Keepers: The Greatest Films--and Personal Favorites--of a Moviegoing Lifetime

by Richard Schickel

From a legendary film critic and movie fan extraordinaire, the highlights reel of a life spent at the movies Richard Schickel has seen, by his own estimate, more than twenty thousand films. He has been a reviewer since 1965 (long for Time magazine), has written almost forty books on the subject, and has produced and directed thirty documentaries. He has counted as personal friends many of the leading filmmakers of the twentieth century. Call it “obsession,” “lunacy,” or a “grand passion” (Schickel grants all three), but there’s simply no one who knows film better. Now Schickel gives us the ultimate summing a history of film as he’s seen—and lived—it, a tour of his favorites, a master class in what makes a film soar or flop. Schickel’s no-holds-barred, often raucously irreverent opinions can range from panning classics, to spotlighting forgotten treasures, to defending the art of “popular” genres such as horror, westerns, screwball comedy, and noir. Beyond his picks and pans, Schickel offers a wealth of behind-the-scenes anecdotes (a love note from Marlene Dietrich, Frank Capra’s unlikely path to success, Annie Hall’s original title), career studies of our greatest performers and auteurs, and candidly intimate glimpses of his own life in pictures (an evening with Greta Garbo, John Ford’s advice on directing, a “dust-up” in defense of Monty Python). Above all, Schickel gives us a collection of the true gems, the immortal moments that have stuck with him over a lifetime of movie watching—the transcendent scenes, characters, lines, shots, scores, even lighting cues that offer, each in their way, pure “movie magic.” Buster Keaton, His Girl Friday, Ingrid Bergman, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Stanley Kubrick, Pulp Fiction—Schickel reveals all the films and the forces behind them that have kept him coming back for more. An essential addition to any cinephile’s library, Keepers is the curation of a brilliant connoisseur and critic, but more than that, it’s a love letter to film from one of its most dedicated devotees.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Media Tie In, History, Memoir, Criticism

320 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 23, 2015

About the author

Richard Schickel is an important American film historian, journalist, author, filmmaker, screenwriter, documentarian, and film and literary critic.

Mr.Schickel is featured in For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism. In this 2009 documentary film he discusses early film critics in the 1960s, and how he and other young critics, rejected the moralizing opposition of Bosley Crowther of The New York Times who had railed against violent movies such as Bonnie and Clyde.
In addition to film, Schickel has also critiqued and documented cartoons, particularly Peanuts.

Schickel was a recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1964. He has also lectured at Yale University and University of Southern California's School of Film and Television.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find I can learn a lot from a professional who writes about his field, and I like it best when he is also a person for whom “love and need are one,” who has united his avocation with his vocation and can speak generously in his books about his own enthusiasms and pleasures.

Film critic Richard Schickel is such a man, and Keepers is such a book. He is in his eighties now, having written movie reviews for Time for more than half his life (1965–2010), not to mention other projects and publications, but his love for movies is as full of wonder and inspired notions as it was when he watched his first film (Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs) when he was seven years old.

Those who wish to find a developed theory of film, or even a definitive list of Schickel's all-time favorites, will not find it here. Instead, he will discover a series of short, disconnected (but chronologically organized) chapters, in which Schickel write of films he admires, why he admires them, and why he likes them better than other more esteemed films. If he has a fault, it is that he has little bad to say about anyone's work (except for Orson Welles and Pauline Kael). This is particularly noticeable in his treatment of the great living directors who have become his friends, but then again, this is a book about his enthusiasms, so such generosity should be expected.

There is something here to delight each of you film fans, particularly if you love Hollywood's golden years. I, of course, liked the book best when Schickel agreed with me (Sunrise is a transcendent work of filmic poetry, Pinocchio is Disney's greatest film, The Magnificent Ambersons, damaged as it is, is better than Citizen Kane) and I liked it less when we were at odds (High Sierra is better than The Maltese Falcon, The Best Years of Our Lives is “close to travesty,” All About Eve has “not worn well”). Then again, he shares many of my minor enthusiasms: Mary Astor, Eve Arden, Jack Carson, Betty Hutton, director Andre de Toth, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, and others.

