Have you seen?: a personal introduction to 1,000 films

1024 Pages·2008·5.832 MB·English

by  Thomson, David

Also by David Thomson
Nicole Kidman
The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood
The New Biographical Dictionary of Film
In Nevada: The Land, the People, God, and Chance
The Alien Quartet
Beneath Mulholland: Thoughts on Hollywood and Its Ghosts
Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles
4–2
Showman: The Life of David O. Selznick
Silver Light
Warren Beatty and Desert Eyes
Suspects
Overexposures
Scott’s Men
America in the Dark
A Biographical Dictionary of Film
Wild Excursions: The Life and Fiction of Laurence Sterne
Hungry as Hunters
A Bowl of Eggs
Movie Man
“Have You Seen. . .?”
This book has been optimized for viewing
at a monitor setting of 1024 x 768 pixels.
“Have You Seen. . .?”
A Personal Introduction to
1,000
Films
DAVID THOMSON
Alfred A. Knopf New York 2008
THIS IS A BORZOI BOOK
PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF
Copyright © 2008 by David Thomson
All rights reserved. Published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random
House, Inc., New York, and in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto.
www.aaknopf.com
Knopf, Borzoi Books, and the colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc.
Originally published in Great Britain in paperback by Allen Lane, an imprint of
Penguin Books Ltd., London.
Portions of this work originally appeared in Brick: A Literary Journal.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Thomson, David.
Have you seen? : a personal introduction to 1,000 films / David Thomson. — 1st ed.
p. cm.
“This is a Borzoi Book.”
eISBN: 978-0-307-27052-8
1. Motion pictures—Plots, themes, etc. I. Title.
pn1997.8.t46 2008
791.43'75—dc22 2008000634
v1.0
For Laura Morris
Build your film on white, on silence, and on stillness.
—Robert Bresson
. . . the frenzy on the wall . . .
—Jean-Paul Sartre

