Here's part two of my review of the year, focusing on FILMS. The format: 20 'discoveries', seven old favourites, six stinkers, six movies re-appraised, and five areas of obsession.
20 DISCOVERIES
or 'premieres', or 'first watches', or whatever you call films that you saw for the first time this year. Here are the 20 that had the biggest effect on me.
1. Geronimo: An American Legend (Walter Hill, 1993) – An astonishing Western that's at once poetic and authentic as it unspools the untold story of the Geronimo wars. It's full of extraordinary language (much of it in a richly rewarding Matt Damon voiceover, Stand by Me via the real West), sudden action sequences and quiet fury, augmented by perhaps Ry Cooder's greatest score. On any terms, a masterpiece – and utterly unique.
2. All of Us Strangers (Andrew Haigh, 2023) – If you lost a parent young, this is about as emotional an experience as film can give you. If you didn’t, I wonder how you even make sense of it. Regret and pain and absence and longing and Scott’s inky eyes endlessly shining with tears. It's exactly as brutal and as gentle as it needs to be, excavating how our relationships with those we've lost can be easier than with those still living, but what you’re forever missing in return. It's funny in places; profoundly gay; wryly modern; but principally it's a ghost story about grief. It's certainly the most overwhelmed and unanchored I've ever felt in a cinema. It didn't feel much like watching a film at all, really.
3. The Reckoning (Jack Gold, 1970) – Oof. A film that fastens your jaw to the floor, as Nicol Williamson's alpha businessman returns to his roots, and begins to question whether he's lost sight of himself. Not that the alternate version of him is much easier to take. Amid seductions, drunken ranting and bingo, he's pondering whether to beat a teddy boy to death with whatever tools he may have to hand. It's an immaculately-constructed, blackly comic film, with a dazzling performance at its centre, but it's also a howl of despair: unstintintingly fascinating – and provocative – on the subjects of class, immigrant experience, and masculine pain. It does ‘⬆️ The North for revenge’ better – and earlier – than Get Carter, and marries sad songs to Scouse visuals a half-decade prior to Terence Davies's Children, while satirising Thatcherism before that term had even been coined. Along with Mike Leigh's Naked, it's one of the few films that permits a northerner to be smarter (and not merely jollier) than his southern counterparts. A stunning experience, swerving cliché right up to its subversive and chilling and perfect ending.
4. Aftersun (Charlotte Wells, 2022) – Finding a shorthand for this film is difficult. Saying it’s “about a father-daughter relationship” offers no clue as to its poetic instincts; calling it “a film about memory, mental illness and loss” carries the latent (and erroneous) threat that it is wanky, or unstintingly hard work. Instead, it is an intensely moving movie that in its rawness, naturalism and emotional honesty – smuggled in via fond joshing and moments of musical and visual inspiration – hits every audience it finds, about as hard as possible. It has some of Morvern Callar’s strobing and sun-bleached stylistics, some of Half Nelson’s grinning sadness. But its greatness is all Wells’s own, the dialogue, performance and camera all doing different things that together form a perfect truth. She fixes our eyes on a Polaroid as it reveals itself, on a TV recycling the recent past, on a man’s back as he comes apart at the seams. She wields the song score like a weapon, distorting it to meet her demands, the familiarity disfigured like our memories after trauma. As Mescal and Corio love and joke and hurt. I can’t get over that single fleeting shot of young Sophie’s face before she starts to dance: the filmmaker’s innate and crucial understanding that joy doesn’t undermine tragedy, it augments it.
5. The Mark of Zorro (Rouben Mamoulian, 1940) – Fox crashes the swashbuckler craze with this exuberant, precision-tooled crowdpleaser. Ty Power is perfect as the dashing masked avenger posing as a cowardly fop (the sole drawback being that, unlike Doug, he wasn’t permitted to do all his own stunts). It’s curiously-paced here and there, but also impeccably cast and superbly conceived, with ingeniously-devised dramatic sequences and a scintillating climactic duel. Mamoulian’s style is, unless you’re looking for it, close to invisible: you only know you’re entirely enveloped in the film. In short: irresistible.
6. The Intern (Nancy Meyers, 2015) – While clad in the garb of Meyers’ unquestioning capitalist conformity: a humanist masterwork. De Niro’s modest, earnest performance is pitch-perfect.
7. Café Metropole (Edward H. Griffith, 1937) – An utterly charming confection, with Ty Power’s dissolute gambler blackmailed into romancing heiress Loretta Young by bankrupt hotel owner Adolphe Menjou. It’s a magical, very funny and consistently surprising rom-com, with a touch of The Thin Man’s airy irreverence: Young is remarkably modern as the knowing, offhand love interest who resolutely refuses to engage with each threat of melodrama. Her scene with Power’s head in her lap is just beautiful. And so is Helen Westley’s gangster-talk. The abrupt opening, which works brilliantly in itself, was shamefully the result of studio head Darryl F. Zanuck excising Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson's entire performance due to worries that southern audiences wouldn't stand for a black guy in tails. The complicated, enduringly contentious super-producer did go on to make several sincere if compromised pictures about racism, including Gentleman's Agreement, Pinky and No Way Out.
8. Black Sheep (Allan Dwan, 1935) – A wonderful B movie from Sol Wurtzel’s unit at Fox, which deals – as ever – with jewel thieves on an ocean liner. But what lifts it way out of the ordinary is the central relationship between embittered, alcoholic gambler Edmund Lowe, and the bored, failing actress who joins him in intrigue (Claire Trevor). Their characters are real, their badinage (except for one slightly weak recurring affectation) zingy, and their chemistry off the charts. There’s a small moment where Trevor stops just short of embracing Lowe (“… that’s all I wanted to know,” she says instead) that must be among the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen on screen. Around them, there’s Lowe’s father-son relationship with a wayward rich boy, some rather tiresome drunk comedy, and Eugene Pallette releasing a clockwork mouse onto a dance floor, but we’re here for the heart-mending central couple. Just lovely.
9. Fifty Roads to Town (Norman Taurog, 1937) – “I hope you’re not one of those whimsical gangsters.” What an absolute delight this is, containing an epic meet-cute (the longest set-up in an early Zanuck film!?), glorious William Conselman/George Marion dialogue, and the only Stepin Fetchit performance I’ve seen where he is being slyly (and hilariously) subversive rather than a racist fantasy. Don Ameche and Ann Sothern are each on the lam from the law, and wind up in a mountain cabin, off-season. He’s sort of holding her hostage, but he’s not what she thinks he is, and she’s not that fussed about leaving. This sleeper is smart, sexy and surprising: full of neat reversals and funny lines. The best old rom-com I’ve seen in quite a while.
10. Freeway (Matthew Bright, 1996) sets itself up as nihilistic and sneeringly classist but stick with it: that’s all part of the game. It’s an adolescent, smugly dark and secretly soft minor masterpiece: Little Red Riding Hood as exploitation flick, with Witherspoon’s incredible performance as a white-trash teenager trolling a serial killer (Kiefer Sutherland). Like DiCaprio, she was most interesting before she became acclaimed, and as the perma-swearing, borderline-illiterate, hotheaded anti-heroine, she’s this movie’s heart and soul. Sutherland, too, was never half as good as he is here, and now and then a riotous Danny Elfman score gets involved, as disorientating as the rest of it. Bright's aim is to shock and surprise and confound, with whiplash turns of both story and tone, and his aim is true.
11. Strange Days (Kathryn Bigelow, 1995) – A post-Rodney King nightmare (and box-office calamity) that’s like Blow Out for the ‘90s: a paranoid, sumptuously-shot state-of-the-nation thriller, only this time spiked with exhilarating action. Ralph Fiennes is the complete fucking loser who unwittingly uncovers police malfeasance while doing a roaring trade in the black market of illicit POV memories. The use of subjective camera here honestly feels as revolutionary as anything done by Hollywood since it brought in the talkies. Perhaps this was the Jim Cameron-adjacent innovation that cinema should have followed? Launching with an incredible botched-robbery sequence shot with that subjective camera, Bigelow and screenwriter Cameron deliver an intoxicating fusion of frenzied pursuit, pointed (if compromised) social comment and rulebook-shredding technical wizardry, aided by a couple of fine performances (Fiennes, Angela Bassett) and a memorable one of fragile or possibly malevolent horniness from Juliette Lewis. There is at least one passage here that is virtually unwatchable, and difficult to defend on moral grounds, alongside less complicated shortcomings: a crashingly obvious twist, and Cameron dialogue that, as usual, employs alliteration at the expense of specificity. But the film still feels like a complete one-off, and a triumphant one at that: heady, desperate and, yes, strange, while positing a technical direction that cinema might have engaged with more often, had the movie not lost 34 million dollars.
12. Reign of Terror (Anthony Mann, 1949) – My new favourite genre: French Revolution noir, a world of Wellesian angles and huge looming heads. The paranoiac plot, about Robespierre’s missing hitlist, can barely withstand a moment’s scrutiny, and I was having far too much fun to care. It’s riotous pulp mayhem, with incredible photography from the inimitable John Alton, a fabulously seedy performance from Arnold Moss as the duplicitous Fouché, and every noir trope vividly reimagined for the setting. A horse-and-cart chase? Why not indeed. The scene in which Moss and Robert Cummings claw disfiguringly at one another’s faces gives Cloak and Dagger a run for its money in the Genuinely Disquieting Fight Scene stakes. This 35mm screening was a real highlight of the BFI's fabulous 'Film on Film' festival.
13. The Contender (Rod Lurie, 2000) – An unbelievably entertaining political drama, with a strong script that mixes insider talk and Hollywood thrills, and an exemplary ensemble. Jeff Bridges is particularly good; along with Cutter’s Way, this is surely his best performance, embodying a president whose wiles are so well-honed and well-worn that they crouch effortlessly beneath that pomaded exterior. Allen too is memorable as the vice-presidential contender at the film’s centre, whose sexual past may be about to torpedo her nomination (though I have never seen anyone run or play basketball in such a physically comic way, she looks like a Muppet). The last reel is a bit too much like wish-fulfilment (though so was Mr. Smith, so was The American President), and occasionally you catch Gary Oldman doing his Acting, but it’s a great ride all the same.
14. Absolution (Anthony Page, 1978) – Richard Burton, Billy Connolly and the lad from Kes, together at last. Thanks to Indicator for excavating another sleeper from the bin of history, in this case a film that has been underrated, vilified, overlooked and then, worst of all, forgotten. Written by Anthony Shaffer, who subsequently disowned the movie after having his work rewritten, it’s essentially Sleuth filtered through Hitchcock’s I Confess, with an ageing Burton as a priest and schoolteacher who becomes engaged in a twisted battle with pretty protégé, Dominic Guard. It’s beautifully acted by the leads, atmospherically directed, and perpetually surprising. The only shortcomings are Connolly’s glib, surface-level performance as a drifter, and one twist too many.
15. Bartleby (Anthony Friedman, 1970) – An enjoyably weird film about one of society's dead letters, a possibly depressed, possibly autistic, definitely disconnected accountant who one day decides that he would simply "prefer not to". A little too repetitive, perhaps – Melville's premise stretched to breaking point before snapping into paternalistic sentiment – but superb on loneliness, non-conformity, and the assumptions of capitalism. It's very funny too. "I would not like to kill two birds with one stone" is my new motto. Bartleby's passion for walking and looking provides a feast for vintage-London-location pervs, many of its bleakly seductive monuments to modernism since demolished.
16. High Tension (Allan Dwan, 1936) – A fast-paced B movie, with Brian Donlevy as a wisecracking deep-sea diver continually letting down his short-tempered, hilarious, pulp-fiction-writer girlfriend, Glenda Farrell – and as much fun as that sounds. Former silent film pioneer Dwan is slumming here, making a movie for Sol Wurtzel’s B-unit at Fox, but his comic timing is spot on, and that one meticulously-plotted establishing shot in Honolulu is a beaut. This one’s just highly entertaining throughout, with spectacular leads and a good balance between comedy, story and off-kilter romance; as Farrell’s love rival, Helen Wood has almost as good chemistry with Donlevy as Glenda does. Only complaint: the wrap-up is too abrupt. Norman Foster, who plays the second lead, soon became a B-movie director at Fox, and later collaborated with Orson Welles on the ‘My Friend Bonito’ chapter of the unfinished It’s All True, Journey Into Fear and, as an actor, The Other Side of the Wind.
17. Thirteen Days (Roger Donaldson, 2000) – A vivid retelling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, though I’d have hated to be in that emergency control room, what with everyone smoking. Costner’s version of advisor Ken O’Donnell has been ridiculed in some quarters for being too good to be true (often a problem with works based on memoir), and I can see that – especially when he seems both omniscient yet intellectually inferior to the Kennedys who are flailing – but his emotional reticence is a moving counterpoint to his moral rectitude. As a piece of cinema, it’s first-rate in almost all quarters: well-cast (both Kennedys are superb), making inspired use of the real meeting transcripts, and somehow interposing neat action sequences into a film about the avoidance of war. Only the occasional bum note – courtesy of Costner's wandering accent, scene-chewing from supporting cast members like Len Cariou (as Dean Acheson), and a periodic pomposity – keeps it short of greatness. The Lyndon Johnson really looks like him. Christopher Lawford, playing Cmdr William B. Ecker, is JFK’s nephew.
18. The Gay Deception (William Wyler, 1935) – Frances Dee is a sweepstakes winner masquerading as an heiress in a New York hotel, where European prince (Francis Lederer) has gone incognito as a bellboy. It’s a charming romantic confection, stylishly handled by Wyler, and filled with familiar faces. Paul Hurst is particularly funny as Lederer’s irascible line manager, who introduces another patronising maxim every day. Lederer’s accent makes him unintelligible at times, but visually he’s just right as both intrusive admirer and dignified royal, and Dee’s eccentric performance refuses to make even a passing acquaintance of sentimentality. (Also: she's allowed to have big sticky-out ears, a novelty in this period.) The film isn’t consistently hilarious or unfalteringly affecting, but it's still a little gem.
19. Holy Matrimony (John M. Stahl, 1943) – A truly lovely rom-com with two unusually mature leads. Monty Woolley (55) is a legendary British painter who fakes his own death so he can live in peace, and falls hopelessly in love with plain-spoken Gracie Fields (45). But their Putney idyll is threatened by his secret, especially when his work becomes the subject of a court case. Nunnally Johnson’s script is warm and appealing rather than terribly funny (do you think a debate in court about two neck moles is instinctively hilarious? So does Nunnally), but Fields is appealing, Woolley can wring laughs out of anything, and there are nice bits for Laird Cregar and Eric Blore. A courtroom climax where the hero dislikes both sides is also a notable novelty, and there’s a neat ending in a very mid-‘40s style.
20. The Road to Glory (Howard Hawks, 1936) – “Anything to get out of this grave.” A near-classic Hawks picture, devised by Fox to recycle footage they owned from the French war movie, Wooden Crosses. Somehow that lead to something halfway extraordinary, written by Nunnally Johnson, Joel Sayre and William Faulkner (!), shot by Gregg Toland, and featuring one of the best performances you’ll ever see, Fredric March underplaying unforgettably as a womanising lieutenant with magic in his fingers. He joins a memorable love triangle, fighting battle-hardened captain Warner Baxter for the affections of nurse June Lang. The film is ironic, cynical and witty, with Lang the most surprisingly effective of Hawksian women – she soon became a bright, blonde second lead, before her reputation suffered from marrying a literal gangster – but is sadly somewhat derailed halfway through by a lousy subplot featuring Lionel Barrymore as Baxter’s father, a character supposedly torn from life, but not remotely believable.
***
SEVEN OLD FAVOURITES
1. Remember the Night (Mitchell Leisen, 1940) – The small details, the wild counter-intiition of its courtroom climax, and Stanwyck’s story playing out on her face. The way Sturges and Leisen use comedy to segue into, or offer relief from, deep emotion (the cross-eyed grandfather after the homecoming heartbreak; Sterling Holloway’s ballad after he’s been put in his place). The use of snatches of everyday language to represent epiphanies. Bondi as conscience and heavy. My favourite film. And at the Christmas screening I just went to, the programme notes were from my Blu-ray essay!
2. Ball of Fire (Howard Hawks, 1941) – One of Old Hollywood’s true miracles. So sweet and cynical and clever and true and modern and timeless and of-its-time. Andrews as a slick shitheel, Cooper at peak bashful, Stanwyck at peak everything. Then there's Wilder’s dialogue, Hawks peppering his background with old professors, and Toland, fresh from The Little Foxes, throwing in those two wild and moody deep-focus close-ups. The ‘Richard ill’ scene robs me of my breath.
3. Stage Door (Gregory La Cava, 1937) – A crackling feminist masterpiece that passes the Bechdel Test 90 times a minute, and hits me harder than any other film. Aside perhaps from Holiday, it has the Kate Hepburn performance.
4. Libeled Lady (Jack Conway, 1936) – The great unheralded screwball comedy, and the ultimate comfort movie, with scintillating dialogue, that incomparable Loy-Powell chemistry, and Jean Harlow showing that in just seven years she had transformed herself from a plank of wood with large breasts into the best comedian in Hollywood.
5. Letter from an Unknown Woman (Max Ophüls, 1948) – A captivating, emotionally overwhelming Ophüls masterpiece, with director and star (Joan Fontaine) working perfectly in tandem. She’s simply astonishing, playing a waif/model/socialite in turn-of-the-century Vienna, who is slung around by her secret, lifelong love of older neighbour/musician/womanising wastrel Louis Jourdan. Based on a Stefan Zweig story, the film is ingeniously structured, perfectly played and sumptuously filmed (Ophüls rolling out his trademark tracking shots, within the confines of Hollywood convention), as every choice amps up its unique atmosphere: both richly romantic and utterly bereft. Fontaine says in her autobiography that she always knew what effect this director wanted, and it's the one truly transcendent performance of her career, animated by such extraordinary inner life, her character's thoughts dancing across her face, obvious to everyone but the dissolute fuckboy she adores.
6. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000) – The plan-view photography during the sword vs whatever's-on-the-wall fight. The way every character has untold and epic depths. Michelle Yeoh's cheekbones. CINEMA!
7. 17 Again (Burr Steers, 2009) – “I grew up, and I lost my way. And I blamed you for my failures.” A melancholic masterpiece. There’s some goofy second-lead comedy and fleeting noughties nastiness in there, sure, but the film’s treatment of lost love, lost dreams, lost men is profoundly affecting – and never more so than when Efron says his piece in the divorce court, improvising an honest, last-ditch letter to the woman he both saved and failed. His delivery; Mann’s expression; Steers’ use of subjective camera and a Cat Power needle-drop. It is a remarkable sequence. The film's circular structure works superbly too, launched by the perfect mini-film that is its bleached-out 1989 opening, aided by rapid-fire cuts in that inescapable climax. Efron is just sensationally good throughout, though a mention too for Sterling Knight’s impeccable comic smarts.
***
SIX STINKERS
1. The Holiday (Nancy Meyers, 2006) – The only film I started and didn’t finish (which tells its own story), since one day I will die, and I think at that point I would have regretted it. It's surely the worst Christmas movie ever made: a chance to spend the festive season with a bunch of charmless pricks, and just unremittingly awful, exhibiting none of Meyers’ virtues and all of her flaws in their purest and most alarming form. A movie that begins by misunderstanding newspapers and goes on to misunderstand such concepts as ‘England’, ‘sex’ and ‘people’.
