1983, undated but no later than '85 edition, from Harper & Row
Barbara G. Walker
The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets
Bought newish for $19.95
Very worn paperback with broken spine and loose pages
B-
I first read this book the summer of '84, while staying at my aunt's commune. She hadn't read her copy yet, but I raced through it, fascinated by all the pagan lore, most of it then new to me. A few months later, I was in a bookstore with my feminist boyfriend and excitedly pointed to the book. We either bought it together, or I bought it and we both read it. We/I got other "Goddess" books later, but this was the first.
For awhile after our divorce, he was more into paganism than I was, even contacting some of the writers we'd read. But due to things like our divorce, I gradually drifted away. Yet he's now more cynical about religion, of all sorts, than I am. There are times I still pray to the Goddess, but she's more an aspect of myself, with a dash of the mother I lost at 3. It's funny to me that Walker, still alive at 82, describes herself as an atheist, considering how she influenced us, and apparently many others.
I tried to separate out what I think of the book this reread, my first in many years. I think many things actually.
1. Any encyclopedia, no matter what the topic, is going to be a tough read, particularly at 1100+ pages like this one. There are, perhaps of necessity, redundancies that make it even harder to get through.
2. Although she's not as bad as Davis in First Sex, there are times when Walker is inconsistent about her conclusions and/or insulting about men.
3. While she makes good points about the violence and oppression of Christianity and/or patriarchy, I'm not entirely convinced, just on the evidence of this book, that paganism was all that peaceful or loving. How can cannibalism, castration, or human sacrifice be justified? Yes, they're arguably "better" than war and the Inquisition, but is that how low you want to set the bar?
4. The book got me thinking about the control of information. Many comments on Amazon (I don't feel like reading them all) argue over her scholarship and research. I'm not qualified to judge how well she did, although 25 years' investment should count for something, even if her conclusions might be wrong. As with the books about John Lennon, it sometimes feels like different people's words against each other. But I do think she makes some good points about how stories (history as well as myths) are affected by who's telling them, and how and how much they're distributed, and to whom. (Like the centuries of the Bible being available to European peasants only as Latin read to them.) Maybe Walker got things wrong, but I still can't believe many of the official stories.
5. I admire the choice of sculptures, paintings, and other artwork included in the book, usually at the beginnning of each letter, or cluster of letters. There are some absolutely lovely pieces, such as the cover of this edition, with the Minoan snake goddess.
6. Underneath my cynicism, I still believe in the possibility of a better society, one founded on kindness and wisdom. I haven't the foggiest how to get there, and I don't think this book provides such a path. But I think it can at least be a conversation-starter. And it is fun to read alternate stories for everything from Little Red Riding Hood to Ishtar. (When Walker wrote that Pazuzu was "the only Babylonian deity to become a movie star," thanks to The Exorcist, she couldn't have imagined what Elaine May would come up with in a few years.)
Friday, January 25, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Not Quite TV Guide
1983, first edition, from Prince Paperbacks
Gerald Sussman, with many people helping on everything from modeling to the crossword
Not Quite TV Guide: Local, Network, Regional, Cable, Wire, Cord, and String Listings
Original price $3.95, purchase price unknown
Worn paperback
B
Still funny parody of a once indispensible magazine, this captures the beginning of the era of, as Bruce Springsteen put it in 1992, "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)." A string of shows are named "_____ & Marie", Latin film star Pedro Fumar ("smoking Peter") is ubiquitious, and early reality cable shows like Cooking for Cannibals and T-Man and Juggs find niche markets. My favorite piece is "Reader's Poll: What Should We Do with the Jeffersons?", or more specifically, responses to the question "What in heaven's name can we do to George and Louise to get them off the air once and for all?" Isabel Sanford had been playing Louise since '71, Sherman Hemsley was George since '73, on All in the Family, and their spin-off series had definitely jumped the shark by '83. (I saw an episode taping around that time, and the cast seemed weary, although Sanford was very nice in answering one of my questions that baffled the warm-up guy.) The answers in the poll are incredibly ridiculous, and hostile though they are on the surface, like the "reader who suggested that they should get into one of their typical stupid fights and go at each other with kitchen knives," there's definitely an underlying affection to this book, aimed more at the TV addict than the TV-hater.
