oscar@utcsrgv.UUCP (Oscar M. Nierstrasz) (10/14/83)
The following is a short list of film books that no movie buff
should be without:
The Film Encyclopedia, Ephraim Katz, 1979, Cromwell.
This is the most useful reference book in my (small)
collection. It is factual, concise, interesting and
relatively unbiased. Katz' entries are mostly people's
names -- actors, directors, and so on. He gives a brief,
pithy history and a list of all the films they were involved
in. Katz has tried to be as "worldly" as possible in his
selection of people and topics. He also has entries on
technical aspects of filmmaking. The only shortcoming of
this book is that there are no entries for film titles.
Reportedly he is working on another book devoted to this.
Paperback & hardcover -- well worth it at any price, but I
got mine through the BOTM Club for only 10 bucks.
Comparisons: "A Biographical Dictionary of the Cinema" by
David (smartass) Thomson, and "Halliwell's Filmgoer's
Companion". Halliwell's is popular and well-known but tends
towards personal bias. Katz is *much* more authoritative
and up-to-date. Thomson is fun to read, but he covers *far*
less ground. His commentary is invariably eccentric,
perverse and downright peculiar. Katz is by far the most
reliable.
TV Movies, Leonard Maltin (ed.), Signet.
Maltin and his staff have done an amazing job of
encapsulating an enormous number of films that you might
expect to see on TV. I find most of their mini-reviews
(never more than about three sentences) to be right-on.
Watch it when they cover off-beat films, however. A classic
example is "Rocky Horror" which their reviewer didn't
understand on first viewing. In older editions it got about
one *. It now gets about 3. Drawbacks are that Maltin
doesn't cover foreign films except for a handful of the most
famous ones. This book comes in two sizes of paperback. At
the price, there's no excuse for it not being on your shelf.
It's revised about once a year.
Comparison: "Movies on TV". Similar book. The reviews are
not as to-the-point and not as accurate. I don't own this
book but I really should have it anyway as a companion to
Maltin.
How to Read a Film, James Monaco, Oxford, 1977.
This book is probably used as a text for some university
film courses. It's got loads and loads of interesting
things in it. It's well-organized, well-written and fun to
browse through (unlike many such books).
Independent Filmmaking, Lenny Lipton, Fireside, 1972.
This book tells you how to make 16mm films. It is a classic
introduction to the subject. Even if you don't want to make
movies, it gives you a very good insight into the whole
process. All technical aspects are covered in more than
adequate depth. I don't believe it has been revised since
'72, so it's probably a bit out of date, but most of the
book is still applicable. Some of his discussions of "the
latest technology" are probably a bit off. He has also
written books on Super 8 filmmaking and other aspects of
filmmaking.
The Parade's Gone By, Kevin Brownlow, UCal Press, 1968.
This is a great, great, *great* book. Mostly about the
silent era of American film, this book is a collection of
articles based on interviews Brownlow has had with people
involved in filmmaking in that period. If Brownlow has left
out a few conspicuous directors, it's because they were dead
and so was everyone else connected with them. The book is
charmingly written with lots of interesting historical
information and anecdotes designed to give you a good feel
for what it was like to work in filmmaking in that period.
A very refreshing contrast to the nauseating chain of bio-
books and movie gossip books about what this star did to
that star. Brownlow has written at least one other book
along similar lines.
Other books: Gee, there are lots of books *everybody* should own,
like "The Citizen Kane Book", "The Making of 2001", "Film Form"
and "Film Sense" by Eisenstein, and the list goes on. The ones I
listed above, however, are the ones I feel I can't do without.
Katz and Maltin are the two that are most often on my desk
instead of on my shelf. Comments? Additions?
Oscar Nierstrasz @ utzoo!utcsrgv!oscarcbf@allegra.UUCP (10/19/83)
I must disagree with utcsrgv!oscar on the interpretive merits of Leonard Maltin's "TV Movies". While I admire its scope and factual accuracy, I have gotten turned off by its views on a lot of movies about which I have strong feelings. I find the rival "Movies on TV" to be a MUCH more literate approach to film. If I had to summarize the differences between the two books, I would say that "TV Movies" places a rather pedestrian emphasis on film "reviewing", whereas "Movies on TV" is written from the standpoint of film "criticism" with a greater awareness of a film's historical, intellectual and esthetic worth beyond its mere plot line and production values. To give just one example of why I treasure "Movies on TV", this is what it has to say about Renoir's *The Rules of the Game*: "The greatest film ever made. Period." --decvax!allegra!cbf