2. No Orchids for Miss Blandish (St. John Legh Clowes, 1948) – A notoriously and mesmerisingly terrible New York-set noir, shot in England, and populated predominantly by homegrown actors doing dreadful American accents in front of woefully unconvincing backdrops. Sid James is the wise, archetypically American barman, which goes about as well as you’d expect. It is marginally more nasty, violent and sexually provocative than was generally permitted by the Hollywood censor (though the outcry in the UK was largely fuelled by latent fears of cultural colonisation), but such licence can only take you so far when the story is this tedious, the characters are so colourless and similar, and no-one can act. The source novel was a blatant rip off of William Faulkner's (dire) 'Sanctuary', and Jack La Rue effectively reprises his analogous role from the Pre-Code adaptation of that book, The Story of Temple Drake (1933). Times had changed, though, and the part here was transformed, with the sanction of the BBFC, from that of a sadistic sex criminal to a doomed romantic.
3. Paddy O’Day (Lewis Seiler, 1936) – When Rick's Deep-Dive Into the History of 20th Century-Fox (see above, and also below) Goes Bad. An eye-wateringly dreadful Jane Withers vehicle, with the lunatic’s Shirley Temple doing an Irish accent so bad that it technically counts as race hate. Rita Hayworth’s in this too, when she was still called Cansino, and was still half-Spanish, and still had her original hairline. After a terrible opening, the film briefly becomes bearable with the intrusion of three members of John Ford’s stock company, before promptly disappearing off a cliff. I must say that I preferred (real-life bandleader) Pinky Tomlin at the start of the film, when he was an absent-minded bookworm rather than an arrogant prick. I don’t understand what was ever supposed to be entertaining about this film. Its songs are quite remarkably bad, and the slapdash production extends to Tomlin’s character being billed as ‘Ray’; he’s called Roy.
4. Hot Pursuit (Anne Fletcher, 2015) – A pissweak action-comedy featuring perhaps the single most irritating performance in cinema history, as Sofia Vergara yells virtually every line with the exact same grating intonation. The film’s principal jokes are that (a) she is vain and (b) Reese Witherspoon is small, though there’s also much spirited punching down, none of it funny (the opening scene has two jokes, one about transvestites and the other taking the side of a controlling father). This is basically The Heat if it was no good – comedically or morally – with even Witherspoon unable to make it work, though it is marginally more watchable than, say, This Means War. The movie's brief diversion into romance is a bit less shit than the rest of it. I like it when Reese sings ‘(I Never Promised You) A Rose Garden’. It lasts about 15 seconds and is easily the best bit of the film.
5. My Lucky Star (Roy Del Ruth, 1938) – An absolutely wretched Fox film, in which studio head Zanuck splices together three of the studio's cash shows – the Sonja Henie ice-skating vehicle, the college musical, and the putting-on-a-show film – to create something unspeakable. Shagger Cesar Romero sends employee Henie to university on the proviso that she change her clothes every few hours to advertise his store's fashions. So she does, while braving the taunts of the campus mean girls, and falling in love with some charmless prick (Richard Greene). Terrible story, banal performances, cheap production and awful songs (as far as I can tell, Henie is briefly permitted to sing, dreadfully, before being dubbed by a professional for her second burst). Even the skating scenes are sub-par, though I'm giving the film a full star for some fleeting moments of ice-borne transcendence. The less said about the hysterically ill-conceived 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' finale, however, the better. Henie, often accused of being a Nazi, has one coat that appears to incorporate a Klan hood. Elisha Cook, Jr. appears in his nerdy student era. There’s this weird thing in Fox films of the '30s where the stars are forever being terrorised by cafe owners trying to foist the special on them. These allegedly comic sequences can last for up to three minutes. Just very odd. Crucially, Henie is the worst fucking actor of all time. Zanuck had told his writers to never give her speeches. Here she gets speeches.
6. Traveller’s Joy (Ralph Thomas, 1950) – An often painfully unfunny farce inspired by postwar currency restrictions (yes really), with Googie and McCallum as a divorced couple who get stranded, broke, in Stockholm, a city that’s vividly brought to life, if indeed Stockholm is a drab, poorly-filmed hotel room. The film was based on a hit West End play but the material was dated by the time the movie was released. That’s the problem with signing a deal to hold your film until the source play has folded; it tends to fold because no-one cares anymore. The movie proved an incongruous closing chapter to the story of the near-legendary, borderline-notorious studio, Gainsborough Pictures, best-known for its flushed, sadistic mid-‘40s melodramas. In 1949, it merged with Rank. The man behind the camera is Rank (in both senses of the word) director Ralph Thomas, exhibiting his usual absence of style... and subtlety... and timing… though he does, in one fascinating moment, wring a proto-Sid-James bit of leering from Maurice Denham, who in reference to a potential sexual encounter genuinely utters the phrase, “Oi oi”. Thomas later directed the vaguely underrated Doctor series, while his brother Gerald was responsible for the Carry On films. Responsible in the sense that he should have been tried in the Hague. The film’s most interesting elements are Yolande Donlan’s part as a deceptively smart blonde – she’s very appealing, but also entirely ripping off Judy Holliday’s Billie Dawn, a part she had played in the West End – and the ration-induced gluttony of the script, a charge that Evelyn Waugh later levelled at his own Brideshead. There are, at most, three jokes that halfway land. I only watched Traveller’s Joy because I like Googie Withers but she’s largely bland here, and so is the film. Dora Bryan plays a Swedish maid (?).
***
SIX RE-APPRAISALS
... being, naturally, movies I revisited, and changed my mind about.
THREE UP
I actually saw this first one on New Year's Eve 2022, but this is my blog and I can do what I want.
1. Spider-Man (Sam Raimi, 2002) – What’s the wrongest you’ve ever been about a film? I think for me it’s Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man. I saw it when it came out on DVD, and regarded it as a time-passing piece of nothing, a vapid cartoon that regurgitated an over-familiar origins story while periodically breaking out into CGI action that – as Mark Kermode kept saying on the radio, and I was only too happy to parrot – had no “weight”. Without bothering to rewatch it, in 2017 I described the film, on Letterboxd, as “rubbish”. The problem with this opinion is that the film is fucking amazing: a stunning, vibrant, deeply moving movie beautifully balanced between mythmaking, comedy, action and emotion. As for the lack of ‘weight’ – he’s not supposed to be weighty, he’s the fucking Spider-Man! It plays exactly as it is intended to: the springiness is the point. If I wanted to pretend I was right first time, I could point to the mediocrity of James Franco, the hideous product placement, the distracting immobility of the Goblin’s face (and Spidey’s for that matter; when you have two masks talking to one another, it’s particularly undramatic), and the occasional intrusion of what we will come to recognise as The Marvel Style (or lack thereof). But as Twitter's @mildperil has said, the film is just so much more distinctive and unusual and affecting and thrilling than anything the MCU has ever done. It’s the sensitivity of Maguire’s performance – a pair of sad red eyes with a superhero attached. It’s Raimi injecting horror stylistics into the mix as he tussles for supremacy with the studio – and usually wins. It’s his innate understanding of iconography (Maguire ripping open his shirt while on the run, as Danny Elfman triumphantly blares), and the space he affords Dafoe to give a huge – but narrow – performance mixing pathos, menace and horror-ish ham. It's the way that the script plays around with expectation through its jokey cuts and delicate subversion – but never too much. It’s the relatively intimate scale of the story, which keeps it personal and human and direct, aided by Dunst’s perfect love interest. And it’s the fact that the action climax is done in 10 minutes, without the need to open a wormhole to another galaxy or destroy two-thirds of New York City. What a movie. Like I said, it’s rubbish.
2. The Nice Guys (Shane Black, 2016), which I liked on release, but thought outstayed its welcome. Not this time. It's Shane Black’s phenomenally entertaining buddy movie, with hired thug Russell Crowe and PI Ryan Gosling teaming up to search for a missing porn star in smog-filled late-‘70s LA. Occasionally too meta, with an overlong action climax and a plot that I still don’t understand, but honestly, who gives a shit? About as much fun as the movies have given us in the past decade. Now please make The Nicer Guys (2025) and The Nicest Guys (2028).
3. The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984) seemed thin and dated when I saw it as a teenager, but it was on pan-and-scan ex-rental VHS, and perhaps I was in the wrong mood too. It is, of course, your lean-and-mean sci-fi actioner, with its perfect premise, inspired use of Arnie, and Biehn’s frenzied B-movie intensity: so integral to the film, and so often overlooked. Cameron, then a veteran of just one film – Piranha II: The Spawning, from which he was fired – knits together the action in his instinctive and inimitable style. The rough edges, like Arnie’s rubber head, only add to the fun, though once the star finally exits to be replaced by a relatively scrawny metal skeleton, the film is conspicuously less scary, despite the shimmering imagination of that climactic crawl: its relentless grasping and panting evasion. The panicked synths, ominous drums and atonal honks of Brad Fiedel’s score are the coup de grâce.
THREE DOWN
1. The Wild One (László Benedek, 1953) – I hadn't seen this since I was a teenager. It was one of my favourite films back then, which makes me both fond of and appalled by my 14-year-old self. It is an exceptionally silly bikesploitation film, with Brando playing an alarmingly overage young hellraiser who leads his gang of hoodlums on a theoretical path of destruction, though their activities are for the most part hilariously anodyne. Like the Dead End Kids, their terrifying debauchery extends largely to repeating everything that the townsfolk say, in high-pitched voices, or pretending that a mop is some hair. Surely the only real threat here is that the people of small-town America might be irritated to death. Brando (demurring to do his own fights or riding) is anticipating Elvis a little, and providing plenty for James Dean to steal, but his particular genius almost entirely deserts him. It’s only in the closing 15 minutes – and especially that deeply touching final scene – that his brooding Johnny is anything more than a tedious, preening twat. The problem, partly, is that the film around him ties itself in knots, trying to appease every conceivable audience. Producer Stanley Kramer’s stock-in-trade was a shallow liberalism, but here he flirts with fascism – contrasting it only with vigilantism – by suggesting in the opening sequences that the only way to truly deter cowards like Johnny from causing mayhem is through a show of unwavering force. If the film later embraces some small degree of understanding, it's essentially posited as a next-best option, and even then only really applicable to special cases touched by the redemptive power of love. In support, a loud Lee Marvin gives perhaps the worst performance of his career, during that period where his principal role was to engage in informal sporting contests against Method actors (boxing Brando here; sprinting against Clift in the appalling Raintree County). There are a handful of neat shots employing chiaroscuro, Brando does his “Whaddaya got?” line (immediately ruined by a pointless, on-screen recap of what’s just happened), and Timothy Carey turns up to pull faces. But it is rarely other than an inescapably daft movie, and about as dangerous as dinner with your nan.
2. Young Mr. Lincoln (John Ford, 1939) – A folksy Fordian fantasy, with the Master printing the legend about the Great Emancipator’s formative years. Ford, and writer Lamar Trotti, are essentially revisiting – and reworking – their 1934 film, Judge Priest: both are movies about a lawyer, haunted by grief, who masks his wisdom and skill with eccentricity and stand-up comedy. Priest even faced down a lynch mob, as Abe does here, though the scene was cut from the earlier film for being too contentious, before being reinstated in Ford’s 1953 remake, The Sun Shines Bright. If I’m honest, Young Mr Lincoln didn’t strike me the same way at 38 as it did when I last saw it aged 21. In the interim, I’ve always thought of it rosily as one of Ford’s unassailable classics, but it isn’t quite that. The soundtrack is too busy, too noisy and ultimately too much (while Ford usually used music brilliantly, his producer Darryl F. Zanuck tended to over-score, leading to a notable battle over My Darling Clementine) and Trotti simply isn’t as good a writer as Frank Nugent. If in doubt he tends to lean towards corn, and the climax to his courtroom drama here simply isn’t convincing – or even plausible. But the film is inferior to the following year’s Abe Lincoln in Illinois, based on Robert Sherwood’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play, not because the latter is more faithful to the facts – thought it’s certainly that – but because Ford’s film is flawed in conception and construction, centring on one semi-interesting court case, and too often taking its focus off Abe. The times when it does work, in fact, are when it focuses tightly on its mythologised central figure, generally analogous in this director’s work to an American Jesus, and on the image and nascent iconography of this jacklegged, tufty-haired, big-hatted future president. Henry Fonda, wearing three hours’ worth of make-up including a false nose that makes him look like Gary Neville, hadn’t quite become Henry Fonda, but he makes a fair stab of inhabiting an Abe who was already in some integral way Lincoln. The film's three great moments all belong to him and Ford: a brilliant segue to winter (unfortunately accompanied by a cacophonous, doom-laden score) that finds Fonda, like so many of the director’s heroes, chatting quietly at a graveside; Abe’s silence as he stares at the river in the company of flutey socialite Mary Todd; and the final passage, in which he walks off alone, into a thunderstorm that represents the future.
3. Spider-Man 3 (Sam Raimi, 2007) – You win some, you lose some: just a couple of minutes ago, Raimi was buzzing; now he's crying. More's the point, I spent more than a decade claiming this was a better film than the original. I'm lucky someone didn't punch me in the face. The first thing to say is: "Three villains, Avi? Three? That’s insane." Fuck me, this is such a mess. A shallow, unnecessary, bloated, almost unremittingly sour sequel that trashes the first two films, systematically sullying their every perfect moment. If that makes it sound potentially intriguing – a darker, more mature work, perhaps: something akin to Return to Oz, which inverted the iconography of the beloved 1939 musical – then rest assured: it’s not. Because it’s also stupid. The film finds Peter ruined by fame: now an insufferably smug Spidey whose worst traits are about to be amplified by an alien symbiote. Meanwhile, an escaped murderer (Thomas Haden Church), a vengeful paparazzo ((chris)Topher Grace) and a resentful old friend (James Franco) brood and plot, encouraged by their new superpowers. Church’s Sandman is a handy example of exactly what has gone wrong here. While Dafoe and Molina’s villains could have been taken from old horror films – perhaps Karloff vehicles at Columbia – this storyline about a doting father trying to get the money for his daughter’s operation might have been lifted from a cloying Wallace Beery film made in the early days of the talkies. The Sandman is an impressive visual creation but we neither care about Church’s plight nor enjoy his villainy: his dialogue is the most functional and tedious imaginable, and there’s no fun in his malevolence. There’s the odd sequence in Spider-Man 3 that is really special: most notably a restaurant scene between a desperate Mary-Jane and an oblivious, supercilious Peter that plays like a Before Midnight outtake, if bafflingly spliced with 'Allo 'Allo-ish comedy from Bruce Campbell. And there are a few that are really fun: Raimi having a laugh as Peter struts down the street ogling appalled women; the JK Simmons bits; every action sequence until the final one. But they’re in the service of a film that is cloyingly sentimental, crashingly pointless and apparently endless, the action climax anticipating the MCU both in its self-satisfied, bromantic asides and the fact that it goes on for fucking ever. Directors are not necessarily the last word on their own work, but when Sam Raimi said in 2014 that this film was "awful", he was not wrong. Most damagingly, it threatens to cloud our memories of those earlier films. I’m going to just start pretending it doesn’t exist. “Spider-Man 3? Yeah, it was a shame that never got made.”
***
OBSESSIONS
1. 20th Century-Fox (1935-40) – Between its birth in May 1935 and the point in 1940 by which it had fully found its feet – with studio head Darryl F. Zanuck (pictured above) realising what Ty Power did best (buckling swashes in The Mark of Zorro), discovering Betty Grable (Down Argentine Way), and rediscovering his social conscience (The Grapes of Wrath) – Fox was a studio in a fascinating state of flux. This year, as research for a writing project, I've watched around 80 of these transitional films, and it has been such a rewarding, exciting, eye-opening, exhilarating, maddening, and occasionally slightly boring ride. What did we learn? That the mid-period Loretta Young could be superb on screen (and was ravishing in colour); that Zanuck's short rein on his writers produced a startling uniformity of worldview and story structure across Fox's films; and that the Ritz Brothers remain the single worst comic troupe ever inflicted on a barely-prepared populace. But those were only the first discoveries from this deepest of dives. Seeing the star-making machine in full effect; beginning to comprehend Hollywood as a factory town: these were privileges I didn't expect. People online refer to anything they are even mildly distracted by with the words, "i am obsessed!!", but in this instance I actually am obsessed.
2. Ty Power – As an offshoot from the above project, I have spent several pleasant evenings gazing at Tyrone Power's pretty face, sometimes in colour.
3. Kung fu films on the Eureka label – You keep releasing them, I'll keep buying them. Often this proves to be wise (Royal Warriors) and at other times I feel like I've been robbed (Burning Paradise). But on those evenings when the switch marked 'brain' needs to be flicked to 'off', they're frequently a godsend.
4. Noir – That world of shadows, shady dames, and wry PIs who are the wittiest guys in the room, but with no concept of the frame closing around them. Throw in bluff cops, returning soldiers, corporate slimeballs, drunken floozies and homoerotic heavies, and you have the makings of a good evening in. Criterion Channel's 'Holiday Noir' season has been a treat (including an offering from the cheapo Monogram studio in which a man ends up being sentenced to death after throwing his shoes at a cat), while Indicator are doing the Lord's work with their Columbia Noir and Universal Noir sets.
5. Movies about politics – Completing this year's genre triumvirate: give me a set-piece gently stylising the to-and-fro of a congressional hearing, or an ob-doc about political corruption in a senatorial race, and you can burn down my house in the next 100 minutes and I won't notice.
***
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, 23 December 2023
Tuesday, 19 December 2023
Review of 2023: Part 1 – Books
Dear friend,
I hope this blog finds you well. I traditionally like to kick off my review of the year by bragging about myself. So here's a selection of my best writing (and talking) from 2023, in the unlikely event that I haven't already beaten you about the head with it: 1. Film: On loving the movies, but hating the Oscars (for the i Paper)
2. Music: "There's something about feeling wonder": in conversation with Susanne Sundfør (for Line of Best Fit)
3. Film: On AI and the movies, including a chat with the great Larry Gross (for the i Paper)
4. Film: In praise of the sex scene (for the i Paper)
5. Music: Bonding with Big Thief's Buck Meek about how we muddled our way through divorces (for Line of Best Fit)
6. Film: 'I called him, but he gave me no answer' – the booklet essay for Indicator's Blu-ray of Song of Songs (Rouben Mamoulian, 1933)
7. Film: Speaking about On the Waterfront (pictured above) on Radio 3's The Sound of Cinema
8. Music: Effortless audacity – Big Thief on tour (just for this blog)
That done, let's proceed with the main business. This year's round-up of reading is likely to be an odd one, as so much of what I've ingested has been for research. By carefully studying this blog, you will be able to assemble, exactly, whatever it is that I'm so mysteriously working on, and, with a fair wind, get it to a publisher before me (I'm filing in June). But, beyond that possibility of untold riches, whether you want to read a blog discussing the minute differences between various oral histories of Hollywood and biographies of long-dead movie stars is entirely a matter for you. Here it is, anyway: everything I read in 2023, from Penelope Fitzgerald to P. G. Wodehouse, from dystopian fiction to the test cricket revolution, and from one book about the world of classic cinema to simply loads and loads of others.
FICTION

