Customer Reviews

The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Expanded and Updated

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

David Thomson is the gadfly of film criticism. He has gathered his thoughts into his biographical dictionary, now in its fourth edition. His dictionary, however, is like no other biographical dictionary. Compare it, for example, with Ephraim Katz' "The Film Encyclopedia," which is also mostly a biographical dictionary, and which I couldn't imagine being without. Katz' bios are long and leisurely. For noteworthy film people Katz tells in detail their life stories from cradle to grave, including comments about the important films in their career (always about their circumstances and how they were received generally by audiences and critics rather than his own evaluation), and ends with a long, usually complete, film list. I can sit for hours reading Katz, always being led from one biography to another. I am informed, I am entertained, but I am not challenged. Katz and his successors (Katz passed away in 1992) are historians more than critics, at least in "The Film Encyclopedia." Thomson, on the other hand, doesn't devote a lot of time to the life story. What he does offer is a very idiosyncratic analysis of his subject's work. If you wish, he writes critical professional biographies. His critical analyses are usually at variance with the common wisdom and challenge the reader at every step of the way. One has to ponder what Thomson has written with almost every sentence. Katz is wonderfully informative about the indisputable facts of a film person's career. Thomson is wonderful about making you think about the parts that are disputable. If Katz helps us to become better informed, Thomson helps us to grow as film lovers.

I would not be without Thomson's biographical dictionary any more than I would be without Katz' film encyclopedia. No other book makes me think as much about film. No other book can cause me such dismay, because I come to fear that my earlier opinions were completely off the mark and that I had understood nothing. Sometimes, in fact, they ARE off the mark, and sometimes they are simply different from Thomson's. There are a number of directors whose works I own almost completely on DVD or VHS and that I thought I understood. That was before I began reading the various editions of Thomson's dictionary. I am less smug now, a little more confused, and, perhaps, a lot closer to the truth (if there is one). Is "Under Capricorn" really among Hitchcock's greatest achievements? I'm still not convinced, even if Thomson is. And there are times too when I think that Thomson is too fussy, too atuned to what his subject's work lacks rather than to its special qualities, the frequent bane of critics. I doubt that Thomson would mind my differing judgments, but I don't think he would want me to make them facilely. Read Thomson with great profit... and at your peril.

Fortunately for David Thomson, being forced to drink hemlock went out with the Athenian state more than two millenia ago. Fortunately for us, he keeps producing new and larger editions of his wonderful challenging book.

I wonder if he likes animals and little children...

Yes: this book is going to tick off a lot of people. Thomson's style and criticism are an acquired taste. I bristle and shake my fist at a number of his opinions. I don't think Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson and Jim Carrey and Nicole Kidman are great actors; Thomson does. Thomson has contempt for many of the directors and actors I respect and love. He thinks Humphrey Bogart is "a limited actor, not quite honest enough with himself." He calls Orson Welles a "charlatan." He calls the incomparable Hitchcock "an impoverished inventor of thunbscrews who shows us the human capacity for inflicting pain, but no more." He idolizes lesser-known directors like Yasujiro Ozu and sniffs condescendingly at celebrated figures like Akira Kurosawa.

Yet, Thomson makes no pretense that he's writing for everybody. Nor did Pauline Kael, for example, make such pretense. As Thomson himself writes, "Indeed, the stance taken here as your needling, provocative, argumentative companion at the movies takes it for granted that in the reading you will begin to compose your own response." That says it all.

Some people read film critics because no matter how much you disagree with them, they have something worthwhile, witty, thought-provoking, or just plain infuriating to say. Why else read film criticism at all? This book is a nearly thousand-page rollicking journey through some of the major figures of film, and it belongs on every film lover's shelf. I pick it up and refer to it often, and want to throw it across the room almost as often.

In the era of the Internet Movie Database, one may wonder what use a film encyclopedia could possibly have. After all, the IMDB can cover far more ground, provide a far wider range of information than any film book could. And it never needs to be reissued.

Yet, the latest version of Thomson's work proves there still is use for a good film reference book. Thomson's book may lack the width of IMDB but it beats it in terms of depth. Filled with bite-sized insights and concise explanations about movie people from D.W. Griffith to Reese Witherspoon, this is a work of passion, precision and knowledge. No one will agree with him on everything, even on most things. But, his skill at argument makes his opinions impossible to dismiss, and he rarely seems unfair. He recognizes when he represents the minority opinion on a subject (as with director John Ford, whom he has little admiration for) and rarely dismisses an interesting subject out of hand.

I don't think i've had as much fun, or been as challenged by any book on film as i have this one. Thomson's entries found me reevaluating opinions i had previously thought immovable on many directors, actors and films. And no matter my initial revulsion to his rejection of a particular favourite of mine the more i think about it, in most cases, the more i believe he has a special gift for perception and reasoning in his chosen field of study. Most importantly to me he cites a great number of appealing films i had never heard of as masterpieces (oh to be a film critic and see more of them than is possible in liverpool), it is every film fans dream to discover such classics that have slipped through the cracks of critical approval and popularity.

