. The two films had certain things in common, largely improvised acting by non stars, handheld cameras, low budgets, and a certain youthful, jazzy swagger. In certain ways, though, they couldn't be farther apart. Godard was still a believer in the director as arbiter of style. He knew more about film than most Hollywood producers, and Breathless was filled with the iconography of the classic crime film. Cassavetes, on the other hand, was an actor, and a refugee from New York's underground theater scene. His first film shows him little impressed with the cinema, and a big believer in actors. Godard's film constantly references it's own artifice, whereas Shadows aims for a certain kind of naturalism.

It doesn't reach it, mainly because naturalism is a myth, particularly in cinema. But it feels powerful, kinetic but lilting like the cool jazz on the score, certainly the main inspiration for the filmmaking style on display here. It ultimately doesn't hold together, mainly because Cassavetes' actors here are amateurish beatniks, where Cassavetes style requires strong, imaginative actors. His later work with Gena Rowlands, Ben Gazarra, and Peter Falk blows this out of the water. Due to the director's technical inexperience, some bits of dialogue had to be redubbed later, which defeats the freshness of the improvisation. Still it's fascinating to watch, both for the great moments (like the scene where Leila Goldoni talks about her dissapointment with losing her virginity) and to watch a groundbreaking artist finding his way.

No-holds barred film from this portrait of late 50's New York

[mark.waltz · 6/10 · 20 October 2010]

If you wish for the days when New York City was not overcrowded, filled with sleaze and more like the movies, then 1959's "Shadows" is not the vision of Gotham for you. This independently made feature from ground-breaking artist John Cassavettes uses real people to act out the drama of a city that in 1959 was no less complicated than it is today, only free of cell phones.

With marquees of the Broadway musical "The Most Happy Fella" and the movie "The Ten Commandments" in the background, the lights of Times Square take on a role as a character in the film as much as the actors speaking the often improvised lines. The plot is similar to things you've seen in movies before (Boy wants girl & vice versa, but various obstacles stand in their way), but these people aren't speaking out of the minds of some Hollywood scriptwriter. They are speaking out of the minds of real people. They talk over each other at times, don't often make sense or have a direction in their communication, but it's dialog you can imagine actually hearing on the streets.

The original 16mm photography (now re-mastered to 35mm) is rough and at first jarring to get used to. But once you're inside these character's lives, you feel you are on the streets with them, pushing through the crowds as they do. You also know you're not going to be snapping your fingers like the Sharks or the Jets. The editing is jerky, the background music is that of street sounds, and the camera moves like a turning head going back and forth from character to character. It's all a bit claustrophobic at times, but it's all too real. If there was an Off Broadway state of mind for cinema, this would be the quintessential example. Cassavettes' inventiveness paved the way for such future ground breakers as Francis Ford Coppolo, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg.

As a recommended viewing co-features, take in the more family oriented "The Little Fugitive", "Lovers and Lollipops" and "Weddings and Babies" for a view of New York City that you won't get in the Bowery Boys movies or in "On the Town".

Enchanting time capsule of late '50s New York

[Camera-Obscura · 28 October 2006]

Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles' pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before really.

The song with the feathered girls, "I feel like a lolly-pop" (or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood, improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of aspiring independent American filmmakers.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10

Without a doubt among the most influential of American films

[shinolah · 7/10 · 15 May 1999]

What is there to say about an anti-establishment film that was produced in a time of such colourless void, social indifference and authoritarian contentment. Cassevettes first major independent film was not an instant box office success and still has not received the critical attention it deserves. I draw comparisons to this wave of American independent projects consisting of such 'Beat' filmmakers as Robert Frank and Harry Smith with the burgeoning scene emerging in Paris in the late 1950's known as the French new wave.

They discussed poetry and philosophy and vulnerability at a time when the rest of the culture was obsessed with rediscovering American cultural supremacy; even at this stage this peculiar, highly spontaneous brand of filmmaking fought against the establishment of such political lexicons and bigots that held the development of the arts in check in the mid twentieth century.