I hope this blog finds you well. I traditionally like to kick off my review of the year by bragging about myself. So here's a selection of my best writing (and talking) from 2023, in the unlikely event that I haven't already beaten you about the head with it: 1. Film: On loving the movies, but hating the Oscars (for the i Paper)
2. Music: "There's something about feeling wonder": in conversation with Susanne Sundfør (for Line of Best Fit)
3. Film: On AI and the movies, including a chat with the great Larry Gross (for the i Paper)
4. Film: In praise of the sex scene (for the i Paper)
5. Music: Bonding with Big Thief's Buck Meek about how we muddled our way through divorces (for Line of Best Fit)
6. Film: 'I called him, but he gave me no answer' – the booklet essay for Indicator's Blu-ray of Song of Songs (Rouben Mamoulian, 1933)
7. Film: Speaking about On the Waterfront (pictured above) on Radio 3's The Sound of Cinema
8. Music: Effortless audacity – Big Thief on tour (just for this blog)
That done, let's proceed with the main business. This year's round-up of reading is likely to be an odd one, as so much of what I've ingested has been for research. By carefully studying this blog, you will be able to assemble, exactly, whatever it is that I'm so mysteriously working on, and, with a fair wind, get it to a publisher before me (I'm filing in June). But, beyond that possibility of untold riches, whether you want to read a blog discussing the minute differences between various oral histories of Hollywood and biographies of long-dead movie stars is entirely a matter for you. Here it is, anyway: everything I read in 2023, from Penelope Fitzgerald to P. G. Wodehouse, from dystopian fiction to the test cricket revolution, and from one book about the world of classic cinema to simply loads and loads of others.
FICTION

