Howard Hawks

Contemporary Approaches to Film and Media Series

by Robin Wood

A significant and contemporary study of director Howard Hawks by influential film critic Robin Wood, reprinted with a new introduction.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Criticism, Media Tie In

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1968

About the author

Robert Paul Wood, known as Robin Wood, was an English film critic and educator who lived in Canada for much of his life. He wrote books on the works of Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks, Satyajit Ray, Ingmar Bergman, Michelangelo Antonioni, and Arthur Penn. Wood was a longtime member - and co-founder, along with other colleagues at Toronto's York University - of the editorial collective which publishes CineACTION!, a film theory magazine. Wood was also York professor emeritus of film.[2]

Robin Wood was a founding editor of CineAction! and author of numerous influential works, including new editions published by Wayne State University Press of Personal Views: Explorations in Film (2006), Howard Hawks (2006), Ingmar Bergman (2013), Arthur Penn (2014) and The Apu Trilogy (2016). He was professor emeritus at York University, Toronto, and the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Society for Cinema and Media Studies.

Reviews

[Hugo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was eager to read something from Robin Wood and it hasn't disappointed me. It's hard for film criticism not to be frustrating at times, because the experience of watching a film is mostly ungraspable, and this essay is not an exception, but Wood succeeds in finding something riveting to say about Hawks' earnest but difficult-to-talk-about work.
Wood doesn't "explain" the films. Instead, he improves their memory by finding ideas which inform Hawks' work without imposing any kind of violent analysis. This is not the kind of criticism that finds all the meanings of the universe in a camera position, but it doesn't restrict itself to the mere plot. The objects of Wood's best analysis can only be found on film (they aren't literary, so to speak), but they're not quirky formalist techniques* (among other reasons, because Hawks never did those). Some examples: the cut to Dean Martin's reaction of awe and admiration to a particular John Wayne's display of authority and integrity (or rather, authority stemming from integrity) in Rio Bravo ; Cary Grant passing Thomas Mitchell a cigarette with perfect timing as a sign of friendship and mutual understanding in Only Angels Have Wings ; the expressions of the bluntness of death (Boris Karloff's bowling ball rolling while he's already dead, for example) contrasting with the comic irresponsibility of the gangsters in Scarface.
True, the insistence on subjects and patterns that are inherent of an auteurist study might become redundant. But still, this essay is the best argument to support an author-centered approach to film. The best articles are those that comment on Hawks' two best films: Rio Bravo and Scarface. I infered that I'm much more satisfied with Bringing Up Baby than Wood was.
I want to mention Wood's ethical commitment to film, developed in the 2006 afterword but informing the original text. The most remarkable thing is that this commitment didn't get in the way of his sensual enjoyment of the art-medium. He saw the fun and the politics, and he understood that fun is related to emancipation, even if he recognized some conservative trends in Hawks' films (probably derived from the general Hollywood ideology). When comparing To Have and Have Not with the Hemingway's novel the film is adapted from, Wood uses the sombreness of the literary work as a proof of its conservatism, much less present, or directly absent, in the movie.

* To make it clear, I'm not against quirky formalist techniques, and sometimes I love them, but it's common to think of extreme editing, expressionistic lighting and complex camera movements when we talk about what film can contribute to a plot (the "literary" part).

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The lightly humorous treatment should not blind us to its underlying seriousness and beauty."

Some seriously articulate insights, of course. 5 stars for the first few chapters alone. Pairing Scarface with Hawks' best comedies was a "meister" stroke.

This book has been on my wish list for years, so I was really lookimg forward to reading it. After the first few chapters I stopped enjoying the experience.

Wood spent too much time on lesser Hawk films at the expense of the 30s - 40s era films. 1 star minus.

And finally, of course Gentlemen Prefer Blondes falls apart under analysis! Some films should not be picked apart, but simply enjoyed. Minus 1/2 star.

3 1/2 stars

[Ehsan Bahrami · Rating 5 out of 5]

«اگر قرار باشد یک فیلم انتخاب کنم که وجود هالیوود را توجیه کند[آن فیلم] به نظرم ریو براوو خواهد بود...»
رابین وود

قند مضاعف بود
من همراه این کتاب شروع کردم به دیدن فیلم های هاکس، بعضی هارو ندیده بودم و بعضی ها هم یادم رفته بود. و عجب تجربه شیرینی بود. همین قصد رو با کتاب دانلد ریچی و اُزو هم دارم.
رابین وود (یکی از معرکه ترین منتقدین سینما) در این کتاب کاوشی موشکافانه از جهان هاکسی ارائه میده. او به وسیله چندین تم که جهان هاکس رو میسازن به تحلیل قسمت عمده فیلم های هاکس میپردازه و با به هم گره زدن این تم ها در فیلم ها یک کل واحد از هاکس میسازه. این تم ها عبارتند از:
-عزت نفس و مسئولیت
-وسوسه عدم مسئولیت
-گروه
-روابط مردان
-آگاهی غریزی
-پایین وادی سایه
وود در مقدمه از هنر و سرگرمی و رابطه اون ها با هم حرف میزنه و کمی هم از هالییود دوران استودیویی. بعد هر کدوم از فیلم هارو در یکی از این دسته ها جا میده و به تحلیل تک تک اون ها میپردازه.
بعضی اوقات آدم با خواندن تحلیل این بزرگان از فیلم ها خجالت میکشه از نوعی که خودش یک فیلمی رو دیده .
تنها ایراد کتاب قدیمی بودن ترجمه و ویراستاری اون هست که بعضی جاها خیلی اذیت کننده میشود .

[O'Neal Sadler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit dry, but probably one of the best books on any director I've read. Still, I don't quite think Robin Wood, despite his very best efforts, captures what exactly made Howard Hawks such a great director. His style is so sly and covert, one has to listen and watch carefully. I've been watching and rewatching his films over the last few months since the pandemic, and I've come away with more questions than answers. He isn't quite as good as say John Ford or Orson Welles, but he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with either of them. For me, it's in the dialogue and the themes: quick, rapid fire talk, naturalistic and funny and themes of friendship, duty and professionalism in the face of an ugly job. "It is what it is," according to The Irishman. But the same was true of "Scarface," or "Rio Bravo," or "Dawn Patrol," or "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," and so it goes and goes.

By the end, I began to understand Godard's famous quip, he started making movies differently when he "realized I couldn't make them like Howard Hawks."

[Raquel D. Carrasco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una monografía sobre Howard Hawks que destaca por un análisis exhaustivo de sus obras (que se agrupan por temáticas) con un lenguaje muy expresivo y claro que facilita la comprensión final del texto.

Robin Wood realiza una aproximación muy interesante a la filmografía de este director de cine ya que las agrupa por temáticas, realizando un desmenuzamiento de cada obra y enriqueciendo las explicaciones con comparaciones de otros grandes directores de cine lo que permite tener una mayor perspectiva de los recursos cinematográficos que definen a Hawks.

Si te gusta el cine, es una monografía muy recomendada y si te gusta Howard Hawks, es una monografía de obligatoria lectura.

[Chris Gager · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read a book about HH and his movies back in the early 70's. I don't know if it was this one though. Back in my movie fanatic days. Trivia Bowl days too. Date read is a guess.

[Luke Pete · Rating 3 out of 5]

link: Review here.