Cassevettes film examines race relations and portrays man as weak in the face of love because we, as a culture, are blinded by our own race bias and prejudice. The great element to most of Cassevettes work is that his films have almost a reversal minimalist effect; a mental reaction is evoked through subtle character relations, not so much imagery. This is why his work seems to linger because he takes a more intimate approach to defining charcters that rely less heavily on explicit actions and more upon interpretation.

Although my favourite Cassevettes film is 'Husbands', this one is his most important.

Experimental Excellence

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 22 February 2003]

John Cassavettes decided as his first film, obviously as one that could be shot on a shoestring in New York and experiment with form and time, to not ave a script with dialog (merely an outline). And he delivered a 1959 feature equivalent of (present day) Curb Your Enthusiasm- all the actors know what to do and say and even have the right look in their eyes when they talk. In other words, it's one of the most naturalistic looks at a time and place, the "beat" generation, jazzed sweetly in it's score and telling a tale of racial tensions. A group of black siblings are the center-point, with one trying to get better gigs than the average strip-club, and has a sister, much more light-skinned than him, who gets entwined with a white man in a relationship, which shatters both sides. The film, however, isn't exclusively about that; Cassavettes likes to have his characters wander around New York City (which not many films did in 1959/1960), taking in mood, attitude and something akin to visual poetry, and his style of storytelling is like that of the improvisational jazz artists of the day. Dated, to be sure, but worth a serious look for film buffs. Martin Scorsese named this as one of his heaviest influences, if nothing else.

Not the perfect movie but still a nice little, different one.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 9 February 2011]

To be honest, I really didn't expected to like this movie, mostly since its entire premise and set-up sounded pretentious but as it often turns out with me; I'm actually quite fond of this 'different' and more art-house type of movie.

The movie is an entirely improvised one, so that means that the acting is also being that way. It works refreshing, especially with all of its dialog but it makes it also obvious that not all of the actors in this movie are being very great ones.

Still, the style of improvising for this movie is one that works out and makes this movie throughout a good one to watch. Not always an interesting one but a good one nevertheless. As often is the case with these improvised type of movie, it tends to drag on with certain sequences, though it can be argued that this is also actually being something that adds to the realism and rawness of the overall movie.

But I really wont pretend as if this is the best example of what the genre is capable off. The movie still does plenty wrong. To be frank, some of the directing can get really sloppy in this movie and it often features sudden cuts and obviously later put in in-between shots. Another thing that the movie does a somewhat bad job with are its characters. It really isn't clear from the beginning on which character or characters are supposed to be the main ones. This won't became apparent until very late into the movie. You could definitely blame the improvisation style of the movie for this.

But all in all, I still liked watching this different, little and honest movie, by John Cassavetes. It's well shot with some nice camera-work and it shows the atmosphere and environments of the late '50's New York. It's story also involves some good themes such as racism and interracial relationships, which was something that just didn't get featured very often in movies around that time.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Life is an improvisation in the limelight when the truth remains in the shadows ...

[ElMaruecan82 · 9/10 · 24 March 2011]

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

Good start

[Cosmoeticadotcom · 7/10 · 17 September 2008]

In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.

One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.

In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs…. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.

The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives.

Goes beyond acting, beyond character, beyond plot

[bob_meg · 9/10 · 24 December 2009]

Watching John Cassavetes debut film is a strange experience, even if you've seen improvisational films before.

The first thing you notice is it's roughness. Right off, it's obvious some of the characters are screwing up their lines. But then you step back from the situation, as you sink deeper into these people's intimate exchanges and you ask yourself: "Do I ever stumble over MY words?" The answer of course, is sure, we all do. It's unfortunate that most of the gaffes in this respect come early in the picture, because, by about twenty minutes, you've sunk so deep in you wouldn't know it if a bomb went off behind you.

