"Gloria" is probably the only Cassavetes' film that relies on a formulaic plot: the improbable pairing that turns into a friendship and I suspect it's the most likely to disorient the hardcore fans of Cassavetes' unique directorial style, in other words, to be the least appreciated of his films. Still, it's the one that earned Gena Rowlands, the most defining face of the director's filmography, her second nomination for an Oscar.
It's hard to believe that Gena Rowlands only had two nominations in her career, and that she didn't even win for "A Woman Under the Influence" which belongs to the list of the greatest female performances ever. Never mind. Here, Gena portrays Gloria, the neighbor of a doomed Puerto-Rican family. She enters as casually as ever to ask for some coffee and finds herself in the middle of a panic-stricken family scene. And what seems to be more inexplicable that the casting of Buck Henry as the geeky waspish connected-to-the-mob father (I loved Roger Ebert's comment on that one) is the way he jeopardized his family's life by threatening to give some names to the FBI, names that were all conveniently collected in a little book. After a quick second thought, the casting of Buck Henry is top notch, he looks like the kind of men to commit such incredible mistakes, and as we see him argue with his wife, remarkably played by the beautiful Julie Carmen, the feeling of urgency is efficiently conveyed. Indeed, we know it's only a matter of minutes before the gangsters start shooting and Gloria's entrance is like providence knocking on the door.
Gloria is a blonde woman in her late forties or early fifties (Gena Rowlands was 50), she's single but she probably seen a lot in her bed, she doesn't like kids and especially Carmen's kids, a touch of irony that makes her the perfect candidate to take care of little Phil, the eight-year old son who'd keep his father's book. Gloria has the perfect mix of sophistication and street-wise attitude, and I guess one of the reasons that earned her an Oscar nomination is that she literally created something new on screen. Gloria has some mimics that remind of Gena's earliest roles, and her accent is just a delight for ears, but then when she suddenly pulled a gun off her purse, it's a total metamorphosis, and a landmark in Cassavetes's canon. For the first time, an actor transfigures a character to make the role appealing on a true cinematic level, regardless of any realistic approach. Gloria becomes a true heroine in all the meanings of the word without the sexiness of usual exploitations' female protagonists.
"You're so tough" will repeat little Phil, with eyes that are either impressed or full of love. Is it realistic that a child would fall in love with a woman like Gloria? I don't think any child would but then not any child would have been casted for that role. Here, Cassavetes did one incredible choice, because either John Adames' performance is one of the best or the worst when it comes to child acting. I still haven't made up my mind yet but I do believe it was absolutely distasteful for the Razzies to give the award of Worst Supporting Actor to a child. Now, was he good or bad? I felt the way he was dressed very weird, sometimes the way he delivered his lines was whiny and irritating, and when he was playing adult and tough, I was like "gee, what's wrong with this kid?" but then you understand that as much as the film would have been different without Gena Rowlands, it would have been maybe worse with a 'normal' kid. I mean 'normal' by cinematic standards. Could have you dealt with the same story told by Spielberg?
Kids have a strange ability to outsmart adults in movies or to act in the most insolent, eccentric and annoying way as if they were comforted by the tacit rule that 'kids don't die in films'. Think of all the ones you saw in Disaster films, little boys who were braver than their whiny sisters (another stereotype), who displayed an insolent courage in front of the villains when any normal child would have wept or cried for his mommy. In the name of dramatization, the portrayal of little boys and little girls has suffered from a severe distance from reality. Cassavetes never cared for clichés and you could see in his earlier films how children kind of behaved naturally, where adults were the most childish persons actually. In "Gloria", he creates here a kid so cinematically abnormal that we can believe a boy would act that way, the way he delivers his lines, the content of these lines can be debated but I'd rather take his attitude than one that would obey to a standard. At the end, he fitted the role, didn't ruin the film and the best measure of that aspect is his chemistry with Gloria.
While the friendship is the emotional core, the film strikes by its abundances of cat-and- mouse scenes, the gangster looking for Gloria, Gloria herself looking for Phil. Thanks to the directing and the score from Bill Conti, sometimes a bit overdone, the dosage between thrills and sentiments is perfectly handled and allow us to grow some feelings toward these two characters. In a way, the film carries so much comedy beyond the drama that we couldn't have dealt with a sad ending. And Cassavetes, aware that he's not probably making the highlight of his career, let the events flow naturally until a climactic confrontation and a finale that concludes the film in a very satisfying way.
