The New Biographical Dictionary Of Film: Expanded And Updated (2004) - Plot & Excerpts
what this book is, really, is the world’s best jerk-off mag for cinephiles. david thomson is a british writer on film (and also shares a name with the shadowy figure investigating the meaning of ‘rosebud’ in welles’s masterpiece!), a great one, and this book is his ever-evolving masterpiece. but the title is kind of a lie. sure,the biographical dictionary of film includes some biographical & dictionarical (<-- good word, eh?) information, but mostly it functions as a kind of film journal by one of our most astute critics. he’ll riff for pages and pages on his favorite filmmakers (rivette, warhol, peckinpah, hawks, lang, godard) and then throw out stuff like this, his full review for richard donner:“Mr. Donner has made some of the most succesful and least interesting films of his time. And one doubts it’s over yet.”a great thing about having worked at the bookstore was that if i was going nuts over any author, i’d get our publicity guy to get ‘em for a signing. i did this with thomson (his book on nicole kidman) and only one person showed up. so i grabbed a bunch of employees and we sat there and listened to thomson speak. it ended up being great b/c that one guest was a TOTAL FUCKING PSYCHOPATH who very seriously laid out a theory that steven seagal – who was, as she described, an ‘off the books genius’, ‘master of the martial arts’ and must be considered some kind of spiritual guru guy b/c as he was knighted or sainted or whatever happens when the dalai lama rubs his snakeoil all over your forehead – was the great subversive artist of our time and deep messages could be read into all his work. said psychopath took it for granted that thomson would immediately agree with her. while we couldn’t help but snicker (in those days, we were always a little loaded on tecate and tequila at author readings), thomson, the consumate gentleman, attempted best he could, to answer seriously. she went on and on and on and kept interrupting him and we hadda tell her to zip it. and, as none of us had read his book on kidman, we all ended up sitting around for about an hour drinking more beer and talking (read: furiously debating) about the biographical dictionary. i remember vividly and fondly discussing fassbinder and welles and simon callow (who had recently been to the store for the second installment in his fantastic welles biography) and the lack of a mention in the biographical dictionary of kiarostami and makhmalbaf. i gotta check if they made it into the newest edition. david thomson is a seriously cool guy.
Utdrag frå innlevering i delemnet Opplysningssøking:Det er ikkje så mange biografiske filmleksika på marknaden, og Thompson sitt har støtt hatt ivrige tilhengarar. Det filmhistoriske spennet han opererer med er vidt, og med åra har jamvel det geografiske spennet vorte merkbart vidare. Likevel: det er fleire klare manglar og svakheiter ved denne boka som handbok.For det første manglar boka eit register, og som om ikkje det var ille nok, er det heller ingen kryssreferansar. For det andre er det berre ein måte å finne ut kor mange som er biografert på, og det er å telje. Dei aller fleste artiklane handlar om filmregissørar og skodespelarar, men nokre komponistar og produsentar er óg med, og i eit par høve jamvel folk forfattaren har vore på kino med opp gjennom åra. Filmografiane i artiklane varierer frå selektive til komplette fram til trykkedato.Med andre ord er omfang og dekning uklare storleikar, og det går hardt ut over nytteverdien eit slikt verk kunne (for ikkje å seie burde) hatt, og det er neppe nokon som vil velje Thompson som det einaste filmleksikonet i biblioteket sitt. Likevel har boka nok ivrige lesarar til å stadig bli utgjeven på nytt, og dette er ikkje heilt utan grunn. Ordet 'biographical' i tittelen kan nemleg like gjerne referere til forfattaren som til emnet. Det er med andre ord ein sterk tendens i teksten. Det norske Pax leksikon er eit anna oppslagsverk med ein klar tendens og ivrige tilhengarar, men der PL har ein utvitydig politisk ståstad er Thompson sin meir estetisk. Det er vel neppe mange andre leksikografar som vil finne på å til dømes meine at Woody Allen burde skrive manus for Martin Scorsese, eller at Errol Morris ville bli meir som Chris Marker om han berre let seg besette av Ken Burns.Det er altså ikkje slik at ein bør oppsøkje Thompson for eksakt biografisk kunnskap. Om boka er brukande til noko, er det som supplement til eigenlege filmhandbøker (som td Ephraim Katz' eittbandsverk). Thompsons biografiske filmleksikon er ei påstått handbok som krev store forkunnskapar av lesaren. Både mangelen på register, språknivået og det ulne utvalet gjer boka meir eigna som koselesnad for cinefile enn som eigenleg handbok.
What do You think about The New Biographical Dictionary Of Film: Expanded And Updated (2004)?
Perhaps you have wondered "How could I ever possibly know as much as Mr. Jones does about film? And who is the one critic he respects even when he thinks the critic may be allowing their strange obsession with Nicole Kidman to override their critical thinking ability?"This is the book by the critic David Thomson, the best film journalist I have ever read. Funny, acerbic, passionate about the medium and possessing poet's skill in expressing his opinions, Thomson is someone I don't always agree with, but always read nonetheless.
—Yourfiendmrjones
What is and what is NOT a reference book?And why do I feel uncomfortable calling this opinionated listing of star bios a "reference" when I don't feel so hesitant to class as references, say, Leonard Maltin's or Leslie Haliwell's or George Sadoul's opinionated movie guides?It might have to do with the greater comprehensiveness in titles covered in the others, but also perhaps there's a tendency to equate "dryness" with pure reference. Thomson is anything but dry, and it's his strong opinion, personal quirks and conjectures that sometimes make me feel uncomfortable with thinking of this well-loved tome as reference. It lacks the educated disinterest. Indeed, this is a book by a fan, or a heckler as the case may be. I think of these entries more as personal essays. He does say some outrageous things that might mislead the impressionable, that Cary Grant is the greatest movie actor for instance. Let's face it, that's downright absurd, senseless and quite irrelevant. He almost undermines his credentials to comment on all of film history by saying such things. But it's Thomson's flamboyance that makes this tome popular and fun, and, yes, indeed it is a reference because the credentials are all here in the bios. And ya gotta love the guy for his dead-on and devastating assessment of the career of the less-than-mediocre Ben Affleck: "criminally lucky to have gotten away with everything so far." And he has the taste to elevate an Eleanor Powell dance number as his "desert island" choice, should he ever be damned to a prison cell for eternity and allowed only just movie scene to play over and over.
—Evan
One of my all-time favorite reference books. Thomson must inevitably give us some of the dry facts about the lives and filmographies of the actors, directors, and producers he has chosen for this large compendium, but that is hardly the point. Each entry is an essay advancing an argument, and Mr. Thomson hopes you will engage with him on the subject. One could get lost for hours in his thoughtful and beautifully written entries--is Cary Grant really the greatest movie star? Does he really find nothing worthwhile in the Marx brothers? Thomson has been slowly building this collection for years, and there is much to treasure inside.
—Bill
