The film director Jane Campion suggested earlier this year that she was finished with cinema. “The really clever people used to do film,” she said. “Now, the really clever people do television.” Admittedly, she had a TV series – Top of the Lake: China Girl – to promote, but the sentiment is in the air. With Hollywood in thrall to CGI spectacle there are some who would argue that movies are now little more than an industrial process.
It’s not true of course. Indeed, because of technology, movie-making has probably never been easier. But in the culture at large it’s fair to say that cinephilia seems to be in retreat.
Certainly that’s the case in publishing where it’s all cash-in memoirs and academia. All the more reason to welcome a book like The Pedro Almodovar Archives (Taschen, £49.99). Originally published in 2011 but now brought up to date, it gives a film-by-film account of his career; taking Almodovar from the scrappy cinematic provocateur of the Movida years up to the elegant and, yes, rather bourgeois but brilliant purveyor of 21st-century melodrama.
Edited by Paul Duncan with Barbara Piero, this is a brick of a book full of behind-the-scene photos, reviews and interviews with Almodovar itself, one that takes its subject gratifyingly seriously. Some might say too seriously, but you can’t hate any book that is so in love with the movies that it discusses cinema technique in its very captions.
The auteur theory is also front and centre in Tom Shone’s monograph on Tarantino (Thames & Hudson, £24.95). For some of us Tarantino is an example of the auteur as problematic text; a man with an immense facility for image-making and blessed of an unarguable cinephilia set against his hipster misogyny. This book, though, is very much the case for the defence.
Shone is simply one of the most eloquent and acute film writers we have, but the retrospective shadow of the Harvey Weinstein allegations now inevitably seep into the margins of his text here given that Tarantino and Weinstein were joined at the hip in their salad days.
Then there’s the fact that the more films Tarantino has made the more enamoured the director has become with the sound of his own voice. To his detriment.
All that said, this remains a real engagement on Shone’s part with a director who clearly loves cinema. And for those who love him it’s a must. But be warned. It contains a lot of pictures of Quentin. I mean, a lot.
Charlotte Rampling’s memoir Who I Am (Icon Books, £12.99) was met with very dismissive reviews when it came out in March, partly because it is a scrap of a thing (barely over 100 pages), partly because its author Christopher Bataille’s approach is, umm, very French.
And yet there are shards of light permitted on a painful family story here. At its heart is the suicide of her sister and even though Rampling wants to keep her emotions in hiding she can’t help but reveal the pain and horror that settled on her family as a result. This is not a great book but, despite itself, it feels like a revealing one.
Finally, two very different approaches to post-war American cinema. Noah Isenberg’s We’ll Always Have Casablanca (Faber, £25) is a fond “genius of the system” take on the making and the legacy of one of Hollywood’s most beloved movies. It’s baggy at times, but full of good stories.
It makes for a fine double bill with Warner Bros (Yale University Press, £16.99), David Thomson’s book on the Hollywood family whose company gave us Casablanca.
Isenberg’s book is loving. Thomson’s is more ambivalent. And yet, at heart, his too is a love letter to cinema that riffs on the seductiveness of the artform. As a writer he is aware of the dirtied hems, but he just can’t help himself admire the cut. Even now he can’t bring himself to finish with the movies.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here