Whatever the accuracy of the individual stories (and Biskind fully owns to the fact that many of the principals deny what others have said of them), it is relevant to his discussion of the work these people did as artists. But even as one who ordinarily finds this sort of thing distasteful, I do have to say that the book cannot be dismissed as the sleazy tell-all so many make it out to be. Personally I don't care enough about all this stuff to spend one second trying to figure out who really said what, or slept with whom.
(Spielberg's biographer Joseph McBride, whose book presents a very different of the Spielberg-Irving marriage, was not flattering in his review of the work for the New York Times.) He has Dennis Hopper more egomaniacal and violent than the villains he would later play (and yes, weapons are involved) Paul Schrader (despite being an exceptionally unlikely protagonist for a Balzacian drama) trying to sleep his way to a directing job with astonishing lack of subtlety the sex life of Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving as a tissue of neurosis and manipulation and betrayal (which I'm sure made many of those who think Steven Spielberg's uneasy with sex in his movies say "I knew it!").Īll of this has naturally got the book a lot of readers, but also seen it attacked ferociously.
Peter Biskind's history of the New Hollywood, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, is notorious for its repleteness with unflattering details about what one might think of as the "principal characters" in the drama he presents of the time.
0 kommentar(er)
