List Price: $ 19.95
Price: $ 12.49
Feature
- ISBN13: 9781879505278
- Condition: New
- Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
Overview
This title is a fascinating and accessible guide for both film makers and serious film fans about how film makers think about film. The author identifies 3 ways is which we, both film makers and audience, watch movies. Then, through practical examples, he demonstrates how, at any given moment, the way we watch dictates its own rules of time and space and demands its own set of film techniques to address them. It provides over 100 illustrations including stills and storyboards.
List Price: $ 17.00
Price: $ 5.50
Feature
Overview
The New York Times bestseller that follows the making of five films at a pivotal time in Hollywood history
In the mid-1960s, westerns, war movies, and blockbuster musicals like Mary Poppins swept the box office. The Hollywood studio system was astonishingly lucrative for the few who dominated the business. That is, until the tastes of American moviegoers radically— and unexpectedly—changed. By the Oscar ceremonies of 1968, a cultural revolution had hit Hollywood with the force of a tsunami, and films like Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, In the Heat of the Night, and box-office bomb Doctor Doolittle signaled a change in Hollywood—and America. And as an entire industry changed and struggled, careers were suddenly made and ruined, studios grew and crumbled, and the landscape of filmmaking was altered beyond all recognition.
April 17th, 2011 on 1:48 am
an easy read with loads of insight into the nature of Hollywood Cinema,
 Â
 Â
 Â
If you are looking for theory or for technical analysis of film, this is not the place. If your interest, instead, is insight into the thinking that goes into making (mostly mainstream) films this is an excellent starting point. Boorstin doesn’t write like a movie critic or a professor of film; he writes like a very knowledgable and reflective craftsman who has insider experience on filmmaking and has been able to capture that experience into a series of analytic perspectives on the nature of “movies that work.”
He breaks his analysis of the “working of movies” down into three perspectives that amount to the various levels at which the film needs to operate on or captivate its audience. A movie that “works” has to work on all three levels, though it may emphasize one over the others. First, it should appeal to the “voyeur” in the audience. We watch movies because we want to see, and a movie works at a voyeuristic level when it shows us something that we can both believe and be interested in. That sounds straightforward enough, but the voyeuristic perspective allows him to go into the “why” behind a wide range of cinematic techniques, and to introduce quite a bit of the vocabulary you’d find in another introduction to film but might not see why it was so important. Secondly, the film has to work at a “vicarious” level: we have to care about the characters in the film, and what they do has to be emotionally true. Under this heading Boorstin is able to discuss a range of topics, from Kuleshov’s psychology experiments with film montage to what makes a film soundtrack work. The third level is the “visceral”: films can work, not only because they are intriguing or make us feel something for the characters, but also because they make us feel something period. The rise of horror cinema is directly connected to this longing for a visceral experience: we don’t just want to care about someone who is potentially being harmed but we want to feel their fear along with them. The book goes on to discuss combinations between these, the differences between narratives and films of other forms, and the difference between mainstream Hollywood cinema and avant garde or foreign cinema.
My only quibble with the book is that he doesn’t address a fourth level at which films work — maybe because it’s hard to come up with a “V” word for what might be called the “reflective dimension” of film, and I believe that a discussion of this dimension would complement his other discussions and allow him to introduce in an unpretentious and insider fashion themes that are the subject of what film theorists call “ideology.” Every film, at some level, has a theme — has to have something it is “about” and this is a level that is not only of interest to film theorists but also to filmmakers. Sidney Lumet’s wonderful “Making Movies” discusses this at length. For a film to work it has to have a theme and it has to somehow make sense of that theme. In some films, and not only foreign or avant-garde films, this “thematic” or “reflective” dimension is the dominant one. Take the success of the “Matrix” for example — what makes it stunning is not only its superb visuals (voyeuristic level) or its strong narrative (such that we vicariously connect with Neo) or its tense mood (such that we have a visceral experience), but also that it forces us to think, raising interesting questions and posing tentative answers to those questions.
In the end, though, this is merely a quibble with what is still a very worthwhile book that I am glad I encountered. While the style is personal and the ideas are to some degree idiosyncratic to the author, it is a rare book that offers so much information and insight and is such an enjoyable read. (I would compare this book to other remarkable and insightful works by working filmmakers such as Lumet’s Making Movies and Walter Murch’s In the Blink of the Eye — and if I had to choose which one to recommend of these three I would say that Boorstin’s book is more comprehensive and can likely teach more about the nature of film and filmmaking than the others.)
Was this review helpful to you?Â
|April 17th, 2011 on 2:22 am
Excellent overview of film maker’s craft.,
This book is unlike most film theory books in that it gives practical examples from the author’s considerable personal experience in the film business. It can be used by film students, film makers or writers as a theoretical and practical guide to understanding the process. It is filled with amusing and useful anecdotes and is clearer and more fun than similar books. I recommend it.
Was this review helpful to you?Â
|April 17th, 2011 on 3:10 am
I wish I could give 4 1/2,
 Â
The only reason I did not give this book 5 stars is, because it is not a smashing, shocking masterpiece. But it is still a VERY GOOD book. It gives one a great first taste on filmmaking, touching on almost every topic and field in the production process. It is also very well organized into a system of own logic, and contains quite a few funny and interesting anecdotes, which make it more like a personal friend instead of just “a book”. The language is clear and “user-friendly” (which was quite important for me, English being only my second lang.), and Mr. Boorstin is like a smiling tour-guide that takes one around the various aspects of the craft. It is an excellent introduction to all people interested in film, and to all those who just want to have a good read about ‘the film job’ in general. Read it and You will like it, if it does not make You want to fall in love with film right away. If You already are: You will learn not just about the craft, but about creative processes and “Hollywood vs. World”-philosophy too, while You get to understand what actually makes a filmmaker. A definite 4 and 1/2…..