Every year I read one of Penelope Fitzgerald's novels – and just one, since she started late in life and her works must be rationed – and every December I look back to discover that no other fiction left me with quite the same feeling. This year, it was The Gate of Angels (1990), a strange and haunting book about a junior fellow at a cramped Cambridge college, and the beaten-down, poverty-scarred nurse whom he decides to idealise after they're both involved in a freak bicycling accident. In terms of its story and characterisation, it perhaps isn't Fitzgerald's most consistent novel, though it's surely her most eerie, its touch of the supernatural intensifying during an unforgettable, self-contained ghost story, before gently infusing that heartstopping ending. Whenever her research threatens to outstay its welcome – the detail beginning to obscure the point – she will suddenly snap to an instance of heartbreak or off-kilter sentiment that reminds you you're in the hands of a genius, reflecting the extremities of life as if in the fragments of a smashed mirror. Her pan is about the deadest in literature.
The Hollywood years of literature's second best Fitzgerald – F. Scott – have given me the greatest of joys and the deepest of chills. His legendary-notorious 1932 story, Crazy Sunday, recounted a disastrous party at Irving Thalberg's house, and mined his pain for art, while unhelpfully immortalising Scott's image as the drunken liability of Tinseltown. He returned to the theme for his cynical, rather thin Pat Hobby Stories (1940-41), dealing with the endless machinations of an amoral former silent film scenarist trying to stay one step ahead of the game. These short stories, written for Esquire, are transparently the work of an alcoholic, not only in their eternal preoccupation with going for a drink, but in their wild swings between despondency and mania. They do, however, contain one of the greatest lines ever shoved into the mouth of a bristling screenwriter: "I wouldn't sell you the story of the Three Bears for five grand."

The Hollywood years of literature's second best Fitzgerald – F. Scott – have given me the greatest of joys and the deepest of chills. His legendary-notorious 1932 story, Crazy Sunday, recounted a disastrous party at Irving Thalberg's house, and mined his pain for art, while unhelpfully immortalising Scott's image as the drunken liability of Tinseltown. He returned to the theme for his cynical, rather thin Pat Hobby Stories (1940-41), dealing with the endless machinations of an amoral former silent film scenarist trying to stay one step ahead of the game. These short stories, written for Esquire, are transparently the work of an alcoholic, not only in their eternal preoccupation with going for a drink, but in their wild swings between despondency and mania. They do, however, contain one of the greatest lines ever shoved into the mouth of a bristling screenwriter: "I wouldn't sell you the story of the Three Bears for five grand."

Of course, these relatively trifling Hollywood diversions were just steps along the beach path to his last, aborted masterpiece, The Last Tycoon (1941). Its first-person approach is tortuous, with the perverse choice of narrator requiring Houdini-like feats of linguistic escapology; it's erratic; it isn't finished. But it is psychologically profound, deceptively complex and desperately moving, while suggesting an innate – though learnt – understanding of screenwriting and moviemaking that was generally considered to be beyond Scott when he was actually trying to write scripts (the jury, though, isn't so much 'out' as 'at war': much, much more of this in the 'non-fiction' section below). The Last Tycoon is full of magical passages, of romance that takes place on an elemental level far beneath the dialogue being exchanged, of Hollywood lore born of equal parts gold dust and pragmatism. What we were bequeathed, when Fitzgerald complained that he was feeling really quite unwell, before dropping dead of a heart attack at 44, was the first 60,000 words of a 50,000-word novel, covering around a half of the story. His outline of the remainder is in itself staggering, showing a literary mind that was still – or once again – firing, concerning itself with ideas of vast ambition, realised through mirroring, dramatic irony and startling clarity of character.
Of the other classic Hollywood novels, I found I Should Have Stayed Home (1938) rancidly irresistible. It's a nasty, brutal and short novel from the author of They Shoot Horses, Don't They, screenwriter Horace McCoy, in which losers meet other losers in Tinseltown, and everybody loses. It's existential and dialogue-heavy, studded with mere shards of action and atmosphere, and if its sourness comes close to self-parody, it leaves its mark. Budd Schulberg's notorious, million-selling What Makes Sammy Run? (1941) taps a similar vein but also fills in the surroundings. It is bristling, flavourful, compulsively readable and curiously one-note, fixated on all-time heel Sammy Glick as he beats a path to the top of Hollywood over the bodies of his contemporaries.

Of the other classic Hollywood novels, I found I Should Have Stayed Home (1938) rancidly irresistible. It's a nasty, brutal and short novel from the author of They Shoot Horses, Don't They, screenwriter Horace McCoy, in which losers meet other losers in Tinseltown, and everybody loses. It's existential and dialogue-heavy, studded with mere shards of action and atmosphere, and if its sourness comes close to self-parody, it leaves its mark. Budd Schulberg's notorious, million-selling What Makes Sammy Run? (1941) taps a similar vein but also fills in the surroundings. It is bristling, flavourful, compulsively readable and curiously one-note, fixated on all-time heel Sammy Glick as he beats a path to the top of Hollywood over the bodies of his contemporaries.

The contemporary books glancing back at the same subject have found an audience but didn't do much for me. Anthony Marra's Mercury Pictures Presents (2022) is clearly intended to be Kavalier & Clay in the world of Day of the Locust, but never feels authentic. While it's well-plotted and occasionally affecting, there's a smug glibness to its viewpoint – as if '40s cinema were just a thing to be mocked – and almost every joke (of which there are hundreds) seems laboriously reverse-engineered. Next to The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo (2017) by Taylor Jenkins Reid, though, it begins to resemble The Last Tycoon. Jenkins Reid can plot, sure, but apparently neglected to indulge in any research beyond skimming Rita Hayworth's Wikipedia page. At the sentence level, the book is just dreadful, full of people "reaching out", perhaps to ensure that no clichéd phrase remains unmolested. Those shortcomings are compounded by a stifling and self-immobilising political correctness that in society is fine, and in art is death. The author is also endlessly preoccupied with clothes and food in a way that, as a reader, I am not.
Were there a competition to crown the Daddy of the Distinctive Sentence, it may come down to a straight fight between Truman Capote and P. G. Wodehouse. And when I need to remove myself from the worries of the world, I curl up with a Wodehouse. He did maybe collaborate with the Nazis a little bit that time, but aside from that it's an uncomplicated pursuit that whisks me off to a happier place. This year I read four (which perhaps offers a clue as to the state of my mental health during these past 12 months). The first two were Jeeves and Wooster. Joy in the Morning (1946) isn't as funny as the previous novel, The Code of the Woosters, but then what is? It comes up short only in the plotting, seeming slightly forced in comparison. By the mid-'40s, his style was pretty much flawless, Wodehouse wringing laughs from every scenario with some inspired turn – and pacing – of phrase. There are a dozen laugh-out-loud moments in the book, though surely the biggest (on p. 283 of the Everyman edition) has Uncle Percy spotting the central flaw in Bertie's plan to placate Aunt Agatha. 'Joy' is right. The Mating Season (1949) is even better: a trifle inelegant in the sweep of the thing, but full of brilliant moments, both in the devising of its set-pieces and the turns of its language; the introduction of Catsmeat is simply one of the funniest passages I have ever read. The only sour note comes from Wodehouse's egregious and unconvincing attacks on a couple of old friends who'd criticised him for (accidentally?) collaborating with those German chaps, if you're puzzled by how preoccupied the author is with having a go at A. A. Milne.

Were there a competition to crown the Daddy of the Distinctive Sentence, it may come down to a straight fight between Truman Capote and P. G. Wodehouse. And when I need to remove myself from the worries of the world, I curl up with a Wodehouse. He did maybe collaborate with the Nazis a little bit that time, but aside from that it's an uncomplicated pursuit that whisks me off to a happier place. This year I read four (which perhaps offers a clue as to the state of my mental health during these past 12 months). The first two were Jeeves and Wooster. Joy in the Morning (1946) isn't as funny as the previous novel, The Code of the Woosters, but then what is? It comes up short only in the plotting, seeming slightly forced in comparison. By the mid-'40s, his style was pretty much flawless, Wodehouse wringing laughs from every scenario with some inspired turn – and pacing – of phrase. There are a dozen laugh-out-loud moments in the book, though surely the biggest (on p. 283 of the Everyman edition) has Uncle Percy spotting the central flaw in Bertie's plan to placate Aunt Agatha. 'Joy' is right. The Mating Season (1949) is even better: a trifle inelegant in the sweep of the thing, but full of brilliant moments, both in the devising of its set-pieces and the turns of its language; the introduction of Catsmeat is simply one of the funniest passages I have ever read. The only sour note comes from Wodehouse's egregious and unconvincing attacks on a couple of old friends who'd criticised him for (accidentally?) collaborating with those German chaps, if you're puzzled by how preoccupied the author is with having a go at A. A. Milne.