The next thing you notice...or maybe you notice it hours or days after the film ends, is that you never saw any substantial plot, yet the themes and the poetry of the dialog and characters never leave you. In fact, the treatment of the role race plays in the everyday lives of these characters is always there, but it's so ephemeral that even they aren't aware of how it's informing their opinions of themselves, their self-consciousness, their perceived status, or the fate of their relationships.

The title is appropriate because you get a full spectrum of blacks, whites, and grays...and not just in the skin pigmentation of the characters. Leila Goldoni (truly remarkable here) is an afro-American/Caucasian, her two brothers are white and dark afro-American. The irony is that they exist in what is undoubtedly the "hippest" most tolerant atmosphere of the time...beat-driven upper east-west Manhatten...and there are still conflicts within and around themselves.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie with such a subtle delivery or technique. It's a lot like absorbing a really great piece of gallery art and then just nodding off in bliss as you think back to the images it evoked days later.

Great mastering and extras on the Criterion disc. Arguably the first truly experimental independent film ever made.

Improvisation as novelty

[Ben_Cheshire · 7/10 · 26 July 2004]

Improvisation was used to a groundbreaking degree in this film, but it only functions as a novelty. No greater truth about the situation is got by asking the actors to improvise. The performances are not improved by improvisation, because the actors now have twice as much to worry about: not only whether they're delivering the line well, but whether the line itself is any good. So that's why the performances in many Robert Altman films are often really hestitant - because the actors aren't really confident saying lines which they've made up, and therefore aren't sure are any good.

And, quite honestly, often its not very good. Often the dialogue doesn't really follow from one line to another, or fit the surroundings.

It crackles with an unpredictable, youthful energy - but honestly, i found it hard to follow and concentrate on it meanders so badly.

Nevertheless, a fascinating raw piece of film, and commendable 100% for taking the power over the green light into the street.

There are some generally great things in it. This joke, for example:

I'm a dancer. What sort of a dancer, like a ballet dancer? Oh no... exotic.

And the whole party scene its in, the following trip to the park, and the scene where the boys go looking at statues.

2/5. I wouldn't say they're worth 2 hours of your time, though.

Well-done early independent film by Cassavetes...

[dwpollar · 8/10 · 26 August 2001]

1st watched 8/26/2001 - 8 out of 10 (Dir-John Cassavetes): Well-done early independent film by Cassavetes introduced a style that was much different than what Hollywood shows it's audience. This movie also introduced some very taboo subjects, especially the actual racism that probably was prevalent all over the country but was not displayed by the mostly white controlled filmmakers of the time. About the only black actors that had much respect at this time were the ones that acted and displayed personality like whites(aka. Sidney Poitier). Besides this, the idea of ending a film without truly concluding the relationships that began leaves many moviegoers dumbfounded but actually makes the viewers realize that life is like this(it goes on...). I prefer this kind of an ending because it makes you think more about the characters and what may happen next and the conclusions are not just laid out for you. The movie follows the lives of people(particulary a couple of people who have a brief relationship and happen to be opposite skin colors) then we watch what happens when the white man realizes what he's done. This is done very well and makes the movie very special. The acting is supposedly done improvisationally which makes the movie even more amazing. I guess you can say I liked this movie, if you can't tell. If you can find it check out this classic early independent film.

John Cassavetes' first

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 24 June 2020]

Benny and his friends populate the Manhattan street scene. His older brother Hugh is a talented but struggling singer. Their sister Lelia can pass with her paler skin.

The version I saw is dated 1959. It's the first theatrical writing and directing effort from John Cassavetes. The technical skill is sometimes amateurish. There are some bad panning camera moves. The closing text claims that the dialog was improvised. It's a micro budget indie. At least, Cassavetes uses the street level energy to his advantage. Mostly, this is about the edgy subject matter and one very powerful scene. It's a good predictor of his future in filmmaking. As for the story, I would start the movie with the three siblings together. I didn't understand their relationship for the first part until I read the synopsis before continuing. It needs to be clearer. All in all, Cassavetes is pushing the envelope and creating some real art.

