Rating: 
Summary: Promiscuous Pleasure
Review:
The New Biographical Dictionary of Film has, arguably, two flaws, that can also be seen as strengths that highly recommend the book. the narrative and the selection of entries are both highly subjective according to the whims of David Thomson, its brilliant, but often tendentious author. While some descriptions are neutral and a bit flimsy, most of them are the result of a mad moviegoer flailing with passionate, even eccentric preferences and dislikes. The second flaw is it is hardly a universal reference. It seems to have huge discussions about seemingly forgotten, albeit, important figures like Sidney Franklin and Victor Sjostrom and then insubstantive, perfunctory passages on people who seem to have had a huge presence in the history of motion pictures like Tom Mix and Dan Duryea. It also is about 50-50 that you will find someone you are looking for. As a heuristic exercise, I looked for the following seemingly indispensable film names from all periods and genres of film history this morning and found not one of them: Ben Turpin, Richard Roundtree, Ben Stiller, Dame May Whitty, John Lurie, Rod La Roque, Anna Q. Nilsson, John Bunny, Florence Lawrence, Alan Hale, Harry Carey, Ryan, O'Neil, Ali McGraw, Barbara Hershey, William Bendix, Ethel Merman, Chris Farley, Sid Caesar, Jonathan Winters, and Phil Silvers. Not one of these household names at various epochs of the movie tradition turn up in the book. This makes the random browsing experience with the book somewhat limited and disappointing.
Having said that, the book is a gem. The names who do appear in the book have mostly sprawling discussions about their place in the story of cinema and incisive references to their contribution with each mention of a film: "very funny in" such and such, "very good" in such and such. Even if you can't locate all people you are looking for in the book, it certainly references enough people who you can go to other texts or the internet for more detail. Coming away from a read on most of the biographical passages on his entries is a fulfilling experience like a great meal topped off by a fine pinot: you can't wait to get hungry again to go back for more.
Rating:
Summary: I bought this and the previous edition.
Review: These books are absolute, cast iron and definitive insights into the movie world, whether Actors, Directors or Producers.
To call it a dictionary is almost to do it a major diservice.
Thomson aims to give a well crafted slice of punchy prose for each entry and somehow manages to capture the very essence of each persons attributes and skills (or lack of!)
He has a way of describing people that is worhty of a moments contemplation and leaves you half feeling that that is ofcourse the perfect description and wondering why you could not have thought of it yourself. Even his more unflattering entries are spot on, often I had just bumbled along thinking someone's work reasonable ok, that is until Thomson had me evaluating the person in awe and being regretful for what I had missed or wondering how I had managed not to notice such a weighty lack of effort or ability. Brilliant, just brilliant.
Rating:
Summary: A Film Bible!
Review: ...What a pity that David Thomson's masterful encyclopedia of film
is updated so infrequently. Patience is rewarded. Mr.
Thomson who like Anthony Lane is a Londoner though he now
lives in San Francisco has come out with a smashing new volume
almost a thousand pages in length. Unlike the late Ephraim
Katz's bible of film knowledge, "The Film Encyclopedia,"
Thomson's book avoids the staid and abounds in his personal
opinions on a large but selected group of people connected to the
movie industry. The new encyclopedia, just published, contains three new
entries (including one for Reese Witherspoon, appropriately
enough since Ms. Witherspoon is getting into all the romantic
comedies she can while she retains her unique, youthful charm),
not only names the names but chats about art and entertainment
in general, tossing in some of the author's viewpoints on the New
Vulgarity that brings in the principal targeted market of the big
studios. An example of Thomson's first-person-ism: Entry for Winona
Ryder (Winona Laura Horowitz): "In 1994, pressed for space and
surrounded by young actresses, I backed a hunch that Winona
Ryder would outlast Nicole Kidman and some others. Well,
Ryder holds her place, but Kidman has clearly outstripped her in
both daring and accomplishment. And Ryder is now thirty, and
pretty in a way more suited to twenty." On the Coen Brothers: ""Raising Arizona" was, for me, close to
unwatchable: unfunny, technologically impelled, showy and not
just empty but condescending. "Barton Fink" was show-off time
again, a dash of Nathanael West, a pinch of sophomore
surrealism, numb satire, another kid's film. "Hudsucker Proxy"
was a return to zero or less....the plot ponderous and flimsy, and
the people stooges to a dumb comic-book style. A travesty." An encyclopedia that's shy of the length of the OED cannot
include everyone, but why have entries for Demi Moore (Demi
Guynes) and Julianne Moore (Julie Smith) but nothing at all for
one of the hottest names of the 21st century, Michael Moore
(Michael Moore)? Nick Nolte but not Harry Knowles? Emma
Thompson but not David Thomson? Sir Carol Reed and Donna
Reed (Donna Mullenger) but not Rex Reed? Diane Lane but not
Anthony Lane? (After all, there is an ample entry for Pauline
Kael.) The major omission is the lack of information on matters
covered by Katz's encyclopedia, to wit: "Iranian Cinema,"
"Hollywood" and the like only people get the headers. This
"dictionary" is so comprehensive, so enjoyable, that the only
criticism one might make is that Thomson does not cover some of
the more notable and colorful personalities of the biz, particularly
the critics we daily read with keen anticipation.