I am sure you too will find here your own shared enthusiasms and disagreements, and I suspect you will enjoy the journey, for you will be traveling in the company of a veteran professional who loves movies just as much as the day he saw his first one, three-quarters of a century ago.

[Jill H. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't really much care for film critics (with the exception of the late Roger Ebert, who had a sense of humor about his opinions) but have seen some film documentaries which I enjoyed that this author did for television. So I thought I would give it a try. Mistake!

The book was all over the place, time-wise, and the author jumped from one decade to another in the same paragraph without any similarity to the films being discussed. And, unlike Ebert, he took himself too seriously. Whether a film is good, bad or mediocre is strictly subjective but he talked down to his audience and made the film buff feels like an idiot for liking or disliking a particular film.

But what really threw me was the fact that he made two huge errors and he is supposed to be the expert.

*He misidentified Joy Page as the scorned girlfriend of Bogey who cried when La Marseillaise was played in Rick's in the film Casablanca. It was instead Madeline LeBeau. Joy Page was the girl with her husband who was seeking letters of transit.
*He called Karloff's monster, Frankenstein, in that film when indeed Colin Clive was Dr. Frankenstein and Karloff was just "the monster".

That pretty much did it for me and I hurried through the rest of the book. I wouldn't recommend it.

[Tom Stamper · Rating 4 out of 5]

The charm of this book is its conversational style. It grabbed me and kept me early on when Schickel declared that his favorite Charlie Chaplin movies was THE CIRCUS (1928). I have always felt exactly the same way, but I was an island until Schickel. We also agree that Rules of the Game (1939) is overrated. I have always thought that Renoir's Grand Illusion (1937) was superior. Neither of us care much for 2001: A Space Odyssey (1967). We both find Blowup (1966) a bit too much. He sums up Stanley Kramer's PC approach to film making perfectly. He appreciates Eastwood and Bogart and Howard Hawks and Hitchock as do I.

Where we differ is with his fascination with Bette Davis, an actress that doesn't do a thing for me. She makes me root for Anne Baxter in All About Eve. He thinks Gone with the Wind (1939) would have been better with Davis.

But it's not just about agreements. Pauline Kael was so wrong on so many movies and was still fun to read. Schickel just takes us on this cozy journey of his movie memories. He reminds me of some films I should see again and some movies that I should see for the first time.

[Lara · Rating 5 out of 5]

From silent films to "Star Wars" and "Wings of Desire", "Time" magazine critic Richard Schickel's new collection of film essays takes us on a journey through the history of his favorite films. Since 1965, he has built a lifetime writing books about movies, making his own movies/documentaries and reviewing movies. His overall tone here is positive and upbeat, not pretentious or "high brow". He's father blunt in a very intelligent way, and doesn't hesitate to toss in not a few zingers, not gratuitously but because he really feels this way about a scene or a star. (For instance, commenting on Marlene Dietrich's line in "Shanghai Express" (1932) ("It took more than one man to change my name to Shanghai Lily"), Schickel writes, "You don't know whether to laugh, cry or flip off the DVD." I'll leave you to guess what he meant by "flip off".

Frankly, I devoured the whole book. When I learned it was coming out, it was instantly pre-ordered and surprised me by arriving sooner than Amazon predicted. I don't regret the purchase and I know I'll be going back to this volume frequently for information or just a good read on a movie I myself enjoy. If you purchase this book, be sure to look at the "Also By Richard Schickel" page at the beginning. I have a feeling my library of this man's work has just begun to be built.

Schickel declares in the introduction, "If this book is not a pleasure to read and does not trigger some reflection on your part, then it will have failed in its purpose. You are supposed to argue with me - Why this? Why not that? We should agree to disagree, but I hope in a civilized way." His observations and opinions are his own, and he makes no bones about, or apologies for, them, Personally, I was taken aback by his opinion of Orson Welles (who all my friends know I revere unlike anybody in the history of film). But, upon reflection (wouldn't Mr. Schickel be pleased?) I had to concede that he had some valid points - but I'm not yet willing to like or adopt them. So we'll part disagreeing friends on Orson, and I shall keep reflecting.