And indeed, back when I was a 15-year-old TV addict, I owned a copy of this book, although I lost it around the time I lost How to Regain Your Virginity. While it was still in my possession, I shared it with my future ex-husband, who a few years ago bought me a replacement copy. And, yes, I didn't get all the sex jokes in this book either originally. I also didn't get all the literary references.
My vote for most ironic entry goes not to any of the mentions of Princess Di, but to the blurb on Rocky XIII. Rocky is now 60 and still boxing, unlike the Rocky of the real last movie (Rocky Balboa, 2006), who's in his late 50s and retired from boxing. Still, the sequelitis already deserved to be parodied in '83.
I was such a TV addict, I used to collect TV Guide, so I can say with some authority that Sussman and company have captured the look and feel of the magazine, down to the little ovals with "END" in them at the finish of longer articles. The crossword is based entirely on advertising, a nice jab, and there are some ad parodies throughout, such as the Sears Child-Cleaning Service. Sometimes the artwork is too cartoonish, and sometimes the humor is a bit offensive, but overall this is much better than you'd expect.
Sussman was an advertising copywriter as well as editor-in-chief of National Lampoon. He wrote six other humor books, and died only six years after this one came out.
Gerald Sussman, with many people helping on everything from modeling to the crossword
Not Quite TV Guide: Local, Network, Regional, Cable, Wire, Cord, and String Listings
Original price $3.95, purchase price unknown
Worn paperback
B
Still funny parody of a once indispensible magazine, this captures the beginning of the era of, as Bruce Springsteen put it in 1992, "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)." A string of shows are named "_____ & Marie", Latin film star Pedro Fumar ("smoking Peter") is ubiquitious, and early reality cable shows like Cooking for Cannibals and T-Man and Juggs find niche markets. My favorite piece is "Reader's Poll: What Should We Do with the Jeffersons?", or more specifically, responses to the question "What in heaven's name can we do to George and Louise to get them off the air once and for all?" Isabel Sanford had been playing Louise since '71, Sherman Hemsley was George since '73, on All in the Family, and their spin-off series had definitely jumped the shark by '83. (I saw an episode taping around that time, and the cast seemed weary, although Sanford was very nice in answering one of my questions that baffled the warm-up guy.) The answers in the poll are incredibly ridiculous, and hostile though they are on the surface, like the "reader who suggested that they should get into one of their typical stupid fights and go at each other with kitchen knives," there's definitely an underlying affection to this book, aimed more at the TV addict than the TV-hater.
And indeed, back when I was a 15-year-old TV addict, I owned a copy of this book, although I lost it around the time I lost How to Regain Your Virginity. While it was still in my possession, I shared it with my future ex-husband, who a few years ago bought me a replacement copy. And, yes, I didn't get all the sex jokes in this book either originally. I also didn't get all the literary references.
My vote for most ironic entry goes not to any of the mentions of Princess Di, but to the blurb on Rocky XIII. Rocky is now 60 and still boxing, unlike the Rocky of the real last movie (Rocky Balboa, 2006), who's in his late 50s and retired from boxing. Still, the sequelitis already deserved to be parodied in '83.
I was such a TV addict, I used to collect TV Guide, so I can say with some authority that Sussman and company have captured the look and feel of the magazine, down to the little ovals with "END" in them at the finish of longer articles. The crossword is based entirely on advertising, a nice jab, and there are some ad parodies throughout, such as the Sears Child-Cleaning Service. Sometimes the artwork is too cartoonish, and sometimes the humor is a bit offensive, but overall this is much better than you'd expect.
Sussman was an advertising copywriter as well as editor-in-chief of National Lampoon. He wrote six other humor books, and died only six years after this one came out.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Children's Novels and the Movies
1983, undated (but probably that year) Frederick Ungar Publishing edition
Edited by Douglas Street
Children's Novels and the Movies
Original price $8.95, purchase price unknown
Paperback where about half the pages detached from the binding
B-
While reading this, I kept thinking of how much has changed. Not just the nature of children's movies (from Harry Potter to the trend of the last decade of making full-length movies out of picture books), but even the methods of film distribution. That there's a list of "Rental Sources for Films Listed in Filmography" reminds me that while cable TV and home video were becoming increasingly common in 1983, most families did not yet have them. (I was middle-class and had neither. A few friends had cable. I don't remember knowing anyone who owned a VCR, or Betamax, although a few rich people had laser discs.) Organizations, such as schools, still used film projectors, and rarely for entertainment rather than education. (A year or two later, I did watch Romeo and Juliet [1968] on a classroom VCR, of course blushing at the topless Juliet and hoping no one noticed.) As I've noted elsewhere, you can now watch an entire movie, sometimes for free, online.
