<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting in places
Review: I'll never quite understand why Sarris is held in such regard as a critic. I know he "introduced" auteur theory to the states and he certainly seems intelligent enough. His writing, though, is frequently almost incomprehensible. I don't mind a meandering style, but these essays seem barely planned. The utterly pointless academespeak (Buster Keaton saving his father in "Steamboat Bill Jr." is termed "reverse Oedipal" for no clear reason) would lead one to expect a little more structure. I'm still giving this 3 stars though, because there do appear to be some interesting ideas here; they're just hopelessly buried. Case in point is his article about Harold Lloyd. I do understand BASICALLY what Sarris is trying to get at, but it could have been said in a paragraph or so. Towards the beginning of that essay, the reader runs across this unadorned doozy of a line - "It is hard to believe but Getting the Girl [his caps] was once interpreted as a convention that implied acceptance of the capitalist system". Oh really? And we're trying to CONTRAST Lloyd with Keaton and Chaplin? Sarris does manage to make the point that Lloyd was a more conventional figure than the other great silent comedians throughout the essay, but only just barely and only if you keep a close eye on exactly how many times he contradicts himself. I much prefer his "The American Cinema, Directors and Directions 1929-1968". The much shorter essays in that previous book are models of clarity in comparison.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting in places
Review: I'll never quite understand why Sarris is held in such regard as a critic. I know he "introduced" auteur theory to the states and he certainly seems intelligent enough. His writing, though, is frequently almost incomprehensible. I don't mind a meandering style, but these essays seem barely planned. The utterly pointless academespeak (Buster Keaton saving his father in "Steamboat Bill Jr." is termed "reverse Oedipal" for no clear reason) would lead one to expect a little more structure. I'm still giving this 3 stars though, because there do appear to be some interesting ideas here; they're just hopelessly buried. Case in point is his article about Harold Lloyd. I do understand BASICALLY what Sarris is trying to get at, but it could have been said in a paragraph or so. Towards the beginning of that essay, the reader runs across this unadorned doozy of a line - "It is hard to believe but Getting the Girl [his caps] was once interpreted as a convention that implied acceptance of the capitalist system". Oh really? And we're trying to CONTRAST Lloyd with Keaton and Chaplin? Sarris does manage to make the point that Lloyd was a more conventional figure than the other great silent comedians throughout the essay, but only just barely and only if you keep a close eye on exactly how many times he contradicts himself. I much prefer his "The American Cinema, Directors and Directions 1929-1968". The much shorter essays in that previous book are models of clarity in comparison.
Rating: 
Summary: EXCELLENT CRITICISM, EXCELLENT WRITING
Review: If you own only a handful of film books, this should be one of them. It has the authority of brilliance, as well as a personal touch that is completely winning. With movies, it all starts with falling in love. The critical response kicks in later, but love is at the beginning. Sarris, over the course of a long and distinguished career, has never forgotten his first love of film, and that comes across in his writing. The chapters on individual actors and directors will keep this book on your night table for months. There are passages that absolutely illuminate films and careers. I don't agree with everything in the book, but that's part of the pleasure of this book's company. I read it once, and now I'm re-reading it.
Rating: 
Summary: An Idiosyncratic Tour of Golden Age Hollywood
Review: This book is a delight for anyone who loves the films of Hollywood's studio-driven "golden age" of the 1930s and 40s. Reading Sarris's (mostly) short essays is like being walked through a film storage vault by a knowledgeable, opinionated old tour guide who's seen every picture and seemingly met everyone who helped to make them. You may not always agree with his take on the pictures you know well, but he's always worth listening to. And you finish the tour ready to spend the next several weekends watching all the great movies that he's pointed out to you.Sarris's treatments of individual directors are, by a long shot, the best part of the book. His essays on actors, mostly shorter and less comprehensive, are also well worth the reading. The observations on genres and studios seem sketchy by comparison, especially by comparison with books like Ethan Mordden's _Hollywood Studios_. The essays stand well on their own, which makes the book ideal for reading in essay-at-a-time chunks, but keeps it from being a comprehensive introduction to the period. If you want to read one and only one book on classic Hollywood movies, this isn't it. If you want to read, several, this should certainly be one of them.