Since I'm keen not to read all the Jeeves books just yet, should the international news fail to improve, I headed off to Blandings. The first of that series, Something Fresh (1915), is early Wodehouse, so the prose isn't yet in full flight, and both the story and writing occasionally seem flat or laborious. It is, though, full of wonderful comic moments. That inadvertent duality is epitomised by the 'Wand of Death' sequence: an unbelievably funny situation which then involves its characters in the joke. Once they understand their interaction to be comic, thus revealing them as romantic juveniles rather than sympathetic laughing stocks, the gag is cosseted in warmth, and the humour evaporates. Leave It to Psmith (1923), which prior to 2018 was the most ambitious crossover event in history, finds Wodehouse's eccentric, garrulous, monocled socialist superhero invading the world of Blandings, the author's voice by now largely developed or discovered. It is like Something Fresh perfected: the story, about contrasting parties competing for a diamond necklace, is essentially the same, but it never drags or sags; it's as light as air.
Being an awful and adolescent snob, I imagined that Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (2022), being popular, would leave me cold. But being a book-lover and emotional sort who idealises the creative impulse, it knocked me sideways. It's a novel about work, love, friendship, computer games and chronic pain that creates a world as vividly as its characters do; those characters stayed with me for weeks afterwards. Some of its tangents feel a little too on-the-nose, but they're counterbalanced by timely thoughts – if couched in the acknowledgement of a certain reductivity – about how bastardised notions of 'appropriation' are the enemy of art – and of a shared humanity. Another book that got its claws into me was The Imposter (2024?), the work in progress by Rob Palk, a retrospective love story between two stand-up comics: one beset by guilt, the other dead. It's superb on mental illness, meat raffles and wild swimming, its characters stuck together by obsession, regret and the residue of oranges forever being peeled and eaten by its damaged and doomed hero. Presume it'll be coming out soonish, so that'll be nice.
I have really cool friends who buy me books for Christmas. Last year's windfall included Concerning My Daughter (2022) by Kim Hye-Jin, a spare, unsentimental book about old age and new worlds, told from the point of view of a care home worker who's terrified both of her impending obsolescence and the idea that her daughter is wasting her own life on futile protest and lesbianism. Its heroine is difficult, even dislikeable, Hye-Jin (and translator Jamie Chang) astutely relying on the reader's automatic identification with the narrator, before introducing changes that are either infinitesimal or imperfect. That transformation is beautifully judged, all the more affecting because it refuses to resort to simple answers or sweeping sentimentality, offering instead mere chinks of light and moments of partial catharsis.
The Christmas 2022 bonanza also included Emily St. John Mandel's Station Eleven (2014). “First we only want to be seen, but once we're seen, that's not enough anymore. After that, we want to be remembered.” This book raises up a world, in ruins, around you. And while its reveals, utilising a small cast of characters, sometimes feel more like coincidence than fatalism, it remains a dazzling feat of time-slip plotting. At the prose level, it’s uneven, hampered by some distracting tics and St. John Mandel’s tendency to overexplain small details, as if fighting the pedant in her head. But despite those issues, and an asexuality that feels almost perverse in a novel about the end of days, what lingers is the sheer feat of universe-building, the richness of her characterisation, and the deep love of civilisation – and particularly technology – that permeates her book. A post-apocalyptic vantage point proves the perfect one from which St. John Mandel can gaze with both wistfulness and an awestruck wonder at the mundane miracles of the 21st century.
I also read Daphne Du Maurier's Rebecca (1938) thanks to the intervention of a friend, as I'd forgotten my Kindle and didn't have anything for the train home. I quite liked it, though with reservations: is it ambivalent and ironic, or simply simplistic? Are its endless descriptions immersing or overwriting? Do we take its internalised excursions as deftly psychological or, in fact, slightly tedious? Perhaps if I'd gone in blind, rather than having seen Hitchcock's adaptation years ago, it would have tantalised me more, but then I knew the story of Jane Eyre (to which Du Maurier owes a vast and overdue debt) before I read that, and still felt the banging from the attic.
Corey Fah Does Social Mobility (2023) is another queer phantasmagoria from one of our most distinctive novelists, Isabel Waidner. It didn't give me quite the same feeling of euphoria and discovery as Sterling Karat Gold, but then subsequent novels rarely do (if I'd read Roth's other historical Newark novels before American Pastoral, would that still be the one I laud and fetishise?). This one features an insectoid Bambi, a psychotic Thumper, and a time-slipped Joe Orton, who escapes his violent death to host a furious, debunking talk show, all of that the riotous collage through which our working-class novelist hero wanders, trying to literally capture the trophy that will let them graduate to the book-tour circuit.

Being an awful and adolescent snob, I imagined that Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow (2022), being popular, would leave me cold. But being a book-lover and emotional sort who idealises the creative impulse, it knocked me sideways. It's a novel about work, love, friendship, computer games and chronic pain that creates a world as vividly as its characters do; those characters stayed with me for weeks afterwards. Some of its tangents feel a little too on-the-nose, but they're counterbalanced by timely thoughts – if couched in the acknowledgement of a certain reductivity – about how bastardised notions of 'appropriation' are the enemy of art – and of a shared humanity. Another book that got its claws into me was The Imposter (2024?), the work in progress by Rob Palk, a retrospective love story between two stand-up comics: one beset by guilt, the other dead. It's superb on mental illness, meat raffles and wild swimming, its characters stuck together by obsession, regret and the residue of oranges forever being peeled and eaten by its damaged and doomed hero. Presume it'll be coming out soonish, so that'll be nice.
I have really cool friends who buy me books for Christmas. Last year's windfall included Concerning My Daughter (2022) by Kim Hye-Jin, a spare, unsentimental book about old age and new worlds, told from the point of view of a care home worker who's terrified both of her impending obsolescence and the idea that her daughter is wasting her own life on futile protest and lesbianism. Its heroine is difficult, even dislikeable, Hye-Jin (and translator Jamie Chang) astutely relying on the reader's automatic identification with the narrator, before introducing changes that are either infinitesimal or imperfect. That transformation is beautifully judged, all the more affecting because it refuses to resort to simple answers or sweeping sentimentality, offering instead mere chinks of light and moments of partial catharsis.
The Christmas 2022 bonanza also included Emily St. John Mandel's Station Eleven (2014). “First we only want to be seen, but once we're seen, that's not enough anymore. After that, we want to be remembered.” This book raises up a world, in ruins, around you. And while its reveals, utilising a small cast of characters, sometimes feel more like coincidence than fatalism, it remains a dazzling feat of time-slip plotting. At the prose level, it’s uneven, hampered by some distracting tics and St. John Mandel’s tendency to overexplain small details, as if fighting the pedant in her head. But despite those issues, and an asexuality that feels almost perverse in a novel about the end of days, what lingers is the sheer feat of universe-building, the richness of her characterisation, and the deep love of civilisation – and particularly technology – that permeates her book. A post-apocalyptic vantage point proves the perfect one from which St. John Mandel can gaze with both wistfulness and an awestruck wonder at the mundane miracles of the 21st century.
I also read Daphne Du Maurier's Rebecca (1938) thanks to the intervention of a friend, as I'd forgotten my Kindle and didn't have anything for the train home. I quite liked it, though with reservations: is it ambivalent and ironic, or simply simplistic? Are its endless descriptions immersing or overwriting? Do we take its internalised excursions as deftly psychological or, in fact, slightly tedious? Perhaps if I'd gone in blind, rather than having seen Hitchcock's adaptation years ago, it would have tantalised me more, but then I knew the story of Jane Eyre (to which Du Maurier owes a vast and overdue debt) before I read that, and still felt the banging from the attic.
Corey Fah Does Social Mobility (2023) is another queer phantasmagoria from one of our most distinctive novelists, Isabel Waidner. It didn't give me quite the same feeling of euphoria and discovery as Sterling Karat Gold, but then subsequent novels rarely do (if I'd read Roth's other historical Newark novels before American Pastoral, would that still be the one I laud and fetishise?). This one features an insectoid Bambi, a psychotic Thumper, and a time-slipped Joe Orton, who escapes his violent death to host a furious, debunking talk show, all of that the riotous collage through which our working-class novelist hero wanders, trying to literally capture the trophy that will let them graduate to the book-tour circuit.

I was left beguiled, tormented and unsatisfied by Barry Unsworth's Losing Nelson (1999), in which an amateur historian loses his mind while trying to coming to terms with mounting evidence of Admiral Lord Nelson's duplicity and dishonour in the city of Naples. It's a triumph of voice, and of historical research, with a startling premise and moments of astonishing impact, but every other character is a caricature (which one suspects is not entirely intentional) and the climax feels both desperately forced and almost unkind in its nihilism. Another book I'd long wanted to read, and am now mildly sulky about, is Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit (1985) by Jeanette Winterson. For a while, it is dazzingly effective: glorious first-person narration, a vivid world, hilarious jokes, off-kilter romance... then suddenly it runs out of energy, its impact endlessly diluted by fantasy sequences that simply anticipate or repeat the central story in an alternate world of sledgehammer-light symbolism. There is something so special here, it just isn't sustained.
My forays into the world of Edith Wharton, meanwhile, smacked into Summer (1917). I'd struggled to imagine how a Wharton book wouldn't work, and with this, and The Custom of the Country, now I know. That one was glib and overly comic, this one is laborious and long-winded, appearing to go on forever, despite being a novella. She called it 'hot Ethan', regarding it as a companion piece to her immortal Ethan Frome, but it isn't in the same league. There are, at least, moments of beautiful brutality, and the exquisite pain of that climactic letter.
During previous explorations of middle-grade fiction, I became somewhat enamoured of Stuart Gibbs' Spy School books, and have taken to picking up the latest one whenever it comes out, a tradition I may now abandon, as Spy School: Project X (2022) was no good at all, a curiously mean-spirited book in which barely any of the (broad, overexplained) jokes landed. The series' strong suit used to be its recourse to genuine emotion, but, somewhere along the way, that too has turned phony. It is for 10 year olds, but they deserve good books too, and Gibbs has written several of them.
***
NON-FICTION
My favourite non-fiction book of the year was Anahit Behrooz's BFFs: The Radical Potential of Female Friendship (2023). It's the only thing I've read in the past 12 months that caused shifts in my thinking. Anahit has been about my favourite writer on film for a while, and here widens the scope and deepens the vision, seeing with such clarity, and writing with such originality and tactility. If I've got you a Christmas present this year, it may well be this. Not sure if I mentioned that I'm actually a feminist actually?
I'll break down the rest of the non-fic by theme...
Books about movies
There has rarely been a moment in 2023 when I have not had a Hollywood history in my hand. The following is everything I've read cover-to-cover, I'll spare you the other 80 books that have, in one way or another, so far assisted The Opus.
Perhaps the greatest of the lot was Tom Dardis's Some Time in the Sun (1975), an astonishing book essaying the Hollywood years of Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Huxley, Nathanael West and James Agee. It's revisionist history of the best sort, positing that Fitzgerald's drunken downfall amid the dream factories is largely a myth that obscures a period of financial security and ultimate creative rebirth. Dardis digs into the unpublished scripts to explain how Fitzgerald faultered when faced with the peculiar restrictions of screenwriting, and suggests that the notorious changes made to Scott's Three Comrades by Joe Mankiewicz ("Monkeybitch", in Fitzgerald's petulant term) were more like good sense. The other studies are every bit as fascinating, until a somewhat fawning section on Agee, who seems a limited figure in comparison with such literary bedfellows, though arguably had more success on screen. The view of Agee's scripts shows how Dardis is in some ways hamstrung by the received wisdom of the era in which he is writing: he piles praise upon The African Queen, which in 1975 was still regarded as a masterpiece, though thankfully its exalted reputation has been brought down a peg or two since. By contrast, the reputation of The Night of the Hunter, a flop on release, was still in the toilet; it is only in recent decades that Laughton's movie has been reappraised as one of the great pictures of its period. In keeping with mid-'70s conformity, Dardis is generally dismissive of genre fare (especially cheap B-movies), overlooking various no-budget Republic gems, while praising Huxley's dreadful script for Pride and Prejudice, perhaps the most incompetent bastardisation of a great novel perpetrated on the public during the Golden Age. His strong opinions, though, while conventional, are clearly sincere, and detract from neither the fun nor fascination of this superb study.
Aaron Latham's spectacular Crazy Sundays: Scott Fitzgerald in Hollywood (1971) is the perfect companion read, delving even deeper into Scott, while diverging significantly from Dardis's conclusions. It's an expanded dissertation but unbelievably readable, while exhibiting dizzying levels of scholarship. The book gets inside Fitzgerald's head and his talent, making a compelling case for his being a gifted – and ever-improving – screenwriter, explaining his complex approach to screen story, his developing understanding of the medium, and the transformation in his conception of female characters, from women of capricious passivity to people of practical action. Crazy Sundays is full of extraordinary insights, mining the subject's novels and stories for unguarded autobiography, and expanding the focus way beyond what you might expect. While discussion of Fitzgerald's 'Hollywood period' typically refers to the last four years of his life, Crazy Sundays goes way back: first to his days as a student dramatist, then through his lesser-known Hollywood flirtations – attempts to become a silent screen scenarist, leading man (!) and early-talkie dialogue writer – before exploring his fluctuating fortunes throughout his final stand.

