Rating: 
Summary: Great subject, poorly written
Review: Anna May Wong seems like a fascinating subject. I have found this book, however, to be seriously frustrating. The quality of the writing is often poor, particularly for someone who teaches in a university. An example: "Admiration was not the emotion used in China to describe the film" (p. 147. What's wrong with this? Well, first, admiration is not an emotion. Secondly, you do not "use an emotion" to "describe" something.) This may seem like nit-picking, but it becomes less so when such poor self-expression is to be found on so very many pages, along with an incredible number of typos. (These are of course not the fault of the author, but they do speak to the process of editing which is not inconsequential.) The author is married to a Chinese woman and he does indeed seem to have a unique insight into Anna May's duality as a result, and he seems to have done a lot of research, but there is much missing here. Anna May's musical performances seem to come out of the blue, for example-- there is no mention of training, background, etc. I also find the analyses of her costumes/hairstyles odd-- how did she have so much control over these elements? (Hodges does describe an early make-up session, so why should we assume that stars did their own hair?) It may well be that in the early days of cinema there were no hair-stylists or costumers... but then, a little more background would help to clarify. To me this book is too intent on analysis and speculation, and at the expense of writing quality. If I'm going to take that leap of faith, I want the author to earn it by thinking and expressing himself clearly. If he can't do those things, why should I trust his analysis?
Rating:
Summary: Great subject, poorly written
Review: Anna May Wong seems like a fascinating subject. I have found this book, however, to be seriously frustrating. The quality of the writing is often poor, particularly for someone who teaches in a university. An example: "Admiration was not the emotion used in China to describe the film" (p. 147. What's wrong with this? Well, first, admiration is not an emotion. Secondly, you do not "use an emotion" to "describe" something.) This may seem like nit-picking, but it becomes less so when such poor self-expression is to be found on so very many pages, along with an incredible number of typos. (These are of course not the fault of the author, but they do speak to the process of editing which is not inconsequential.) The author is married to a Chinese woman and he does indeed seem to have a unique insight into Anna May's duality as a result, and he seems to have done a lot of research, but there is much missing here. Anna May's musical performances seem to come out of the blue, for example-- there is no mention of training, background, etc. I also find the analyses of her costumes/hairstyles odd-- how did she have so much control over these elements? (Hodges does describe an early make-up session, so why should we assume that stars did their own hair?) It may well be that in the early days of cinema there were no hair-stylists or costumers... but then, a little more background would help to clarify. To me this book is too intent on analysis and speculation, and at the expense of writing quality. If I'm going to take that leap of faith, I want the author to earn it by thinking and expressing himself clearly. If he can't do those things, why should I trust his analysis?
Rating:
Summary: Was it done by the professor or one of his students?
Review: Anna May Wong was known as something of a sex symbol in her day, but she was also a very talented actress. From her first starring role in Toll of the Sea she had an ability to touch you from the screen. Unfortunately, she was constantly put in bad vehicles and is virtually unknown today.
While I was glad to find an affordable biography on Wong, I soon found that I got what I paid for. This book gives alot of facts about Wong, so many in such a hurried fashion that one gets bleary eyed reading them. The writing is terribly uneven and vague. Case in point, something happened to incur the wrath of the Chinese people against Wong when she arrived for her only trip to China. However, the author only says she was "uncharacteristically rude to her fans." So...what'd she do that was so bad they threatened her family if they allowed her to stay in China? He doesn't give us the details. I suppose it could be possible that his source was just as vague, but he could at least have let his readers know the facts were not available, especially when he went to such great detail later in the chaper describing the hatred Wong experienced at the hands of her countrymen due to the mysterious event.
Then at the end of the book Hodges describes one of Wong's last appearances on television with the fact that there was a problem with her lower lip "from her near fatal stroke two years before." The TV show in question was taped in 1960. For whatever reason, this is the first time the author mentions the stroke(I went back over the previous pages to see if, in my boredom, I had skipped over it; the last illness mentioned was a two day hospitalization she had sometime in 1955 or '56. I'm sure if this was the "near fatal stroke" she would have been hospitalized for more than two days). Hodges is so busy describing her TV appearances he "forgets" to tell us about the stroke!
Also disappointing is the lack of photos of Wong from later in her life.
The author seems at times to be protecting Wong's reputation by omitting facts and downplaying her drinking problem so that the reader doesn't come away with a bad feeling about the actress. His subject has been dead for more than 40 years and I'm sure that the knowledge that she may have been "rude" from time to time will not deter people who enjoy her work from buying the Picadilly DVD coming out in February, or seeing any of her rare films should they become available. The man is a history professor, for goodness sakes! It is rather juvenile on his part to write a "puff piece" instead of reporting the facts. This leads me to wonder if Hodges was really the author or did one of his students pen the book for extra credit?
Rating: 
Summary: Kudos to Graham R. G. Hodges
Review: Gao Hodges' research into Anna May Wong seems pretty thorough to me! Though he failed to speak to the surviving brother, Richard, Hodges still is able to paint a fairly full picture of Wong's private life. The various misspellings are a shame ("Delores" Del Rio for example) but aren't egregious. As other reviewers have noted, where Hodges shines is in his ability to "crack the code," to convey to us what Anna May Wong was trying to sneak onto the screen when the pedestrian Hollywood scenarios she has stuck with failed her sense of her art--her gestures, her costumes, her allusions to realms of Chinese history and folklore she made her own, and which we might never have known about if we were not ourselves Chinese American--which I'm not. So good for him! And congratulations to the British Film Institute for its superb restoration of Dupont's "Piccadilly" which was recently shown here in SF to accompany the recent groundswell of interest in Wong's career.
