5 comments about Nobody's Perfect: Billy Wilder: A Personal Biography.

1. Nobody's Perfect: Billy Wilder by biographer Charlotte Chandler is the personal and engaging story of one of the great figures of 20th century movie-making -- the legendary Billy Wilder (1906-2002). The great director perhaps best known for classics such as "Some Like It Hot", "The Apartment", "Sunset Boulevard", and many more, Billy Wilder narrates much of "Nobody's Perfect" in his own words, rendering it as close to an autobiography as any story of his life can be. A filmography complements this witty, insightful, life story of a creative visionary.



2. I read Cameron Crowe's book a couple years ago, and it is head-and-shoulders above this. What Charlotte essentially does in this "personal" biography is string together a long series of celebrity interviews into one barely coherent narrative.
   
   One gets the distinct impression it was far more important for Charlotte to "get to know" these interview subjects than it was for her to write this book. What makes me think that? Perhaps it's the photos of Charlotte and several of her interviewees sprinkled throughout this book.
   
   On the whole, "personal" seems to be shorthand for "lazy."



3. My love of films came to fruition during a brief period when the "auteur theory" held sway in the 1960s and 1970s. Auteurist critic Andrew Sarris classified Billy Wilder in his "Less Than Meets the Eye Category," primarily because he was "too cynical for the more serious demands of middle-class tragedy (DOUBLE INDEMNITY) and social allegory (ACE IN THE HOLE). A director who can crack jokes about suicide attempts ... and thoughtlessly brutalize charming actresses like Jean Arthur (FOREIGN AFFAIR) and Audrey Hepburn (SABRINA) is hardly likely to make a coherent film on the human condition."

   It was only as a result of seeing Wilder's films that I discovered what Sarris was really saying was that the director was both too versatile and too successful -- and it didn't help that his approach to directing films was as a writer rather than as a visual artist.

   Reading Charlotte Chandler's oral history of Wilder's career, I was impressed with Billy Wilder's ability to be able to create iconic native masterpieces of film noir (DOUBLE INDEMNITY) and Hollywood Gothic (SUNSET BOULEVARD) without the benefit of growing up in the United States. While his later comedies (such as SOME LIKE IT HOT) owe much to his collaboration with Lubitsch, Hawks, and Mitchell Leisen, Wilder developed his own style of comedy and retained his ability to make good films well into his eighties.

   In the chapter on SUNSET BOULEVARD, actress Nancy Olson makes an astute comment: "Billy said, 'Every character in SUNSET BOULEVARD is an opportunist.' It seemed to me that what he is saying is that this picture is not only about opportunism, but about ... the consequences of it."

   A little light bulb went on in my mind. Wilder's films are all, in their own way, about opportunism. Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson take advantage of each other for their own nefarious ends in DOUBLE INDEMNITY. In picture after picture, I see a pattern of characters using one another with interesting results, with the ultimate example being Kirk Douglas in ACE IN THE HOLE.

   Chandler's interviews are mostly interesting, though the intrusion of plot summaries in the middle of each chapter is intrusive: These should have been relegated to the Filmography in the back of the book. I was disturbed that Chandler did not see fit to add any of her own observations about Wilder except insofar as to provide a segue for the many quotes. Still, it is both a useful and entertaining book and a valuable addition to the literature about this fascinating filmmaker.