Rating: 
Summary: David Thomson does not love film.
Review: After reading thid book, it is clear to me that Mr.Thomson does not love film, in fact it has become clear to me that he does not even like film, and I will go as far to say that Mr. Thomson hates film. To Mr. Thomson, film is nothing but a springboard for his disgusting, inconsistent, elitist, cynicism. It is clear to me that Mr. Thomson is a very sad man, and something in his life rendered it impossible for him to create films, se he was cursed to a lifetime of criticism. All I can say is: Sour Grapes.
Rating: 
Summary: I was very disappointed with this book
Review: After reading through some of the entries, it seems this should be a biographical dictionary of movies rather than film. I am almost as shocked by the entries Mr. Thomson has LEFT OUT of the book as by the ones he decided to put in. Almost. Reading through, one notices that Thomson loves character and, almost as much, loves story. Not just any story though, but the tried and true, loveable and optinmistic story that Hollywood has some quaintly put into all of our eyes. Anyone who hasn't worked towards this ideal is a goof, and no matter how beautiful or powreful an actor's or director's work may be, Thomson glosses over it or trashes it if it doesn't meet his criteria. The book is HEAVILY opiniated, with a ridiculous amount of undeserved space given to some entries. This is by no means an objective reference, nor a definitive volume.
Rating:
Summary: WELL-REASONED AND ENTERTAINING
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A Pseudo Film Critic
Review: Apparently the corpulent Mr. Thomson and his fluttering fans will never learn that criticism is not the art of condescension and putdown. As I've said my equally unpopular review of his previous tome, Thomson's is neither biographical nor a dictionary. He uses the reference work term, Biographical Dictionary, and his pseudo-academic writing style to lend authority to what is nothing more than the stupid and uninformed opinions of a supercilious snob. As a true reference, this thing is utterly useless. For the real thing, go to Monush or Katz or Halliwell.
The once great publisher Knopf's descent to the level of a mere purveyer of processed paper-by-the-pound is evidenced by its marketing of this fat tripe. As George Lukas has said, Thomson knows nothing about movies. Whom you choose to believe - Thomson about himself or Lukas about Thomson - says a lot about what you are.
The "Helpful" score of my review, before this revision, was 0 for 3. I'm indebted to the Thomson fans for that score, since they have confirmed my thesis.
Rating:
Summary: A Pseudo Film Critic
Review: Apparently the corpulent Mr. Thomson and his fluttering fans will never learn that criticism is not the art of condescension and the putdown. As George Lukas has said, Thomson knows nothing about movies. Whom you believe says a lot about who you are.
Rating:
Summary: ...a few things to note before you buy this...
Review: As you can see by the other reviews, this book is a love it or hate it proposition. I very much enjoyed it, for my part. I don't always agree with Thomson, and I think he sometimes spends too much time bashing directors he feels were overpraised (John Ford, Fellini, etc,). He also seems to judge all movies on their potential lasting impact as art, rather than on their own terms. In other words, "Tron" is held to the same standard as Ozu. I find that a bit unfair. He loves the golden age a bit too much, in my opinion. And as many other reviewers have whined about, he doesn't include some entries he should have. But the fact remains that Thomson has an uncanny ability to get to the core of what an actor or filmmaker is about within very few sentences. I ended up reading the book cover to cover, delighted with parts and strongly agreeing with others. If you like great writing, check this out. Just be prepared not to agree with everything. If you just want a reference guide, use the IMDB and save yourself some dough.
Rating:
Summary: a corrective
Review: Boy does Thomson hate Fellini! That's fine, of course, but the author's cold bile (and British schoolboy elitism... he whacks Fellini over and over for daring to be born in a small town) make this almost useless as a real reference book. I guess it's fun to read as a cute, snotty film fan diary... but it's a thousand pages long! It should have come in a gift box, scribbled on damp, wadded cocktail napkins. Thomson hates John Ford, too. Again, fine. But he says that "The Last Hurrah" is Spencer Tracy's finest film (Ford directed it). Yet nowhere, NOWHERE, in the article on Ford is a single hint that there is a filmmaker present who could make Spencer Tracy's finest film. I guess the wounding thing is the hateful way that he mocks and ridicules we yokels who actually are stupid enough to enjoy Amarcord or La Dolce Vita. (He also seems completely ignorant, in his wild praise of Radio Days as an unprecedented, brilliant, sui generis masterpiece -- it's a great movie, but come on --, that the film is inconceivable without Amarcord... but that would mean that he would have to admit that Fellini, that unforgivably provincial clodhopper, had a style and some ideas.) Then again, this is a man who thinks Howard Hawks' last bowel movement should be preserved by the AFI (and surely "Man's Favorite Sport?", which Thomson cites as one of the screen's finest comedies, qualifies as a giant stinky...). He's right about a lot of things (Stanley Kramer [stinks]), but so what? And he's a fine, witty writer. Again, so what? Now I know what David Thomson thinks of Dorothy Gish. I can die a happy man.
|
