Rating: 
Summary: Miramax employees need not read
Review: "Down and Dirty Pictures" is Peter Biskind's sort-of sequel--in spirit, for certain--to his previous film book, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls." In "Easy Riders," Biskind bemoaned how the "personal" film movement of the 1970's gave way to blockbusters such as "Star Wars." In a similar vein, "Down and Dirty" explores how the independent (or "indie") films of the 1980's were co-opted by the Hollywood studio system. Biskind has enough blame to fill 484 pages (minus footnotes and index), but he reserves most of his wrath for two prime suspects. The first is Robert Redford, whose Sundance Film Festival began with the best of intentions. Redford wanted to give a shot to struggling filmmakers without having to deal with indifferent studio heads. But Redford eventually lost interest in his own endeavor--getting filmmakers' hopes up and then leaving them hanging, as he went off to pursue his own Hollywood projects. But most of Biskind's bile is reserved for Harvey Weinstein--who, with his brother Bob, started a company called Miramax in the late 1970's. Miramax began by grabbing any piece of film it could and milking it for every last dollar. (Weinstein once squeezed two Monty Python concert films into three.) But a low-priced flick titled "sex, lies, and videotape" forever changed the fortunes of both Miramax and indie films. Pooh-poohing the art-house approach, Weinstein purchased "sex, lies," released it like a major studio flick, and ended up making studio-sized profits. The outstanding grosses of "sex, lies"--and "Pulp Fiction," five years later--initially seemed to boost indie efforts. But disillusioned indie directors soon realized that their little movies didn't have enough pizazz to make nine-figure profits. The book isn't perfect. Biskind mixes metaphors as though he was a human Cuisinart. And in his efforts to cast villains, Biskind often tries to have it both ways. (He dismisses Miramax's "The Cider House Rules" as "tepid" and then chastizes Miramax for not giving it more support.) But as with his previous tome, "Down and Dirty Pictures" demonstrates both Biskind's passion for film and his ability to tell a riveting story. The book is a must-read for anyone interested in modern film history.
Rating: 
Summary: If you are expecting Easy Riders, Raging Bulls II...
Review: ...look somewhere else--unlike the former, which is a irrevalent, entertaining account of the rise of the baby-boomer directors and their "blockbuster" way of filmmaking in the '70's by tracking the fortunes of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, and the misfortunes of Francis Ford Coppola, et al, this latest expose from the same author is a sardonic account of 3 almost simultanous events: the creation of the Sundance Film Festival, the (mis)adventures of the Weinstein brothers and their start-up production company, Miramax films and the explosion of the success of independent filmmaking, particularly using the indie poster boy from that period, Quentin Tarentino, for the main example--all I got out of this book is that: legendary and wealthy Hollywood movie stars, neurotic and greedy New York producers and ambitious white-trash upstart directors cannot be trusted to do the right thing, from making sure employees get paid to breaking long-time oaths to old friends by cutting their credit out of a film they helped create to get more credit--DUH!--this was ultimately a depressing read and I only got through with it with effort--I can only recommend this to readers who hate Robert Redford, Harvey and Bob Weinstein and Quentin Tarentino who want their hatred(s) validated--for everyone else, buy the titular book instead--I give two stars because it did give some background into the cutthroat world of movie production and it was a well-written book, abeit about very negative subject matter...
Rating:
Summary: Inside the Dance
Review: As someone who has been relieved by the rise of indepenedent film in recent years, Peter Biskind certainly reveals the spirit behind that rise but also the spit behind the walls of the leading independent producers, the Weinsteins and Mr Redford. If you are a lover of film, you will greatly enjoy reading the behind the scenes manouvering and infighting behind scripts, endings, and actors. Biskind's brilliant research and matter-of-fact writing will reveal much of the business in his chapters, so if you do not want to know too much and like to enjoy just the film itself, keep walking by this book. However, if you do like to know the decisions that create film, and especially independent film, this is the book of the year. Soderbergh and Tarantino feature prominently, along with Hawke and Damon. Good Will Hunting is looked at closely, as the script of two young men, their first, rose to Oscar fame through Miramax's direction. The books prominent questions include: is now the time for a new indie movement with the Weinsteins and Redford becoming formulaic and looking for hidden blockbusters, more than hidden art; and who will fill the void if these two studios do go for bigger-grossing goals; and should the men and women behind films suggesting humane themes be of a certain moral character? In the end, the accomplishemnts of the indies are explored and they are amazing: sex, lies..pulp fiction, good will...Biskind, being a believer in the force of film, plays the gadfly to hopefully protect genuine indie enthusiasm and creations and their futures. The book is as provocative as it is historical. I highly suggest it for lovers of the medium.