4. There is no one wilder in Hollywood than Billy - Billy Wilder, that is.  And the new bio of him, "Nobody's Perfect: Billy Wilder: A Personal Biography," is as close to the "perfect" non-critical, fun history of a man and his movies. Written by Charlotte Chandler (whose previous works include "I, Fellini" and "Hello, I Must Be Going: Groucho and His Friends"), the tome is based on interviews she conducted with Wilder and his friends over a period of years. The result is a wonderful kaleidoscope of movies, politicians, actors, geniuses and louses. From Sigmund Freud to Louis B. Mayer, from Richard Strauss to Joan Fontaine, from Prince Yussupov to Walter Matthau --- Wilder knew them all. He is the man who put Marilyn Monroe over a subway grate, Jack Lemmon in a dress and Gloria Swanson in the most famous close-up of them all. The great beacon shining through the entire book is, of course, the wit and humor of the man.  Wilder is certainly one of the great comic directors of all time, and his legacy is astounding. By structuring the book around the subject's work in a strictly chronological manner, Chandler creates a picture of Wilder that is at once true and wildly engrossing. The early stories about journalism in pre-war Berlin are as fascinating as the later tales of success in glittering Hollywood. That the last 20 years of his life, arguably the most creative time in an artist's life, were spent without a single film project is the underlying tragedy of this book, and Chandler doesn't exactly dwell on it, but the painful reality is certainly there. We like to think of him as this way: Billy Wilder, Somebody's Perfect. (Submitted by staff member Stephen J. Finn)



5. Billy Wilder made some of the greatest American movies such as Some Like It Hot, Sabrina, and Sunset Boulevard. He was also in charge of filming the liberation of Nazi concentration camps in the 1940's. This interesting and informative book covers his life and career, and behind-the-scenes stories of each major movie he made are in here, too. Whoever said "they don't make movies like that any more" wasn't kidding! I highly recommend this book.

1 comments about Musicals.

1. Kurt Ganzl has written numerous tomes on the musical theater, all of which are well-written, scholarly without ever approaching the pedantic, and often illuminate new corners of this much-surveyed territory. The plainly titled "Musicals" is no exception and. even when trodding in well-worn areas, always an exhilerating experience. But, as they say, that's not what I want to talk about. Rather, I have a rant about the over-all design of the book.
   I belong to that (admittedly rapidly dwindling) breed of readers who wants to READ the book in front of me! Yet modern designers of many of these illustrated works seem not content with supplying us with words (no matter how clever) and pictures (no matter how interesting). They feel the urge to combine both on a single page. I cannot state emphatically enough that laying light black print over a grey illustration makes the picture unseeable and the copy almost completely unreadable! I have no problem with deciphering obscure ideas from a dense text. I have no problem with discovering subtle hidden messages in a dense work of pictorial art. But those are chores for books of philosophy and great paintings. Why must I devote as much time to merely deciphering what words ae on the page?!
   Please, oh great designers of books who can't seem to resist the siren call of filling every page with as much material as they possibly can; please, oh please, I beg: "Resist!"

1 comments about Your Friends & Neighbors.

1. Neil Labute, writer and director of last years In The Company of Men, succeeds again in capturing the sad and darkly funny depths of mental anguish and abuse of love and sex in the '90's. Here he brings us a tale of unhappy suburban couples searching in vein for satisfaction and destroying each other in the process. Labute crafts an air of dialog that makes you laugh and look on in disgust all at once-the equivilance of a literary car crash, so horrifying yet you slow down to watch anyway.

1 comments about Directors in Rehearsal: A Hidden World.

1. Dr. Cole has achieved brilliance. The genius of Cole is her ability to act as an alchemist turning words into images placing you within the inner circle of actors and directors and allowing the reader to experience the magical transformation that takes place as the director's art weaves magic. Cole is a national treasure.

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.

4 comments about The Complete Mission: Impossible Dossier.