If we're going to be brutally honest.....

[movieswithgreg · 5/10 · 23 June 2020]

Ok, dig it, daddio, I get the deal here; this movie is "innovative." Improvised? Check. Influential on later filmmakers like Scorsese? Check. Blend of italian realism with the emerging French new wave? Check. Filmed in the raw? Check. Cutting mini-satirical scenes of walk-up pseudo-intellectuals? Check. Cool Beat jazz score of its time? Check.

But that's not all. Awkward acting? Check. The look of student actors doing over-long improv scenes? Check. Basement-budget glarey, shadowy lighting? Check. Dialogue that means little if anything at all? Check. Exaggerated emotional displays that don't make sense? Check. The editing is rough and sometimes doesn't make sense, like they lost a few frames and had to just tape it back in off-rhythm.

Let's call a shovel a shovel, here. This is interesting mostly because Cassavetes went on to become famous.

What did I like most about this? It's a real-life snapshot of what NYC looked and sounded like in 1957. That's not easy to find in movies. You can almost smell the stale piss in the alleyways.

A Pioneering Approach

[dougdoepke · 10 October 2010]

No need to repeat what little plot there is.

In 1959, movie-making was a closed shop. Between the studios, the craft unions, and the distributors, the only films outside Hollywood were home movies. Add a restrictive Production Code to that shop, and you get a commercial product that's typically slick, entertaining, but all too predictable.

I remember being on a mid-western campus at the time and hearing about Shadows. An independent production gave me ideas that fortunately or unfortunately never materialized. But for many others, the idea took root and, most importantly, helped shake loose the Hollywood monopoly.

No, Shadows is far from a masterpiece by any standard. It is, however, a gutsy, pioneering effort that achieves its own brand of sensibility—it's certainly not slick; then too, it's more interesting than entertaining, and not at all predictable. In short, what's on Cassavetes's screen is largely in contrast to what we expected from feature films of the time.

Instead of conventional story or plot, there are several very loose narrative threads. Instead of prepared script, set, and cast, there are non-professionals and improvisation, though how much, I gather, is debatable. And in place of expected resolutions at movie's end, life simply continues much as it did before.

As a result, there's no expected moral or lesson to events. They simply happen as they happen, but within that framework, new possibilities open up, while the screen comes to look more like everyday experience than an entertainment medium. I gather the aim is to reveal truths at a new level left undisclosed by traditional narrative structure. Something like the 'truth of the moment as it's lived'.

This is certainly no place to attempt a concept like that. However, I can see how movie tradition with its emphasis on structure and artifice would override the momentary and the non-preconceived in favor of the integrity of the whole. So, it looks like Cassavetes not only helped establish the indie, but also aimed at a new way of looking at movies in general.

Anyway, I don't know how well he succeeds with Shadows. However, I do have a lasting image of New York City, that is, of the shabbily gaunt Ben Carruthers hunched down in his leather jacket, perhaps as protection against an uncaring world as he drifts aimlessly down the city street. I'm just sorry that Shadows didn't make it to my long ago campus.

"The trouble with you is you suffer from self-induced hysteria at the word existentialism."

[oOoBarracuda · 6/10 · 5 April 2018]

The godfather of independent cinema and one of the titans of forwarding film as a means of artistic expression, John Cassavetes is a filmmaker, I'm sorry to say, I'm just now diving into. I have been intrigued by the way in which Cassavetes went about his art, acting in films as a means to finance his own and remain independent from the studio system and every creative restriction that brings. Working as few filmmakers have the chance to, Cassavetes was able to take as long as he wanted with each of his films, shooting, editing, and reshooting until he was fully satisfied with the final product. I suppose being involved continuously in another film project coupled with the intimidation to begin watching his work; it's taken me much longer embark on a journey through Cassavetes filmography than I would have liked. In October of last year, I unreservedly fell in love with Brain De Palma's 1978 film THE FURY, and as odd as that bridge is, that film is what pushed me into seeing, at long last, the work made by Cassavetes.

The gracefully imperfect feature film debut of Cassavetes' SHADOWS was, apparently, filmed twice. A nearly extinct version screened in 1957 was refilmed and replaced with the 1959 version which I watched. Completed with a minuscule budget using a crew of novice actors Cassavetes was so displeased with the audience reaction to the initial screening that he filmed the second version known today. A title card at the close of the film reveals that SHADOWS was an experiment in improvisation. The story of a family of musicians involved in the beat scene in Manhattan is told lyrically against a remarkable jazz score, flowing between the three family members brilliantly. Benny (Ben Carruthers) and Hugh (Hugh Hurd) vary in their in their commitment to their music and their belief that they can make it on their musical talents, but not in their love and protective instincts of their sister Lelia. Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) is also going through the motions of life until she meets Tony (Anthony Ray) and allows herself to believe this might be the love of her life. The prospect of beginning an inter-racial relationship scares Tony away, however, and her brothers must heal the hurt in Leila's heart.

Filmed in beat to the music it is scored with; SHADOWS moves between each character in the film in Capriccio, giving the impression that each person is independent of the other, only for the ending to reveal that each is in sync with the other. Each principal has their individual motivation despite working as a unit. Leila seeks love, Benny is searching for purpose, and Hugh is pursuing confidence. Their family bond is strong, yet Cassavetes brilliantly illustrates the agency of each and their separate stories that beg to be told. The improvisational style and the nonprofessional actors lend to the realism and struggle of both racism and what it means to chase a dream. I was reminded throughout the film, especially during its opening, of Louis Malle's heavily jazz-inspired 1958 feature, ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS. The black and white photography of the light-drenched city streets with the dazzling jazz score and frenetic energy of a young filmmaker show just how radiant the debuts of two very different directors can be. Shadows may not have hit every note, but it is a film that acts as a sublime preview of the brilliance that Cassavetes' capability.

"improvisation" at its best

[LuckyGraveyardBoots · 8/10 · 9 May 2006]

It ends with the declaration that "the film you have just seen was an improvisation"-at once making you feel like an idiot for thinking an improvisation was an good movie, and astounded at Cassavetes' genius...once again. Of course, Cassavetes told some guy it wasn't really an improvisation per se, on his deathbed, so...it's the story about a light-skinned black woman, Lelia, who passes for white, and her family: another passing-for-white brother named Ben, and a black-black brother named Hughie. When she falls in love with a white jerk named Tony, he is unpleasantly surprised when he finds out she's black, and from there it goes on about the three main characters' individual aspirations and shortcomings. Hughie is a jazz singer in the process of becoming a failure, Lelia's still hopelessly depressed over Tony, and Ben is angsty and violent in general, in desperate need of something to shock him out of his stale patterns of existence. Overall, I suppose it's really about stasis vs. change in human life. I suspect that Cassavetes had the plot organized enough, and it was just the dialogue that was improvised. The dialogue itself is very uneven - sometimes somebody will say something very memorable, other times it's memorably awkward. What's amazing is the extent of the amateur actors' embodiment of their characters. Cassavetes went through the acting class he was teaching at the time he decided to do Shadows, whispered in the ears of the ten best students, and this was the result...the guys playing Ben and Hughie are very good. At first I didn't like Lelia, but as the film progressed you see more and more she's one of those actors who gets better as the tension and drama builds - not necessarily the best with small talk. Shadows is hailed by many as the forerunner of the indie film movement (made in 1959) and it's definitely recommended.