Not that there isn't plenty i disagree with in this book, but to take a few entries already mentioned in the reviews bellow i found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his assessments of John Ford, David Lynch (which i found myself agreeing with word for word), Fellini, Jospeh Losey, Lars Von Trier, Ralph Nelson, Raoul Walsh and many many many more. In some of these cases and more i found my quiet, cowardly dislike or love of certain directors (especially of their less lauded films, Losey being a good example) vindicated by perceptive writing, in others my love shattered by the epiphany "My God, he's right". Special mention to his section on Merchant Ivory films. There's simply too much wonderful stuff in this book for me to list in a review. Every time i open it i find something gripping.

In his columns for 'The Independent' newspaper and his hero worshipping appearances in hagiographic documentaries on Steve McQueen and Robert Mitchum i often found him smug, irritating and sometimes nauseating (i could understand in Mitchum's case, but McQueen?). But in this book he offers a more considered opinion, less gushing. As far as actors go i think i enjoyed the Robert Ryan entry most so far.

His entry on Anthony Mann is fascinating, it seems to me Thomson is forever questioning himself and examining his nagging doubts and is not afraid to change his mind. When he closes his modestly appreciative segment on Robert Siodmak with "That's what i wrote aboout Siodmak in 1975. All i want to add it that it's not enough <........> Siodmak had not just a great eye but i way of seeing life. He was an artist, and he deserves fuller retrospectives." i am desperate for more detail, i would love to read more of his thoughts on this subject.

I honestly believe his rhapsodic verdicts on Bresson, Ophuls, Mizoguchi, Bunuel and others to be virtually incontestable (i was disappointed to see no discussion of one of my favourite Ophul's films 'The Reckless Moment' however). The icing on the cake is his contrarian verdicts on curiosities i have always loved despite popular critical opinion seemingly being against them: 'Rancho Notorious' (Lang), 'These Are The Damned' (Losey) and to a much lesser degree 'Macao' (Sternberg and Nicholas Ray). Also films that if my memory serves me correctly might have gone straight to video in Britain recieve glowing write ups (did Rosi's adaption of Primo Levi's "The Truce" suffer that ignominy?).

Maybe a previous reviewer on this page is right when he says that 5 stars cannot be awarded as it would be a claim of perfection for this book. Besides, the omissions, Mastroianni gets an entry and not Gian Maria Volonte (who Thomson enthuses about in 'Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspiscion') and there is nothing on Glauber Rocha and many other seemingly forgotten major foreign figures (although there is one for Kinugasa, a pleasant surprise as i have never met anyone who has seen one of his films). Maybe Thomson doesn't rate some of them, i'd still like to read why. I suspect it is simply an oversight or a case of time and effort, to put everyone i like or am interested by in this volume inside the first 15 editions would be a monumental achievement requiring telepathic powers on the author's part.

I have bought every edition of this book (this is the fourth) and find each one well worth the money. Thomson is the best writer among the movie critics, probably the best writer that has ever reviewed movies. His writing is so good, even when disagreeing with him, I still love reading the reviews or biographical sketches. He has a tremendous poetic economy with the English Language: consider the following:

About Bruce Dern in the film Coming Home:

". . . A rapturous embrace between Jane Fonda and Jon Voight was being watched by a wistful, suspicious Bruce Dern, his eyes lime pits of paranoia and resentment."

Or Basil Rathbone:

"The inverted arrow face, the razor nose, and a mustache that was really two fine shears stuck to his lip. Ladies looked fearfully at him, knowing that one embrace could cut them to ribbons."

Both these passages capture the essence of the star perfectly. Just perfectly. The book is full of this kind of superior writing.

The update has all the new stars, some who probably wish they were excluded. Who can not read a reviewer that says of Ben Affleck: ". . . Mr. Affleck is boring, complacent, and criminally lucky to have got away with everything so far."

As I say, Thomson has a way of capturing things perfectly in a few words.

David Thomson has an opinion on most things, from U.S. education (worst in the developed world)to Gwyneth Paltrow (maybe the public does not really like her). He prefers old movies and the stars of the Golden Age. The book is entertaining; but his views are a little outrageous and often unfair. His judgements on the current generation are too harsh.

Mr. Thomson has obviously watched a lot of movies, and has intellectual pretensions. One has to ask why he bothers writing about movies given that he is so often disappointed. Unfortunately not many films made by Hollywood stand up to repeated viewings. They are primarily designed as shallow - but emjoyable entertainments. You accept their limitations when you buy a ticket. That said it was a good and stimulating read. I have always thought Scorsese over-rated and it is good to find someone who has similar views. His view that Spielberg's Ryan is "a magnificent film" is hard to understand.

This superb book is an absolute delight to read. I found myself going from subject to subject enthralled. Perhaps I am more easily pleased than some but for me the following passage about Clint Eastwood was alone worth the price of the book: "... For he has become an authentically heroic image, a man cast in Gary Cooper's rock. even if his eyes are still rather more self-satisfied than Cooper's...". I Found the author's opinions very interesting even fascinating. One may not agree with everything
but I found this dlightful book very helpful and full of new insights. This book along with Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video guide was all I needed to get a good grasp of the medium.