[Aaron Martz · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is so pretentious and shallow, I finally had to give up reading it. I struggled and struggled and stopped and read other books and came back to it, but it finally got the best of me. I like Schickel and used to like reading his reviews, but however focused and observant he was there, he certainly isn't any of that here. He comes off as self-centered and scatterbrained, bouncing from one film to another, sometimes from one subject to another, and the book is so unfocused it reads like a proposal for a book rather than a completed manuscript. It's as if he felt he had to get everything down before time ran out. If he wanted to write on every conceivable topic and filmmaker, if he wanted to cover every base, he should have been more patient and created an outline with which to do so instead of seemingly writing and writing until he reached the end, then pitching it out there without any thought of organization or editing.

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the better film criticism books I’ve ever read

[JDK1962 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Can't say I really enjoyed this all that much, even though I was a bit of a film nerd myself in the 70s and 80s. He spends far too much time (IMHO) on the first 50 years of Hollywood, and gives fairly short shrift to 70s onward. The level of detail is very superficial (here's a film I liked, here's a couple of paragraphs on why, maybe a note on why I think it's significant), and ultimately, it boils down to his (informed) opinion. Which is perfectly valid, as he's a noted film critic, but I just didn't find it that compelling.

Also, he notes that he had the feeling while reading the novel on which The Godfather was based was "kind of trashy." Kind of? How about "a screen treatment masquerading as a novel"? How about "appallingly written with no literary value whatsoever"? Sorry, it's a sore spot...people write reviews of that book, but their reviews tend to be of the (fantastic) movie, not the (crap) book.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Schickel is a good writer, but his views are not very startling and are what to be expected regarding the films (now mostly classics) he saw during his life. And that is what this ... a somewhat meandering mind burst of a man in older age remembering the movies of his life. The biggest surprise herein is the amount of people in the industry he reviewed for a living with whom he hob-nobbed with and sometimes was quite personally attached to.

[Marie · Rating 2 out of 5]

What an insufferable bore. Picture this. You're a guest at a party at which you know nobody. There's a half in the bag old fart in an easy chair in the corner, whom you try to avoid, but oh no, the hostess just has to introduce you. He begins talking about movies - oh, is he a critic? - and he talks and talks and talks. You try to catch him by mentioning an obscure (to most North Americans) film like Kurosawa's Ikiru. Oh, he's seen it! And he can talk forever about it. Honestly, this man just goes on and on, demonstrating himself as a dilettante poseur who name drops AD INFINITUM, and who in the end has nothing to contribute to the listener/reader's own appreciation of the medium. Press a button and he can give you 1000 words on any film ever made. Do they contribute anything of value to the canon of critique? No! It's filler and gossip! No wonder William Goldman (no stranger to bombast himself, but at least he was a skilled and serious screenwriter) had a total detestation for film critics.

[David Clary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Few knew more about the history of film than Schickel, who reviewed movies for Life and then Time magazine for decades and wrote dozens of books about people like Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese. This is a breezy, roughly chronological guide to cinematic history from silent pictures to Tarantino. Schickel is an easygoing guide, focusing much more on the films he admires rather than the ones he doesn't. He draws sharp portraits of people like Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick that ring true because he actually met them as well as watched their films. There are times when I wished he delved deeper into certain films and personalities instead of feeling like he had to flit off into the next subject. I suppose he would say in response: "Read my other books"!

[Angus McKeogh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Was hoping this would demonstrate a whole host of movies that were great for different reasons. Rather it had two major flaws: 1) 90% of the movies were from before 1950 or there about 2) the book didn’t really focus on movies per se, it focused on mainly a handful of directors and their contributions. Not nearly as entertaining or as informative as I’d hoped.

[Richard Stuecker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Personal, uninsightful

Schickel may have spent his life at the movies, making simplistic documentaries and interviewing old movie stars, but somehow missed the boat in this dim witted account that sites over the great movies he mentions, giving them short shrift as though he is writing slock for a Hollywood movie magazine. Barely okay.

