The New Biographical Dictionary of Film

Rating:
Summary: Misleading title; outrageously good book
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: You may not look at a movie the same way again...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Annoying, in a wonderful sort of way
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Facts and Opinions
Review: It is not possible to include references for every name actor, actress, director, producer, and film craftsman, but Thomson does a relatively good job spanning the silent era to the current movie scene. The book's main problem is not with omissions, but with personal commentaries that reflect the personal tastes of the author. For example, many of Hollywood's most successful directors, such as Ford and Wyler, are dismissed with a few backhanded compliments, while far too much space is accorded to oddities like Warhol, and directors such as Edgar Ulmer (with few worthwhile films to be noticed). Sometimes there are valid reasons why obscure directors should remain obscure.

Casual film fans may find some of Thomson's comments and criticisms surprising, because he often shows disdain for popular and/or Academy Award winning films and actors/actresses, but it is sometimes justified. More serious students will find Thomson's effort worthwhile, because he often goes against the mainstream flow.

Rating:
Summary: Give It A Break
Review: People, don't be dismayed --- dismayed by any reviewers' caveats or negative snipes. Some actors have been left out? So what?!? Big deal?!? How about the actors in Boogens? Are they included? Are they dead, as in "professionally"? Inquiring minds want to know.... Not Really.

No "encyclopedia" has all the answers we're looking for. (Take a shot at the Britannica which current edition I recently bought --- both Micro and Macro. I couldn't find a couple arcane topics. So what did I do? Trash the greatest single source of printed knowledge? No, I adjusted my expectations, realizing that some topics are limited to a finely drawn few researchers --- and some are so mundane, only the peanut gallery would expect a reference.

So buy Thomson's book. It's fun to read. And it's got the dope.



Rating:
Summary: Indispensible for film lovers
Review: The book has several glaring omissions and I strongly disagree with the author about certain films, actors and directors (notably Frank Capra). That said I LOVE this book.
Thomson has an encyclopedic knowledge of cinema, is a keen observer and an excellent writer.
"The New Biographical Dictionary of Film" is a series of essays (some quite short, others richly detailed) about virtually everyone who has played a major role in making movies over the past 100 years. Not only are significant actors and directors profiled, but also so are producers, cinematographers such as Gregg Toland and legendary costume designer Edith Head.
Thomson's writings are at once illuminating and entertaining. As he is a man of strong opinions it would be impossible not to find many points of disagreement with him. But there is no arguing with his understanding of and love for films.
"The New Biographical Dictionary of Film" is fun to refer to after, before or even during a movie. The reader's knowledge and appreciation of film will increase with each reading. Preconceptions about actors and actresses will be challenged.
An absolute must for film lovers.



Rating:
Summary: We need a new biographer of film people...
Review: The New Biographical Dictionary of Film

