5 comments about Alias Shakespeare.

1. Lucid and logical. The only problem comes when Sobran tries to identify the subject of the sonnets (and comes up with ANYBODY!). Sobran's flavor of the day is some clown named Henry Wriothesley. You ever hear of him? Oh, sure, because people say he's the subject of the sonnets... But doesn't that sound like the same circular nonsense Sobran accuses the Stratfordians of? Also, what's with Sobran's desperate and idiotic theory that calling people "Will" was the same as calling them a catch-all name, like Jack or Mac? I never heard that before. Maybe the person de Vere wrote the sonnets to really WAS someone called Will. Maybe de Vere liked this Will guy so much he decided to incorporate his name into his own nom de plume. You ever think of that? It's someone whom we just don't know. God knows Henry Wriothesley never did squat with his life. You see any statues of him in Trafalgar Square?



2. Persuasively argued, and finely detailed, Sobran's work makes a strong and reasoned case for recognizing Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, as the author of the Shakespeare plays. One wonders whether the authors of many of the "reviews" posted on Amazon.com have even read the book.



3. If I were a betting man, I still wouldn't bet on any of the possible answers to the "Who Wrote Shakespeare?" question. There are just too many gaps in our knowledge. But there is surely a mystery to be solved, and "Alias Shakespeare" by Joseph Sobran lays out an effective case that the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, is the most likely solution to that mystery.

   The book dispenses with the usual ad hominem attacks, amateur psychology, and farcical searches for hidden anagrams that have too often characterized all sides' arguments. He instead approaches this third-rail subject with refreshing objectivity and an apparently sincere search for the truth.

   Marshalling a series of arguments and associated facts that point to Oxford, the book is well-organized at the macro level. It fails at times however in structuring the particulars. Threads of the argument are sometimes introduced, developed to a certain level, dropped, and then picked up again at a later point.

   For example, Sobran [speaking of an introductory letter Oxford wrote to a friend's translation of "Cardanus Comfort"] writes "The whole letter, which especially foreshadows the [Shakespearean] Sonnets, is of utmost importance to the authorship question." Having raised our utmost curiosity, he abandons this argument with the parenthetical "See Appendix 3."

   But his logic, when ultimately reconstructed, seems unassailable. The aforementioned Sonnets are at the core of this logic, and he convincingly lays out the parallels between their content and the well-documented course of Oxford's life. He effectively exposes the circular reasoning used by the defenders of the man he calls Mr. Shakspere - that is, the actor from Stratford-on-Avon. Those defenders deny the obvious autobiographical nature of the Sonnets, on the basis that they don't match with the flimsy autobiography we have of Mr. Shakspere. In fact, this type of circular reasoning pervades their entire defense, whether dealing with the purported dates of the plays or the importance of the early long poems.

   There are, of course, legitimate counter-arguments. The problem is that arguments and counter-arguments in this matter are almost always qualitative and very difficult for the non-expert to evaluate. Sobran takes a stab at what is probably the only possible relevant quantitative approach: that of linguistic analysis. But here his use of such an approach amounts to no more than extensive word listings that he has found in common between Shakespeare and Oxford.

   The problem for his case is that a more sophisticated, computer-based linguistic analysis has already cast serious doubt on the possibility of Shakespeare's works having been written by Oxford. (Elliott and Valenza, 1991.) Of course, the specific methods used in that analysis are also very difficult for the non-expert to assess. But at least such an analysis takes us closer to a scientific approach with a testable hypothesis.

   Nonetheless, given an open mind, it would be hard to read "Alias Shakespeare" without agreeing with Sobran's conclusion. At a minimum, I doubt if any such reader will be laying odds on Mr. Shakspere being the true author.




4. Most people accept the tradition that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were indeed written by him, and they assume that doubters of the Stratford man's authorship (anti-Stratfordians) must be irrational elitists. They might also assume that anti-Strats have nothing to offer those who simply wish to understand and enjoy the plays. But all of these assumptions are either debatable or wrong. In any case, though both sides of the authorship debate have been known to engage in circular arguments based on questionable evidence and to hurl childish ad hominems at one another, this is not true of Joseph Sobran who is reasonable in his arguments and civil toward his opponents. (Reviewers here who accuse Sobran of mudslinging, bashing etc. merely betray the fact that they have not read this book!) Rather than ask whether anti-Stratfordians are elitists, Sobran suggests that we ought to be asking if Shakespeare was one. For example, Shakespeare often makes cruel, unfair fun of social-climbing commoners exactly like Will Shaksper (a common variation of his name in contemporary legal documents). Arguing from evidence in the plays and poems, Sobran also demonstrates that the authorship debate can and ought to be relevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the Works.