So when I read about the 1977 animated version of The Hobbit, it wasn't just odd because of the current live-action version. And yes, The Hobbit isn't a children's movie per se, but Street feels that any book with appeal to children is a children's book, so such classics as Treasure Island and Kim, not to mention more modern books that arguably have more appeal to adults, such as The Little Prince and Watership Down, are included. There are even a few definitely YA examples, such as A Hero Ain't Nothing But a Sandwich (1978). (It's a sign of the tendency of Hollywood to employ a small group of actors and actresses, especially those of color and at that time, but I was amused that both that contemporary story and Sounder [1972] of the Depression era star Paul Winfield and Cicely Tyson as the parents.)
Contributors do their best to steer clear of Disney (at that time still seen as the predominant maker of children's films, which I think is less true in the era of Pixar et al.), although there's an interesting examination of Pinocchio (1940). While in some cases the "book is better" syndrome prevails, some writers do find films that they think work equally well, albeit in a different way, such as Wizard of Oz (1939). Admittedly, some of the movies that they (and other critics) trash as not just bad adaptations but bad films, I have a soft spot for from watching them on TV in the 1970s, like Pippi Longstocking (1969, but I think the American dub, which adds to the campiness, is from '73). In some cases, they'll compare different versions, like the 1933 and 1949 films of Little Women, to each other as well as to the book.
I obviously found the contributions where I'd neither read the book nor seen the movie, like Tom Brown's Schooldays, less interesting, but overall I'd recommend this book, both as a product of its time (and the 15 or 20 previous years), and as a good starting point for the topic.
Edited by Douglas Street
Children's Novels and the Movies
Original price $8.95, purchase price unknown
Paperback where about half the pages detached from the binding
B-
While reading this, I kept thinking of how much has changed. Not just the nature of children's movies (from Harry Potter to the trend of the last decade of making full-length movies out of picture books), but even the methods of film distribution. That there's a list of "Rental Sources for Films Listed in Filmography" reminds me that while cable TV and home video were becoming increasingly common in 1983, most families did not yet have them. (I was middle-class and had neither. A few friends had cable. I don't remember knowing anyone who owned a VCR, or Betamax, although a few rich people had laser discs.) Organizations, such as schools, still used film projectors, and rarely for entertainment rather than education. (A year or two later, I did watch Romeo and Juliet [1968] on a classroom VCR, of course blushing at the topless Juliet and hoping no one noticed.) As I've noted elsewhere, you can now watch an entire movie, sometimes for free, online.
So when I read about the 1977 animated version of The Hobbit, it wasn't just odd because of the current live-action version. And yes, The Hobbit isn't a children's movie per se, but Street feels that any book with appeal to children is a children's book, so such classics as Treasure Island and Kim, not to mention more modern books that arguably have more appeal to adults, such as The Little Prince and Watership Down, are included. There are even a few definitely YA examples, such as A Hero Ain't Nothing But a Sandwich (1978). (It's a sign of the tendency of Hollywood to employ a small group of actors and actresses, especially those of color and at that time, but I was amused that both that contemporary story and Sounder [1972] of the Depression era star Paul Winfield and Cicely Tyson as the parents.)
Contributors do their best to steer clear of Disney (at that time still seen as the predominant maker of children's films, which I think is less true in the era of Pixar et al.), although there's an interesting examination of Pinocchio (1940). While in some cases the "book is better" syndrome prevails, some writers do find films that they think work equally well, albeit in a different way, such as Wizard of Oz (1939). Admittedly, some of the movies that they (and other critics) trash as not just bad adaptations but bad films, I have a soft spot for from watching them on TV in the 1970s, like Pippi Longstocking (1969, but I think the American dub, which adds to the campiness, is from '73). In some cases, they'll compare different versions, like the 1933 and 1949 films of Little Women, to each other as well as to the book.
I obviously found the contributions where I'd neither read the book nor seen the movie, like Tom Brown's Schooldays, less interesting, but overall I'd recommend this book, both as a product of its time (and the 15 or 20 previous years), and as a good starting point for the topic.
