the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

The New Biographical Dictionary of Film

the book club
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

from: Dan Sallitt
to: David Edelstein and Mim Udovitch

Confession ...

Posted Thursday, Oct. 10, 2002, at 6:46 PM ET

This week's reading

Who are these people?

Well, we've all taken our shots now at Thomson's unruly opus. I've been feeling a little bad about sitting in judgment of a book that's meant so much to me over the years. Did I mention that A Biographical Dictionary of Film has been sitting on my night table, next to Sarris' The American Cinema and a very few other books, ever since it came out in the Untied States in 1976? No, I guess I didn't. Maybe my greater affection for the book has something to do with my tastes running two times out of three with Thomson instead of against him. (Hey, David—that weird entry on the great Naruse is actually pro rather than con, if you read carefully. Not that that justifies the comedy routine.)

Thomson's style changed after the success of the first edition. You could see his writing become subtly self-enclosed—he seemed to feel ratified, licensed to be himself to the n^th power. Most of the problems I have with his prose date from the release of the revised edition in 1981. David is on target about how Thomson feels no need to harmonize the layers of commentary in each entry: He doesn't mind documenting the evolution of his thought as if he were publishing a series of diary pages. Sometimes I wish he'd been explicit about it: "Fall 2001. Suddenly I feel that Melanie Griffith begins to become an institution."

When the book came out, it functioned for many of us as an extension of the film canon. Thomson threw attention toward a number of little-known filmmakers, giving film buffs a harvest of new titles for their must-see lists. Michael Powell, for instance, wasn't highly regarded in the United States when Thomson first promoted him; I think Thomson's piece played a part in the Powell revival here. Many other directors are just as obscure today as when Thomson first praised them—Hugo Fregonese, John Farrow, Robert Hamer, Andre Delvaux—but I'm sure glad he pointed me in their direction. (I notice that Delvaux's entry is one of the ones cut for space in the new edition. Too bad.) Thomson may not be quite the frontier scout that he was in his youth, but he still makes a few offbeat recommendations, and I know I'll check out the next Axel Corti or Christopher Hampton film that pulls into a revival theater.

And so, with that geeky confession, I say goodnight. It was great fun, Mim and David.

Sincerely,
Dan

the book club
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

from: Dan Sallitt
to: David Edelstein and Mim Udovitch

Confession ...

Posted Thursday, Oct. 10, 2002, at 6:46 PM ET

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

David Edelstein is Slate's film critic. Dan Sallitt is a New York-based filmmaker and film critic. Mim Udovitch is a contributing editor at Rolling Stone.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks From The Fray:

I quite enjoyed all the bitchiness and cattiness in Book Club this week about David Thomson's Biographical Film Dictionary. A discussion where everyone dislikes the subject is much more fun than a love-in.

But leave it to Mim Udovitch to bring it all down to earth with her closing benediction on Friday. Why would anyone want to own a large brick of subjective musings in a world where the IMDB puts you 3 clicks away from answering any idle curiosity a film buff could have?

In retrospect, I'm surprised this notion didn't resonate throughout the discussion. This is indeed the sort of book I might have had on my nightstand... six years ago! But frankly since then the IMDB has entered my life and proved itself to be much more useful, reliable, convenient and enjoyable than Thomson's work or similar works from Halliwell and Leonard Maltin which now gather dust in a forgotten corner of my house. (Correction: Maltin's book occasionally shows up in my bathroom, the one area where the IMDB comes up short.)

Actually, I'm surprised film critics don't talk about the IMDB more often. It's occasionally referred to but seldom acknowleged as the overwhelming omniscient reference it has become. It's changed the way we approach film and it's changed what we expect from film critics. Why do I need David Thomson to give me a guided tour of his cluttered office floor when I have uncluttered gigabytes of facts and opinions at my fingertips?

I'm not saying I don't want or need film criticism anymore. But I really don't need Thomson's big old book and from the sounds of this week's Book Club I don't think I want it either.

-- Lorne Hanks

(To reply, click here.)

Hey, does somebody want to alert David Thomson that there's this big continent called Asia and they still make movies there? Save for a new entry on Hou Hsiao-hsien, he seems to have skipped it over altogether. Where's Wong Kar-wai and his Hong Kong compatriots (John Woo, et al.)? Where are the two other Taiwanese giants, Edward Yang and Tsai Ming-liang? What about the up-and-coming Japanese stars like Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Hirokazu Kore-eda, or, dare I say it, Takashi Miike? Why does the diminishing Chen Kaige get an entry while his Fifth Generation superior Xhang Yimou and Tian Zhuangzhuang get snubbed?

For that matter, what about Iran? His entry on Kiarostami suggests that he's only seen one film (TASTE OF CHERRY), which is not necessarily representative of the man's enormous body of work. Why no Makhmalbaf? He's the patriarch of an entire *family* of interesting filmmakers.

The book is still a formidable achievement, addictive as everyone has mentioned, and full of blood-boiling provocations and omissions. (What's with the three-sentence snort in Wes Anderson's direction?) But might I suggest that Thomson has lost touch with the contemporary scene? As far as international cinema is concerned, Europe is no longer the center of the universe. There's a much broader expanse out there, just waiting to be canonized.

-- Scott Tobias

(To reply, click here.)

(10/14)

also in slate