   While I am not wholly on the side of the underdog anti-Strats, I believe that Stratfordian scholars (which too often means mainstream scholars) have done such a disservice to the general public's enjoyment and understanding of Shakespeare that I must take them to task. Some are so fanatical in their defense of the Stratford man's claim to authorship that they seem to believe that if there were no tradition that he wrote the Works, they could conclusively prove from scratch that he did; but they could not for the same reason that anti-Stratfordians can never prove beyond a shadow that he didn't or that one of their alternative candidates did: The trail is old, and the case is cold. If ever there was a smoking gun it has long since turned entirely to rust. The strongest and best evidence that the man from Stratford wrote the Works is the tradition that he did, which, while not being conclusive, is simply difficult to dismiss.
   But this tradition is not much. Anxious to uncover any details to fill out his biography, overzealous Stratfordians have accepted and taught many dubious legends and read a fanciful biography of the Stratford man into the plays and poems. The anti-Stratfordians see through this mess because they have no desire to add more to the Stratford man's biography than the documentary record will bear or to connect the biography to the Works where such a connection is based on pure guesswork. (Of course, they have motive to see other things that are not there, but here I speak only of how the anti-Strats are right.) For example, it was an anti-Stratfordian who realized that the famous "upstart crow" quotation has nothing whatever to do with Shakespeare, but instead clearly refers to an actor who did not write plays but was merely guilty of adlibbing. (More often, each side is equally at fault. I know of at least one instance where both sides used the exact same piece of evidence to prove their opposite conclusions. Upon further examination, it turned out that the evidence in question proved nothing whatsoever regarding authorship, yet each side had found in it proof of what it wanted to believe.) Meanwhile the Stratfordians reject the clear evidence from the plays that Shakespeare had far more learning than could have been provided by any formal education available to the Stratford man. In and of itself, this might not rule out the possibility that he was self-taught-except that the mainstream scholars HAVE ruled this out. They long ago boxed themselves into a corner by declaring that Shakespeare could not have had a vast education and any evidence that he did, no matter how compelling, cannot be admitted. (Once they assume that the Bard had little formal education, many orthodox Shakespeare scholars underestimate Shakepeare's learning and assume that a degree in literature somehow makes them Shakespeare's betters in matters such as, of all things, sixteenth-century Italian geography where it actually turns out that Shakespeare is the master.) Students are misleadingly told that they should readily understand Shakespeare because he wrote in ordinary language, aside from archaic words and grammatical constructions (as if these were not formidable enough). This is belied by the demonstrable fact that Shakespeare employed abstruse legalistic metaphors, used idiomatic Italian phrases (that he only partially translated) and demonstrated arcane knowledge of such subjects as heraldry. This and much more is explained in Sobran's book.

   My only criticism of Sobran is that he gets so caught up in his persuasive case for the candidacy of the Earl of Oxford (which understandably persuades him) that he leans too far toward assuming Oxford's authorship to be a proven fact. In this, Sobran is like other participants in the authorship controversy. The authorship debate is a good example of my maxim that wherever there are only two sides to an argument both are usually wrong. Just because there is reason to doubt that Will Shaksper authored the plays and poems does not prove that he did not, and just because a case can be made that someone else might have written them does not prove that he or she did. The anti-Stratfordians are correct to point out that the biography of the traditional candidate does not fit the apparent biography of the author of the Works, and the Stratfordians are right to point out that the anti-Stratfordians cannot prove that one of their alternative candidates is the true author. Part of the argument of each side is correct, but neither side is free of error.

   That being said, Sobran's contribution to the anti-Stratfordian cause is extremely readable and thought-provoking. He sums up the best evidence as it stands. If the average reader ought to read only one book by an anti-Strat, this is the one.




5. I quote his conclusions verbatim. Nelson's negation of the Oxford claim are AT LEAST as conclusive as Sobran's claims (moreso, in my opinion:

   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   1) If Oxford wrote any professional plays at all between 1580 and 1602, he would logically have written for his own company, and not for the rival Lord Chamberlain's men.

   2) The late Shakespeare plays were performed by the King's men; but Oxford died in 1604, after the King's men had been in existence for little more than a year.