[Austin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much reflection on older films that I have little connection to. That does not make the book objectively bad, just not engaging for particular readers. More contemporary reflections were enjoyable to read, but the author has an erudite manner of writing that can be off putting and fervent defense of Woody Allen that seems out of touch with today’s cultural landscape.

[Todd Glaeser · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable survey of the history of film. I should have paid more attention to the full title of the book which tells more about Schickel's life than I expected. He did describe a couple of films that I put on my "to watch" mental list, which is why I read books like this.

[Adrienne · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe 2.5. Uneven, disjointed collection of musings about films. At first I thought the writing was really good but then I grew tired of the same phrases being repeatedly used. There were also too many conclusions stated without any support.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not engaging. And he even makes the classic error of referring to the creature as "Frankenstein." Surely he knows this is an error--didn't anyone catch this?

[Brent · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a sweet summary review of a lifetime of favorite films, with anecdotes added from personal experience, filmmakers, and peers.
Highly recommended.

[Kevin]

to-read

[Rodney Haydon · Rating 3 out of 5]

On hearing of Richard Schickel's passing on February 18th of this year, I felt the urge to read some of his works. This was at the library, so I checked it out and am glad to have done so.
Richard moves around a bit in this one, but it's okay. It is a bit like having a conversation with someone you don't really know well, but happen to be seated next to at some event.
That isn't to say that this isn't a good book, because it is. But he doesn't go deep into any of the films he discusses. More of just what he likes. Like someone else wrote here, Keep a pen and paper handy to write down films that sound good to you!

I don't think this is a book I would re-read, but as I wrote earlier, I am glad to have read it.

[JerryDeanHalleck · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty meh. Nothing wrong wth Schickel's choices, its just not a case for these films being "the greatest". Mostly, it just Schickel rambling on about whatever. Probably should have been retitled "Reflections: My comments on some favorite movies".

Schickel made a good living as a film critic but he was never top-tier, up there with Simon, Kael, Kauffmann, Ebert, etc, primarily because his film criticism is standard, and without insight or verve. Prose is forgettable.

[Terry Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book by a film aficionado for fellow film aficionados, graybeard critic Richard Schickel jumps around his established movie timeline like a demented hobgoblin from seat to seat, popcorn crumbs gleaming on his chin - dispensing a page of wisdom here, followed by a page of bragging (I'm pals with Clint Eastwood! Cary Grant was nice to me!), followed by a transition from a film of the 1950s to leaping ahead to 1973 ... eh, I'm getting a headache just trying to revisit the style at hand. Some chapters are two pages long, while others go for fifteen pages, which is fine, but adds to the fragmented feel of the book. He gives an excellent analysis of Film Noir, with some candidates I never thought of - in fact, I learned about several films I hadn't heard about, which is always fun (and that also come with Schickel's guarantee that any of the films he discusses are worthy of the time to watch them). He's also brave enough to state when the Emperor has no clothes ... taking on Welles's merits as a career-director after Citizen Kane, or why Keaton is superior to Chaplin, or even how the art of movie dialogue has fallen by the wayside in the past several decades. He acknowledges Spielberg for making popcorn entertainments while mixing in movies that are considered more meritorious, celebrates his love of FARGO by the Coen brothers, and thinks Quentin Tarantino is a one of a kind talent (although a talent who has yet to improve upon Pulp Fiction). In short - the guy loves movies, period. Even the shitty ones ... and that is the mark of a true fan, and not just a critic.

[Michael Samerdyke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book.

It could have been better organized, and there are some errors, but if you think of "Keepers" as more as listening to Schickel talk about movies than reading a scholarly text, the organization becomes less of a problem.

We don't agree on everything, either about movies or other issues, but Richard Schickel has always been one of my favorite movie reviewers, and this book reminded me of that fact quite forcefully. When we do agree on something is like finding a lost cousin. Who else prefers "The Circus" out of Chaplin's features, or Keaton's "The Navigator" over "The General"? The fact that Schickel appreciates the career of Jack Carson so much or that we agree "Radio Days" is one of Woody Allen's best just makes me feel less alone in the universe. Hell, the last movie Schickel recommends is Jan Troell's "Hamsun," and we both zero in on the Hitler scene in our appreciation of the film. That alone is worth the price of the book to me.

