Books on film

For many of us film-fanatics, loving the films doesnt stop with watching them. We love to know how the film was made, who the people lived, what other similar films can be found et cetera et cetera. Thus springs the value of film-books - whether they're making-ofs, (auto)biographies, must-see lists or merely picture books, they can satisfy with their info and gossip just as much sometimes as the film can.

Some of my faves...



Live Fast, Die Young - Lawrence Frascella and Al Weisel

Great book on the making on REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE



Patrick McGilligan's biography of Hitch was a superb read.

others include..

The Films of The 50s - Douglas Brode
The Best of Warner Brothers - Thomas G. Aylesworth

and of course my original film-bible, 1001 Films to See Before You Die.

Surely I'm not the only film-book fan?

No, you're not. Though I'm generally more interested in criticism and studies than making-of texts and biographies, I've read my share of both kinds. Plenty of fine stuff to recommend. I'll start with two approachable, solid bits of work:

KUBRICK by Michel Ciment is a lovely book. Not too heavy, but a wonderful survey of Kubrick's body of work and themes with insightful commentary, complete with some very rare interviews with the man himself.

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO ORSON WELLES? by Joseph McBride is another lovely book with a strong biographical bent, interested in challenging some of the popular myths about Welles as an artist and seeking a re-evaluation of Welles' later years.

I've read Clinton Heylin's book on Welles - it gave me a negative bent against Robert Wise that took many a film to shake off.

Well, I really want a copy of this:


And I also have a copy of 1001 Films to See Before You Die that Colly mentioned earlier.

The classic is still Hitchcock by Truffaut.

Harry Potter

1. Book 3
2. Book 5
3. Book 1
4. Book 4
5. Book 2
6. Book 6
7. Book 7

Movie

Fiilm 2
Film 1
Film 3

What i mis / doubt:

The joker ghost. Part 5. Unmderstand those scene's are now done by the Twin brothers.

In the first movie a scene between Neville (Marcel Lubbermans) and Draco.is the other way around.

Casting changes. With the 6th and 7th&8th movie non English people who playing the parts earlier don't returns. For example in the 7th book. This story line what be on hold since the first novel/movie, finaly contune in the 7th novel. Where possible part 2 start with. Verne Troyer should return, but now Warwick Davis who also playing a professor in the movies and another Goblin are going to play this part of Griphook the Goblin. Stil i expect another anser on what Hagrid said in the first novel (movie) then Rowling deside to tell. But a smart move to start with for part 2 because if there is one doubt to give that part a 16 rank it be those scene's. Part of the scene is already scene in the first trailer and having a connecton with the 4th novel. Whyle i haven't seen the 4th and the 5th movie yey movie i expect a lot from this part of the scene because ther can yuse the same special effect who be one highlights of the third movie.

What i mis in the 2th movie also not be yused in the 7th movie. It be those small people who als ways get the blame if don something.

2 chacters from Goblet of Fire. Dobby his girlfriend not be in it. A chacter who be at the event be canceld too. Judi Dench i have liked do the voice of Dobby his girlfriend. I consider Timothy Dalton for the part of the other chacter besides. Dalton i also consider for the mayer part (6th novel) who now going to the guy from Love Actualy.

Delete scene from COS should be yused. In specialy because the contune the story line in the 6th novel.

Scene's from a ghost teather from COS and some scene's with another teather are not playing by Maggie Smith.

What i don't mind it be delete:

The House Elf Family. Part 5. Part 5 reference more then other novels to WW1 and WW2.This scene also show Herminone and Dumbeldore in another way. Possible it cost to much money and creat to much quistions. The movie focus on the new teacher and her powers. Another production design project cost mabey to much time.

Casting chooses i doubt:

Gary Oldmen as serius black. My Seriud black is more like Lupin in the third movie.

Ralph Fienes as Marten in Hp5. The novels make a difrence in name yuse of discribe the young and the old Voldemort. In the fift novel Marten his name is said. For the movie there take the old voldemort. Later i haver understand this be mistake of the translations.

I am also one of those suporters of Anthony Hopkins as Mad Eye. But Gleeson isn't a bad choose, i saw Gleeson first in Mission Impossible 2 where Hopkins also get a part.

I haven't seen her playing yet, but i always imaganie Judi Dench for this part.

Emma Thompson not be my choose for the part she playing. Also for this one i consider Judi Dench.

ambler wrote:

The classic is still Hitchcock by Truffaut.

A fascinating read, that.



I'd recommend this to Colly:



It's very extensive.

Richard Brody's Everything is Cinema: The Working Life of Jean-Luc Godard is very good. I'm looking to get something on Antonioni now, potentially Antonioni, or the Surface of the World by Seymour Chatman. Also want to read Sternberg's autobiography desperately, but it's out of print. Same with Alexander Mackendrick's book on directing.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind is an interesting account of how Hollywood snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Biskind's earlier book on the 1950s is rubbish, though.

ambler wrote:

The classic is still Hitchcock by Truffaut.

Yep. 8)

I was lucky enough to pick up a first edition copy of it at Strand for only $20.

HITCHCOCK ON TRUFFAUT is definitely a classic.

Andre Bazin's WHAT IS CINEMA? is probably the master text on film, period. Marvelous author. Shame that the English translations of his work pared it down, so you have to buy all sorts of different volumes to make sure you have the full thing.

The last film book I purchased is this hulk of a book: NAPOLEON: THE GREATEST MOVIE NEVER MADE.

Can't disagree with what's already been put forth.