1. In my humble opinion, Mission: Impossible is the most imaginative television series of all time. This book is the perfect companion, giving
   much information on the gestation of the series, the creator, Bruce Geller, the actors, directors, writers, producers and a list of every episode made, including the 1980's revival of the series. What is not apparent to the viewer but comes out in this history of the series, is that the series underwent a number of major crises, any one of which could have finished it off, yet it survived to last for seven seasons, while generally maintaining its quality. For example, not many know that creator Geller actually only wrote one episode, the pilot (the story of the nuclear bombs stored in the vault of a hotel in a Latin American country). Although he rode herd on the show for several seasons, he was finally forcibly ejected from the studio. Original star of the series, Steven Hill was forced to leave the show due to matters of concience.
   During season three, when the finest episodes of the series were being
   produced, the top writers got into a fiery dispute with Geller and quit in the middle of the season leaving no scripts ready to be filmed. Fortunately, Paul Playdon, possibly the best writer of all to work on the series was recruited at this crucial moment and saved the show. At the end of this same third season, stars Martin Landau and Barbara Bain both quit the show. In spite of all this, the show survived and more or less maintained its quality.
   One of the best things in the book is that it lists the stuntmen-doubles who appeared in the show. In the first-season episode called "The Confession", there is one of the most amazing stunts I have ever seen on television....Rollin Hand (played by Martin Landau) and bad-guy Andreas Soloweichek (David Sheiner) are hand-cuffed together and jump out of a moving vehicle. According to this book, the stunt was performed by Buzz Henry and Chuck Wilcox. It is about time these two heroes got credit for doing one of the most dangerous stunts I have ever seen...as you see them rolling around on the road, it is amazing that they didn't break every bone in their bodies and have their arms dislocated. And for all this, they weren't even mentioned in the credits! Kudos to Mr White for giving them and their colleagues their due.
   
   Now that Mission: Impossible is being brought out in DVD, it might be time
   to bring this book out as a reprint.



2. This book is a perfect companion for any MI fan. Includes plot details and breakdowns and actor bio's and series reviews. Everything is here. Definetly worth buying and now all i want is for Paramount to release series on DVD. Life would be perfect then.



3. This book is outstanding! I own 4 copies myself. If you like entertainment, or research, this is the book for you. It's full of pictures, details, information, and synopsises. I love it! A classy, intelligent book, for a classy, intelligent show!



4. The book delivers as promised. Filled with interesting facts about the actors, plots, creators and devices of the series. Comments critically on each show. I wish there was a multimedia CD ROM available

5 comments about Mary Pickford Rediscovered.

1. I have read many books on Mary Pickford but this one was by far the best. I was able to learn about tid bits that I have not seen published in other books. I also felt that while I was reading this book, that I was actually reading about her, herself, not just somone telling a story in order to sell a book. I would reccommend this to anyone who is a fan of hers or silent movies.



2. This book deserves 5 stars for the pictures alone. They are so big and clear of this beautiful motion picture actress from the silent screen. The text is what I was somewhat disappointed with. There was a lot of technology that was mentioned that I don't really care about. However, the author did bring in little anecdotal details about what was happening to Mary at the time she was making every picture. Picture details also were described-like the arm band her brother, Jack, was wearing indicated that his wife, Olive Thomas, had died. This was very interesting. This book is not a real biography; it is more a filmography and all of Mary's films are written about. My favorite part was the pictures and the picture details, however!!! Great book!



3. This book is not only a great coffeetable book, full of gorgeous photographs (proving yet again that b&w photography can sometimes be even more stunning than color photography), but also a valuable addition to one's personal library. In addition to all of the great photographs, there's a wealth of information on Mary Pickford--synopses of her films, information on the making of all of her features, information on how Mr. Brownlow came to meet Mary in the mid-Sixties, how these wonderful photographs came to the Academy Library, her career at Biograph Studios in the Aughts and early Teens, and information about her life off-camera. Although since this book only covers her film-making career and not her entire life (it's not meant to be a comprehensive biography), it ends in 1933, with her final film, 'Secrets.' There's so much fascinating information in here, facts that the average fan might not be aware of, like the fact that, even though she was famous for playing little girls and teenagers, she didn't play a little girl until 7 years into her career, and only played a little girl throughout a film in relatively few of her films, or the fact that the reason she wasn't able to have biological children was because of a scene in 'Caprice' (1913) where she had to drag a woman who was much larger than she out of a burning building, which caused serious internal injuries and a bad illness. That wasn't the only time she risked life and limb in pursuit of her art, in these early days when many actors literally put their lives on the line to do stunts or play certain scenes.
   