Rating: 
Summary: Biskind Lies Now Proven
Review: As the truth has leaked out, we have discovered that Biskind did not talk to most of his subjects; misquoted them; didn't contact them at all. Made up fictions. This book is garbage through and through. Try HOLLYWOOD ANIMAL instead- at least that author was an insider instead of an outsider NYC journalist. For more about this book and author by the people that were there check out www.biskindblows.com
Rating:
Summary: disappointing
Review: Biskind misses the mark this time. He seemed to focus on 3 trees (the Weinsteins and Redford) and miss the whole forest (the rise and eventual fall by co-opting, commercialization and neglect of indie film in the nineties). As others have said, I wanted both more and less. The book is painfully sloppy at times and cries out for an editor. Going from silent film to Blair Witch, Merritt's "Celluloid Mavericks" remains the best book on the wide history of American indie film.
Rating: 
Summary: Biskind gets the goods on Miramax
Review: Biskind's access is what makes this book interesting. It's refreshing to hear from directors (Anders, Smith, Haynes, Fields) and actors (Norton, Hawke, Damon, and unfortunately Affleck) in a non-junket format. It would have been nice to see an few actresses with Miramax connections (Salma, Gwenyth) weigh in, but Mira Sorvino has a great moment. I was impressed with the number of people Biskind did get to speak and he still finds a number of hysterical stories (lasagna noodles) about the Hollywood crowd to break up what becomes the nightmarish life of trying to make a film with Miramax and hold onto that "Independent Spirit". You will have more respect for Soderbergh, Russell, etc. after this book. There is no "heroic/heartbreaking" figure like Hal Ashby in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", I kept hoping Biskind would give Bingham Ray and Christine Vachon more pages to talk about their achievements away from Miramax but I think that was my reaction to reading story after story of Harvey losing control and Redford "disappearing". I would recommend this book but a story of acquistions/producing and festival-running cannot compare to the stories of real artists - "Easy Riders" is still my favorite Biskind book.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed history for hardcore film fans only.
Review: Biskind's background is suspect. Premiere magazine is one step above "joke" in my estimation. If you are serious about criticism then you'll read Film Comment or Sight & Sound. If you want the fun and light "news" then you may as well read EW. And if you are an industry type you'll read The Hollywood Reporter or Daily Variety. With that in mind you can see how Biskind is neither film criticism royalty (i.e. Denby, Sarris, Rafferty, Ebert, etc) nor is he a true journalist (something you will miss when he goes off on unsubstantiated rants). This book is fun for fans who want to put more details to the rise of indie film distribution and Sundance. I question Biskind's sources (and his interview techniques). To show what raving jerks the Weinsteins are isn't really hard. Is the fact that Redford has been equally detrimental and supportive to the Sundance Institute a suprise to anyone? If so, then you'll be awed by this book! I did enjoy the passages of the book where Biskind can rely on a credible source--such as Steven Soderbergh discussing his on & off relationship with Robert Redford. It was also good when he gave voice to the also-ran indie directors who got lost in Tarantino's wake--Allison Anders, etc. This book is tedious reading at best. I don't necessarily fault Biskind for that--this type of book will always suffer from that. I do fault him (and his editor) for drawing obvious conclusions from flawed journalistic techniques and "anonymous" sources. If the story doesn't come together credibly then I say don't tell it...or tell it in serial form in a magazine.