   3) Oxford died several years before the registration at the Stationer's Office of King Lear, Troilus and Cressida, Antony and Cleopatra, and Pericles, before the publication of King Lear, Troilus and Cressida, and Pericles, and almost certainly before the composition of The Tempest, which seems to recall events of 1610.

   4) The Winter's Tale was first licenced for the stage by Sir George Buc, who did not become stage-licencer until 1610.

   5) Oxford's letters betray a faulty command of legal Latin, and are characterized by eccentric orthography and distinct traces of an East Anglian dialect. Thus Oxford spelled likelihoods "leklywhoodes," with the e-for-a and wh-for-h East-Anglian substitution, and he invariably wrote"ofte" for ought - a speech habit mocked as rustic in the Cambridge play of Gammer Gurton's Needle. He wrote "impodent" or "impotent" for impudent, and is the only person in my experience who put an "l" in Wivenhoe, spelling it "Wiuenghole." Oxford's spelling of his own name reflects the three-syllable pronunciation: if Edward de Vere had been their author, Shakespeare's earls would have been not Oxfords but Oxenfords.

   6) Oxford's known verse at its worst is pretentious doggerel. He is at his best when translating Italian poetry into English tetrameter.

   7) Numerous minor points mesh perfectly with Shakespeare's life but not at all with Oxford's. I would argue, if I had time, that Robert Greene's "upstart crow" of 1592 has a 95 percent chance of referring to the historical William Shakespeare, that A Funeral Elegy of 1612 has a 50-50 chance of being Shakespeare's authentic late work, and that the Passionate Pilgrim fracas of 1612 refers with a 99-44/100 percent certainty to a living - and irate - author whose name was William Shakespeare.

   [Nelson ends] on a note of irony: since evidence concerning the historical William Shakespeare is scanty, as they themselves proclaim, Oxfordians cannot prove the historical Shakespeare incapable of having written the plays and poems in the Shakespeare canon; contrariwise, literary historians are swimming in evidence that the 17th earl of Oxford was positively deficient in linguistic skill and high poetic talent.

   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   While someone else other than Shakespeare MAY have written Shakespeare's works, I prefer to use Occam's Razor here, cutting through the subterfuge and accept that Shakespeare STILL deserves credit of authorship until conclusively proven otherwise. Sobran fails to do so.

5 comments about A Streetcar Named Desire.

1. The choice of copies of _The Streetcar Named Desire_
   (required reading for high school academic English
   this summer) seemed to narrow down to ones with
   lurid covers or this plain one. Unfortunately, the text
   is almost like a typewritten script--small print and
   a little hard to read.



2. This classic play by Tennessee Williams (1911-1983) is relentless and compelling. Few readers are un-affected by these pages, even more so than with The Glass Menagerie. The story concerns a Blanche, a troubled former southern belle who moves in with her married sister Stella in New Orleans. Blanch lives off pretensions and delusions, and we quickly sense she's headed for a fall. Her sister Stella doesn't see Blanche clearly, and worries that Blanche's presence will cause trouble with her abusive-but-loving husband. That husband is Stanley, a loud brute who's dominating persona both attracts and repulses us. Stanley is also a realist, and he easily sees through Blanche's pretensions. Readers sense the two are headed for a collision, with little doubt as to who is likely to win. Perhaps Mitch, Stanley's kind-hearted friend who likes the still-pretty Blanche can save the day, but has he the strength?
   
   This relentless drama carries quickly to the bitter conclusion from the strength of its characters. Some find this play depressing, but most find it fascinating. The superb 1951 film starring Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando is equally (some say more) compelling.



3. Born in Columbus, Mississippi, Tennessee Williams (1911-1983) endured a difficult childhood and adolescence before suddenly exploding to national and then international fame with the 1944 play THE GLASS MENAGERIE. He would go on to create a dozen or so more that were equally famous--but he is perhaps best recalled for the 1947 drama A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, which he drew from a number of personal sources and the time he spent in the New Orleans' French Quarter, in which the play is set.
   
   Like many of Williams' plays, the story is remarkably sordid. Blanche DuBois is aging "Southern Belle" who arrives to visit her sister Stella and is shocked to find Stella married to a bruitish Stanley and living in squalid conditions. Her social pretensions anger Stanley, who chips away with them without remorse or pity until Blanche's facade begins to crack and an ugly series of truths about her past emerge: a scandalous suicide, an equally scandalous series of affairs. Blanche is unable to confront either past or present realities and so spins into psychosis while most of those around her remain largely indifferent to her plight.
   
