Comments on: HAVE YOU SEEN….? An Interview With David Thomson on His New Book

By: Roger Kalika

Roger Kalika — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:55:07 +0000

Jeff,

If Thomson had actually SEEN the movies he writes about, his work wouldn’t be riddled with so many errors, mistakes and outright fabrications, and you’d have a point!

Your PRO Thomson arguments are just mirrors of the illness that has destroyed mainstream film – that it sells! Look at your justifications “popular”, “high profile”, “major” – all fitting of the MADOFF mentality that has not only wrecked film, but practically destroyed the entire country. You have totally ignored my point to try and intimidate by implying Thomson a big time “MAJOR” leaguer! What a joke!

I still assert: at best, Thomson is a bush league blogger from the BUSH era. At worst, a bloated, overlong whiner screaming for attention via unsubstantiated opinion that Knopf, like TCM, push like General Motors pushed SUVS, because they need high dollar, high profit “product” in their oversaturated sales pipelines, regrdless of merit.

By: Jeff (Atlanta)

Jeff (Atlanta) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:39:21 +0000

Roger, thanks for your candid comments. Whether you agree with or differ with Thomson’s film opinions, his credentials speak for themselves. And obviously he is an immensely popular writer with a wide following or he wouldn’t enjoy the high profile, esteemed reputation he currently holds, nor would a major publishing house like Knopf bother with publishing him.

By: Roger Kalika

Roger Kalika — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:05:13 +0000

I agree with Al, David Thomson is a blogger at best. A near total FRAUD as a critic. Half the time, he is just making things up, printing his uninformed speculations as fact. His research is thin, if he’s done any at all. Consider his idiotic description of the recently departed Ann Savage. (Not even given her own entry, she’s mentioned under Edgar Ulmer) “Detour… shot in six days, on the road and in wretched , cramped rooms, its attempt at a love story never stands a chance.”

Is he KIDDING? Has he even WATCHED Detour? It’s the so obvious that 95% of the movie was shot on soundstages and REAR SCREEN PROJECTION – there’s NO WAY he could have seen it and thought it was shot on the run! Wait, Thomson has worse to offer: The Tom Neal character is waiting for a nemesis, Ann Savage – were these actors, hoping for careers, or derelicts resolved to treat the idea of a movie with contempt?”

Tom Neal was a well trained, fine actor who had previously worked under contracts at MGM and Columbia Pictures. Ann Savage had trained with MAX REINHARDT, for God’s sake, and made over 20 movies at Columbia Picture before Detour.

Thomson is the most irresponsible, offbase writer in the film world. He TAKES AWAY from films and the people who make them in the noble effort of reinforcing his pithyhood. Why does anyone bother to publish him, and WHY would TCM give him a forum.

By: Rod Pardey

Rod Pardey — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:08:04 +0000

David Thomson is the greatest film writer of all time, and one of the most provocative writers I’ve ever encountered. He would be at my ideal dinner party of five I would like to have over to dinner from history. And if you find him wrong-headed or even just plain silly in his provocations, then I would guide you to R.W. Emerson’s quote on teaching:

Truly speaking, it is not instruction, but provocation, that I can receive from another soul.

By: Jackie R.

Jackie R. — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:54:29 +0000

David Thomson is always an engaging film writer even if I tend to agree with him only about 50 % of the time. But when I do agree, it’s over the stuff closest to my heart. His entries in his Dictionary of Film on Tuesday Weld, Anthony Perkins, Mercedes McCambridge, Jim Henson, Marguerite Duras and too many others to name are so dead on and articulate that I feel he must be a kindred spirt. Then I encounter a complete stranger who includes entries in that same book on Michael Ovitz (who cares?), Don Simpson (ditto), and James Toback (“Fingers is the best first film by an American director since Badlands…” ???), and feels inspired to write a biography (of sorts) on Nicole Kidman of all people. I can’t wait to read Have You Seen…?

By: Roger Hanover

Roger Hanover — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:25:36 +0000

In his NEW BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FILM, Mr. Thomson wrote one of the funniest and shortest entries in the entire book on director Richard Donner: “Mr. Donner has made several of the most successful and least interesting films of his age. And one doubts it’s over yet.” I’m not here to defend Donner’s place in film history and mostly agree with Thomson’s kiss-off line. Yet, despite all of the souless, blockbuster hits (Superman, 4 Lethal Weapon movies, the Maverick remake), there is an oddity in his filmography – Inside Moves – that Thomson doesn’t point out. He may have seen it and hated it but it’s the one film of Donner’s that reveals there might be a human being behind the corporate machine director. It might be an imperfect film but the performances by John Savage, Diana Scarwid, Amy Wright, Bert Remsen, Harold Russell (from “The Best Years of Your Lives”), David Morse, Pepe Serna and others make it a very moving human drama – small scale but intimate and often heartbreakingly true. Is this the kind of movie Donner really wanted to make but didn’t? The price of success is often everyone’s loss.

By: Al Lowe

Al Lowe — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:13:50 +0000

I think Pauline Kael and Mr. Thomson might have been better as bloggers about films rather than critics.
The problem is that their preferences and dislikes sometimes seem irrational and wrongheaded as compared to what most of the other critics are saying. Kael for example blew off The Sting and liked this oddity called Everybody Wins, which noone else has ever admitted enjoying. Thomson writes off Stanley Kubrick and Sandra Bullock. He includes Johnny Carson in his book even though the famous late night host was not known for movies.
The book I am referring to is The New Biographical Dictionary of Film. I have that one and the one he published in the 1970s, The (Old?) Biographical Dictionary of Film.
Still, he and Kael are astonishingly good writers. I wouldn’t have the books and reread them so often if they weren’t worth it. Thanks for the interview.