Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Just an old fashioned love song

DT
David Thomson

  • In one of their useless but always amusing polls, the IMDb asked: “Only three directors have won the Academy Award for Best Director three times or more. Which one of these guys is your favorite filmmaker?” The ‘guys’ in question were William Wyler (809 votes), John Ford (2,092), and Frank Capra (2,652). I’m not surprised that a whopping 4,579 people clicked the “I am not familiar with these directors” box. Yet I can’t help but imagine they’d know who Wong Kar-Wai is, and would blend comfortably with this scenario:

        “I was in a video store, Le Video in San Francisco, renting Wong Kar-Wai’s Fallen Angels. There were two guys behind the counter, very young, and as they noticed Fallen Angels passing through their system, one said to the other, ‘That’s my favorite Wong Kar-Wai.’ The other guy was eager. ‘Does it have two stories?’ he asked. ‘I don’t know,’ said the first guy, ‘I’ve never seen it all.’”

        Ah, fandom. The recollection is from David Thomson’s new book, “Have You Seen…?”: A Personal Introduction to 1,000 Films (Alfred A. Knopf, $39.95), a cineaste’s version of Leonard Maltin’s TV Movies. He provides approximately 500 words apiece on “a thousand films,” as it’s explained in his introduction, “going back to 1895 and ranging across the world — the landmarks are here, the problem films, a few guilty pleasures, a few forlorn sacred cows, some surprises, a thousand for you to see.” The hefty volume should find a permanent home in the private library of every cinephile’s bathroom.

        A handbook for those too often asked, “What should I see?”, “Have You Seen…?” arranges single-page crib notes alphabetically. Face-to-face, this creates a smorgasbord of double feature prospects heretofore unknown to modern man: The African Queen with L’Age d’Or, Ben Hur with Berlin Alexanderplatz, Bringing Up Baby with Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Thirty-five years ago, there were revival theaters in Manhattan which would’ve happily used this as a programming guide.

        Some critics have dismissed this collection as a throwaway, the breezy format allowing Thomson to forgo the labor of penetrating analysis. But he’s never been an academic writer. Caught up in his emotions (remember his feverish 300-page dedication to Nicole Kidman), Thomson’s forever — delightfully, unapologetically — enamored with old school charmers like Josef von Sternberg, and all-too eager to recite passages from otherwise forgotten chestnuts such as Fun in a Chinese Laundry. This is where Thomson has me returning for more.

        An inherent honesty enables him to openly admit that his emotional investment colors insight: “The latest films do not fare as well in this book as pictures from the thirties and the forties,” he writes. “Too many new films are gestures trying to grab the interest of kids set on war games and PlayStations. We are so ready for shallow amusement that it may be harder to enjoy profound entertainment…This book may come off as helplessly nostalgic — a tribute to an age that’s not coming back.”

        In the vein of the author’s The Biographical Dictionary of Film, the write-ups (they’re surely not reviews) are pithy and sharp and open for argument. He’s nostalgic, but only to a point. (Landing beyond his parameters, Easy Rider is “unwatchable.”) Sacred cows are tipped for sober thinking (Griffith’s Intolerance “is stupendous, yet it goes nowhere…the sheer pretension is a roadblock”), as yesterday’s trendsetters yellow from obsolescence (Jurassic Park “was a sensation when it opened…but I doubt today that one kid would lift a fat thumb in its favor”). Take issue with such sentiments with caution. Like Pauline Kael before him, Thomson questions the way we inadvertently fall back on duty, obligation and nostalgia — the stuff of imagination and self deception — to form our opinions. However foolish they may one day seem.


  • Available from Amazon

  • Labels: ,

    8 Comments:

    Anonymous Marilyn said...

    I love this post. This line, "We are so ready for shallow amusement that it may be harder to enjoy profound entertainment" is so right on that I must seek this book out immediately.

    And thank you SO MUCH for mentioning TV Movies. It's the first film book I ever bought. I know Maltin has expanded in and renamed it, but this is the one I treasure.

    8:57 AM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Thomson's book is well worth checking out, Marilyn.

    I think the very first film book I ever bought was the other TV movie guide, the one by Steven Sheurer (sp?). Unless I'm mistaken, he started doing his before Leonard. I bought my first copy of Maltin's book in the early or mid 70s. I used to love reading those capsule reviews. I don't know if you were into Castle of Frankenstein magazine, but they started doing something similar in the "TV MovieGuide," written by Joe Dante before he went to Hollywood.

    11:40 AM EST  
    Anonymous Kimberly said...

    I've had this book on my radar for awhile and I enjoyed your write-up. I've had mixed reactions to Thomson's writing (Easy Rider unwatchable? Please.), but that sums up my reaction to 75% of the film criticism I read.

    Thomson is going to be doing a lecture series in my area soon and I may try and attend if I can afford the tickets.

    As for Leonard Maltin... I have personal knowledge that the guy employs hundreds of ghost writers and doesn't understand half of what he speaks so I avoid him like the plague now.

    2:47 PM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Kimberly, I'd heard that about Maltin... but I believe he credits a staff in his introduction to the TV Movies books. A lot of their old star ratings, however, could use an overhaul. Some of what was compelling thirty years ago plays slightly creaky today.

    Thomson's problem with Easy Rider reflects something I believe is in all of us. Just last night I watched In Bruges, a new film that's received nothing but raves from critics and audiences alike. I found it uninvolving, pedestrian and, well, nearly unwatchable, focused on characters lacking any form of interest or attraction. I gave it one star on Netflix and noted it as "High drama for the dribble generation."

    I'm sure many would argue the point.

    3:03 PM EST  
    Blogger Jessica R. said...

    Thomson is one of my favorite critics precisely because of his upfront and personal attitude to film. No academic posing on being nice to a film or filmmaker because a person is expected to. A Biographical Dictionary of Film changed my thinking about movies, and a lot of other things too. I've been reading bits of this at the bookstore until I can tell the employees are about to say something. It's definitely on my list when I get my tax refund.

    5:05 PM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Jessica, The Biographical Dictionary blew me away the first time I read it... hard to imagine it was so long ago, the third or fourth edition. Another book I love is his Rosebud, in my mind one of the few sober and realistic explorations of Welles.

    7:30 PM EST  
    Blogger Ivan G. Shreve, Jr. said...

    Okay, Ray...you talked me into it. I assume that because I clicked on the book's photo on your site you'll get a tiny slice of Amazon pie?

    All seriousness aside, I've had this in my wish list for some time now. I'll just use your excellent take on the tome as the reason I finally caved.

    11:38 AM EST  
    Blogger Flickhead said...

    Ivan, THANKS! Yes, for any and every item ordered at Amazon through any Flickhead link, yours truly reaps wealth beyond your wildest dreams.

    In the case of the Thomson book, I believe I just made thirty-three cents.

    And in these financially uncertain times, every penny counts!

    1:08 PM EST  

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home