David Thomson: "Liar . . . Liar"?

[sergio]

Thomson's book is mostly an unsympathetic look but I don't feel that it is entirely without merit. It does offer some interesting insights and is worth reading for those, but once you've finished you do realise that he doesn't really like Welles at all and that therefore he tends to embrace the negative interpretation when at all possible - I don't agree with that, and I don't really recommend the book for everyone, but Thomson is a very bright guy and ROSEBUD does offer some real food for thought - it just won't be to everyone's taste (not even mine)...

[Jeff Wilson]

Rosebud has very little merit for me, in part because of Thomson's clear dislike for Welles (objectivity? what's that?), and in part because it seems clear he made very little effort to do much research. Never mind the silly "conversations" between Thomson and his "publisher," and wacko theories like the one that just maybe Welles was Peter O'Toole's father, since he was in Ireland at the time of O'Toole's conception. I'm sure he meant it partially in jest (at least that's what I hope), but it's ridiculous all the same.

As for Thomson, he certainly has a way with words. I enjoy reading his writing even he's often full of it when it comes to Welles.

[Le Chiffre]

deleted

[Glenn Anders]

Blunted makes an interesting point about Thomson's writing in Rosebud "like someone with a sexual attraction to Welles." It is a bit like that, and the title reinforces the feeling, at a certain level. I think, however, that the better analogy is that to a disillusioned youthful worshipper. Thomson has stated in numerous essays and interviews that Welles was perhaps the primary influence upon his teenage development. A boy of 15 sees the then largely forgotten CITIZEN KANE, at just the moment (1955) when Welles has become one of the toasts of London Theater. He is lionized by the leading angry young critic, Kenneth Tynan, and he is entertained by Lord and Lady Olivier and the Knights of the British stage. Suddenly, he is everywhere, in the press, on BBC TV and Radio with well-received projects and interviews, and in the process of making or appearing in no less than four new movies, including CONFIDENTIAL REPORT. Thomson must have been absolutely bowled over by Welles, and he has admitted as much. The experience started him on a course to becoming a film critic and scholar.

Then, as the years passed, each one anticipating another CITIZEN KANE, a new inspiration, Welles' failings must have become for Thomson almost like his own. And Thomson has come pretty close to that admission, too. I think that is the context for understanding the style and method of Rosebud.

Thompson is is very personal in his criticism. He involves his personal life in a number of his critical works. For instance, in his Biographical Dictionary of Film he includes an entry, a eulogy really, on a man whom he met one night at the British Film Institute. They became friends through their interest in films, and they spent time together, and corresponded for years, until the fellow died.

[Le Chiffre]

Glenn,
That's a good defense of Thomson's book. I agree that he seems like a disillusioned Welles worshipper, but to me his disillusionment becomes a scathing resentment that seems to permeate the whole book. I think the "sexual attraction to Welles" that blunted mentioned applies more to Callow than to Thompson, but Callow's book is redeemed by its amazingly detailed research. You're right that Thomson's criticism of Welles seems personal- almost like a personal rant at Welles for not having delivered what Thomson wanted. And what was it that he wanted? Probably a more conventional Hollywood career, judging from the Biographical Dictionary of Film that you mentioned (which, to be fair, is a much more impressive book than Rosebud).

BTW, David Thompson is a TV producer and wrote a book on LAST TANGO IN PARIS for the BFI Modern Classics series as well, in case you were wondering.

[blunted by community]

ON THOMSON:
the other thing i noticed is that there was no original research done for his welles book. all he did was read other books to write his. also, i was shocked when i noticed that ONE person, thomson, wrote that bio dictionary of film. but his opinionated writing was a turn off. i prefer the writer to lay down the facts and let me make up my own mind about the events. an unbias reporter he is not. i didn't buy the damn book, it was a gift.

my office has a bunch of computers, and electronics that are always running, and it gets hot. i have fans blowing out the heat but they cause a back draft and the door sort of remains half way shut. that thomson film bio has been excellent for keeping that door open. other than that, it hasn't gotten much use.

[Christopher]

I have just read this thread with great interest, and many of the comments about David Thomson's ROSEBUD confirm my own reactions. After avoiding Thomson's book for some time, I am finally reading it on the theory that I should read all the bios, even the negative ones. As I find myself grinding my teeth over Thomson's consistently mean-spirited assumptions about OW which have no basis in fact, it is good to know that so many of you on this board gave ROSEBUD a thumbs down. Whatever fresh insights Thomson has to offer -- and to be fair, he does make a valid point here and there -- are overwhelmed by the superfluous negativity that pervades the book, or at least what I have managed to read of it so far.