Was this review helpful to you?Â
|April 17th, 2011 on 3:14 am
Fascinating Look at Hollywood’s Turning Point When Five Films Marked the Past and the Future,
 Â
 Â
 Â
 Â
1939 may have been Hollywood’s high watermark for classic filmmaking, but 1967 was ostensibly the year Hollywood grew up, the turning point when the old guard faced off with the new mavericks in dominating not only the year’s box office but also the year-end critical accolades. Entertainment Weekly columnist Mark Harris cleverly and incisively looks at the five diverse films that made up the Best Picture Oscar race that year and dissects each one from development to the Oscar ceremony the following spring – The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Doctor Dolittle, and the eventual winner, In the Heat of the Night. His meticulous research feels thorough, lending a surprisingly cohesive picture of an industry in flux between the aging, out-of-touch moguls unable to forecast film-going tastes and the revolutionary novices, influenced by the European New Wave, abandoning a studio system in collapse.
Instead of tracing these films individually, the author looks more holistically at the middle of the decade when a diverse array of people concurrently faced a multitude of challenges in getting their pictures made. Many have been interviewed extensively for the book, and it becomes readily apparent why these five films epitomize the revolution when you see who the directors behind them. Mike Nichols and Arthur Penn, who directed “The Graduate” and “Bonnie and Clyde” respectively, were relative neophytes who challenged studio thinking with their groundbreaking films. On the other side of the spectrum were two veterans – Stanley Kramer, who reunited legendary icons Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn in their final pairing, the superficially controversial “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”; and Richard Fleischer, who tried to replicate the success of My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music, with his big-budget disaster, “Doctor Dolittle”. In between them was Norman Jewison, a studio journeyman with aspirations to become a more serious director. He found his opportunity with the racially-charged crime drama, “In the Heat of the Night”, which among the five movies, best represented a balance between the two ends of the filmmaking spectrum.
Other key figures dominate Harris’ narrative, such as screenwriters Robert Benton, David Newman and Robert Towne, who turned “Bonnie and Clyde” from a conventional gangster picture into an incisive character study that fluidly alternated laughs with visceral moments of violence. Obviously, actor-producer Warren Beatty figures prominently with that seminal film, especially in removing Clyde’s bisexual orientation from the script and in casting his co-star, which became a Scarlett-level search among Hollywood’s hottest actresses at the time. Natalie Wood, Jane Fonda, Tuesday Weld and even Beatty’s sister Shirley MacLaine were under serious consideration before a relatively inexperienced Faye Dunaway landed her breakthrough role. Fleischer, producer Arthur P. Jacobs and an especially irascible Rex Harrison could not help but be weighed down by all the setbacks that befell “Doctor Dolittle” from uncooperative animals to wrong-headed studio thinking resulting in an overly grandiose 2 ½-hour epic presented with fanfare in road-show engagements.
Casting on “The Graduate” turned out to be one of the biggest challenges as the original choices for Mrs. Robinson and Benjamin Braddock were, believe it or not, Doris Day and Robert Redford. While curious in hindsight, it was fortunate that Nichols and producer Lawrence Turman finally selected Anne Bancroft and a then-unknown Dustin Hoffman for the roles. Tracy’s frail health was the ongoing concern during the production of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”, as Kramer was able to maneuver around studio concerns over a movie about a pending interracial marriage. Intriguingly, Sidney Poitier turns out to be an important figure in three of the five films…
Read more
Was this review helpful to you?Â
|April 17th, 2011 on 4:02 am
The Year 1967 in Movies,
 Â
 Â
 Â
Mr. Harris has taken the five Best Picture nominees for the 1967 Oscars and pin-point that year as the fall of the studios. Two films dealt with racism (“Guess Who’s Is Coming To Dinner,” and “In the Heat of the Night”) in very differnet ways, one with sexuality and changing morals (“The Graduate”), another with amoral violence (“Bonnie and Cycle”) while the last picture attempted to be another Hollywood musical (“Dr. Dolittle.”) This was the year that independent film-making and European influences reached a critical mass against the static studio machine.
Ironically Sidney Poitier was shut out for a Best Actor Oscar with three brilliant performances, two of them in the Best Picture category. These little tidbits are found in the book that follows the five movies from pre-production to the Oscar. The narrative is quite readable and the behind the scenes stories are interesting and amusing. Mr. Harris should pick out other landmark years and repeat the process. This book is a must for any movie fan.
Was this review helpful to you?Â
|April 17th, 2011 on 4:18 am
A cultural and film making revolution dissected,
 Â
I am a bit of Hollywood history buff and it is wonderful having a number of books on the subject out right now (check out Misfits Country). In this well written and excellently researched book the author takes the reader back to 1967 and analyzes the five nominees for best picture and there reflection and effects on society in at that momentous time of change. The Movies are: “The Graduate (40th Anniversary Collector’s Edition),” “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (40th Anniversary Edition),” “Bonnie and Clyde,” “In the Heat of the Night (40th Anniversary Collector’s Edition)” and “Doctor Dolittle.” Aside from being a great walk down memory lane it is also full of insightful social commentary. The sixties were a special time of social change and the movies and the movies of that decade reflected and effected this change on so many levels. I would love to see the author expand on this in another book that might take on the best movies of the decade. And do try Misfits Country an excellent read that is a behind the scenes look at the making of the classic movie The Misfits!
Was this review helpful to you?Â
|