   Although Mr. Brownlow does have an evenhanded approach to the films, praising them when he feels it's merited and criticising them when that is felt merited, while throughout demonstrating great respect for his subject, the reader shouldn't be made to feel as though these are authoritative opinions. I disagreed with his opinions on some of her films or some of the scenes in them, although generally his comments and personal opinions are kept very professional, not like an overly gushing fanboy or an extremely hard to please critic. One should also be warned that some of these film synopses do contain spoilers; it's one thing to detail the plots of her lost films, since we're never going to be able to see them anyway (though hope springs eternal), but it seems kind of unfair to give away crucial plot details or to basically describe the entire plot instead of just giving a synopsis. One might want to watch all of her major films before reading this if one doesn't like to have the endings or crucial plot details given away. That's a good idea anyway, since this book serves as a valuable companion to the films, providing more insight and background on films one is already familiar with or wants a deeper understanding of.
   
   Like all of Mr. Brownlow's other books, this one too is wonderfully-written and is a great addition to one's library.



4. England's Kevin Brownlow brings to life America's Sweetheart, Mary Pickford, in this richly textured and insightful book featuring a myriad of lush and rare photographs chosen by Pickford expert Robert Cushman. Mary Pickford's contribution to cinema is seen in a new light here. Brownlow subtly makes the case that she not only was the most influential woman in the history of cinema, but a visionary force for the film industry itself.
   
   It is difficult in today's climate of instant access to information to understand just how popular Mary Pickford was in her day. She was embraced by the entire world, and reportedly, every twenty four hours 12 1/2 million people saw her on screen. She perfected her craft in an era of film when very few people actually saw her natural acting style for the hard work and genius it was. George Cukor called her the first method actor.
   
   Mary Pickford's career as an actress spanned decades. She did much for women with her strong business savvy and the roles she not only portrayed, but created. A very practical woman by all accounts, her films themselves reflected our better side as human beings and were often sentimental in tone. She didn't play weak characters as many of her contemporaries did. When people walked out of a theatre after seeing a Pickford film, they were often uplifted, feeling generous towards their fellowman.
   
   Brownlow has done a wonderful job of bringing Mary Pickford to life as a three dimensional human being. With all the rare and beautiful photographs here to distract you it would have been easy to have an uninspiring text. But the introduction by Cushman and the lengthy and insightful comments by Brownlow, which includes commentary on each Pickford film, makes this a mesmerizing journey into a life, both on film and off.
   
   There were many things about Mary the public knew, such as the famous Pickfair and her celebrated marriage to Douglas Fairbanks, as well as their friendship with Charlie Chaplin. They knew little, however, of a young girl who virtually had no childhood. Before her career finally took off she was poor in the extreme, sleeping in a chair so long it would take quite some time after owning a bed before she could sleep in any other position.
   
   Some knew of her first marriage to actor Owen Moore, but few knew he was an abusive alcoholic who would drive Mary to seek comfort with actor and director James Kirkwood. They certainly did not know that in 1917, at the height of her fame, Mary almost committed suicide. Though these aspects of Mary's life are only touched upon and not dealt with in depth, it is admirable they are here at all, separating this from other coffee table books.
   
   The photographs are so stunningly beautiful (some never before seen) you may have trouble concentrating on the text. Of particular note are photographs on pages 110, 65, 17, 12, 27, 154, 121, and 66. They are not to be missed.
   
   This lush and informative book, filled with affection for its subject and augmented by rare and breathtaking photographs, is a must own for anyone who loves film. Its overall perspective of America's Sweetheart, and ultimately the world's sweetheart, Mary Pickford, is unmatched. Pick this one up today!



5. If you know nothing else of Mary Pickford just remember that she was an actress who's like we have never seen before nor since-someone without peer.
   Born Gladys Smith in Toronto,Ontario,Canada she had a very tough childhood and in her very younger years found herself having to help support her family.These times were to steel her temperment and as she entered into show busines(on stage) her confidence grew as did her determination to succeed for her family and for herself.
   In a few years time she had become very successful plying the "boards" of many major and minor vaudeville and playhouses in North America.When she stepped into the Biograph studios in New York City looking for "temporary" work between stage jobs and was introduced to legendary director DW Griffith,fate stepped in and Mary was to pretty much play out the rest of her acting career in front of the camera.
   She was to go on to turn Hollywood on its collective ear obtaining more money,power and success no other woman before or since has ever achieved there.She could do it all and DID it; everything from tragedy to comedy and everything in between.
   I recommend the reader purchase any of the DVDs now becoming available of her works.
   In the meantime purchase THIS wonderful volume of her life in pictures annotated by film historian Kevin Brownlow.Handsomely bound and chock full of pictures dedicated to the first and best "America's Sweetheart".

2 comments about Oxygen.

1. Science is exploration, both systematic and creative, and as such, it is an activity innate to humans.

   "Oxygen" offers an insider's glimpse into two facets of science often shrouded in mystery, but filled with expressions of human splendor--and folly: the struggle for recognition of ones scientific discoveries and the awarding of a Nobel Prize for discoveries deemed singularly important.

   The playwrights, Carl Djerassi and Roald Hoffmann, have each contributed their own singular scientific discoveries and literary creations to the world. They use the occasion of the centenary of the Nobel Prizes to mirror fictional experiences involving the historical chemists Lavoisier, Priestley, and Scheele--and the women in their lives--with the arguments and self-reflections of a committee of modern-day Swedish scientists trying to award a retro-Nobel for the most important discovery in chemistry before 1901.

   Both sets of characters, those of the 18th Century who discovered oxygen and those of the 21st who seek to honor that discovery, act out the passions that drive the men and women who pursue science--and do so in ways at home in either century. The play reveals to the reader, whether a student of science (of any age) or not, the issues and emotions that underlie a scientist's compulsion to question, and hopefully to understand, the workings of the natural world, all the while striving for primacy in discovery. The book offers a voyage of discovery worth taking.




2. The year is 1777- the American Revolution and the chemical revolution are both burning brightly. In a Stockholm sauna, Mary Priestley and Marie Anne Pierrette Paulze Lavoisier, the wives of Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and Sara Margaretha Pohl, the companion of Carl Wilhelm Scheele, open this imaginative play and set the stage for the scientific, emotional and ethical struggles that follow. It is a tempestuous period: the wealthy Lavoisier was guillotined during the Reign of Terror in 1794. Joseph Priestley, a founder of the Unitarian Church and also a friend of Franklin, was forced to flee England for America, as a mob burned his church to the ground.

   The authors of this play comfortably inhabit both of C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures". Roald Hoffmann is a winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Carl Djerassi performed the first synthesis of a steroid oral contraceptive. Prior to "Oxygen", Hoffmann had published widely acclaimed poetry and other "cross cultural books" for scientists and non-scientists while Djerassi had published successful novels as well as a play and a book of poems.

   Nobel Prizes are awarded to living practioners and the practice has been, where sharing is appropriate- usually in the sciences- no more than three co-awardees. But in 2001, the hundredth anniversary of the Nobel Prize, Astrid Rosenquist, the first female chair of a chemistry Nobel committee springs two surprises on her three male committee members. The first is that the Swedish Academy of Sciences will begin a new Retro-Nobel Prize for early discoveries. The second is the participation of a mysterious and alluring recorder or "amanuensis" named Ulla Zorn.

   The play alternates scenes between the Court of King Carl Gustav the Third and the Stockholm of 2001. The discussion of candidates by the modern committee rapidly converges to the discovery of oxygen and the understanding of fire that transformed chemistry into a modern science. The problem is this-we now know that Scheele first discovered oxygen around 1771-2; Priestley discovered it totally independently in 1774, disclosed his discovery to Lavoisier during a visit to Paris in that year and published first. History proves that Scheele also disclosed his discovery in a letter addressed to Lavoisier two weeks before Priestley's visit. Lavoisier never responded to Scheele's letter. But Priestley and Scheele did not understand the significance of their discovery. They believed that the new "fire air" sucked an essence of fire (phlogiston) from burning matter. It was Lavoisier who understood that burning, rusting and respiration all involved addition of oxygen (oxidation) rather than loss of something to the air. One committee member, Bengt Hjalmarsson, is reasonably fluent in French and is assigned Lavoisier. Scheele is assigned to Sune Kallstenius, comfortable in the German language frequently employed by Scheele. Ulf Svanholm is assigned Priestley. Not surprisingly they each become advocates for their "charges". But other human frailties emerge. Bengt and Astrid have a history. Ulf harbors a grudge against Sune, who he is convinced, caused him to be "scooped" on his major discovery. The stage has been set to play off the issues of scientific priority, ambition and motivation, complicated by human passions, among powerful women and men of the eighteenth and twenty-first centuries. Indeed, it is the women who, according to Ms Zorn, are "...usually expected to clean up the dirt" and so they do by clarifying history and moving the modern committee to an acceptable concensus.

   The issue of priority for the discovery of oxygen is to be settled in The Judgement of Stockholm. Did Lavoisier, Scheele and Priestley ever meet together? Probably not- but what an exciting thought. And in the best tradition of modern science, the critical experiments of one must be performed by another. There are thrilling scenes here: Lavoisier performing Scheele's generation of "fire-air" under the latter's supervision; Antoine confiding his intuition about Scheele to Marie ("I trust him"); Joseph to Mary about Scheele ("I trust him"); Carl Wilhelm to Fru Pohl on Lavoisier ("I do not trust him"). And there is an extra bonus. There is evidence that to celebrate their chemical revolution, Antoine and Marie performed a brief play or masque. Alas, the script, if one ever existed in writing, is unknown. But Djerassi and Hoffmann offer us a delight- Marie, as "oxygen" publicly humiliates and vanquishes Antoine, as "phlogiston", in a performance witnessed, with amusement, by King Carl Gustav and with increasing discomfort and then consternation by the Priestleys, Scheele and Fru Pohl.

   The twists, surprises and the denouement will be left for the discovery of the reader. The authors have succeeded wonderfully in combining solid history, with the informed nuances and rich humor of two of the world's most accomplished scientists. Hoffmann and Djerassi do not recognize the boundaries of the "Two Cultures" and readers of this play will be the richer as a result. One last thought- the number of actors in this play is quite small and the settings simple. A reading of the play can be readily staged by high school or college chemistry classes. What a way to enliven chemical history and bridge the sciences, humanities and fine arts!

5 comments about Acting Without Agony: An Alternative to the Method (2nd Edition).

1. In this compact, easy to read tome, the late Mr. Richardson (an experienced director besides teacher)attacks, debunks and demystifies the insipid acting cult known as "the method". Breaking down acting into simple (albeit far too simple-hence the 4 star rating)and applicable steps, Richardson approaches acting as a joyful and natural form of human expression.
   
   While the book doesn't really provide as many usefull lessons (a few more would have earned the book a slightly higher rating)as attending a class would, it does communicate a clear philosophy that makes acting accessible to a wider variety of students.
   
   Richardson attacks the psuedo-pyschiatric approaches made popular by too many 20th Century acting teachers and sticks to the very basics. A successful director himself (unlike the most of the pantheon of American Acting teachers- Adler, Meisner, Strassberg- Lewis being the exception)Richardson takes great pains to approach acting from both sides of the camera and stage. His teaching method is to make acting as painless as possible.
   
   Too bad this is relatively hard to get ahold of. A valuable addition to any actor's library.