Rating:
Summary: Kudos to Graham R. G. Hodges
Review: Gao Hodges' research into Anna May Wong seems pretty thorough to me! Though he failed to speak to the surviving brother, Richard, Hodges still is able to paint a fairly full picture of Wong's private life. The various misspellings are a shame ("Delores" Del Rio for example) but aren't egregious. As other reviewers have noted, where Hodges shines is in his ability to "crack the code," to convey to us what Anna May Wong was trying to sneak onto the screen when the pedestrian Hollywood scenarios she has stuck with failed her sense of her art--her gestures, her costumes, her allusions to realms of Chinese history and folklore she made her own, and which we might never have known about if we were not ourselves Chinese American--which I'm not. So good for him! And congratulations to the British Film Institute for its superb restoration of Dupont's "Piccadilly" which was recently shown here in SF to accompany the recent groundswell of interest in Wong's career.
Rating: 
Summary: An insightful and thorough book about a fascinating woman
Review: Graham Hodges shows great sympathy for the difficult position that Anna May Wong occupied as the international film industry's only Asian-American actress. Asian-American readers should find this account of the difficulties faced by an earlier generatin of talented Asians enlightening and inspiring. Too "Oriental" for the America of the time but too Westernized to be accepted by the Chinese, Wong was not completely accepted by either society. Fed up with the stereotyped roles as either victim or villain that Hollywood handed her, Wong went first to Europe where she won scores of new admirers, then to China. There, Wong received a mixed reception-though she was treated as a celebrity, the Nationalist government considered her a stooge of Hollywood. The Anna May Wong that emerges from this carefully researched account is plucky, courageous and persistent. Hodges treats his subject with the sensitivity and respect she deserves at the same time that he is not afraid of venturing into the ticklish area of Wong's personal life. Anti-miscegenation laws and societal taboos were obstacles to Wong's having lasting relationships and there were few Chinese men the actress could have happily married in the United States of half a century ago. Wong has long deserved a biography. Hodges is to be congratulated for having written this engaging, perceptive and carefully researched account of her life.
Rating:
Summary: An insightful and thorough book about a fascinating woman
Review: Graham Hodges shows great sympathy for the difficult position that Anna May Wong occupied as the international film industry's only Asian-American actress. Asian-American readers should find this account of the difficulties faced by an earlier generatin of talented Asians enlightening and inspiring. Too "Oriental" for the America of the time but too Westernized to be accepted by the Chinese, Wong was not completely accepted by either society. Fed up with the stereotyped roles as either victim or villain that Hollywood handed her, Wong went first to Europe where she won scores of new admirers, then to China. There, Wong received a mixed reception-though she was treated as a celebrity, the Nationalist government considered her a stooge of Hollywood. The Anna May Wong that emerges from this carefully researched account is plucky, courageous and persistent. Hodges treats his subject with the sensitivity and respect she deserves at the same time that he is not afraid of venturing into the ticklish area of Wong's personal life. Anti-miscegenation laws and societal taboos were obstacles to Wong's having lasting relationships and there were few Chinese men the actress could have happily married in the United States of half a century ago. Wong has long deserved a biography. Hodges is to be congratulated for having written this engaging, perceptive and carefully researched account of her life.
Rating: 
Summary: Looking for Anna in all the wrong places
Review: Hodges makes claims that Anna's one relation here would not speak to him due to the family's shame over Anna's career. If that is the case, how come this one relation, her brother Richard, was at the UCLA retrospective of Anna's films? He is in frail health, yet went. A little research into Anna's later TV career would have shown that he helped and encouraged her with her roles.
He pretty well says that Anna was lesbian, naming names, but no really good source. Was that necessary?
Author Carolyn See, who knew Anna, reviewed his book and said "Finally, while Hodges has conscientiously traipsed all over the world looking for films and press clippings, he seems to have ignored a much more obvious source: live human beings who live in Los Angeles. Anna May's brother declined to talk (he always does)."
Hodges was well connected for funds and publishing. He made ill use of his time, and though I welcomed Anthony Chan's book on Anna May, regardless of many errors, I cannot say the same for Hodges' book. He trashed Anna by showing disrespect for her and her family. He seems to feel that his opinion and knowledge of her career is worth more than the person of whom he writes.
This book too is riddled with errors, which upon doing any digging would have become apparent.
The book does contain some very interesting pictures.
He had a chance to do justice to a one of a kind in cinema's golden era. He trashed her, ultimately making his book..... trash. Jazz T
Rating:
Summary: Skip This One
Review: I am interested in silent film and read almost everything that's published in this area. It's especially exciting when a regular publishing company prints a book on silent film. That said, I don't know who the intended readers are for this book. People who are already interested in silent film won't get anything from this book. Others who stumble on to this will encounter a book that seems to have avoided both fact checking and spell checking. The book is full of silly errors. Misnamed people, incorrect numbers and silliest of all, misspellings. It is an embarassament to the publishing company to send out something this poorly constructed. But behind the paper and ink, there is nothing worth reading. After reading, I really don't know anything about Anna May Wong. I only know what the author thinks about her. He apparently likes her, but he has not done her any favors. Despite reading this book I am still interested in Anna May Wong. I will continue my search for information about her elsewhere. For other interested parties, I recommend watching "The Thief of Bagdad" as a good starting point. The magic of Anna May can be found there but not in this book.
Rating:
Summary: I recommend this book
Review: I am using this book for my class now, it is quite good, triggering interesting discussions among students. The combination of narratives and analysis is just right.
|