   But if the material is sordid, Williams juxtaposes it with tremendous delicacy, even poetry. Blanche acquires the tragedy of a frightened, hunted animal who has sought safety only to find herself inside the very trap she had sought to escape, increasingly fearful, increasingly alone, and ultimately pitable in her inability to fend off her tormentors. It is a vivid portrait, and many regard the role of Blanche as one of the tests of a great actress.
   
   The original 1947 New York play starred Jessica Tandy as Blanche, Marlon Brando as Stanley, Kim Hunter as Stella, and Karl Malden as Blanche's would-be suitor Mitch. A slightly later English production starring Vivien Leigh, however, ran into significantly greater censorship issues in London--and when Leigh replaced Tandy to film STREETCAR with Brando, Hunter, and Malden the material ran afoul of movie censors, who forced numerous changes and cuts. Consequently, if your idea of STREETCAR arises from the celebrated film, you may be somewhat surprised: the play goes quite a bit further than the film ever dared.
   
   Williams is frequently accused of being sordid for the sake of sordiness, and there is some truth to this accusation; as the years passed he was less and less able to balance the sexually charged nature of his stories with the same degree of insight he brought to his earlier works. But this not true of A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, a remarkably complex piece with meticulously expressed ideas, images, and thematic choices. There is a reason it remains celebrated fifty years after it first appeared on the stage: it is indeed a masterwork, utterly unlike anything that had gone before and distinctly superior to everything which borrowed from it after it proved success. A great work by a great artist.
   
   GFT, Amazon Reviewer



4. This is probably the most famous piece of literature from the US that I hadn'd read yet, until now. Nor watched as a play or movie. And still I seemed to know everything about it.
   Having just read Gore Vidal's memoirs, where he calls TW the 'glorious bird', I was motivated to finally get acquainted with the streetcar. What fun. It is Gone with the Wind updated for the 20th century. It is the downsizing of rural gentry. It shows downward social mobility in a narrative framework of Southern Gothic. It is powerfully vulgar and perceptive. It is so politically not correct. ('Polacks are like Irish, only less highbrow.')
   But with all the mad fun, let's be clear about this: despite the popular use of the term 'tragic' for the descent of Ms. Blanche into madness, this is not really a tragedy in the full sense of the word. Being a piece of stage writing makes it one only in the sense of not being a comedy. What it is, it is a really great melodrama.
   A word about the genius casting for the movie: Marlon Brando dominated it more than the text justifies. Gore Vidal says in his memoirs that Kazan actually destroyed the play by pushing the Blanche character into 2nd row. He says that TW did not mind, since it made him famous.



5. "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."
   
   Blanche's final decree before being taken away to the insane asylum is an ironic remark which Tennessee Williams uses to harshly criticize the promiscuous lifestyle of Miss DuBois in his classic "A Streetcar Named Desire." Moreover, it is a testimony to how Blanche sets herself up for disaster.
   
   Blanche DuBois is the southern belle whom the play revolves around, and she is certainly a character to be remembered for the ages. She escapes her deeply immoral past by fleeing to her sister Stella's homely apartment in New Orleans, only to discover that it is a complete cultural departure. A high-maintenance chauvinist upon arrival, Blanche is critical of everything in Stella's life, from her husband to her living arrangements. Blanche is dishonest about her past, lies about her alcoholism and covers up affairs with students--the complete opposite of moral perfection. Her constant affairs with unknown men back in Laurel caused Blanche to be kicked out of a two-bit hotel, and her affair with a teenage boy lost Blanche her job, illustrating Blanche as a wanton woman.
   
   So where is this "kindness of strangers" that Blanche so respects? The irony lies in that Blanche has not always been treated well by strangers, and that her relationships with these sorts of people often fare poorly, and so the fact that she relies on them for the welfare of her life is paradoxical. Williams condemns Blanche of her loose lifestyle, sleeping around with various men whom she does not know, and ultimately sentences her to the insane asylum, demonstrating that those with lifestyles like that of Blanche will merit the same fate. The southern belle image which Blanche allegedly epitomizes soon fades, and Williams takes this fact and emphasizes it to the audience. All of this adds up to a cornucopia of shameful aspects which Blanche attempts to hide from by deluding herself in fantastical images. Blanche has always differentiated herself as being more idealistic than realistic, and so her retreat into her fantasies is no surprise--she needs to escape the harshness of the real world. She herself is fading, and so her mentality follows.
   
