God bless the Criterion Collection and their decision to release The Killing of a Chinese Bookie as a two-disc set, featuring the original 1976-theatrical version and 1978-director's cut. Director John Cassavetes considered the film a failure and had it removed from theatrical distribution seven days after its release. The 1978-cut of the film is nearly 30 minutes shorter in length and is truly a "director's cut." This is not some money making scheme; Cassavetes constructed an entirely different film, using scenes not present in the theatrical version and removing entire sequences that were. This review is for both versions.
Ben Gazzara plays Cosmo Vittelli, owner of Crazy Horse West, a strip joint.
This much the two versions agree on. In the theatrical version, Cosmo meets Mort (Seymour Cassel) at his club. Mort tells Cosmo about a gambling joint and invites him to check it out. Cosmo does and ends up with a $23,000 debt. In the director's cut, Cosmo doesn't meet Mort at Crazy Horse West. Instead, he simply goes to a gambling joint and loses $23,000. Cassavetes establishes who has control over the gambling joint with a scene where some gangsters confront an urologist who has accumulated a $5,000 debt.
In both versions, the men from the gambling joint arrive at Crazy Horse West and tell Cosmo about a Chinese bookie, along with an offer that will help him significantly reduce his debt. Cosmo doesn't like the idea and, at first, refuses. The gangsters insist he reconsider and give him a gun, a car, and no wiggle room.
This synopsis could indicate a thriller, a character study, a thrilling character study...Something of this nature. While it is a character study, by the time you reach the 50-minute mark of the theatrical version you won't have a clue what you're watching and it wouldn't be out of line for me to say that many people will have turned it off by this point.
Many of the scenes in the theatrical version do feel too long or unnecessary. This cut has many long, unbroken shots, and sometimes tedious dialogue. The upside was that the dialogue didn't feel written (and indeed, some of it was improvised) and, as such, many scenes achieved a sort of reality. Be that as it may, reality is not always as entertaining as fiction.
Cassavetes does bring some genuine excitement and tension to a few scenes though, notably the scene where Cosmo goes to the title character's house. The excitement and tension are heightened much more by the director's cut, as we reach this point in the film much sooner.
The performances in both versions are terrific. Gazzara turns in an Oscar worthy performance as Cosmo, which is rather remarkable as he reportedly struggled with the role. Cosmo is a complicated character; simultaneously self-assured, charismatic, and conflicted. He's not a bad guy, but by the end you're not entirely sure if he's a good guy either. In the director's cut, the greatness of his performance is even more fully realized as it focuses more on his character. Cassavetes changed the opening scene in his cut to Cosmo walking out of Crazy Horse West to reassure the bouncer that "it'll pick up." This is a far superior way of establishing the character.
Seymour Cassel is also impressive as the snake-like, conniving Mort...Much of his screen-time is cut in the director's version, leaving little time for one to take much notice of him. However, he's particularly effective in the scene where he explains things to Cosmo from inside his car.
Martin Scorsese collaborated with John Cassavetes on the idea for this film. It's hard to deny a Scorsese influence, even many characters seem like descendants of characters from earlier Scorsese films. However, if Scorsese had directed The Killing of a Chinese Bookie we'd have a much different film. Probably a masterpiece, but a very different film; the theatrical version has a loosely constructed plot with all the pieces for a masterpiece present, just not connected properly. The puzzle is finished with the director's cut, which has even more of a Scorsese-feel to it.
Other changes made for the director's cut include revealing Cosmo is a Korean War vet who killed in the war, the details the gangsters give about the hit are much more elaborate...And Cosmo's girls and Mr. Sophistication (I won't bother explaining who these people are) only have one scene. The multiple scenes of them were what really weighed down the theatrical version, so this was a brilliant creative decision.
What's remarkable is that many filmmakers wouldn't complain if they had made the theatrical version. It's not the most entertaining film in the world, but it's more accessible than a film like
Woman Under the Influence - Criterion Collection. Beyond that, you can see how this film may have influenced later films. It's proof that a character study, even one involving murder, can be slow and methodical...It doesn't have to cut right to the chase. Both the style and structure of this film evoked memories of Vincent Gallo's
Buffalo '66, which also starred Gazzara.
However, many filmgoers have complained about how the film doesn't have much of a plot, but simply an outline that's filled with unnecessary, pointless dialogue. The ending sums up what this film felt like for me. It's like walking into someone's life for a period of time and than just leaving unannounced. In the 1976-cut, we walk into Cosmo's life for 2 hours and 12 minutes. In the 1978-cut, we walk into Cosmo's life for 1 hour and 46 minutes.
The 1976 cut of The Killing of a Chinese Bookie is not a masterpiece, due in large part to its loose structure. It clearly had the potential to be a masterpiece and many of the scenes are very inspired. Even though Cassavetes hated this version, the theatrical version is something. What it is, I couldn't say. With the 1978 cut, Cassavetes did something incredible. With the tightened structure, more even-handed narrative, and increased focus on the Cosmo character Cassavetes turned this film into a masterpiece. In this form, it is a great film. It's still likely to disappoint those intrigued by the title/synopsis as it's still slow, methodical, and with a meditative structure. However, it is a cinematic treasure that is both entertaining and powerful. This is the definitive version of the film, as it was meant to be seen...And it would be a shame if you missed it.
THEATRICAL-VERSION: B+
DIRECTOR'S CUT: A