Friday, January 18, 2013
John Lennon In My Life
1983, undated (but probably that year) McGraw-Hill edition
Pete Shotton and Nicholas Schaffner
John Lennon In My Life
Original price $14.95, purchase price $9.50
Worn paperback
B-
Shotton was Lennon's best friend for many years, to the point that John called them "Shennon and Lotton." Schaffner of course is one of the best writers on the Beatles. Yet, I feel like this book is less than the sum of its parts. The parts that I suspect are Schaffner's contributions feel like a replay of Beatles Forever and British Invasion. They don't blend very smoothly with Shotton's memories of his best mate. This book is very definitely a reaction to tell-all books, and the slighting references to Peter Brown (whom Shotton worked with while running Apple out of a closet) suggest that either Brown's book had come out at that point, or Shotton was at least aware it was going to be published soon. It is itself a "no trousers" book (sometimes literally, as in the chapters where the two friends would masturbate or have sex with women in the same room), but a much less vicious one. For instance, Shotton minimises the heroin usage that Brown plays up, both shortening the length of John's experience with the drug and the impact it had on him. It's clear that Yoko couldn't stand Pete, perhaps out of jealousy and/or insecurity, but he's more sympathetic to her than many writers.
I'm finding in reading so many books that discuss John Lennon that I'm not sure what to make of him anymore. At 12, when he died, I thought he was just another dead stoner rock star, although dead by a shooting rather than drugs. (Somehow I didn't quite connect him with the Beatles, or I had a lower opinion of him as a solo artist.) Then at 16 or 17 I hero-worshiped him because of his pacifism. Now I see that he was a pacifist, but violent at different points in his life, including his "Lost Weekend." Under Yoko's tutelage, he became a sensitive feminist, but he never completely shook off his sexist "Northern" upbringing. (Neither did the other Beatles of course.) And so on, including with the different sides of his music. The cover of this book symbolises the paradox he was, since the back-cover is a mirror image of the front, down to the title and authors. Perhaps having coauthors is appropriate after all, even if, as with John himself, the sides never quite balance.
Two more views of Lennon, the emotional and the political, are coming up shortly, with John Lennon: For the Record (his Penthouse interview from 1971, but not published till '84), and Come Together.
Pete Shotton and Nicholas Schaffner
John Lennon In My Life
Original price $14.95, purchase price $9.50
Worn paperback
B-
Shotton was Lennon's best friend for many years, to the point that John called them "Shennon and Lotton." Schaffner of course is one of the best writers on the Beatles. Yet, I feel like this book is less than the sum of its parts. The parts that I suspect are Schaffner's contributions feel like a replay of Beatles Forever and British Invasion. They don't blend very smoothly with Shotton's memories of his best mate. This book is very definitely a reaction to tell-all books, and the slighting references to Peter Brown (whom Shotton worked with while running Apple out of a closet) suggest that either Brown's book had come out at that point, or Shotton was at least aware it was going to be published soon. It is itself a "no trousers" book (sometimes literally, as in the chapters where the two friends would masturbate or have sex with women in the same room), but a much less vicious one. For instance, Shotton minimises the heroin usage that Brown plays up, both shortening the length of John's experience with the drug and the impact it had on him. It's clear that Yoko couldn't stand Pete, perhaps out of jealousy and/or insecurity, but he's more sympathetic to her than many writers.
I'm finding in reading so many books that discuss John Lennon that I'm not sure what to make of him anymore. At 12, when he died, I thought he was just another dead stoner rock star, although dead by a shooting rather than drugs. (Somehow I didn't quite connect him with the Beatles, or I had a lower opinion of him as a solo artist.) Then at 16 or 17 I hero-worshiped him because of his pacifism. Now I see that he was a pacifist, but violent at different points in his life, including his "Lost Weekend." Under Yoko's tutelage, he became a sensitive feminist, but he never completely shook off his sexist "Northern" upbringing. (Neither did the other Beatles of course.) And so on, including with the different sides of his music. The cover of this book symbolises the paradox he was, since the back-cover is a mirror image of the front, down to the title and authors. Perhaps having coauthors is appropriate after all, even if, as with John himself, the sides never quite balance.
Two more views of Lennon, the emotional and the political, are coming up shortly, with John Lennon: For the Record (his Penthouse interview from 1971, but not published till '84), and Come Together.