   It is an important lesson which Williams teaches us about distinctions between reality and unlikely fantasies. Despite the fact that the real world may bring obstacles and roadblocks, as shown through the relationship between Stanley and Stella (which I won't delve into as my focus is on Blanche), living in reality is always a better idea than drowning yourself in fantasies. Blanche carries with her a whole plethora of stigmas and taboos that Williams deems necessary for her loose character, so that he may, in turn, teach lessons of morality to the audience. Blanche is a complex character that we can all learn from, and Williams makes that clear through the intricate development of Blanche. "Streetcar" is certainly one of the most interesting plays that I have ever read, and it is definitely a necessary component to the shelf of American classics.

5 comments about The Color Purple: A Memory Book.

1. I gave this beautiful coffee table book as a souvenir to my mom when we returned home from seeing the play. It was a perfect surprise since she had admired it for sale in the lobby (at$40). It made the bargain I got at Amazon even better.



2. I got this book to give as a birthday gift but it was so beautiful I wanted to keep it for myself. It includes pictures and writtings from the original cast as well as the full libretto. The cover is 3 dimensional and I could not have been happier. I may have to buy another for myself.



3. GReat!!! - Quick shipment - book is beautiful - I love it!! no problems at all.



4. I actually bought this book as a gift. However, I loved it so much I kept it. The writing is beautiful and the illustrations to. The book also contains the script to the show "The Color Purple". Also, should you like Oprah. She has a foreward that is very moving pertaining to the story. It is very touching and moving.



5. Our family saw The Color Purple on stage in New York and my daughter has become obsessed with the music and the story, We bought her this gorgeous memory book for Christmas and she has spent hours reading the script, looking at the pictures and reliving the play. We will be returning to New York in 2 weeks to again see this wonderful show.

1 comments about Pictorial History of Gone with the Wind.

1. I bougt this book last year and I really enjoyed it. But it was cheaper than there... Well - I bought it in Latvia (I live there) and it costed about 9$...

2 comments about The Director's Vision: Play Direction from Analysis to Production.

1. The text was used for my directing one class in college. It is very straight forward and delves into various aspects of directing. A very well rounded read. I will not be selling this back, and plan on referring to it in the future.



2. Dr. Catron's book melds theory with practicality in the most utilitarian Directing primer on the market. Designed, I believe, as a college text, it has strong application at the professional and community theatre levels, better than Cohen/Harrop, John Miles-Brown and Dean & Carra. The only book which comes close to Catron's is Benedetti's The Director at Work.

No comments about Five Comic One-Act Plays (Dover Thrift Editions).

5 comments about The Operator: David Geffen Builds, Buys, and Sells the New Hollywood.

1. I must confess. I have not as yet read the entire book on David Geffin. I am reviewing the first 80% simply because this biography stands as the best book on a Hollywood celebrity I have ever read. The first thing that impressed me about the book was how ruthless Geffin was in his quest for power and how sad it was that he seemed to have finally realized that money was NOT in fact the thing that really made him happy. I think virtually everyone who makes multi millions comes to realize this. IF you have one Porsche turbo thats green does having ones in blue, red and black made you three times happier? No... Geffin coveted money over all else, and the book goes into minutea about this topic, because he grew up with an unambitious father who his mother, named Batya, thought was shiftless. The reader can make his or her own conclusion but my take is Geffin wanted to make dollars delux to ensure his mother's love. In the book Geffin shows no mercy in his quest for fame and glory and tramples on his closest associates. But I came away fascinated with Mr. Geffin in spite of, or maybe because of, these traits. A GREAT READ. And again, even if the last 15% of the book isn't as interesting as the first 85% its still an unbelievable tale of rags to riches unbridled ambition.



2. 
   The meteoric rise of David Geffen is told by Wall Street Journal reporter, Tom King. King's business background was invaluable in researching and explaining Geffen's deals... in some parts there is a different deal on every page.
   
   Geffen seems to be living on adrenalin be it his hard charging in your face negotiating or his indulgence of artists and friends. He crashes hard too, finds therapies and cries when hurt or moved. To paraphrase one of his artists, it's like the sound of his own wheels drive him crazy.
   