Rating:
Summary: Top-notch book about "independent" film
Review: Biskind's book focuses on how independent film became just another product for the movie studios during its rise in the 80's and 90's. His focus, though, is on two of the most important movers and shakers in the independent world; Harvey and Bob Weinstein the founders and driving forces behind Miramax films and Robert Redford's Sundance Institute and film festival for independents. What makes Biskind's book unique is its inside information (frequently provided by people who are afraid of going on the record for fear of being black listed by the Weinsteins). His portraits provide a harsh, naked glimpse at the greed and ego (terms used to describe Bob and Harvey Weinstein by one former exec)that drive these important creative/business forces. He also focuses on the passion and love of film that helps provide these individuals with peace of mind about how, who and why they do business the way they do. We also get glimpses of other creative forces that have emerged from into the spotlight; Tarantino is portrayed as brilliant, manipulative and as much a credit hog as Orson Welles was claimed to be early in his career One telling moment that says it all about how money and fame change people--Tarantino's lawyer faxes screenwriter Roger Avery an addition to this contract. In the new contract Avery will be paid a substanial sum if he will forego his screenwriting credit on Pulp Fiction he will, in return, continue to make residuals on the film and be given a co-story credit. Why? Because Tarantino feels his film would look better if it concluded with a single credit "Written and directed by Tarantino" . Avery signs because he needs the money and because his own project Killing Zoe will sink without the additional income. What disturbs him is that Tarantino didn't lobby for this himself--he had an outside party do it even though they started together as clerks in the same video store and have known each other for years. In another section a discussion focuses on how Redford's Sundance organization tried to squash another festival that would focus on first films directed by individuals without a deal. Some of these films were also rejected for competition in Sundance due to politics more than an estimation of creative worth. The competition wasn't healthy in their eyes; evidently more options and better films has been supplemented by the business of Sundance. There's positives as well--the story focuses on how the Weinsteins and Redford helped refocus Hollywood away from producing cookie-cutter blockbuster fare as they did after the success of Star Wars and the formular driven movies that came in its wake. Success breeds imitation and sometimes that imitation debases and destroys the creative process. Biskind is also quite honest about how Miramax attempted to distract and tempt him away from writing this book by dangling the carrot of a deal with their publishing division. He was tempted to take the deal but stuck to his guns. This fascinating portrait demonstrates that Redford and the Weinsteins despite their faults helped to refocus American film away from the blockbuster schlock that dominated the industry for a long period of time. The positive effect is that films with meaning and that were cutting edge were, again, being given their due even if they were frequently compromised by those very people providing them with an outlet. Ultimately, it's always about balancing art and commerce. As Biskind points out, commerce usually wins but sometimes the art sneaks out for a night on the town. This isn't a perfect book and while there's a lot of fair balance, Biskind is upfront about proving his thesis. There's lots of suspects in the mugging of American film and sometimes the very people doing the mugging are also solving the crime.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, dense, vindictive
Review: Biskind's overview focuses more on the business side of the film industry than the personal gossip and storytelling that populated his Easy Riders, Raging Bulls - as its subtitle indicates, the book is highly focused on Harvey Weinstein and Robert Redford, with most of the light on Weinstein. I agree with other reviewers who have noted that Biskind seems to have found a mother lode of disgruntled former employees who, in some cases with the benefit of anonomity, blister the two of them. It's not that you can't believe that Weinstein isn't a world class tyrant and that Redford has a conflict avoidance streak and can't make a decision, but the book doesn't seem to do justice to the talents that have made them successful. Also, the lack of focus on other independent film companies is unfortunate. The book could have used 50 less pages of Harvey-screams-at-a-director-and-screws-them-out-of-money stories and more on the other figures who have played a role in the growth of independent film. Also, Biskind has a unique talent of jamming in dozens of figures to his narratives - its as if he is saying, "oh, I interviewed this person, let's give them a quote" - that those not intimately familiar with a who's who of the genre may find themselves flipping pages back and forth to figure out what is going on. It is an entertaining book, and would recommend it to independent film fans and fans of Easy Riders. It's worth a read. Just wish it was a tad broader in its coverage and a little more balanced in its presentation.
Rating:
Summary: File under BUSINESS, not MOVIES
Review: Do you love movies, or do you love backroom business gossip about the movie industry? If it's the former, skip this book. Movies could just as easily be widgets in this repetitive, uninteresting chronicle of Mirimax and Sundance. They are secondary to the details of executives and business deals in this yawner. Imagine having seemingly unlimited access to some of the greatest film makers of the 90's, and all you can come up with is what hardnoses the Weinsteins are. Don't stop the presses.
| 