Richard III: England's Black Legend
1983, 1984 Franklin Watts edition
Desmond Seward
Richard III: England's Black Legend
Original price unknown, purchase price $5.95
Good condition hardcover with worn dustjacket
B-
Seward is even more of a conclusion-jumper than Josephine Tey, but this book is at least consistent in its portrayal of Richard III as being as bad as the worst you've heard. And the book is quick and fairly entertaining, so even the military sections didn't bore me. I was annoyed by the number of typos, and confused by the use of "condominium." (Wikipedia gives its meaning in international law: "a political territory [state or border area] in or over which two or more sovereign powers formally agree to share equally dominium [in the sense of sovereignty] and exercise their rights jointly, without dividing it up into 'national' zones.") Seward mentions a few good traits that Richard had, but he does believe that Richard was an incestuous, murderous usurper. I'm still more inclined to the "grey legend," that Richard did some of the evil that he was accused of, but not necessarily all, such as the murder of Prince Edward of Lancaster. (The family trees in the book are nice and clear by the way.) After more than five hundred years, it often seems to be a case of various people's words against others, even more than with Mary, Queen of Scots.
Desmond Seward
Richard III: England's Black Legend
Original price unknown, purchase price $5.95
Good condition hardcover with worn dustjacket
B-
Seward is even more of a conclusion-jumper than Josephine Tey, but this book is at least consistent in its portrayal of Richard III as being as bad as the worst you've heard. And the book is quick and fairly entertaining, so even the military sections didn't bore me. I was annoyed by the number of typos, and confused by the use of "condominium." (Wikipedia gives its meaning in international law: "a political territory [state or border area] in or over which two or more sovereign powers formally agree to share equally dominium [in the sense of sovereignty] and exercise their rights jointly, without dividing it up into 'national' zones.") Seward mentions a few good traits that Richard had, but he does believe that Richard was an incestuous, murderous usurper. I'm still more inclined to the "grey legend," that Richard did some of the evil that he was accused of, but not necessarily all, such as the murder of Prince Edward of Lancaster. (The family trees in the book are nice and clear by the way.) After more than five hundred years, it often seems to be a case of various people's words against others, even more than with Mary, Queen of Scots.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The British Invasion
1983, undated (but probably that year) McGraw-Hill edition
Nicholas Schaffner (and friends)
The British Invasion
Probably bought newish for $14.95
Worn paperback
B-
Although this was first published in 1982, and is listed as such on, for instance, Wikipedia, I'm going with the 1983 copyright. Schaffner and his collaborators (including two with his last name) use December 1980 as a cut-off point (because of John Lennon's death), although in some profiles a band's releases and other actions for '81 are mentioned. As such, I found it worked on two levels for me. One is as a glimpse into a time of rock history (a term that Schaffner finds himself defending, though this is a decade after the Christgau book I reviewed) when I was either not yet born or too little to follow the charts. (I would say 1975 is when I became aware of, in particular, Paul McCartney and Elton John.) The book is also, in the second section, with its short profiles of the "Hot Hundred" a glimpse of British music shortly before I became a fan of Culture Club, the Thompson Twins, Dexy's Midnight Runners, and others, that is 1982 onwards.
Oddly enough, some of the artists, including the Kinks (one of seven bands and/or soloists that Schaffner has longer profiles of), seem not to have "invaded" the U.S. all that well, in that their music often flopped on American charts and had no more than cult status, a hit or ten aside. This paradox, especially as it played out in the aggressively non-commercial punk movement, could've been explored in more depth. Also, there are many bands here I just don't care about. Still, the writing is good, with Parke Puterbaugh (a Rolling Stone reviewer) probably the best after Schaffner, as with his remark that "no one would own up to the origins of [Spooky Tooth's] name, which suggested a regrettable dental episode."
Schaffner's other 1983 collaboration, with Pete Shotton, is not mentioned on the back cover, so this probably isn't a much later edition.