   When he bet on a star he went all the way, as he did with his first artist-Laura Nyro. He housed and fed them. Sometimes he provided lawyers for them and sometimes took them on trips. He gave his top managers wide decision making authority. Besides salaries they could be surprised by bonuses of cars or houses. Not knowing the industry norm, it's hard for me to judge if those who felt he didn't do enough them (after their/his success) have legitimate complaints.
   
   Years, differences and feuds can separate him from family, friends, mentors and staff. There can be a kiss and make up (Cher, Spielburg, etc.), sometimes just separation (Nyro, Roberts, etc.) and sometimes a continuing freeze (Ovitz, Loddengaard etc.). He can be very generous, for instance giving Jackson Browne his copyrights or subsidizing cousins he doesn't know. He can also give to get, for instance rescuing his friend Calvin Klein paid him well at the end.
   
   His success began with falsifying his resume, opening others' mail and forging mail. He intimidated, reneged, spread disinformation, brown nosed and bad mouthed. A lot of these very same tactics were used against him.
   
   His talent was knowing entertainment that would sell, and he was usually right on the mark. His mistakes seemed to come when he worked with established stars, not the artists he "discovered".
   
   This is an almost 600 page book, but you have the feel that there is much more to be written.



3. I had never heard of David Geffen before this book was recommended to me...Now, I say WOW!!! What an OPERATOR he was and is...What a fitting title. I highly recommend this book to all serious business people...Mike Stokes



4. This is a book that's basically for the show business junky and even then it can get to be a bit much. About two-thirds of the way into it, I had to put it aside for awhile. The paranoia, betrayal, double dealing, etc. had happened over and over so many times, with so many people, that I wondered if there was anything more to the story. In some ways, there is. We are given a sometimes convincing portrait of Geffen coming out as a philanthropist, although I came to the conclusion that it's mostly just another persona. King hedges his bets, by reminding us that, as the book ends, Geffen is estranged from his remaining family and various other pivotal people in his life.
   
   One thing that would help make the unrelenting scuzziness of Geffen's business life and the lack of meaningful long-term relationships in his personal life more bearable would have been some perspective. Despite pulling off some major deals, Geffen also took on some very weak clients and found himself with some very bad breaks, like taking on Donna Summer as a client just as she found religion and homophobia. He was an uneven judge of talent and largely out of touch with the popular culture his business helped shape. Even the most vile of studio moguls, like Harry Cohn, could have an acute appreciation and respect for talent. It's also telling that some of his greatest feuds were with people like Jerry Wexler, who understood music, built careers and helped open new doors for different styles of music. Geffen was fortunate to be on the ground floor of trends, in popular culture, but did little to actually shape them. Buried in the details is something else that's interesting--much, if not most, of Geffen's money came from his trading in junk bonds, rather than his show business wheeling and dealing. I came away thinking "yes, he's a talented deal maker", but a good salesman is someone who can believe in their product and maintain long-term business relationships. Geffen, like Jack Welch, is overrated and it will probably take a more analytical volume to make this more clear. Someone also needs to figure out a way to get his long-time secretary to tell her story (right now a settlement precludes that). Knowing how to survive for 20 years with a megalamaniac would be almost as interesting as the further betrayal and double dealing she could add to Geffen's story.



5. Bottom line, Geffen slept on couches as a kid in Brooklyn, and w/ nothing but intense drive, charisma, and extremeley hard work he built a 4.5 billion dollar fortune from scratch. If you are considering going in the entertainmetn industry, and particualrly starting a record company..... read this book and act like Geffen does to acheive your goals because you will see exactly all that is required of you to build a record company from nothing to 250 million in revenues in under 10 years..... and ultimatly how to build a net worth that puts you in the top 30 of the Forbes 400 ...... read it and take action and if you create 10% of it you'll be in the top 1% of America. Blake---- bldgassets247@yahoo.com

2 comments about The Mime Book.

1. This book is the one that made me decide that miming is not just an art; it's a way of life.
   
   Many a lonely hour I have spent in my dorm room hoping that someone could understand my need to mime.
   
   But upon reading this book, I realized that I do not need to hide my mimicry. I am a mime and damn proud of it. Once I graduate, I plan to spend most of my free time doing street mime in NYC. I would urge parents to have their children read this book. Perhaps then they too can become like me, a proud mime!