[Glenn Anders]

Perhaps, it's because David Thomson lives in San Francisco, and I've attended public interviews he has done, met him once casually, but I am sympathetic with his disillusionment. Rosebud is like the novels he wrote, which folded in characters and events from film noirs and westerns he admired. He just reversed the technique for his biography of Welles.

Compared to Callow's volume one, Thomson is a fan club leader. Consider that Callow's book ends with Welles completing CITIZEN KANE, at the height of his powers: star of stage, screen and radio, a social critic, a civil rights champion, a popularizer of Jazz, and a possible American politician of importance. Yet Callow denigrates all those triumphs and accomplishments. Where can his future volumes go but much lower on the degradation scale than Thomson ever could imagine?

[Glenn Anders]

I may as well throw this chum into the water (posted on the daily IMDb WENN) before more ravenous critics find it:

KIDMAN BLASTS BIOGRAPHER

"Nicole Kidman is furious with a film critic for writing a unauthorized biography on her after only having one brief phone chat with her. The Moulin Rouge star was shocked when she found out David Thomson was writing a book and was unaware her short interview would be exploited in the form of an explosive biography. Kidman claims she was deceived by the author, who told her he was writing a series of articles on several different films. According to Kidman's publicist, Wendy Day, "Nicole has never met David Thomson. She has only spoken to him briefly on the phone about her acting processes and various films. He's a well-respected film writer and she accepted the interview only because she was under the impression he was writing a series of film essays." The book, entitled Nicole Kidman, hit bookstores in the US this week and paints a picture of the actress as a power-hungry fame seeker who used her 10-year marriage to Tom Cruise to hit the big time in Hollywood. The biography also claims the star is too self-obsessed to give herself to a husband. Kidman married country star Keith Urban in June. Thomson even goes as far as to suggest Stanley Kubrick's 1999 thriller Eyes Wide Shut ended Cruise and Kidman's marriage because it mirrored their off-screen relationship too closely. Kidman has not yet announced legal action against Thomson, who in his previous book, The Whole Equation: A History Of Hollywood, confessed to having a huge crush on her."

While it is hard to imagine that Miss Kidman had not been made aware of Thomson's book long ago, if the above is true, I must reluctantly put distance between Thomson and myself. I had just read an interview with Thomson, in which he praised the actress, said they had gotten along well together; she was behind the project, had given him leads to people close to her, etc.

Thomson may have let his Wellsian fabulist streak really get himself into real trouble, this time.

Let's see what he has to say.

Glenn

[ToddBaesen]

If Mr. Thomson treats Welles and Kidman -- people he says he admires so much he wanted to write books about them --with the kind of loving biographies he's produced, I wonder what'd he'd have to say about someone he didn't have any admiration for!

[Glenn Anders]

Be careful:

Todd Baesen is attending a birthday party at the Ha-Ra Club. He's enjoying a Gimlet with a beautiful, exotic woman. They are laughing. Suddenly, out of the Geary Street night comes an elderly man with grey, crewed hair.

"You Todd Baesen?" asks the man.

"Why, yes, and who are you?"

"It doesn't matter. Call me Streeter, Van Stratten," the man snarls reaching into the pocket of his black jacket. "Call me anything you like. I'm from LA now, and I have a message from David Thomson."

A Glock 6.5 spits fire.

The beautiful woman cradles the dying Baesen, as the juke box plays "Flamenco Sketches" by Miles Davis.

That killer is never caught. It's as though he had stepped back into an ancient movie of intrigue.

Glenn

[tonyw]

Glenn, You can't say that about him, He's David (Ego) Thomson neither can you take the love of his readers away from him!

[tony]

Finally, Glenn, you're understanding Thomson:

"Thomson even goes as far as to suggest Stanley Kubrick's 1999 thriller Eyes Wide Shut ended Cruise and Kidman's marriage because it mirrored their off-screen relationship too closely."

Same old method.

[tonyw]

Tony, The Kubrick reference is as reductive as suggesting that Osron Welles is Charles Foster Kane 100%. So much for critical subtlety!

[Glenn Anders]

It is one thing (if true) that David Thomson took a couple of phone interviews with Nicole Kidman, and parlayed them into a supposed friendship in which intimate confidences were transmitted, and based a biography upon them, but you guys always insist on going overboard yourselves.

For instance, tonyw, Thomson never suggested that "Orson Welles was Citizen Kane 100%." There are at least half a dozen uncanny autobiographical allusions which suggest that Welles (and/or Mankieweicz) were embedding Welles in the life of Kane.

I don't know why that idea drives you so nuts!

The fact remains that, at this moment, I'm deeply disappointed in Mr. Thomson, but I shall withhold final judgment until I hear his side of it.

Humility is a virtue. David Thomson may not have much of it, but we should all try to practice it.

Glenn