« Bewitched | Main | Thanks, but No Thanks »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341caadc53ef00d8343a37b453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bewitched, Part II:

» Infamous (2006, 1/2 *) from Movie City Indie
THE DEADLY INFAMOUS, SPITEFUL AND SUPERIOR, would be second best standing out in a field by itself. What a rotten, rotten movie, with the even more rotten fortune to follow the austere fictionalization of Truman Capote’s research of “In Cold... [Read More]

Comments

Rob

Now Thomson expects us to believe that he has a friend?

IClavdivs

I was very excited when I read that Thomson was writing a book on Kidman. I ordered the book weeks before it was released, got it and was so disappointed. Even as a "love letter", it was mindnumbing, it was a whole lot of suppositions, gossip, speculation, "I believes" and "I thinks". I just returned the book and got my money back. No wonder that when Thomson was promoting the book, he used gossip and even went to the point of slander. There were headlines upon headlines regarding what he said about Kidman in his interviews, he called her self-obsessed, powerhungry, vain, etc., funnily enough, there was nothing like that in the book. So what was all that about?

In the last chapter of the book where he wrote about Fur, he wrote this:

"It is the venture of a great, dark, headstrong actress who has no expectation and not too much need for everything to turn out tidily or happily. This is from her black book, the one with demons on the cover to keep innocent readers away. This comes from a woman who lives with lions and wolves."

How he arrived at this conclusion is missing from the entire book that would have been alot more interesting if he'd concentrated on showing this woman who lives with lions and wolves but what and all we got was this sub-par endeavour.

ray Pride

You, sir, are correct.

Tram

Hot diggity damn.

You don't have to be a snob to not "get" Thomson's book.

I actually like some of Thomson's writings (I still think Biographical Dictionary of Film is a keeper). And I think Richard Dyer's concept of "movie stars as auteur" is v. refreshing and something that should be expanded upon in film studies.

But "Nicole Kidman" is just a mess. One moment, you're reading about how Nicole climbed her way to the top via the Tom Cruise machine. The next, a more cogent analysis of her work in To Die For and Dogville. And then, suddenly, there's a section devoted to Nicole's impeccable fashion taste and how she has deservingly made multiple appearances on Mr. Blackwell's best list.

Like WTF?!

The Hours of Boredom

You're in the right. And I normally like Thomson, but his rabid, slavering crush on Kidman has led him to make a fool of himself. He thinks his graphic, endlessly drawn out fantasies about Kidman are interesting, but they're not. His bio tells the reader nothing of importance about Nicole Kidman, and more than he ever wanted to know about David Thomson.

To be perfectly blunt, Thomson absurdly overestimates his own skills as a writer. He's like Dante obsessing over Beatrice (bewildered and angry that any man might not share his reverence for the object of his affection), only without an iota of Dante's genius: ergo, the result is not a divine comedy, but an unintentional, unreadable farce.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad