What do you think?
Rate this book
A Light in the Dark: A History of Movie Directors
From the celebrated film critic and author of The Biographical Dictionary of Film --an essential work on the preeminent, indispensable movie directors and the ways in which their work has forged, and continues to forge, the landscape of modern film.
Directors operate behind the scenes, managing actors, establishing a cohesive creative vision, at times literally guiding our eyes with the eye of the camera. But we are often so dazzled by the visions on-screen that it is easy to forget the individual who is off-screen orchestrating the entire production--to say nothing of their having marshaled a script, a studio, and other people's money. David Thomson, in his usual brilliantly insightful way, shines a light on the visionary directors who have shaped modern cinema and, through their work, studies the very nature of film direction. With his customary candor about his own delights and disappointments, Thomson analyzes both landmark works and forgotten films from classic directors such as Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Jean Renoir, and Jean-Luc Godard, as well as contemporary powerhouses such as Jane Campion, Spike Lee, and Quentin Tarantino. He shrewdly interrogates their professional legacies and influence in the industry, while simultaneously assessing the critical impact of an artist's personal life on his or her work. He explores the male directors' dominance of the past, and describes how diversity can change the landscape. Judicious, vivid, and witty, A Light in the Dark is yet another required Thomson text for every movie lover's shelf.
Directors operate behind the scenes, managing actors, establishing a cohesive creative vision, at times literally guiding our eyes with the eye of the camera. But we are often so dazzled by the visions on-screen that it is easy to forget the individual who is off-screen orchestrating the entire production--to say nothing of their having marshaled a script, a studio, and other people's money. David Thomson, in his usual brilliantly insightful way, shines a light on the visionary directors who have shaped modern cinema and, through their work, studies the very nature of film direction. With his customary candor about his own delights and disappointments, Thomson analyzes both landmark works and forgotten films from classic directors such as Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Jean Renoir, and Jean-Luc Godard, as well as contemporary powerhouses such as Jane Campion, Spike Lee, and Quentin Tarantino. He shrewdly interrogates their professional legacies and influence in the industry, while simultaneously assessing the critical impact of an artist's personal life on his or her work. He explores the male directors' dominance of the past, and describes how diversity can change the landscape. Judicious, vivid, and witty, A Light in the Dark is yet another required Thomson text for every movie lover's shelf.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published March 23, 2021
29 people are currently reading
340 people want to read
About the author
David Thomson
66 books152 followersDavid Thomson, renowned as one of the great living authorities on the movies, is the author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, now in its fifth edition. His books include a biography of Nicole Kidman and The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood. Thomson is also the author of the acclaimed "Have You Seen . . . ?": A Personal Introduction to 1,000 Films. Born in London in 1941, he now lives in San Francisco.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
April 18, 2023
Posting some quick thoughts on this one, but might return for a longer review.
This work's subtitle is immensely misleading. This is a work for those with extensive knowledge of film not general interest readers.
The work has an anti-recency bias (plenty of current blockbuster and commercial film is derivative decadence, but there is so much that Thomson is surely overlooking interesting directors like Refn and Villeneuve), and he generally gives short shrift to American filmmakers (e.g. hardly discusses Kubrick and Spielberg)
Thomson offers little in the way of what his vision of being a great director is. He has some sort of intuitive sense and idiosyncratic tastes that he acknowledges but this leaves a lot for readers to infer, which is something artists should give audiences not critics.
There is also little in the way of actual film or directorial analysis or coherent biography. It is just all a jumble of vignette, asides, and tangents mixed with critical opinion. It reads as Thomson having a conversation with himself. This may work for someone who has read everything he's written and is similarly obsessed with film, but otherwise it is unilluminating.
There is also a lot of sanctimonious white knighting concerning the lack of female and minority directors. Unclear why he thinks any readers of his work would be enriched by such perfunctory platitudes. Also, it is completely impossible to reconcile much of the history of great film and great directors with contemporary attitudes about female representations in film. Also, the ubiquity of pornography and graphic violence dulls that historical well of content anyway - shocking and titillating contemporary audience requires quite a bit more invention today and makes much of the past look quaint.
This work's subtitle is immensely misleading. This is a work for those with extensive knowledge of film not general interest readers.
The work has an anti-recency bias (plenty of current blockbuster and commercial film is derivative decadence, but there is so much that Thomson is surely overlooking interesting directors like Refn and Villeneuve), and he generally gives short shrift to American filmmakers (e.g. hardly discusses Kubrick and Spielberg)
Thomson offers little in the way of what his vision of being a great director is. He has some sort of intuitive sense and idiosyncratic tastes that he acknowledges but this leaves a lot for readers to infer, which is something artists should give audiences not critics.
There is also little in the way of actual film or directorial analysis or coherent biography. It is just all a jumble of vignette, asides, and tangents mixed with critical opinion. It reads as Thomson having a conversation with himself. This may work for someone who has read everything he's written and is similarly obsessed with film, but otherwise it is unilluminating.
There is also a lot of sanctimonious white knighting concerning the lack of female and minority directors. Unclear why he thinks any readers of his work would be enriched by such perfunctory platitudes. Also, it is completely impossible to reconcile much of the history of great film and great directors with contemporary attitudes about female representations in film. Also, the ubiquity of pornography and graphic violence dulls that historical well of content anyway - shocking and titillating contemporary audience requires quite a bit more invention today and makes much of the past look quaint.
September 17, 2021
This started out promising. The chapters/essays seemed focused and well informed. Save a few objectively wrong opinions (Gigi, Gentleman's Agreement, and A Letter to Three Wives have NOT gone stale), I was on board.
It really started going off the rails with the chapter about Godard because for many pages it's not about Godard at all; it's about his contemporaries. I understand that sometimes a picture needs to be painted but it's not done this way in any other chapter. When the chapter about women directors questions whether the Oscar statuette should get breasts, I knew it was nearly time to close up shop. The Tarantino chapter seems to be there to sell more copies. Enough already. We all know about QT.
It sucks that I want to read more film books but so many are written by Thomson. If all of his books are like this, I can't see myself reading more.
It really started going off the rails with the chapter about Godard because for many pages it's not about Godard at all; it's about his contemporaries. I understand that sometimes a picture needs to be painted but it's not done this way in any other chapter. When the chapter about women directors questions whether the Oscar statuette should get breasts, I knew it was nearly time to close up shop. The Tarantino chapter seems to be there to sell more copies. Enough already. We all know about QT.
It sucks that I want to read more film books but so many are written by Thomson. If all of his books are like this, I can't see myself reading more.
January 11, 2022
A meticulously researched and compiled work that bleeds passion out of every page, but at the same time, it is so much so that you are going to struggle with it unless you're really, really into films. Within the pages are a who's-who of just about everyone that's ever been in back or front of a camera, and I had to Google something like 200 names. If you've been to film school or made a serious study of the topic then this may be intended more for you.
For someone like me, an amateur cinephile who's always looking to wade further into the pool, this was pretty dense, but also an encouragement. It made me feel welcome and inquisitive, if that makes sense, never making the content feel too exclusive or out of reach. That being said, this work covers a timeline from the early 20th century to practically yesterday, and as a big fan of historical nonfiction, putting out an analysis of anything that's happened in the last 20 years feels irksome to me. That, and the author can't help but humblebrag here and there, always quick to mention his familiarity with certain celebrities or whether he has an email correspondence with them.
Anyway, a great book that was largely lost on me. I flew too close to the sun on this one. Maybe I'll come back after another 5 years of film study and see how I fare.
For someone like me, an amateur cinephile who's always looking to wade further into the pool, this was pretty dense, but also an encouragement. It made me feel welcome and inquisitive, if that makes sense, never making the content feel too exclusive or out of reach. That being said, this work covers a timeline from the early 20th century to practically yesterday, and as a big fan of historical nonfiction, putting out an analysis of anything that's happened in the last 20 years feels irksome to me. That, and the author can't help but humblebrag here and there, always quick to mention his familiarity with certain celebrities or whether he has an email correspondence with them.
Anyway, a great book that was largely lost on me. I flew too close to the sun on this one. Maybe I'll come back after another 5 years of film study and see how I fare.
August 22, 2021
If you love the cinema, as I do, this book will be a total joy. Even though I didn't always agree with Thomson's critique of particular Directors (I'm sure he wouldn't have expected any of us to), I always found his treatment full of appreciation and careful thought. Reading this book brought me back to many memories of sharing the movie experience with my Dad, my brother, with close friends, and by myself. I found myself creating a list of movies to seek out for the first time and to watch again. My sense of these Directors and Movies is thoroughly enriched. Thank you Mr. Thomson.
March 8, 2021
Having enjoyed David Thomson's The Big Screen - The Story Of The Movies And What They Did To Us, I was looking forward to his new book about directors. I guess it was obvious he would start with "To Be A Master - Fritz Lang".
Of course the book concentrate on his "Metropolis" from 1927. We were told how the film went hugely over budget with a cost of Five Million Marks. Lang gave up writing early in his career, it was his second wife Thea Von Harbor who wrote his German films. Moving alone to the United States, he was contracted to MGM and first released Fury in 1936. Then dashing through to 1953 when "The Big Heat" was a big success.
Next up was "Everyone's Friend - Jean Renoir"
The book has a lot to say about his "La Regle du jeu" released in 1939 and restored in 1958. It was originally a big commercial failure with French audiences. But Thomson wonders if this one of THE great movies? I was more interested in the fact that at the end Thomson name checks Pedro Almodóvar's "Pain and Glory" as a masterpiece of compassion. Not sure about that, but my top film of that year.