The concluding page of this book is simply terrific and will touch any movie lover.

[Art · Rating 3 out of 5]

Richard Schickel, longtime film reviewer for Time magazine, is a middle-brow critic now in his eighties. This book is an overview of some of his favorite films from the silent days until the present. He loves the old Hollywood fare from the '30s, '40s, and '50s. He is friends with Clint Eastwood. His favorite foreign films are the ones you've heard the most about. He may have written this book in one mad rush without any worries about chapters that don't cohere or which contain a mix and match of movies that don't hang together. It was an easy read. I didn't always agree with his opinions but mostly this was because he seems easily bored. I wouldn't recommend this to my friends but since I'd already seen most of the films in the book, it was fine. For a more insightful and rewarding film critic, please see Jonathan Rosenbaum (any of his books will do but he also has a challenging list of his top 1000 films in the collection Essential Cinema).

[Dick Rockwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Schickel presents a warmed over dinner

I've read Richard Schickel's film reviews for decades and always founde his views direct and appealing. I expected a bit more from this overview of film reminiscences. These reflections tell us little about the films' plots, themes, acting, or place in the pantheon of a lifetime of films Schickel has viewed. He reveals great affection for film and even jokingly refers to his life and hours spent "wasted" - not drunk- in movie theaters. He's not ashamed. Coincidentally, the Richard Schickel's book that I remember the most and found most revealing in my life, and one I have gifted to my friends going through the same experience, is "Singled Out: A Suddenly Single Man's Guide toLife," which explores the aftermath of Schickel's divorce and his transitional woman. Now that would make a good movie.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you enjoy sitting around and chatting with your friends about your favorite movies, and you have a special fondness for classic movies, then this is a book for you. I think it's a more interesting book if you've actually seen most of the films he's talking about (I have), but he's also reminded me of many that I have yet to catch. He's honest about films he just doesn't get (e.g., The Rules of the Game which I also don't quite get), but is rarely disparaging; there's a sincere wish that he could derive the same pleasures that others do. The bottom line is that this is the next best thing to having Mr. Schickel over to your house for dinner and a blu-ray screening. Based on this book, he has a standing invitation.

Incidentally, I read this book almost entirely on my phone. The short, largely self-contained chapters make it perfect spare moment reading.

[Barbara Bryant · Rating 2 out of 5]

No, I really have not been reading this book for two and a half months--I put it down and never updated the status. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the book, but I frequently disagreed with the author about movies, got tired of his name-dropping (which was not really fair as he did genuinely know a lot of people in the business), and just got tired of reading about millions of movies. I am scarcely an intellectual moviegoer and see far fewer than I used to--I just have always loved movies and enjoy reading about them as a rule. I fear I am the type of person who professes to be rather good at knowing what is worthy in the movie world but who doesn't pursue the interest in a scholarly way. It's called laziness and I excel at it. Read it and enjoy if it appeals.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very good basic primer of early American film, but a bit scattered on the modern half. Overall, I learned a lot from this book, and enjoyed the personal anecdotes told by the author about various directors or actors he had professional and personal relationships with. I can forgive him for not being as "artsy" in his taste as I am. Keep a pen and paper handy to write down films that sound good to you! If you'r not into early cinema, this book isn't for you. He spends at least the first 200 pages on what today would be considered very "classic" cinema.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply Entertaining.

Schickel writes well. Schickel writes about movies. Schickel is unpretentious but knowledgable. Schickel has reviewed films for over 50 years and has an encyclopedic knowledge about movies. Add this all up and you have a well written interesting history of movies from the silent era on told via an analysis of some the best of those movies.

[Fred Osuna · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was pretty much just a fleshed-out list of a respected and well-travelled cinephile's favorite films and film genres. As that, it was enjoyable enough, but I was left feeling shortchanged of Schickel's much more vast knowledge.

[Glenn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh. Very 1940-1970s centric.