"A Child Is Waiting" is the third film directed by John Cassavetes, in my opinion one of the two or three greatest American filmmakers to ever live. The main thing that needs to be kept in mind about this film, however, is that it is not truly a Cassavetes film at all. It is much more of a Stanley Kramer film. Kramer produced the film; Cassavetes directed it, but it feels much closer to "Judgment at Nuremberg" than it does to "Too Late Blues", which itself was more conventional and mainstream than most of Cassavetes' work.
It seems that Cassavetes was set, for awhile at least, on being a commercial filmmaker. His debut film, "Shadows" (1959), was a very amateur, underground film. It was the polar opposite of commercial cinema, and while it was not a very good film, I have an immense amount of respect for it. It was an exercise in unmitigated realism that, in some ways, foreshadowed the films of the nouvelle vague, which was just getting underway at the time. Cassavetes' next film was "Too Late Blues", which maintained the realism of "Shadows" to some extent, but also employed a more polished, classicist mode of filmmaking, giving it more commercial entertainment value than its predecessor. It was halfway between "Shadows" and mainstream, commercial cinema.
Then comes "A Child Is Waiting", released in 1963 by Paramount. It stars Judy Garland and Burt Lancaster, who had just appeared together in one of Kramer's recent films, "Judgment at Nuremberg", which Kramer directed himself. As you can tell from the cast, "A Child Is Waiting" is purely commercial cinema, which is highly uncharacteristic of Cassavetes. Nevertheless, his hallmarks aren't completely absent from the film. First, there is the presence of Gena Rowlands, Cassavetes' leading lady for many of his films. Secondly, although it is ultimately a classicist film, "A Child Is Waiting" does utilize a certain amount of the documentary-style realism that Cassavetes was famous for. For a commercial film, it's very minimalistic, and even though it feels more like Kramer's film than it does like Cassavetes', the latter's influence is evident nonetheless.
Interestingly, on a side note, Kramer had produced one other film between "Judgment at Nuremberg" and "A Child Is Waiting". It was called "Pressure Point", and it starred Bobby Darin, who had starred in "Too Late Blues", and Peter Falk, who would star in two of Cassavetes' later films, "Husbands" and "A Woman Under the Influence". I suppose this is likely just a coincidence stemming from the fact that these actors were probably all under contract with Paramount at the time.
Cassavetes wasn't originally supposed to direct the "A Child Is Waiting". When the original director had to pull out, however, the film's screenwriter recommended Cassavetes, who was still under contract with Paramount. Kramer and Cassavetes clashed, evidently because of the unconventional nature of Cassavetes' methods. As we know, Cassavetes loved improvisation (his claim to fame), but Kramer and the film's cast did not share the sentiment. Finally, during post-production, while editing the film, problems between Kramer and Cassavetes boiled over. Cassavetes wanted to highlight the theme that mentally handicapped children (the subject of the film) were, in their own way, superior to the so-called "normal" adults of the world — a theme that absolutely survived to be seen in the final product — whereas Kramer wanted to focus more on the alienation of these children due to their treatment by society, encouraging the idea that they be put in institutions where they can be with other children like themselves and ultimately overcome the isolation that plagued them in the outside world. In the end, Kramer fired Cassavetes, and Cassavetes disowned the film. After its release, Cassavetes said that he didn't think Kramer's film was bad, but simply that it was, indeed, Kramer's film, and not his own. To any viewer who's familiar with Cassavetes' work, this will be obvious within about five minutes of watching the film. Kramer stated that Cassavetes was "difficult" to work with, and with the immense power that Kramer held in Hollywood, this spelled the end of Cassavetes' career as a studio director.
This was, of course, for the best, when all was said and done. It seems as if Cassavetes would have preferred to continue working as a studio director, had it been up to him, and I hate to think of all the great films we'd be bereft of today if things had turned out that way. Having been basically blacklisted as a Hollywood director, Cassavetes returned to the independent method of filmmaking that had produced "Shadows", and the result was what I believe to be his greatest masterpiece, "Faces". "Husbands", "A Woman Under the Influence", "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", and "Opening Night" followed, all strong, unique films that established Cassavetes as a true auteur, something he'd have been entirely unable to achieve within the studio system.
Nevertheless, "A Child Is Waiting" is a good film, really. I was surprised. I hadn't expected much, and it's actually quite a quality picture. Lancaster is very good, and although Garland, who was dealing with personal problems at the time, was by far the film's weakest link, she avoided an all together terrible performance. She was mediocre, at best, but she did the bare minimum to support the role.
Like in "Judgment at Nuremberg", Kramer asks all the big questions regarding his subject matter. He tackles the subject comprehensively, asking intelligent questions about important issues, and isn't afraid to leave them essentially unanswered. The film's entertainment value is sufficient, but where it really excels is on a thematic level. Despite being a largely forgotten film, "A Child Is Waiting" has some really good things to say, and it is actually a deeper, more profound work than the vast majority of the films that Hollywood was releasing in the early '60s.
RATING: 7.33 out of 10 stars.
It seems that Cassavetes was set, for awhile at least, on being a commercial filmmaker. His debut film, "Shadows" (1959), was a very amateur, underground film. It was the polar opposite of commercial cinema, and while it was not a very good film, I have an immense amount of respect for it. It was an exercise in unmitigated realism that, in some ways, foreshadowed the films of the nouvelle vague, which was just getting underway at the time. Cassavetes' next film was "Too Late Blues", which maintained the realism of "Shadows" to some extent, but also employed a more polished, classicist mode of filmmaking, giving it more commercial entertainment value than its predecessor. It was halfway between "Shadows" and mainstream, commercial cinema.
Then comes "A Child Is Waiting", released in 1963 by Paramount. It stars Judy Garland and Burt Lancaster, who had just appeared together in one of Kramer's recent films, "Judgment at Nuremberg", which Kramer directed himself. As you can tell from the cast, "A Child Is Waiting" is purely commercial cinema, which is highly uncharacteristic of Cassavetes. Nevertheless, his hallmarks aren't completely absent from the film. First, there is the presence of Gena Rowlands, Cassavetes' leading lady for many of his films. Secondly, although it is ultimately a classicist film, "A Child Is Waiting" does utilize a certain amount of the documentary-style realism that Cassavetes was famous for. For a commercial film, it's very minimalistic, and even though it feels more like Kramer's film than it does like Cassavetes', the latter's influence is evident nonetheless.
Interestingly, on a side note, Kramer had produced one other film between "Judgment at Nuremberg" and "A Child Is Waiting". It was called "Pressure Point", and it starred Bobby Darin, who had starred in "Too Late Blues", and Peter Falk, who would star in two of Cassavetes' later films, "Husbands" and "A Woman Under the Influence". I suppose this is likely just a coincidence stemming from the fact that these actors were probably all under contract with Paramount at the time.
Cassavetes wasn't originally supposed to direct the "A Child Is Waiting". When the original director had to pull out, however, the film's screenwriter recommended Cassavetes, who was still under contract with Paramount. Kramer and Cassavetes clashed, evidently because of the unconventional nature of Cassavetes' methods. As we know, Cassavetes loved improvisation (his claim to fame), but Kramer and the film's cast did not share the sentiment. Finally, during post-production, while editing the film, problems between Kramer and Cassavetes boiled over. Cassavetes wanted to highlight the theme that mentally handicapped children (the subject of the film) were, in their own way, superior to the so-called "normal" adults of the world — a theme that absolutely survived to be seen in the final product — whereas Kramer wanted to focus more on the alienation of these children due to their treatment by society, encouraging the idea that they be put in institutions where they can be with other children like themselves and ultimately overcome the isolation that plagued them in the outside world. In the end, Kramer fired Cassavetes, and Cassavetes disowned the film. After its release, Cassavetes said that he didn't think Kramer's film was bad, but simply that it was, indeed, Kramer's film, and not his own. To any viewer who's familiar with Cassavetes' work, this will be obvious within about five minutes of watching the film. Kramer stated that Cassavetes was "difficult" to work with, and with the immense power that Kramer held in Hollywood, this spelled the end of Cassavetes' career as a studio director.
This was, of course, for the best, when all was said and done. It seems as if Cassavetes would have preferred to continue working as a studio director, had it been up to him, and I hate to think of all the great films we'd be bereft of today if things had turned out that way. Having been basically blacklisted as a Hollywood director, Cassavetes returned to the independent method of filmmaking that had produced "Shadows", and the result was what I believe to be his greatest masterpiece, "Faces". "Husbands", "A Woman Under the Influence", "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie", and "Opening Night" followed, all strong, unique films that established Cassavetes as a true auteur, something he'd have been entirely unable to achieve within the studio system.
Nevertheless, "A Child Is Waiting" is a good film, really. I was surprised. I hadn't expected much, and it's actually quite a quality picture. Lancaster is very good, and although Garland, who was dealing with personal problems at the time, was by far the film's weakest link, she avoided an all together terrible performance. She was mediocre, at best, but she did the bare minimum to support the role.
Like in "Judgment at Nuremberg", Kramer asks all the big questions regarding his subject matter. He tackles the subject comprehensively, asking intelligent questions about important issues, and isn't afraid to leave them essentially unanswered. The film's entertainment value is sufficient, but where it really excels is on a thematic level. Despite being a largely forgotten film, "A Child Is Waiting" has some really good things to say, and it is actually a deeper, more profound work than the vast majority of the films that Hollywood was releasing in the early '60s.
RATING: 7.33 out of 10 stars.