Another unmissable book for fans of Hollywood screenwriting, and associated lore, is Scoundrels and Spitballers (1996, trans. 2020) by Philippe Garnier. Yes, he prioritises the hedonist, and the boozy, broken, self-pitying man – Rowland Brown, Charles Burnett, Buzz Bezzerides – but the results are vivid and quite outrageously entertaining, full of untold stories and revelatory details. The format is amusingly odd: a series of barely-connected profiles, mostly of writers, but also of a restaurant (the Brown Derby), a magazine (STORY) and a bookshop (Stanley Rose's). And Garnier has a vast knowledge of his subject: both the literary landscape (including the inevitable H. L. Mencken) and the films, supplemented by diligent research in the Warner archive. The only debits: no index, and the occasionally tortuous (or repetitious) translation.
There were two other good books about screenwriters. Backstory 1: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age (1986) by Patrick McGilligan offers tales from the frontline: interviews with 14 of the studio-era's best screenwriters, encompassing celebrated wits both urban (Julius Epstein) and refined (Donald Ogden Stewart), the greatest husband-and-wife team in pictures (Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett) and a 'constructionist' (Richard Bennett), whose job was to map out the story, not prettify the language. There's a little vintage gossip, alongside some unwitting insights, from John Lee Mahin's lack of remorse about the communist witchhunt to Richard Maibaum's self-serving curation of his own chapter, though its greatest value is its simplest one, as a portrait of an underexamined class still variously proud of its achievements, chasing generation-old credits or smarting about the movie that might have been. Lizzie Francke's Script Girls: Women Screenwriters in Hollywood (1994) is also a collection of insightful, largely representational case studies, this time recounting the experiences of female screenwriters from 1910 to the period of publication, and analysing their output through a feminist lens. I found the later chapters particularly interesting, both because more of the material was new to me, and because many of Francke's most distinctive and intriguing subjects were available for interview. The book isn't intended as a comprehensive history, and it also somewhat overlooks '30s writers who did extraordinary work within rigid parameters, but it's thoughtful, righteously angry and full of valuable detail. It gave me a long list of films and scripts to explore; I'm especially intrigued by Clair Noto's The Tourist, a near-mythic, unproduced sci-fi screenplay from 1980. I'd be fascinated to know what Francke makes of the 30 years since she wrote the book.
The year's nichest and nerdiest reading (by anyone, not merely by me) was surely How to Write and Sell Film Stories (1938) by the legendary, vaguely over-praised screenwriter Frances Marion. If you are a freelance writer from 1938 looking to find out how to write and sell a film story, then boy do I have the book for you.

There were two other good books about screenwriters. Backstory 1: Interviews with Screenwriters of Hollywood’s Golden Age (1986) by Patrick McGilligan offers tales from the frontline: interviews with 14 of the studio-era's best screenwriters, encompassing celebrated wits both urban (Julius Epstein) and refined (Donald Ogden Stewart), the greatest husband-and-wife team in pictures (Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett) and a 'constructionist' (Richard Bennett), whose job was to map out the story, not prettify the language. There's a little vintage gossip, alongside some unwitting insights, from John Lee Mahin's lack of remorse about the communist witchhunt to Richard Maibaum's self-serving curation of his own chapter, though its greatest value is its simplest one, as a portrait of an underexamined class still variously proud of its achievements, chasing generation-old credits or smarting about the movie that might have been. Lizzie Francke's Script Girls: Women Screenwriters in Hollywood (1994) is also a collection of insightful, largely representational case studies, this time recounting the experiences of female screenwriters from 1910 to the period of publication, and analysing their output through a feminist lens. I found the later chapters particularly interesting, both because more of the material was new to me, and because many of Francke's most distinctive and intriguing subjects were available for interview. The book isn't intended as a comprehensive history, and it also somewhat overlooks '30s writers who did extraordinary work within rigid parameters, but it's thoughtful, righteously angry and full of valuable detail. It gave me a long list of films and scripts to explore; I'm especially intrigued by Clair Noto's The Tourist, a near-mythic, unproduced sci-fi screenplay from 1980. I'd be fascinated to know what Francke makes of the 30 years since she wrote the book.
The year's nichest and nerdiest reading (by anyone, not merely by me) was surely How to Write and Sell Film Stories (1938) by the legendary, vaguely over-praised screenwriter Frances Marion. If you are a freelance writer from 1938 looking to find out how to write and sell a film story, then boy do I have the book for you.

Of the various volumes I read about Fox, by far the finest was Memo from Darryl F. Zanuck: The Golden Years at Twentieth Century Fox (1993), in which editor Rudy Belhmer assembles a collection of inter-office studio memos dating from the early '30s to the mid-'60s, held in various archives around the world. Perhaps contrary to your expectations, this proves to be one of the most invigorating spectacles imaginable, taking you within the very walls of Twentieth at its zenith, and evoking the production side of life at the studio like little else. It's like a great novel told in postmodern style, a story of technological change, rampant ego and sporadic creative brilliance, with a cast of incidental characters so improbably eclectic that it verges on the surreal.
There are several more straightforward histories dealing with the same subject, of which the most compelling is George F. Custen's Twentieth Century's Fox: Darryl F. Zanuck and the Culture of Hollywood (1997). If it's somewhat messy in construction – dealing with Zanuck's career largely chronologically until the foundation of his major studio, before breaking into thematic chapters more concerned with socio-political meaning – and is based on rather over-familiar sources, Custen is a remarkably clear-eyed and fair-minded (Marxist) chronicler, whose astute analysis of where his subject dared to be different, and where he didn't, feels close to definitive. And while his argument that DFZ was the true author of John Ford films like The Grapes of Wrath and How Green Was My Valley feels like a stretch, it's also a useful corrective to the auteurist overreach that tends to dominate film discourse today. Zanuck's name is virtually forgotten in 2023, but he shaped – perhaps even dictated – how America saw itself, and how it dreamt, for four decades. In comparison, Peter Lev's Twentieth Century-Fox: The Zanuck-Skouras Years, 1935-65 (2013) is conspicuously dry, if at least having a USP by focusing so much on the (far less interesting) New York office/exhibition side of the studio. 20th Century-Fox: Darryl F. Zanuck and the Creation of the Modern Film Studio (2021) was another Scott Eyman book from the “will this do?” school of film history, a chronological, surface-level regurgitation of secondary sources, easy to read but lacking any panache, full of irrelevant asides, and in need of an editor who can spot the author’s tendency to repeat himself, sometimes within the same paragraph.

By contrast, Twentieth Century Fox: A Century of Entertainment (2016) by Michael Troyan, Stephen X. Sylvester and Jeffrey Thompson was absolutely invaluable for my barely-mysterious purposes, the next best thing to strolling around the Fox lot in 1937, and stuffed full of the most extraordinary insights. Its only shortcoming is one common to almost all corporate biographies: the necessity to lionise beancounters or bastards, in this case Rupert Murdoch.There are several more straightforward histories dealing with the same subject, of which the most compelling is George F. Custen's Twentieth Century's Fox: Darryl F. Zanuck and the Culture of Hollywood (1997). If it's somewhat messy in construction – dealing with Zanuck's career largely chronologically until the foundation of his major studio, before breaking into thematic chapters more concerned with socio-political meaning – and is based on rather over-familiar sources, Custen is a remarkably clear-eyed and fair-minded (Marxist) chronicler, whose astute analysis of where his subject dared to be different, and where he didn't, feels close to definitive. And while his argument that DFZ was the true author of John Ford films like The Grapes of Wrath and How Green Was My Valley feels like a stretch, it's also a useful corrective to the auteurist overreach that tends to dominate film discourse today. Zanuck's name is virtually forgotten in 2023, but he shaped – perhaps even dictated – how America saw itself, and how it dreamt, for four decades. In comparison, Peter Lev's Twentieth Century-Fox: The Zanuck-Skouras Years, 1935-65 (2013) is conspicuously dry, if at least having a USP by focusing so much on the (far less interesting) New York office/exhibition side of the studio. 20th Century-Fox: Darryl F. Zanuck and the Creation of the Modern Film Studio (2021) was another Scott Eyman book from the “will this do?” school of film history, a chronological, surface-level regurgitation of secondary sources, easy to read but lacking any panache, full of irrelevant asides, and in need of an editor who can spot the author’s tendency to repeat himself, sometimes within the same paragraph.

I read six biographies of Fox stars. Certainly the most memorable, though only fitfully successful, was Fred Lawrence Guiles's Tyrone Power: The Last Idol (1979), detailing how the Irish-French-American Power, heir to a great acting dynasty, struggled to extricate himself from life as Hollywood's greatest pin-up. In its early chapters, it is deft, evocative and strikingly-structured, though despite instances of impressive access, including a wealth of insights from letters, Power's first wife (French actress Annabella) and best friend (cutter Watson Webb), it does ultimately degenerate into a disjointed and facile mess, hampered by erratic research and increasingly lazy writing. Often Guiles will suddenly inform you that (apparently contrary to everything you've just been reading), Power had been either bereft or delirious with happiness for quite some time. Taken in totality, the biog gives you a fair picture of its good-natured, weak-willed and fickle subject, while slightly skimping on the screen work, devoting vastly more time to his romances (three marriages; torrid affairs with Judy Garland and Lana Turner) and social obligations than to his films. Its great virtues are its periodic sucker punches. Near the close, Annabella's unposted letter to her ex-husband is employed at just the right moment, and I still haven't quite recovered.