Acknowledgments
I was first approached to try this book by explored. I have been lucky enough to be
Nigel Wilcockson of Penguin in London. It there in need at a time in his life when his
was a prolonged process. After The Biograph- passion moved toward film. He is a great edi-
ical Dictionary of Film, I did not believe it tor—and all he does is read you, think about
was a sane idea to write another very long it, argue, and guide you into being a little
book on the same subject. But Nigel was not better.
to be told no and saw little evidence that I was Beyond the publishing assistance, I rely on
sane. He talked to me. He sent me superb a group of friends and family with whom I see
books on the churches of England as inspira- or discuss films. Again, we do not agree all the
tion. He never stopped until he had per- time. But we have seen that as the point. I
suaded me to say yes. Then he left Penguin, have benefited from remarks, recommenda-
and for all I know he is now leading other tions, and insights, and helpless cries of pain
authors astray for other houses. The one and ecstasy from so many people. But these
thing Nigel omitted to say in his campaign— are the ones I can remember now: Mark
that I would enjoy doing the book—came Feeney; Tom Luddy; Edith Kramer; Pierre
through with such surprise that I knew I must Rissient; Jean-Pierre Gorin; Scott Foundas;
always thank him first. His role at Penguin, as Richard and Mary Corliss; Andrew Sarris and
my editor, was then filled by Simon Winder, Molly Haskell; Richard Schickel; Richard
who proved to be a dedicated friend, a Roud; Richard Jameson and Kathleen
patient and invaluable editor, and a tower of Murphy; Patrick McGilligan; Greil Marcus;
strength, even though I declined illustrations Peter Bogdanovich; Mark Cousins; Ty Burr;
and a rating system. Michael Ondaatje; Anthony Lane, Quentin
In America, the book was taken up by Curtis, Gilbert Adair, and Jonathan Romney
Knopf, who had published me often before: (all in their time fellow film critics at the
thus, I fell into the hands of a proven team— Independent on Sunday in London); Antonia
Bob Gottlieb as editor, Katherine Hourigan Quirke; Jim Toback; Paul Schrader; David
as managing editor, Roméo Enriquez as pro- Packard; Steven Bach; Jeffrey Selznick; Holly
duction manager, Kevin Bourke as produc- Goldberg Sloan and Garry Rosen. Many of
tion editing maestro, Kathy Zuckerman as these people are all the more remarkable for
publicity director, and Carol Carson, who being interested in many things beside film.
designed the jacket. These people are some And that leads me to the vital company in any
of the best friends I have had, in or out of filmgoer’s life—the other people in the
publishing. If I mark Bob Gottlieb down as dark—Anne, Lucy, and five children (Kate,
captain of the team, it is only fair. Bob is a Mathew, Rachel, Nicholas, and Zachary),
book man, and a very good writer (though he most of whom know the problem of keeping
only found that out, I think, after he had me awake at some films. It is the just reward
stopped commissioning and editing so many for insomnia that I sleep most easily at the
books). There’s a lot that we don’t agree on, movies. Why not? I always suspected they
but there is no one with whom sporting dis- were dreams.
agreements can be so thoroughly enjoyed and
viii
Introduction
I wanted a “bumper” book for your laps, a actually created two types of Best Picture—
volume where you could keep turning the the Hollywood prize, for Wings, and an arty
pages and coming upon juxtapositions of the one for Sunrise.) So it’s a surprise that in
fanciful and the fabulous (Abbott and Cos- Brussels in 1958, a gang of historians put
tello go to Zabriskie Point?) or some chance Murnau’s The Last Laugh way ahead of
alphabetical poetry that might make your his Sunrise. I can recall a time when “film
scalp tingle—like Bad Day at Black Rock writing” took that estimate for granted. Yet
leading into Badlands. I wanted old favorites now The Last Laugh feels like an academic
to be neighbors with films you’ve never heard exercise—while Sunrise is different and dan-
of. I wanted you to entertain the unlikely pos- gerous every time you see it.
sibility that “everything” is here. Of course, it This book is not simply my one thousand
is not—everything remains out in our scat- preferred films offered with whatever mix-
tered “there.” ture of authority I can muster or generosity
Choosing their top ten is a game most film you will allow. I like or love many of these
critics are accustomed to—and one that movies and I hope you will feel that in the
allows depressives to ask, “Are there really reading and come closer to sharing my plea-
ten worth keeping?” (This is a healthy doubt, sure. The first purpose or wish behind the
more useful than the routine thumbs up on question in my title is not to establish you as
two or three fresh masterpieces every week.) an expert in film studies but to give you a
Writing about a select hundred is a regular good time—or a better time than you have
form of bookmaking—the exercise of taste been having.
makes a moderate-sized book and a harmless More than that this is a book created to
pantheon. But going for a thousand is a ges- meet the question frequently asked of anyone
ture toward history—it seems to require that with a reputation for knowing about films.
the selector weighs the old against the new. It’s “What should I see?” So “Have you
It’s like wondering whether Beowulf can talk seen...?” is ar esponse to that uncertainty.
to Lolita. I knew early on in thinking about this book
How is it that a thousand seems to omit so that I could not face it as David Thomson’s
many more than a whimsical ten? How can “best” films. My favorites are here—but there
ten hundred escape being an outline of the is a monotony in writing or reading about just
history of the medium and of our jumping the splendid. As my editor, Bob Gottlieb,
tastes? If you’re picking ten, you may not con- observed on reading an early draft, “We’re
sider the silent era in Sweden. But if you’re snowed under with ‘greats’ and I’m still on
doing a thousand, then those Stillers and B!” Enthusiasm is too easy and it can lead to
Sjöströms deserve reappraisal. And they may lazy writing and formulaic thinking. Very
be among the best early films we have. often in a book like this you can signal your
Equally, it’s touching to find in Irene critical stance to a reader with just one bad-
Mayer Selznick’s private letters that, in 1927, tempered dismissal as easily as and more rap-
the cool, inside crowd in Hollywood reck- idly than a hundred raves will permit. (So The
oned Sunrise was the best film they’d ever Sound of Music is in here, along with Doctor
seen—and surely the harbinger of great cre- Zhivago, The Ten Commandments, The Last
ative changes. (The newly founded Academy Laugh, and others. You’ll find them.) A little
ix