I'd add:

NOTES ON THE CINEMATOGRAPHER - Robert Bresson

WHO THE HELL'S IN IT: PORTRAITS AND CONVERSATIONS - Peter Bogdanovich

I LOST IT AT THE MOVIES - Pauline Kael

CITY OF NETS: A PORTRAIT OF HOLLYWOOD IN THE 1940'S - Otto Friedrich

THE AMERICAN CINEMA: DIRECTORS AND DIRECTIONS 1929-1968 - Andrew Sarris

A HEART AT FIRE'S CENTRE: THE LIFE AND MUSIC OF BERNARD HERRMANN - Steven C. Smith

As someone who's a special interest in film composition, I have to recommend that last one in particular. It's one of THE finest biographies I've read, and many would agree. It even contains extracts from his diaries dating back to the 20s and 30s.

G section wrote:

ambler wrote:

The classic is still Hitchcock by Truffaut.

A fascinating read, that.



I'd recommend this to Colly:



It's very extensive.

I've got a biography of his by Donald Dewey - I've never read it in full but its got a small section on every film he made, so its awesome to pick it up following a Stewart film watch.

Isis wrote:

Well, I really want a copy of this:


And I also have a copy of 1001 Films to See Before You Die that Colly mentioned earlier.

Forgive me, Isis, but I've not seen you here before. Where you on MI6? :) With so many people changing their names, it's hard to keep 'em straight.

Anyway, this is always a great one:



Ambler mentioned the Hitchcock/Truffaut book.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Forgive me, Isis, but I've not seen you here before. Where you on MI6? :) With so many people changing their names, it's hard to keep 'em straight.

Isis was Doctor Zhivago.

Sharky wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Forgive me, Isis, but I've not seen you here before. Where you on MI6? :) With so many people changing their names, it's hard to keep 'em straight.

Isis was Doctor Zhivago.

Cool.

SOON TO BE A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE (about the making of Preminger's ROSEBUD)
and Making of EXORCIST II THE HERETIC

Both are the opposite of the usual puff pieces. Warts and all. You can also see that there was a real concept behind HERETIC ... great stories about what an asshole Mitchum was and how decent (in certain ways) O'Toole was on ROSEBUD ... yeah, this is the movie where they had to fire Mitchum as the CIA agent -- drunk on the set -- and replace him with O'Toole, and he promptly nearly died.

My all-time favourite film book is ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE by William Goldman.

Isis wrote:

Well, I really want a copy of this:


And I also have a copy of 1001 Films to See Before You Die that Colly mentioned earlier.

Check out Stewart in that photo.

Taking his role to another level.

Have you seen Dave Kehr's picture on Rotten Tomatoes?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/dave-kehr/

I grew up on film texts. Still read every one I can get my hands on, no matter what the title or subject matter. (French Film Noir is one that I recently uncovered)
But for me there are two that stand out as absolutely essential.
Hitchcock/Truffaut is like listening in to the Gods on Olympus.
The Great Movies is not only Ebert's finest collection of essays, but the best writing on film ever done. Truly the work of not simply a critic but someone able to inject humanity and fascination back into film writing. An inspiration.

The other standards of course being Bazin, the classic era of Cahiers, Spoto's Hitchcock, etc.
I love David Thomson's critical books.
Anyone wanting to understand modern American cinema should read Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and Down and Dirty Pictures. With a grain of salt here and there you at least start to get the mindset of the New Hollywood of roughly 65-79 and it's quick demise in corporate commercialism and the indie scene of the 90's.

hegottheboot wrote:

The other standards of course being Bazin, the classic era of Cahiers, Spoto's Hitchcock, etc.

Don't forget Kael. Love or hate her, she's well worth the read.

hegottheboot wrote:

Anyone wanting to understand modern American cinema should read Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and Down and Dirty Pictures. With a grain of salt here and there you at least start to get the mindset of the New Hollywood of roughly 65-79 and it's quick demise in corporate commercialism and the indie scene of the 90's.

I have problems with its lazy tarring of Spielberg with Lucas and the demise of the American New Wave. This is the man who after JAWS, produced CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. One of the most profound films if its era.

Yep, Kael, Sarris and the other giants. Problem is there's always too many books for me to list.

I didn't think it exactly singled them out, but then again they always get labeled with that distinction. Jaws began to change the business mindset, and this was cemented with Star Wars. What is more important is these young people forgetting/abandoning/renouncing their prior ambitions, desires, and goals for what they are now.
I've written off the two, GL long ago pretty much after the desecration of THX 1138 (which displayed his overall change too) and Spielberg's last good film was in 1987. Scorsese kills me with each new release. Painful stuff to sit through.

Quote :

Spielberg's last good film was in 1987

I count SCHILLER'S LIST, AMISTAD, MUNICH, JURASSIC PARK, WAR HORSE, THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, THE TERMINAL, MINORITY REPORT, and above all, A.I. Possibly the finest film he ever made, along with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and E.T. He's only matured as a filmmaker, not sold out or lost his ambition. He's still the same humanist he was when he made EMPIRE OF THE SUN or THE COLOR PURPLE.

I haven't been FULLY engaged by a Spielberg movie since that awesome unforgettable first-night viewing of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. And I watch JAWS at least a couple of times each year.

Then again, I don't get the A.I. love either. To me it is like the Reader's Digest version -- no, it'd be more accurate to say the Cliffsnotes version -- of what Kubrick might have done with it. I'm not sure that I would have loved the Kubrick version either ... but it would have had a level of visual interest strong enough to support a number of viewings.

But even with those caveats, I wouldn't ever put Spielberg on the GL level. Spielberg can always function on the level of top-rate crafstman, and know enough to hire somebody else to do the writing for him in most if not all instances.

Lucas forswore pretty much everything he ever intended to do in terms of filmmaking. I'm still waiting for those experimental non-linear no-story films (well, the no-story part he did get, though maybe not intentionally.)