"Gloria" could have been better, but it also could have been worse. Just ask yourself what if another director made "Gloria"
It's hard to believe that Gena Rowlands only had two nominations in her career, and that she didn't even win for "A Woman Under the Influence" which belongs to the list of the greatest female performances ever. Never mind. Here, Gena portrays Gloria, the neighbor of a doomed Puerto-Rican family. She enters as casually as ever to ask for some coffee and finds herself in the middle of a panic-stricken family scene. And what seems to be more inexplicable that the casting of Buck Henry as the geeky waspish connected-to-the-mob father (I loved Roger Ebert's comment on that one) is the way he jeopardized his family's life by threatening to give some names to the FBI, names that were all conveniently collected in a little book. After a quick second thought, the casting of Buck Henry is top notch, he looks like the kind of men to commit such incredible mistakes, and as we see him argue with his wife, remarkably played by the beautiful Julie Carmen, the feeling of urgency is efficiently conveyed. Indeed, we know it's only a matter of minutes before the gangsters start shooting and Gloria's entrance is like providence knocking on the door.
Gloria is a blonde woman in her late forties or early fifties (Gena Rowlands was 50), she's single but she probably seen a lot in her bed, she doesn't like kids and especially Carmen's kids, a touch of irony that makes her the perfect candidate to take care of little Phil, the eight-year old son who'd keep his father's book. Gloria has the perfect mix of sophistication and street-wise attitude, and I guess one of the reasons that earned her an Oscar nomination is that she literally created something new on screen. Gloria has some mimics that remind of Gena's earliest roles, and her accent is just a delight for ears, but then when she suddenly pulled a gun off her purse, it's a total metamorphosis, and a landmark in Cassavetes's canon. For the first time, an actor transfigures a character to make the role appealing on a true cinematic level, regardless of any realistic approach. Gloria becomes a true heroine in all the meanings of the word without the sexiness of usual exploitations' female protagonists.
"You're so tough" will repeat little Phil, with eyes that are either impressed or full of love. Is it realistic that a child would fall in love with a woman like Gloria? I don't think any child would but then not any child would have been casted for that role. Here, Cassavetes did one incredible choice, because either John Adames' performance is one of the best or the worst when it comes to child acting. I still haven't made up my mind yet but I do believe it was absolutely distasteful for the Razzies to give the award of Worst Supporting Actor to a child. Now, was he good or bad? I felt the way he was dressed very weird, sometimes the way he delivered his lines was whiny and irritating, and when he was playing adult and tough, I was like "gee, what's wrong with this kid?" but then you understand that as much as the film would have been different without Gena Rowlands, it would have been maybe worse with a 'normal' kid. I mean 'normal' by cinematic standards. Could have you dealt with the same story told by Spielberg?
Kids have a strange ability to outsmart adults in movies or to act in the most insolent, eccentric and annoying way as if they were comforted by the tacit rule that 'kids don't die in films'. Think of all the ones you saw in Disaster films, little boys who were braver than their whiny sisters (another stereotype), who displayed an insolent courage in front of the villains when any normal child would have wept or cried for his mommy. In the name of dramatization, the portrayal of little boys and little girls has suffered from a severe distance from reality. Cassavetes never cared for clichés and you could see in his earlier films how children kind of behaved naturally, where adults were the most childish persons actually. In "Gloria", he creates here a kid so cinematically abnormal that we can believe a boy would act that way, the way he delivers his lines, the content of these lines can be debated but I'd rather take his attitude than one that would obey to a standard. At the end, he fitted the role, didn't ruin the film and the best measure of that aspect is his chemistry with Gloria.
While the friendship is the emotional core, the film strikes by its abundances of cat-and- mouse scenes, the gangster looking for Gloria, Gloria herself looking for Phil. Thanks to the directing and the score from Bill Conti, sometimes a bit overdone, the dosage between thrills and sentiments is perfectly handled and allow us to grow some feelings toward these two characters. In a way, the film carries so much comedy beyond the drama that we couldn't have dealt with a sad ending. And Cassavetes, aware that he's not probably making the highlight of his career, let the events flow naturally until a climactic confrontation and a finale that concludes the film in a very satisfying way.
"Gloria" could have been better, but it also could have been worse. Just ask yourself what if another director made "Gloria"