2. Ultimately, yes, this is an interesing book. What makes it interesting is that it points out a lot of the flaws and pitfalls in 'Method' acting. That was something that I wrestled with for years. All the agony. I'd lost the joy in the process. That part makes this book interesting. However, these techniques, although they sound promising are a bit shallow and overly simplistic at times. I still think this is a worthwhile book. There are bits of it that are very good. I would just say to watch out for when it gets too gimmicky. Now, this is just my own experience, I want to be fair here, maybe others were able to make this work, but I tried his system for supposedly creating emotions and to me that is just a gimmicky way to work. I can't imagine how that could work for anyone. It sounds interesting but after trying it, the techniques given for emotions just fall flat (for me anyway).
   The overall problem with this book is that it tries to create too many little 'tricks' at times. I don't think it quite works that way. My personal feeling is that you need to be thorough in your character choices, know the right questions to ask, and eventually trust your talent. BE. Be in the moment, with all the work you've done you then jump in and surrender to your talent. I don't think any little system can do that. I think it's a god given-surrendered kind of thing, not something you try to manipulate. That was at times the problem I had with this book.
   Nevertheless, it does have some gems in it. Aside from the system for creating emotions, the rest of the book is very good. It points out the importance of a well chosen objective, he gives you good character questions and explains how to work on different styles. Also, he does find a nice way to simplify things. I did feel I learned some good things from this book.



3. After translating this book into spanish,I have had a very close relationship with don richardson's text. I trust that this book will be as valuable to spanish speaking theater students as it has been to english speaking actors and actresses. I would like to publish the work, and would like to contact mr. richardson.



4. The best book I ever read about the art of acting. It's simple and direct. I require it in my classes. Wonderful for directors as well



5. I had the good fortune to study with Don Richardson when I was living in California. What a treat to find this book recently while I was searching for theatre books on Amazon.com. Don's book is probably one of the top two books that I have ever read on Acting. It is clear, concise, and incredibly helpful for either the beginner or professional actor. I'm an actor, director, and am currently teaching a course on acting and I use Don's book at the top of my list of reference books. Thank you Don, for putting your ideas down on paper for us all

1 comments about Costumes and Chemistry: A Comprehensive Guide to Materials and Applications.

1. This is the best reference book out there, hands-down, bar-none, for those in the field of crafts artisanship. It is an indispensable bible of fantastic resources and, despite its high price tag, i highly recommend that anyone interested in costume construction buy it ASAP, PDQ! It was published in 2004, after years of grant-sponsored research and development, and thus may be the most up-to-date resource of its kind in the field of costume production.
   
   It's divided into two halves, the first half comprised of materials and safety information, and the second half devoted to process explanation and documentation.
   
   The first half covers an enormous range of products, divided by purpose (paint, adhesive, dye, etc.), type (cold process dye, acid dye, disperse dye, etc.), brand name, and so forth, and then goes on to test the efficacy of the product in a variety of situations (washfastness, lightfastness, dry-cleanability, etc.).
   
   Moss lists proper protective equipment for all potentially dangerous materials, clean up information, and warnings if applicable (i.e. "Do not clean up with bleach!") She worked with industrial health and safety advocate Monona Rossol to make absolutely sure that the information in the book was vetted for safe process instruction. The book would be worth its weight in gold as a reference volume just on the strength of the first half alone. The second half, however, is the gravy on the biscuit.
   
   The second half is a compendium of an enormous number of specific costumes--walkaround mascots, monsters, masks, wings, crowns, body padding, armor--with precise information on how they were built, often with process shots, original design renderings, construction methodology, and tips from the artisans who made them. Some you will recognize from film and television, theatre, dance, advertising, all kinds of sources. There is no better insight into the costume engineering process than reading about how someone has done something and seeing steps along the way. Many incredible-looking costumes are demystified--once you read the process outlay, you may frequently find yourself thinking, "Hey, I could do that!" or "Wow, so THAT'S what they used!"
   
   Seriously, i cannot sing enough praise about the quality and scope of this textbook; don't be scared off by the title--it's not full of equations and molecules! It's a wealth of amazing, helpful, illuminative information for costume engineers, both veteran and aspiring. (Can you tell this is one of my required textbooks?)