Brave, bold, innovative and influential but not an easy watch

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 17 May 2020]

Brave, bold, innovative and influential but not an easy watch. The location shooting, Times Square and 42nd Street are amazing, particularly on Blu-ray with vivid b/w images of the neon and signage of cinema and strip club fronts. Even here though we have grown men behaving like young boys, running around and jumping on each other. The inside sequences are more restrained and here for good or bad the improvised dialogue comes into its own. There is an authenticity but little cohesive narrative flow and we get the impression, probably unfairly, of an insufferable bunch of rich guys having a good time with no regard for anyone finding their antics interesting. Time has been both kind and unkind here, it is fantastic to see these late 50s New York streets and catch a flavour of that jazzy moment just after the War but at the same time, we have seen all the French New Wave and other European efforts at cinema verite and some of this now seems just a little tiresome.

Great

[Daniel Karlsson · 8/10 · 2 May 2002]

Hey; Belmondo! Look there's Anna Karina! Great American improvised New Wave (or Independent you want to call it that), not as good as Godard or Truffaut, and not flawless, but hey such realism, style, warmth and humor. I love that NY accent; "you don't know nothing!"; "forget about it". Just like the French New Wave, it's about young people; partying, falling in love or just hanging around. Lelia Goldoni is so cute; she's adorable; wonderful. Ben Carruthers' also good, reminds me of Belmondo. A film you won't forget.

A steady 26.5 out of 31 ;-)

A Parallel Revolution

[Ore-Sama · 7/10 · 5 April 2015]

in 1959, the revolutionary French New Wave movement was taking place. Spearheaded by film critics turned film makers who wanted a change from the tradition of quality, prestige films based on novels in rigid structures, the new wave went in the polar opposite direction. These were low budget, contemporary films, often with non professional actors with no adherence to traditional narrative structure. Ironically, in 1959, there was a film being made in America that was low budget (no studio funding at all), non professional actors, contemporary, and no adherence to narrative structure. This film was John Cassavette's "Shadows".

"Shadows" could be described less as a story and more a glimpse into the lives of three individuals. Where it begins is virtually arbitrary, and it ends without any meaningful resolution. The dialogue, as would be typical of Cassavette, felt improvised and more like real life was being filmed. For the time it was unheard of, and even today you would seldom see a movie like this, or at least not in the main stream.

Of course a movie being "realistic" does not make it inherently good, contrary to what some may believe. The strength of "Shadows" lies in it's fully realized characters and situations. Every actor really brings the character they play, however important or non important, to life. Every emotion, from small talk and wise cracks among friends, to consoling a broken hearted sibling, to getting into a near fight, feels absolutely legitimate. We have Hugh, the sibling with darker skin, who struggles with his lounge singing career while struggling to maintain artistic integrity and be the rock of his family. There's his brother, Ben, who is lighter skinned, that hangs out with trouble making friends. Finally their sister, Lelia, who easily passes off as white, trying to break away from her little sister role and finds herself in a romantic relationship. There really is no main character, all three have their own little thread going on that often crosses over with the others, but doing so naturally. Although racism does come up at one integral point in the movie, this isn't really a movie that focuses on racial issues.Most of the things these characters deal with are universal.

Note must also be made of the jazz soundtrack that helps light a constant fire under the movie, and truly helps make it a time capsule for 1950's Manhatten. I feel the movie would truly lose some of it's fire and passion without this score. At the end of the day, passion may be the key word for this film. Either you're swept up in the authentic displays of human interaction and emotion, or you're likely wading through the longest 82 minutes of your life. If the latter, than the strong performances and intimate cinematography, the innovation, won't mean very much.

A breakthrough in American cinema

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 30 October 2005]

The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes occupy a unique position in American cinema… Low-budget, partly improvised, inspired by cinéma verité documentary, and related to underground film, they have nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative audience…

After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about disaffected, rebellious youth such as "Crime in the Streets" and "Edge of the City."

Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an improvisational experiment into his feature debut… The result, "Shadows," taking three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema… About the effect of racism on an already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style and naturalistic performances… Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth were everything

A good film .... but not completely living up to its reputation

[frankde-jong · 6/10 · 4 August 2019]

John Cassavetes is the father of the American independent movie, and his debut "Shadows" (1958) has acquired something of a cult status during the years.

The movie is noteworthy both with respect to method (based on improvisation) as well as with respect to content (racial discrimination when this was a subject Hollywood prefered to avoid). The scene where Lelia (African American but with a rather pale skin) comes home after a night out with a lover and this lover is startled by her much darker brother and subsequently don't know how to behave is really harrowing. In comparison with this scene a film like "Guess who's coming to dinner" (1967, Stanley Kramer) looks really polished.

The poster of "Shadows" very much looks like the poster of "Menschen am Sonntag" (1930, various directors) and the two movies also heve similarities with respect to other elements. Both films are treating the daily life of ordinary people in a big city. Both films are made by rather inexperienced directors. In "Menschen am Sonntag" the period is the '20s and the big city is Berlin. In "Shadows" the period is the '50s and the city is New York.

I found "Menschen am Sonntag" the better film and I had to think a while to know why. I think is is because the dialogues in "Shadows" (and especially the dialogues of Lelia) are a little forced or artificial. , Maybe the reason is to make the theme of racial discrimination more clear, but it is at odds with a story that tells the daily life of ordinary people. The second reason is that many scenes are inside. This prevents the big city to play its role as an "extra character" such as in "The neked city" (1948, Jules Dassin, "Manhattan" (1979, Woody Allen) or ...... "Menschen am Sonntag".

A homemade production in the best sense

[ALauff · 8/10 · 12 October 2007]

Seven months after a revelatory viewing of Faces, I finally found a rentable DVD copy of Cassavetes' first feature. Shot on a shoestring in Manhattan and in his acting workshop on ad hoc sets, Shadows was the culmination of months of improvisational rehearsals, in which the (mostly amateur) actors bonded with one another, invented their characters, and polished their techniques to give their filmed performances just the right tenor of spontaneous familiarity. This intimate approach led to some incredibly daring work in Faces—i.e., Seymour Cassel cramming his hands down Lynn Carlin's throat in an attempt to revive her from an overdose—just as the actors' utter conviction here yields blisteringly honest moments like Lelia and Tony's post-coital assessment of their relationship and Ben's revulsion at a black woman's touch as a manifestation of his racial confusion and self-loathing. This is a homemade production in the best sense: the out-of-sync dubbing and sound recording, and the granular cinematography and up-close camera setups, build an immersive atmosphere that perfectly suits Cassavetes' nuanced vision of human relationships as perpetual works in progress, marked by desperate emotional fluctuations and wistful attempts at communication and understanding. Charles Mingus's largely improvised jazz score is an ideal complement to the film's vision of living by the moment, a mantra by which Cassavetes worked and seemingly lived.

"The film you have just seen is improvised"

[donaldricco · 6/10 · 4 November 2020]

"The film you have just seen is improvised"

Well, that wasn't surprising to read at the end! The movie is disjointed, poorly acted, and terribly edited. There are lots of 'fade to blacks' that make it feel episodic, but also really disrupt the flow to any of the plot pieces. Overall, there's no real story.

So why six stars? Well, I liked the look of it - the style, the music, the language! It has a Beat generation quality, and a very real 'what are we gonna do with our lives?' mentality that I think many had back then, and still do! The race piece of the plot is small, but powerful. It overall feels like a very real slice-of-life film that captures that time and that place. I'm not saying I would watch it again, but I'm glad I watched it at least this once!

More important than good

[jellopuke · 4/10 · 7 July 2020]

I can appreciate this for what it was, but I'd never want to watch it again. It feels like it's a million years long because nothing of note happens. Sure it's a slice of life but ugh... Also was Ben Carruthers wearing blackface? There were times it looked like he was and other times no.. not sure.