Rating:
Summary: A Subjective But Knowledgable Perspective
Review: This is a book for film buffs. It is chock full of opinions, many of which you may disagree with. So what? Sarris examines a wide range of subjects (covering the 1927-1949 timeframe) which are organized within five chapters: The Hollywood Studios ["The Golden Age" at MGM, Paramount, Warner Brothers, 20th-Century-Fox, RKO, Universal, and Columbia] Genres [eg the musical, gangster film, the horror film, the screwball comedy, the western, the film noir, the war film] Directors [eg Chaplin, Ford, Hitchcock, Hawks, Welles, Sturges, Wilder, Capra, and Stevens] Actors and Actresses [eg Garbo, Cagney, Bogart, Davis, Grant, Bergman, Harlow, Fields, the Marx Brothers, Tracy and Hepburn, and Gable and Lombard] Guilty Pleasures [eg the "B" picture] Sarris then provides four appendices: Academy Award nominations and winners (1927-1949), New York Critics Circle Awards (1935-1949), Best Directors (1927-1949), and Best Performances (1929-1949). The various lists are interesting but the book's greatest appeal derives from the comprehensive coverage of 22 years of the American talking film's history in combination with Sarris' own opinions about most of those who created that history. I highly recommend this book to film buffs, not as a definitive history of the period (there is none) nor as the single best source of film criticism (there is none); rather, as a collection of thoughtful, generally well-written essays which inform as well as entertain. If you are a film buff and if, after reading this book you are motivated to see films you have not as yet seen or to see once again films you last saw years ago, Sarris will have achieved what seems to be his primary objective.
Rating:
Summary: superb
Review: This is a magnificent book - Sarris' love for movies and his beautiful writing make reading it a joy. It is selective and very personal, and is filled with the authors reflections based on years of watching and rewatching old Hollywood movies. The book should not be regarded as a complete survey of the talking film from 1927 to 1949. The early part of the book seems to have been pulled together from various other pieces Sarris has written, as there is repetition of information and key phrases. Some of the pieces seem sketchy or unresolved - for example, his piece on Vivien Leigh seems to be a juxtaposition of a brief glowing tribute and a review of Gone With the Wind - with little reference to her other movies. Sometimes his languange is a little opaque, or his interpretations occasionally seem tenuous. But despite these flaws, I give the book 5 stars for the richness of it's beautiful language and the wealth of fascinating information. This is a book to ignite a passion for old movies. I only wish Sarris hadn't limited himself to the 1927-1949 period - in the section on the pantheon directors, I often wanted him to continue his survey into the 50s and beyond. This guy is a treasure, and any of his books, including out of print ones, should be eagerly consumed by film buffs.
Rating:
Summary: Sometimes Provocative Opinions But Never Ambiguous
Review: This is indeed a book for film buffs. It is chock full of opinions, many of which you may disagree with. So what? Sarris examines a wide range of subjects (covering the 1927-1949 timeframe) which are organized within five chapters: The Hollywood Studios ["The Golden Age" at MGM, Paramount, Warner Brothers, 20th-Century-Fox, RKO, Universal, and Columbia] Genres [e.g. the musical, gangster film, the horror film, the screwball comedy, the western, the film noir, the war film] Directors [e.g. Chaplin, Ford, Hitchcock, Hawks, Welles, Sturges, Wilder, Capra, and Stevens]
Actors and Actresses [e.g. Garbo, Cagney, Bogart, Davis, Grant, Bergman, Harlow, Fields, the Marx Brothers, Tracy and Hepburn, and Gable and Lombard] Guilty Pleasures [e.g. the "B" picture]
Sarris then provides four appendices: Academy Award nominations and winners (1927-1949), New York Critics Circle Awards (1935-1949), Best Directors (1927-1949), and Best Performances (1929-1949). The various lists are interesting but the book's greatest appeal derives from the comprehensive coverage of 22 years of the American talking film's history in combination with Sarris' own opinions about most of those who created that history. I highly recommend this book to film buffs, not as a definitive history of the period (there is none) nor as the single best source of film criticism (there is none); rather, as a collection of thoughtful, generally well-written essays which inform as well as entertain. If you are a film buff and if, after reading this book you are motivated to see films you have not as yet seen or to see once again films you last saw years ago, Sarris will have achieved what seems to be his primary objective.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Book For Film Buffs
Review: Whether or not you place much stock in the auteur theory popularized Stateside by Sarris and others a generation ago, he's clearly an important film critic well-versed in 30s cinema; thus I greatly looked forward to devouring this unsatisfying book. Maybe he spent TOO much time composing these essays. The tone veers from windy, knitted-brow over-intellectualizing to the gushiest fan-magazine sucrose this side of PHOTOPLAY magazine. Much of it is reasonably readable, and here and there Sarris offers little gems of observation and insight, but for the most part YOU AIN'T HEARD NOTHIN' YET! tries to steer a course between creamy nostalgia and hard-headed analysis, foundering often. Still worthwhile reading for younger cineastes just discovering the films of the 1930s, our richest-ever decade of great filmmaking.
<< 1 >>
|