If you're looking for a standard reference work, look elsewhere (Katz is probably your best bet). That said, this is one of the finest books I've discovered in years. You can read it from cover to cover and never get bored, which is impossible to say about any other reference book that I know of.

David Thomson is absolutely brilliant. I disagree with about half of what he writes here, but even when I disagree I respect his opinions and greatly admire the way in which he articulates them. Very often in these entries you will find that unexpected beauty and strangeness which is the hallmark of all great literature and all great art in general. Some of the passages are absolutely heartstopping. Here's Thomson on Jean Vigo:

"L'Atalante is about a more profound attitude to love than Gaumont understood. It is love without spoken explanation, unaffected by sentimental songs; but love as a mysterious, passionate affinity between inarticulate human animals."

Have you ever heard a more haunting, uncanny definition of love than this one? I certainly haven't. I read these words and then sat there like a fool in shock for five or six minutes, ruminating on their simple profundity.

Thomson is also not afraid to be nasty, which is refreshing in this age of mindless, frothy hype being spewed in all directions on just about everyone. Here he is on Roberto Benigni:

"Then came the thing called La Vite E Bella. As a matter of fact, I often echo that sentiment myself, but if there is anything likely to mar the bella-ness, it is not so much Hitlerism (I am against it), which is fairly obvious, as Benigni-ism, which walks away with high praise, box office, and Oscars. I despise Life Is Beautiful, especially its warmth, sincerity, and feeling, all of which I belive grow out of stupidity. Few events so surely signaled the decline of the motion picture as the glory piled on that odious and misguided fable."

Sometimes that nastiness reaches the heights of pure poetry. Here is Thomson on Richard Gere:

"There are times when Richard Gere has the warm affect of a wind tunnel at dawn, waiting for work, all sheen, inner curve, and posed emptiness. And those are not his worst times."

Lest you think that Thomson is merely a curmudgeonly old British [man], let me emphasize that in many other places (through most of the book, in fact), he displays a humanity and generosity of spirit that is nothing short of exemplary.

This book is not so much a reference on film as it is a meditation on life and everything in it. In these past hundred years movies have covered exactly that kind of encyclopedic range, both in their subject matter and in the lives of their makers. Thomson simply uses the world of cinema as a vehicle with which to explore the magnificent enigma of life and existence and somehow manages to pack more of that life into its 963 pages than any other book of any genre that I can think of. Opinionated, yes, but then again so is the Bible. A true desert island book. An absolute masterpiece.

In his breakdown of movie actors, producers, directors, and other significant players, David Thomson invites the reader to consider not only movie track records, but more importantly, what choices the "players" made throughout their careers. What arises is frequently more interesting than one is able to find in any other compendium of movie stars or films; in fact, Thomson is able to seemingly deconstruct and re-define many film careers that previously defied such analysis.

That being said, current actors are, in this reader's opinion, downgraded for recent roles that are beneath their capabilities. Perhaps this is more a general trend within film, as it reflects the the focus of today's media towards a more distracted and less discerning U.S. audience. Many actors and directors are "franchising" themselves to remain marketable, and only sporadically choosing films that they consider important within the constraints of doing movies in an increasingly competitive, fickle movie environment. In particular, women in films have always faced constraints as they reach or exceed the age of 40, but I don't see Thomson spending a great deal of time bemoaning Meryl Streep's lack of roles vs. an ever-so-popular Ian McKellan who is just, in some eyes, hitting his prime. Those caveats aside, the book makes excellent reading and brings out the breadth of risks taken by certain actors, including those character players who somehow get lost in their multitude of lesser roles.

This is a must-read tome, whether or not you agree with the writer's well-thought-out commentary. For no other reason, it may get you to rent (or own) priceless videocassettes or DVDs that remain dormant in the deepest recesses or your local video store.

Anyone who dislikes this book because he disagrees with it is missing the point. Yes, there is something guaranteed to offend someone on every page (and offend almost everyone every ten pages), but Thomson earns the right to express his opinions, right and wrong, through his well-reasoned arguments, his entertaining and literate style and his genuine affection for movies as an art form.
Accept the author's preferences and enjoy the ride. He has an English distrust of earnest actors who try to manipulate emotion, and so he misses the pleasure of some of our more sincere stars and gravitates to the caustic. For him, Fellini is sloppy and self-indulgent. For most everyone else, Fellini is that way, too, but we like him anyway. Encountering Thomson forces us to reason why we like Fellini, to not just sit back and say this is a classic because it's a classic and someone told me. If you don't want to think, don't buy this book, because as Thomson says, the book is a dialogue, and the reader saying, occasionally, "Are you nuts?'' is a healthy part of that dialogue. But you have to go beyond, "Are you nuts?" to be able to hold your head up enough to keep reading Thomson. If you can't reason back, he's going to annoy you, because he's going to keep knocking your arguments down, and you'll be pinned to the floor with this heavy book on your face.
I should also say I don't read too many film books, but this is one of the essential ones, along with Scott Eyman's The Speed of Sound, Mick LaSalle's Dangerous Men and Truffaut's book about Hitchcock. Good film books are even more rare than good movies, and that's rare enough.