2. A complete book for one wanting to learn the art of mime. Profusely illustrated with student exercises, it starts by isolating individual parts of the body and showing their range of expression. It then combines body parts and actions to build a complete mime vocabulary. All the tools of the mime are explored and explained -- pressure, immobility, contact, manipulation, reaction, walks, climbs, water, and wind. Theory is kept to sidebar boxes, so the student can study them at leisure. The book finishes with chapters on improvisation and the history of mime.

2 comments about A Cinema of Loneliness: Penn, Stone, Kubrick, Scorsese, Spielberg, Altman.

1. Kolker's lengthy opinions sometimes suffer from tunnel-vision -- ideas that support his over-arching theories are stressed while other influnces on/aspects of the films are ignored. But his over-arching theories are penetrating nevertheless, and a lot of light is shed on the filmmakers he discusses. His treatment of Kubrick, whose work lends itself so well to intelluctual deconstruction, is especially good. The discussion of Spielberg is interesting but a little too high-minded for the relatively simple pleasures of Spielberg's movies. Most interesting of all are the author's comparisons of the filmmakers with each other, the culture of their times, and various narrative forms and goals. (Kubrick fans should also check out Michael Herr's "Kubrick", which reveals a human side to the legendarily chilly and cerebral director).



2. Although I missed the very first edition of this book in 1980, its second edition has been among my favorite film books for a decade. This is despite the fact that most of the film-makers discussed within (especially Scorsese & Altman) had made numerous films since the last ones featured in that edition. Now I have the joyful experience of catching up on their films with one of the finest writers on the topic of American film ever and his third edition of one of the finest books on American film ever published.

   Kolker has gone back to his earlier editions and used the newer films to both confirm and refute his earlier evaluations. Many fans of film in general (and some of these directors, in particular) will not agree with many of Kolker's points. What makes this book so wonderful, though, is that you don't have to agree to enjoy it. Kolker understands that film criticism is meant to be a lively art, rather than a process of emalming great works of art. I may not agree with his assessment of each Scorsese picture but his analysis of Scorsese's significance is right on the money. At the same time, his newly added discussion of Oliver Stone is the first writing about the controversial director that gave a fair picture of his artistic strengths (there are many) and weaknesses (fewer but still significant).

   Deserving of special note is the book's section on the late Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick's passing makes him the only film-maker in the book whose body of work is completely finished, a matter which Kolkee addresses in a special epitaph. It is indicative of both the quality and bold approach of the book that the author uses Kubrick's final film, "Eyes Wide Shut" as a springboard to ponder how Kubrick's work will fit into the history of cinema in the years to come. He does not make pat, easy judgements but rather admits that the still vital medium is ever shifting and even old works can take on new meanings in hindsight. It's almost enough to make me eager for the fourth edition.

5 comments about Corsets and Crinolines.

1. Filled with images from primary resources, this book covers numerous details about these interesting undergarments, from patterns that help show the anatomy to pictures of them in use to caricatures, fashion plates, pictures of extant costumes--there is plenty to see in this book. The written content features the thoughts of contemporaries, quotations from famous figures, and some text by the author explaining usage, construction, styles, etc.
   
   One major problem with the book is its organization. It is not chronological; it jumps back and forth with no apparent reason, and it makes things difficult for someone who is less familiar with changing styles. Also, the quotations do not always seem relevant or even that interesting. It is an ok resource on corsets, but it's not one of the best. I would suggest looking around for something better.



2. As most reviewers, I like to book. Still a few problems:
   - The problems with organizing it have been explained in another review.
   - Why do most of quotes include something negative? Men have always admired women with narrow waists, not just complained how they dressed.
   Still, it has so much information and those problems are a minor problem.
   - The big problem are the pictures. The book is so old that it would be time - maybe when they'll do a new print - to renew the pics!
   
   In the end I agree with a lot of people - a great book.



3. This book is a MUST read for anyone interested in historic costume and undergarments! The wonderful research and illustrations make for interesting reading, and the corset blocks are wonderful for anyone interested in drafting their own corset patterns.



4. I had to use this book for my final project in my Costume Technologies class and I loved it! I made the 18th century woman's stays (1776) and they worked out wonderfully!

   Warning, though: this book is not for people who cannot draft costumes. The patterns are in miniature and are original period patterns; in other words, they will not be sized for you. You will have to draft and make many a mock-up before you are ready to make the actual piece.

   All in all, I love this book and intend to make even more of the pieces in it!




5. This book provides absolutely no information on how to make a corset. I found it boring and useless to my pursuits.