Nicholas Schaffner (and friends)
The British Invasion
Probably bought newish for $14.95
Worn paperback
B-
Although this was first published in 1982, and is listed as such on, for instance, Wikipedia, I'm going with the 1983 copyright. Schaffner and his collaborators (including two with his last name) use December 1980 as a cut-off point (because of John Lennon's death), although in some profiles a band's releases and other actions for '81 are mentioned. As such, I found it worked on two levels for me. One is as a glimpse into a time of rock history (a term that Schaffner finds himself defending, though this is a decade after the Christgau book I reviewed) when I was either not yet born or too little to follow the charts. (I would say 1975 is when I became aware of, in particular, Paul McCartney and Elton John.) The book is also, in the second section, with its short profiles of the "Hot Hundred" a glimpse of British music shortly before I became a fan of Culture Club, the Thompson Twins, Dexy's Midnight Runners, and others, that is 1982 onwards.
Oddly enough, some of the artists, including the Kinks (one of seven bands and/or soloists that Schaffner has longer profiles of), seem not to have "invaded" the U.S. all that well, in that their music often flopped on American charts and had no more than cult status, a hit or ten aside. This paradox, especially as it played out in the aggressively non-commercial punk movement, could've been explored in more depth. Also, there are many bands here I just don't care about. Still, the writing is good, with Parke Puterbaugh (a Rolling Stone reviewer) probably the best after Schaffner, as with his remark that "no one would own up to the origins of [Spooky Tooth's] name, which suggested a regrettable dental episode."
Schaffner's other 1983 collaboration, with Pete Shotton, is not mentioned on the back cover, so this probably isn't a much later edition.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Cult Movies 2
1983, Dell Trade edition from later that year
Danny Peary
Cult Movies 2: Fifty More of the Classics, the Sleepers, the Weird, and the Wonderful
Original price $12.95, purchase price unknown
Very worn paperback
C
The problems with the first book continue, and in a way get worse. Just like in my early 20s, I almost wanted to quit reading the book early on, because of thoroughly unpleasant movies in the B's, C's, and D's. This time the issue is not just violence, as with Blood Feast and Daughters of Darkness, but rape, often by protagonists. While I appreciate that Peary acknowledges feminist criticism, he's capable of writing of Basketcase (1982, the most recent of the movies in this book), "As for the film, despite the rape, it deserves to play on the Midnight circuit for, as Ievins hopes, 'ten years.'" And it is Peary's choice to profile these movies, including ones he's not fond of, such as A Clockwork Orange. In that and A Boy and His Dog, the post-apocalyptic antiheroes seek out women to rape. Yes, these rapists are all presented as "bad" men but they're also presented as likable, and in the case of Don Johnson and Malcolm McDowell, handsome actors play them.
So even though I appreciate such favorites of mine as His Girl Friday, Some Like It Hot, and Willy Wonka being reviewed, as well as a few movies I sought out specifically because of this book (The First Nudie Musical, High School Confidential, Salt of the Earth), I have to average out my enjoyment and lack. I must also note that the bias towards more recent films is even stronger than in the first book. This time over half of the fifty are from 1971 on.
We'll see how I feel about Cult Movies 3 when we get up to 1988.
Danny Peary
Cult Movies 2: Fifty More of the Classics, the Sleepers, the Weird, and the Wonderful
Original price $12.95, purchase price unknown
Very worn paperback
C
The problems with the first book continue, and in a way get worse. Just like in my early 20s, I almost wanted to quit reading the book early on, because of thoroughly unpleasant movies in the B's, C's, and D's. This time the issue is not just violence, as with Blood Feast and Daughters of Darkness, but rape, often by protagonists. While I appreciate that Peary acknowledges feminist criticism, he's capable of writing of Basketcase (1982, the most recent of the movies in this book), "As for the film, despite the rape, it deserves to play on the Midnight circuit for, as Ievins hopes, 'ten years.'" And it is Peary's choice to profile these movies, including ones he's not fond of, such as A Clockwork Orange. In that and A Boy and His Dog, the post-apocalyptic antiheroes seek out women to rape. Yes, these rapists are all presented as "bad" men but they're also presented as likable, and in the case of Don Johnson and Malcolm McDowell, handsome actors play them.
So even though I appreciate such favorites of mine as His Girl Friday, Some Like It Hot, and Willy Wonka being reviewed, as well as a few movies I sought out specifically because of this book (The First Nudie Musical, High School Confidential, Salt of the Earth), I have to average out my enjoyment and lack. I must also note that the bias towards more recent films is even stronger than in the first book. This time over half of the fifty are from 1971 on.
We'll see how I feel about Cult Movies 3 when we get up to 1988.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)