I finally received my copy of David Thomson?s newest version of a standard reference book on film. Some people believe he is the best living film critic/author. I was not that familiar with him, so I bought a copy. I first looked up my friend Les Blank ? no entry. Then I read his evaluation of Lars von Trier ? he totally negates everything the man has done, a man who has changed the face of cinema during the last decade. He does list ?The Turning? as a film starring Gillian Anderson. The director, Lou Puepolo, was a guest at WVIFF one year. Then I read his entry on hometown director Henry King, famous for ?Tol?able David.?(1921) Another blast, put-down, the opposite of what other experts like Kevin Brownlow have written. I also read his piece on James Agee and for the first time ever I saw in print what is the truth about WV?s most famous film, ?The Night of the Hunter.? The truth is that Agee did write a screenplay for the film, but it wasn?t used. And as Ross Spears told me during a visit to Charleston, when I gave him a copy of David Martin?s poster honoring the death of Davis Grubb, ? Agee died early because he was so crushed that Laughton had refused to use his screenplay.? Thomson does say that Agee won a Pulitzer three years after his death for his novel, ?A Death in the Family.? I also have to note that this book also does not give much credit to Errol Morris, one of the few documentary filmmakers in the volume. He compares him to Chris Marker and Ken Burns. Pare Lorentz, one of the greatest documentary filmmakers ever, is not given an entry. He does discuss Richard Barthelmess, the star of ?Tol?able David,? praising him while missing the real meaning of the film. He spends a little bit of space on Werner Herzog, praising his early career but lamenting his post-Aguirre films and failing to mention Les Blank?s ?Burden of Dreams.? He writes a bit praising John Sayles, but as usual, has more negatives than positives. I was surprised to read his entry for Barbara Loden, director of one film, ?Wanda? which he largely pans. The single most positive entry is to Tom Luddy, his longtime friend. [ I can claim that I was kicked out of Luddy?s house in 1978, the summer before I moved to WV, for daring to speak while watching a TV show with some of his friends. I made a comment to an Andy Warhol star who was there along with editors of a French film magazine. We were all watching Kurt Russell in ?This Is Elvis.? I was staying in a room rented by Les Blank. Latter I went to his film festival, Telluride, but he never once spoke to me. I had known him for years, even sending him a copy of Abel Gance?s ?Napoleon? that he latter screened for Coppola. He is indeed very bright, but I think that he and Thomson both should be forced to wear a sign on their heads ? WARNING ? TOTAL FILM SNOB?do not attempt to speak to me unless you are very rich or very famous!] This book has to be the most cynical, uptight, self-contained film book I have ever read. On the back jacket, one critic calls this book, ? This dictionary could be declared the best book on the movies ever written in English?? In my opinion, the best book in English on film is still Amos Vogel?s ?Film as A Subversive Art.? [ I met Vogel once at the First NY Conference on Film Exhibition at Saratoga Springs. I had written him a letter, praising the book. He told me that it was ?the best letter I have ever received in my life. Vogel founded the NY Film Festival, Cinema 16, etc., etc.] I think that I may have to write my own dictionary. The author even admits in his short preface that he now loves books more than movies. As I once wrote Andrew Sarris at the Voice, and apparently he took my advice, ?If you hate movies so much, why do you bother writing about them??

Rating:
Summary: A snooty but faithful companion book
Review: There is an obscure connection between David Thomson and the Berkeley restaurant Chez Panisse - film buffs will understand - and this book is like the restauarant - you will either love it or find it insufferably elitist. You may find Thomson's opinions cranky or but they are sincere and and founded on the the simple pleasures of being "at the movies".

The book is equally weighted across time, meaning earlier film figures don't get short shrift. Particularly good are tantalizing references to early French and Japanese film figures, Ozu and Pagnol for example, that will make you want to seek out these hard-to-find treasures. I don't always agree with Thomson (am I the only person who loved "1941"?), but it's always interesting to pull out this book and see where our overrated-lists agree (Affleck!) and disagree ("1941"!!).

Rating:
Summary: NOT a BIOGRAPHICAL dictionary
Review: This book has so little biographical information that the word should not be in the title. The typical entry gives date and place of birth as the only info about the actor. A filmography for each actor is in the entry along with critical remarks about each actor. This book is very opinionated and very critical of most of the actors listed. Many actors who are prolific, but apparently haven't done the "right" kind of movies are not listed. His opinons of minority actors don't bear repeating. However, his comments say that Will Smith shows that you don't need to act to be in pictures, and he states that it's hardly worth including Bruce Lee.

If you are looking for BIOGRAPHICAL information this book is not what you want. If you wish one man's opinion of an actor and their performance in a particular movie, this book may help you. However, do not expect much. The book includes so many actors that the opinions expressed are very brief.

Rating:
Summary: A Silly Book
Review: This book may be called "The New Biographical Dictionary of Film," but the title really should be "The Dictionary of David Thompson's Self-Indulgnce." I'm all for strongly-held opinions, even when they are contrary to my own, but an author must earn the right to express said judgments through sharp writing and well-reasoned arguments. Thomson presents neither, and the over-riding tone of this volume is a shallow petulance. Here's a typical attempt at cleverness: ""I have to confess that sometimes one squeeze of [Jack] Lemmon is enough to set my teeth on edge." If one called Thomson a wit, one would be half-right.

Anyone who can write such nonsense as ""No one has done so much to invalidate the Western as a form" as John Foord, should immediately head to Film101. And this is from a man who loves the worst movie of the 21st Century so far, Moulin Rouge.

Also, the scope of the book is extremely limited; there are so many people and topics not covered that it doesn't qualify as any sort of encyclopedia.

Bottom Line: A silly and skanky book.