Foxy Lady: The Authorised Biography of Lynn Bari (2010) by Jeff Gordon is a detailed biography of the Fox contract player, with a neat gimmick: its standard chronological narrative is studded with chunks of oral history from interviews conducted with the subject not long before her death. It's a familiar story of ambition, compromised success and alcoholism, though Bari tends to be more honest about her various flaws than her adoring and enthusiastically mitigating Boswell. In Alice Faye: A Life Beyond the Silver Screen (2002), author Jane Lenz Elder tackles the life of the actor and songstress who dared tell 20th Century-Fox to shove it, after they slashed her first true dramatic performance to ribbons. But either Faye's life beyond that moment of melodrama wasn't terribly interesting or (more likely) her passion for privacy makes her a hard figure to chronicle or know. There are a few insights from friends (as well as one revelation about hemmorhoids), but too much of this hagiography comes from old newspaper reports, and the author's desire to portray Faye's later life as just as interesting as her Hollywood years is a curious one, since she doesn't really seem to have done anything except for a mediocre radio sitcom and some presentations for Pfizer. Child Star: An Autobiography (1988) is Shirley Temple's rather tiresome memoir: the most extraordinary of lives rendered in rather a catty, superficial way, complete with broadly regressive politics and the endless idealising of her stage mother. The overriding impression is that she is not a particularly nice person, but not in an entertaining way. Gregory William Mank's Laird Cregar: A Hollywood Tragedy (2018) is well-researched and admirably impassioned but also amateurish and disjointed, with endless irrelevant tangents (at one point, a potted biography of Stephen Fry, who was born 13 years after Cregar died), and anecdotes from the author's own life possessed of dubious mystical overtones. Mank also sees everything through the prism of horror cinema and Hal Roach (just as I see everything through the competing filters of The Magnificent Ambersons, HUAC and Darryl F. Zanuck).
If you like the Ritz Brothers, you might feel a little short-changed that in The Ritz Brothers: The Films, Television Shows and Other Career Highlights of the Famous Comedy Trio (2021), author Roy Leibam rarely dwells in detail on the trio's routines. As I can’t fucking stand them, I found the book’s focus on script notes and production detail very welcome. Some Ritz fans (and these do, reportedly, still exist) have complained that the author dwells too much on the criticisms of contemporary viewers. My issue is slightly different: these bloggers are regularly quoted but never by name (always just ‘modern-day commentator’), which isn’t merely cheeky but kind of... inexplicable. Liebman's approach is also somewhat piecemeal and peculiar – one appendix deals with other cinematic versions of The Three Musketeers!? – an aspect that may further frustrate aficionados, but since these people enjoy watching the Ritz Brothers, who knows what they're thinking.
Two other books gave an insight into key creative personnel at Fox. Take Two (1980) are the memoirs of screenwriter Philip Dunne, who adapted How Green Was My Valley and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, was involved in virtually every liberal cause of his day (which he would then sort-of-stand-up-for-but-not-really, invariably resulting in some kind of pissweak compromise), and here makes a solid bid for the Humblebragging Championship of the World. His book is occasionally funny, occasionablly admirable, and a good source of detail about life on the Fox lot. It is also unbearably smug, which coming from me is really saying something. Mamoulian: Life on Stage and Screen (2012) by David Luhrssen is a short but illuminating and highly-readable biog, focusing on the work of the great Russian-Armenian director, who debuted Porgy and Bess, and Oklahoma! on Broadway, revolutionised early-talkie cinema, and did The Mark of Zorro and Blood and Sand at Twentieth, before being fired from Laura and Cleopatra during a farcical final 20 years of his career that resulted in more sackings (three) than movies (two). There's much more about Mamoulian in my Song of Songs essay.
Widening the focus to Hollywood as a whole, Hollywood: The Movie Colony, the Movie Makers (1941) is the only sociological study of Tinseltown at its zenith. Author Leo C. Rosten's conceit is that these much-maligned arrivistes are rather benign, compared to captains of industry or the old-moneyed aristocracts of the East. If he somewhat labours that point, the statistical research remains an invaluable resource, and the surrounding report is written with a dash of panache and the odd piercingly perceptive point. His observation that happiness in Hollywood film consists of a woman arriving in an apartment, weighed down with packages, is perhaps the most dead-eyed takedown of Golden Age cinema ever committed to paper. In Gone Hollywood: The Movie Colony in the Golden Age (1979), Christopher Finch and Linda Rosenkrantz explicitly try to do something similar to Rosten: the sociology of the star system, but their efforts are culled largely from fan magazines, and grouped A-Z by nebulous theme. The results are only sporadically engaging, with many of the details appearing decidedly apocryphal.
I read a couple of oral histories dealing with the film industry. In the swaggeringly-titled Hollywood: The Oral History (2022), historians Jeanne Basinger and Sam Wasson splice and dice 10,000 hours of interviews conducted by the American Film Institute since 1969, as they chart Hollywood's evolution from a ramshackle start-up in an orange grove to the agent-dominated industry of today. More than half the book deals with the studio era, and those sections are easily the best, particularly when giving a voice to largely neglected figures, like staff writers, cameramen and make-up artists. The detail they share, mundane yet lightly magical, is fascinating. Even some of the bigger, more widely-interviewed names have new insights to share: director Frank Capra (who made Harry Langdon's biggest hits) provides a brilliantly incisive reading of the big four silent comics. There is, however, an obvious flaw in the authors' approach: the AFI's interviewees are – by definition – history's winners; as a result they are overwhelmingly complimentary about people such as the studio executives, whereas those who were trampled or ruined by Mayer et al remain voiceless. Elsewhere, a simpler issue afflicts the book: interest ebbs and flows. The silent film sections are fairly short and shallow (and somehow manage to spell Allan Dwan's name wrong throughout), but it's when we get onto New Hollywood, and beyond, that the book falls apart, in a blizzard of barely-connected anecdotes, followed by some stunningly dull material about deal-making. Perhaps that's the point: that a mighty beast was ripped to pieces, and the vultures moved in – that once it was at least partly about art – but this might have been brought to life in a less tedious way. Still, there's lots here to enjoy for Golden Age nerds, even if as a book it doesn't quite hang together. The Glamour Factory (1993) does the same thing markedly less well, perhaps because it's based on the oral history collection of the Southern Methodist University. The perplexing subtitle, 'Inside Hollywood's Big Studio System' (why 'big'?) betrays the fact that this history might be somewhat superficial, and though once more it's broken down by department, the material therein is dictated almost entirely by what happens to be contained in one fairly obscure archive. There's little that's new here, unless you're a novice.
Zoning in again, Behind the Screen: How Lesbians and Gays Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969 (2001) is a groundbreaking, virtually definitive study of its subject from Tinseltown author, and Billy Haines biographer, William J. Mann. He deals with changes in cinematic and social culture, the phenomenon of 'queer work', and the key gay figures of an extraordinary era. While at times the resulting pen portraits descend into formula, Mann has the knowledge, instinct and incisiveness to find the through lines that make it atter.
Finally on the studio era, Camera Over Hollywood (1939) is an unforgettable photographic chronicle from John Swope, simultaneously deglamourising and mythologising its factory town.
And finally, on film, I managed to read a book that perversely didn't mention Barbara Stanwyck even once: Empire editor Nick de Semlyen's The Last Action Heroes (2023), a zippy, extremely funny chronicle of the '80s action boom. Highlights for me were the delightful vignette about how a Chuck Norris character seduces a date, and the recounting of Steven Seagal's still-notorious appearance on Saturday Night Live. I am always perplexed that anyone would like Sylvester Stallone, either on screen or off it, but the enthusiasm here for both the artform and its practitioners is contagious.
Books about history and politics
The pick this year was Doppelganger by Naomi Klein (2023), which is admittedly unfocused but also entertaining, original, provocative and incisively intelligent. In it, Klein uses her nemesis, conspiracy theorist Naomi Wolf, as the springboard to enter 'the mirror world', and investigate personal brands, the rise of fascism, and the justifications for Israeli violence (uh-oh). Along the way, she explains the ‘diagonalism’ that drew together Neo-Nazis and wellness influencers, and does a superb job of articulating and explaining the way that the far-right – and the literal elite – have co-opted the language and postures of the progressive left. Seeing that written down, so clearly and smartly, felt like sweet relief after years of being gaslit to oblivion.
I also enjoyed American Heiress: The Wild Saga of the Kidnapping, Crimes and Trial of Patty Hearst (2016), by noted lawyer and video-conference masturbator, Jeffrey Toobin (I'm sorry to mention that, Jeffrey, but if you hadn't done it, that would have solved that problem). It's fast-moving, balanced, clear and fairly clear-eyed, though given that its author's specialty is legal procedure, it deals with the trial altogether too briefly. Toobin's casual misogyny is also slightly off-putting, but not as off-putting as when he wanked on that Zoom call.
As regular readers of these reviews of years will know, I am an absolute pervert for a presidential biography. This year, that kink was sated by Bob Spitz's Reagan: An American Journey by Bob Spitz (2018). The main strength – and weakness – of the book is its disorientatingly intimate focus. We get a reasonable portrait of the human at its centre – patriotic, sentimental, limited, incurious and naive – but at times almost forget about the world he’s inhabiting, the scale of his influence, the importance of his every action on ordinary people’s lives. If you’re looking for a race through Reagan’s life, from poverty to Hollywood to General Electric to the governor’s chair and finally the presidency, it does the job. We get a sense of how his mind and his presidency worked – through snap emotive judgements based on short memos, letters from the public or things he’d read in the Reader’s Digest – a colourful tour of the high and low points, and a primer on his presidential advisers and their various rivalries. But the book is far more interested in things that are easy to write about – those internal wranglings, the Gorbachev summits and some whizzbang terrorist stories – than those that aren’t. The actual impact of Reaganism – the economic transformation of America caused by the largest upwards redistribution of wealth in history – is largely unexamined, and yet may be the most important element of all. There are also some fairly common shortcomings for the genre: a propensity to side with those he’s interviewed against those he hasn’t, a fondness for pretentious quotations at the start of chapters, some crashingly clumsy segues and a fair few avoidable errors (particularly in the Hollywood section).
I also read a book about people trying to blow up Reagan's best mate: Rory Carroll's Killing Thatcher (2023), which deals with the Brighton Bombing, and made the Times's list of the year's best history books. It's extremely well-researched, with an access to typically secretive sources at which one can only marvel, but that research is often showing, to the degree that you can trace the author's own journey as clearly as you can his actual narrative. And while it's strong on context, at times you just want it to focus on the story you paid for and deliver as the real-thriller we'd been promised, with the propulsion and explosiveness that implies. Its gallery of characters is certainly colourful, though a lot of writers of contemporary history appear to have caught Benmacintyreitis, in which humans are reduced to between one and three eccentric traits, hammered away at interminably.
Books about sport
After the intense excitement of this year's snooker world championship (you don't know, man, you weren't there), I scooted back to 1985-6 with Pocket Money (1986), Gordon Burn's journalistic chronicle of a season, which vividly captures a time and place during the sport's boom era. At first it's overly preoccupied with financials and merchandising, and thereafter still a little too fixated on Thatcherite entrepreneur Barry Hearn, but it's also erudite, atmospheric and full of deft portraits and telling details. As history, of a sort, unfolds: you're there.
And since so much of what I want to do in life involves either reading or being at the test match, Lawrence Booth and Nick Hoult's Bazball: The Inside Story of a Test Cricket Revolution (2023) seemed just right for me. Its curious structure, hopping about between this year's Ashes, a chronological narrative and a themed approach, leads to some repetition and the periodic fumbling of epic moments (particularly Bairstow's redemption at Trent Bridge) in a way that a simpler narrative might have avoided. But it offers amazing access, crisp writing, and the chance to relive two of the best – and most exhilarating – cricketing summers in living memory; even the dry stats just set the heart racing. That excitement is neatly counteracted by the melancholy contributions of Ben Foakes, one of the Bazball era's few losers due to his vaguely more pragmatic instincts, his undeserved pain leaving a mark.
This year's Ashes inspired plenty of talk about the 'spirit of cricket', so it was nice to read Simon Rae's It’s Not Cricket (2001), subtitled, "Skullduggery, Sharp Practice and Downright Cheating in the Noble Game", and be reassured that such a spirit does not, and has never, existed. The book is essentially a catalogue of appalling, immoral and dangerous behaviour on a cricket pitch, and just as enjoyable and ultimately shallow as that sounds. Ian Botham: The Power and the Glory (2011) by Simon Wilde, deals with one of the fabled Ashes heroes of decades past, but is never anything more than basically functional, failing to capture much of the excitement of his rise or the clumsiness of his fall.
Books about Dorothy Parker, Prince Harry or crypto
This section is always a popular one. Marion Meade's Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This? (1987) is a fine biography of the funniest person who has ever lived. And if Parker, to misquote Oscar Wilde, put much of her genius into drunken quips at drunken parties, she also wrote good verse, great short stories and some of the best non-fiction of the 20th century. All of it was touched with her excoriating, innocent-eyed wit. In her first ever theatre review for Vanity Fair, she refused to name the creative team behind the production because she didn't "want to tell on them". Her tossed-off telegrams to Robert Benchley, whether about New Year or the public pronouncements of Herbert Hoover, are astonishingly clever. And even when the work was failing, the wit was not: during her ill-fated sojourn in Hollywood, she lent out of the window of a writers' building, yelling at passers-by, "Let me out of here, I'm as sane as the rest of you!" Meade's book is incredibly readable, if a little monotonous in its second half; but then so was Parker's life. The biographer certainly gets close to the heart of her difficult, brilliant subject. Damaged by grief, half-destroyed by drinking, Parker was capable of rare but extraordinary generosity of spirit: spending more than a year with friends as they cared for a child sick with TB; organising endless events to raise funds for refugees during the Spanish Civil War; leaving her estate to Martin Luther King and the NAACP. She was also almost pathologically ungrateful, caustic and unkind. If her humour came from the same place, she appeared unaware that you could still do that and be a good person on your own time. Her friendship with Benchley shows both sides of that character: it was astonishingly touching, and then it soured horribly. This book skimps a little in its treatment of the work, and remains curiously preoccupied with the nefariousness and deceit of Lillian Hellman (Parker's frenemy and will-executor), but as a portrait of the person, her sentimentality and savagery, it could scarcely be improved upon.
I had, somewhat unexpectedly, both the prurient desire to read Spare (2022) by Prince Harry, and then a large number of thoughts once I had done so. And what a strange, unhappy book it is: full of self-pity, lacking in self-awareness. Interest ebbs and flows, the collision between a man and his ghostwriter frequently more interesting than the events they are describing. And yet the tragedy at the book’s centre: that of a boy losing his mum, and simply being unable to deal with it, as his life is disfigured by tradition and a deeply unwell media, is genuinely upsetting, and a story eminently worth telling. The way that the death cast a shadow over his life, becoming its defining incident, will be relatable for anyone who lost a mother young – especially if it happened suddenly – and his terror that the same fate might befall his wife feels, if not necessarily accurate, at least utterly sincere and entirely understandable. More here, if that for some reason sounds appealing.
And, finally for this year, I read finance journalist Zeke Faux's book about the crypto implosion, Number Go Up (2023). It's a rather superficial read, in which a man jets around the world trying to find out information about the cryptocurrency Tether, fails, and then explains why he wasn't able to find out anything, as if you'd set him homework. Along the way, however, he does find out a few other things. Faux isn't quite as funny as he imagines (can't imagine what that's like, must be awful), though his explanations of crypto are handy for novices like myself, and he enjoys an improbable proximity to FTX founder (and now convicted fraudster), Sam Bankman-Fried, the book's most interesting character.
***
Thanks for reading. Part 2 will be about The Movies.
If you like the Ritz Brothers, you might feel a little short-changed that in The Ritz Brothers: The Films, Television Shows and Other Career Highlights of the Famous Comedy Trio (2021), author Roy Leibam rarely dwells in detail on the trio's routines. As I can’t fucking stand them, I found the book’s focus on script notes and production detail very welcome. Some Ritz fans (and these do, reportedly, still exist) have complained that the author dwells too much on the criticisms of contemporary viewers. My issue is slightly different: these bloggers are regularly quoted but never by name (always just ‘modern-day commentator’), which isn’t merely cheeky but kind of... inexplicable. Liebman's approach is also somewhat piecemeal and peculiar – one appendix deals with other cinematic versions of The Three Musketeers!? – an aspect that may further frustrate aficionados, but since these people enjoy watching the Ritz Brothers, who knows what they're thinking.
Two other books gave an insight into key creative personnel at Fox. Take Two (1980) are the memoirs of screenwriter Philip Dunne, who adapted How Green Was My Valley and The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, was involved in virtually every liberal cause of his day (which he would then sort-of-stand-up-for-but-not-really, invariably resulting in some kind of pissweak compromise), and here makes a solid bid for the Humblebragging Championship of the World. His book is occasionally funny, occasionablly admirable, and a good source of detail about life on the Fox lot. It is also unbearably smug, which coming from me is really saying something. Mamoulian: Life on Stage and Screen (2012) by David Luhrssen is a short but illuminating and highly-readable biog, focusing on the work of the great Russian-Armenian director, who debuted Porgy and Bess, and Oklahoma! on Broadway, revolutionised early-talkie cinema, and did The Mark of Zorro and Blood and Sand at Twentieth, before being fired from Laura and Cleopatra during a farcical final 20 years of his career that resulted in more sackings (three) than movies (two). There's much more about Mamoulian in my Song of Songs essay.
Widening the focus to Hollywood as a whole, Hollywood: The Movie Colony, the Movie Makers (1941) is the only sociological study of Tinseltown at its zenith. Author Leo C. Rosten's conceit is that these much-maligned arrivistes are rather benign, compared to captains of industry or the old-moneyed aristocracts of the East. If he somewhat labours that point, the statistical research remains an invaluable resource, and the surrounding report is written with a dash of panache and the odd piercingly perceptive point. His observation that happiness in Hollywood film consists of a woman arriving in an apartment, weighed down with packages, is perhaps the most dead-eyed takedown of Golden Age cinema ever committed to paper. In Gone Hollywood: The Movie Colony in the Golden Age (1979), Christopher Finch and Linda Rosenkrantz explicitly try to do something similar to Rosten: the sociology of the star system, but their efforts are culled largely from fan magazines, and grouped A-Z by nebulous theme. The results are only sporadically engaging, with many of the details appearing decidedly apocryphal.
I read a couple of oral histories dealing with the film industry. In the swaggeringly-titled Hollywood: The Oral History (2022), historians Jeanne Basinger and Sam Wasson splice and dice 10,000 hours of interviews conducted by the American Film Institute since 1969, as they chart Hollywood's evolution from a ramshackle start-up in an orange grove to the agent-dominated industry of today. More than half the book deals with the studio era, and those sections are easily the best, particularly when giving a voice to largely neglected figures, like staff writers, cameramen and make-up artists. The detail they share, mundane yet lightly magical, is fascinating. Even some of the bigger, more widely-interviewed names have new insights to share: director Frank Capra (who made Harry Langdon's biggest hits) provides a brilliantly incisive reading of the big four silent comics. There is, however, an obvious flaw in the authors' approach: the AFI's interviewees are – by definition – history's winners; as a result they are overwhelmingly complimentary about people such as the studio executives, whereas those who were trampled or ruined by Mayer et al remain voiceless. Elsewhere, a simpler issue afflicts the book: interest ebbs and flows. The silent film sections are fairly short and shallow (and somehow manage to spell Allan Dwan's name wrong throughout), but it's when we get onto New Hollywood, and beyond, that the book falls apart, in a blizzard of barely-connected anecdotes, followed by some stunningly dull material about deal-making. Perhaps that's the point: that a mighty beast was ripped to pieces, and the vultures moved in – that once it was at least partly about art – but this might have been brought to life in a less tedious way. Still, there's lots here to enjoy for Golden Age nerds, even if as a book it doesn't quite hang together. The Glamour Factory (1993) does the same thing markedly less well, perhaps because it's based on the oral history collection of the Southern Methodist University. The perplexing subtitle, 'Inside Hollywood's Big Studio System' (why 'big'?) betrays the fact that this history might be somewhat superficial, and though once more it's broken down by department, the material therein is dictated almost entirely by what happens to be contained in one fairly obscure archive. There's little that's new here, unless you're a novice.
Zoning in again, Behind the Screen: How Lesbians and Gays Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969 (2001) is a groundbreaking, virtually definitive study of its subject from Tinseltown author, and Billy Haines biographer, William J. Mann. He deals with changes in cinematic and social culture, the phenomenon of 'queer work', and the key gay figures of an extraordinary era. While at times the resulting pen portraits descend into formula, Mann has the knowledge, instinct and incisiveness to find the through lines that make it atter.
Finally on the studio era, Camera Over Hollywood (1939) is an unforgettable photographic chronicle from John Swope, simultaneously deglamourising and mythologising its factory town.
And finally, on film, I managed to read a book that perversely didn't mention Barbara Stanwyck even once: Empire editor Nick de Semlyen's The Last Action Heroes (2023), a zippy, extremely funny chronicle of the '80s action boom. Highlights for me were the delightful vignette about how a Chuck Norris character seduces a date, and the recounting of Steven Seagal's still-notorious appearance on Saturday Night Live. I am always perplexed that anyone would like Sylvester Stallone, either on screen or off it, but the enthusiasm here for both the artform and its practitioners is contagious.
Books about history and politics
The pick this year was Doppelganger by Naomi Klein (2023), which is admittedly unfocused but also entertaining, original, provocative and incisively intelligent. In it, Klein uses her nemesis, conspiracy theorist Naomi Wolf, as the springboard to enter 'the mirror world', and investigate personal brands, the rise of fascism, and the justifications for Israeli violence (uh-oh). Along the way, she explains the ‘diagonalism’ that drew together Neo-Nazis and wellness influencers, and does a superb job of articulating and explaining the way that the far-right – and the literal elite – have co-opted the language and postures of the progressive left. Seeing that written down, so clearly and smartly, felt like sweet relief after years of being gaslit to oblivion.
I also enjoyed American Heiress: The Wild Saga of the Kidnapping, Crimes and Trial of Patty Hearst (2016), by noted lawyer and video-conference masturbator, Jeffrey Toobin (I'm sorry to mention that, Jeffrey, but if you hadn't done it, that would have solved that problem). It's fast-moving, balanced, clear and fairly clear-eyed, though given that its author's specialty is legal procedure, it deals with the trial altogether too briefly. Toobin's casual misogyny is also slightly off-putting, but not as off-putting as when he wanked on that Zoom call.
As regular readers of these reviews of years will know, I am an absolute pervert for a presidential biography. This year, that kink was sated by Bob Spitz's Reagan: An American Journey by Bob Spitz (2018). The main strength – and weakness – of the book is its disorientatingly intimate focus. We get a reasonable portrait of the human at its centre – patriotic, sentimental, limited, incurious and naive – but at times almost forget about the world he’s inhabiting, the scale of his influence, the importance of his every action on ordinary people’s lives. If you’re looking for a race through Reagan’s life, from poverty to Hollywood to General Electric to the governor’s chair and finally the presidency, it does the job. We get a sense of how his mind and his presidency worked – through snap emotive judgements based on short memos, letters from the public or things he’d read in the Reader’s Digest – a colourful tour of the high and low points, and a primer on his presidential advisers and their various rivalries. But the book is far more interested in things that are easy to write about – those internal wranglings, the Gorbachev summits and some whizzbang terrorist stories – than those that aren’t. The actual impact of Reaganism – the economic transformation of America caused by the largest upwards redistribution of wealth in history – is largely unexamined, and yet may be the most important element of all. There are also some fairly common shortcomings for the genre: a propensity to side with those he’s interviewed against those he hasn’t, a fondness for pretentious quotations at the start of chapters, some crashingly clumsy segues and a fair few avoidable errors (particularly in the Hollywood section).
I also read a book about people trying to blow up Reagan's best mate: Rory Carroll's Killing Thatcher (2023), which deals with the Brighton Bombing, and made the Times's list of the year's best history books. It's extremely well-researched, with an access to typically secretive sources at which one can only marvel, but that research is often showing, to the degree that you can trace the author's own journey as clearly as you can his actual narrative. And while it's strong on context, at times you just want it to focus on the story you paid for and deliver as the real-thriller we'd been promised, with the propulsion and explosiveness that implies. Its gallery of characters is certainly colourful, though a lot of writers of contemporary history appear to have caught Benmacintyreitis, in which humans are reduced to between one and three eccentric traits, hammered away at interminably.
Books about sport
After the intense excitement of this year's snooker world championship (you don't know, man, you weren't there), I scooted back to 1985-6 with Pocket Money (1986), Gordon Burn's journalistic chronicle of a season, which vividly captures a time and place during the sport's boom era. At first it's overly preoccupied with financials and merchandising, and thereafter still a little too fixated on Thatcherite entrepreneur Barry Hearn, but it's also erudite, atmospheric and full of deft portraits and telling details. As history, of a sort, unfolds: you're there.
And since so much of what I want to do in life involves either reading or being at the test match, Lawrence Booth and Nick Hoult's Bazball: The Inside Story of a Test Cricket Revolution (2023) seemed just right for me. Its curious structure, hopping about between this year's Ashes, a chronological narrative and a themed approach, leads to some repetition and the periodic fumbling of epic moments (particularly Bairstow's redemption at Trent Bridge) in a way that a simpler narrative might have avoided. But it offers amazing access, crisp writing, and the chance to relive two of the best – and most exhilarating – cricketing summers in living memory; even the dry stats just set the heart racing. That excitement is neatly counteracted by the melancholy contributions of Ben Foakes, one of the Bazball era's few losers due to his vaguely more pragmatic instincts, his undeserved pain leaving a mark.
This year's Ashes inspired plenty of talk about the 'spirit of cricket', so it was nice to read Simon Rae's It’s Not Cricket (2001), subtitled, "Skullduggery, Sharp Practice and Downright Cheating in the Noble Game", and be reassured that such a spirit does not, and has never, existed. The book is essentially a catalogue of appalling, immoral and dangerous behaviour on a cricket pitch, and just as enjoyable and ultimately shallow as that sounds. Ian Botham: The Power and the Glory (2011) by Simon Wilde, deals with one of the fabled Ashes heroes of decades past, but is never anything more than basically functional, failing to capture much of the excitement of his rise or the clumsiness of his fall.
Books about Dorothy Parker, Prince Harry or crypto
This section is always a popular one. Marion Meade's Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This? (1987) is a fine biography of the funniest person who has ever lived. And if Parker, to misquote Oscar Wilde, put much of her genius into drunken quips at drunken parties, she also wrote good verse, great short stories and some of the best non-fiction of the 20th century. All of it was touched with her excoriating, innocent-eyed wit. In her first ever theatre review for Vanity Fair, she refused to name the creative team behind the production because she didn't "want to tell on them". Her tossed-off telegrams to Robert Benchley, whether about New Year or the public pronouncements of Herbert Hoover, are astonishingly clever. And even when the work was failing, the wit was not: during her ill-fated sojourn in Hollywood, she lent out of the window of a writers' building, yelling at passers-by, "Let me out of here, I'm as sane as the rest of you!" Meade's book is incredibly readable, if a little monotonous in its second half; but then so was Parker's life. The biographer certainly gets close to the heart of her difficult, brilliant subject. Damaged by grief, half-destroyed by drinking, Parker was capable of rare but extraordinary generosity of spirit: spending more than a year with friends as they cared for a child sick with TB; organising endless events to raise funds for refugees during the Spanish Civil War; leaving her estate to Martin Luther King and the NAACP. She was also almost pathologically ungrateful, caustic and unkind. If her humour came from the same place, she appeared unaware that you could still do that and be a good person on your own time. Her friendship with Benchley shows both sides of that character: it was astonishingly touching, and then it soured horribly. This book skimps a little in its treatment of the work, and remains curiously preoccupied with the nefariousness and deceit of Lillian Hellman (Parker's frenemy and will-executor), but as a portrait of the person, her sentimentality and savagery, it could scarcely be improved upon.
I had, somewhat unexpectedly, both the prurient desire to read Spare (2022) by Prince Harry, and then a large number of thoughts once I had done so. And what a strange, unhappy book it is: full of self-pity, lacking in self-awareness. Interest ebbs and flows, the collision between a man and his ghostwriter frequently more interesting than the events they are describing. And yet the tragedy at the book’s centre: that of a boy losing his mum, and simply being unable to deal with it, as his life is disfigured by tradition and a deeply unwell media, is genuinely upsetting, and a story eminently worth telling. The way that the death cast a shadow over his life, becoming its defining incident, will be relatable for anyone who lost a mother young – especially if it happened suddenly – and his terror that the same fate might befall his wife feels, if not necessarily accurate, at least utterly sincere and entirely understandable. More here, if that for some reason sounds appealing.
And, finally for this year, I read finance journalist Zeke Faux's book about the crypto implosion, Number Go Up (2023). It's a rather superficial read, in which a man jets around the world trying to find out information about the cryptocurrency Tether, fails, and then explains why he wasn't able to find out anything, as if you'd set him homework. Along the way, however, he does find out a few other things. Faux isn't quite as funny as he imagines (can't imagine what that's like, must be awful), though his explanations of crypto are handy for novices like myself, and he enjoys an improbable proximity to FTX founder (and now convicted fraudster), Sam Bankman-Fried, the book's most interesting character.
***
Thanks for reading. Part 2 will be about The Movies.
Labels:
2023,
best books,
BFFs,
books,
Darryl F. Zanuck,
F. Scott Fitzgerald,
history,
Penelope Fitzgerald,
politics,
review,
Review of 2023,
The Gate of Angels,
The Last Tycoon,
Twentieth Century-Fox
Location:
London, UK
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)