The award winning director "In Dreams - Louis Bunuel"
Thomson is obviously impressed as expected by Bunuel's "Belle de Jour", "That Obscure Object of Desire" and "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". The first (1967) won European awards, the second (1972) the Oscar for best foreign language film and the third nominated in that same category in 1977. Earlier he had retired from film making until nearing fifty he returned to Mexico where his "Los Olvidados" won the best director prize at Cannes and later a jury award there for Nazarin. His final film in Mexico was "The Exterminating Ange".
Next a director I knew well, especially from the series on Sky Arts. This was "A Natural Liar - Howard Hawks"
Thomson talks about the film "Red River" having made a big impression on an eight year old Hawks. I think I might have liked Westerns at that early age but they no longer have any interest for me. Most of his movies made big profits, he has a huge list of successes. There was a nice piece about his film "Bringing Up Baby". Also see post on The Directors on Sky Arts.
I was looking forward to seeing what Thomson would write about Alfred Hitchcock.
"The Man Who Watched Too Much - Alfred Hitchcock"
I'm never sure about Thomson's prose. What does this mean: "He was anxious to be unique and even on the spectrum". I have no idea. So much in this chapter was very familiar. However there was a nice comparison between the British and Hollywood film industries. Then "Vertigo" was a serious flop when it opened , but now made the 2012 "Sight and Sound" poll as best film ever made.
Next an outstanding chapter about "God? - Orson Welles"
Him and Hitchcock, two very big guys in both sense of the words. Neither wrote screenplays, although Welles claimed he did. "Citizen Kane" is described as "the best ever American Film" (the author, not me). Thomson expands "a study on the futility and the addiction of trying to be great at the expense of life". An interesting piece on "The Magnificent Ambersons". Welles the actor is dismissed, except for his role as Harry Lime. His excursions to Europe ended with a return to direct and act in "A Touch of Evil" with "that serpentine opening shot in which a car goes over the border before exploding. Called a superb movie and "an effective dark thriller. I have always thought it was Welles best film, even after watching Citizen Kane. Thomson wraps up this chapter with his last neglected films including "F for Fake". (Also a clip from Citizen Kane with the newspaper headline "Fraud at the Polls". I wonder who used that?)
A strange section on director "Godordian - Jean Luc Godard"
His productivity (15 films in eight years) is compared with Terence Mallic (10 films in 47 years). Why is Thomson comparing Godard's low budget films with David Lean's "Doctor Zivago"? And why a whole piece on Lean and British films in cash strapped post war Britain, interesting though it may be? The title of this chapter "Godardian" (his influence on future directors) gave the author the opportunity to discuss many of his followers. So then over eight pages before we get to "Jean Luc Goddard was born in Paris ......". And later "when Geoff Hurst scored the fourth goal at Wembley in 1966". What does that have to do with anything here? Something to do with being alive? Then I'm not at all interested in advice about the plot of his films. "Pierrot le Fou" (for instance) has a full page. Sometimes I wonder if Thomson is not too intellectual for me, especially when he describes Godardian as "also a forecast of confusion where once there seemed marvels fit for a Rousseau jungle". I have no idea.
Is "The Ghost of Nick Ray" a one hit wonder?
He could have been a ghost as I had never heard his name. But in 1955 he directed the iconic movie "Rebel without a Cause". Prior to that his films included "Flying Leathernecks" in 1951 with John Wayne and "Johnny Guitar" in 1954 with Joan Crawford. At fifty he directed the biblical epic "King of Kings" in 1961. With a budget of $5 Million, it earnt $13 Million. And "Orson Welles read the gravity-heavy narration, without credit and for cash in hand". His next film in 1963 wasn't so commercially successful, but I liked "55 Days at Peking". Although Ray had to be replaced during the shoot as he went off the rails. There was a great description of a troubled man that ends "If only Nick Ray had had some wise producer to look after him - someone like Stephen Frears".
"A Very English Professional - Stephen Frears"
I think Thomson likes Stephen Frears: "His record is exceptional in it's variety and skill". "Mary Reilly", "Dangerous Liaisons", "The Queen" and "A Very English Scandal" have all been "talking points". The author discusses "State of the Union" (another TV hit) where married couple Rosamund Pike and Chris O'Dowd meet in a pub before their latest therapy session, just ten minutes for each ten minute episode written by David Hare. I thought they were marvellous.
"My Beautiful Laundrette" is only mentioned in passing and Thomson chooses instead "Sunset Across The Bay" (A Play for Today on the BBC) as one of the best things Frears has done. He also liked 1984's "The Hit" which he called "very entertaining". Frears has two Oscar nominations and won three out of seventeen BAFTA nominations. A very English professional.
"The American Auteur"
Here was a nice introduction about how directors became universally recognised and now reaching "celebrity status". An interesting piece about Peter Bogdanovich and his "remarkable debut" Targets followed by "three beauties in a row" until he went downhill. Next Thomson talks about Robert Altman and photographer Gordon Willis, before he spends some time on Francis Ford Coppola. A couple of pages about Terence Mallick (not my favourite director, although I might try his first film "Badlands". I had also forgotten he directed "The Thin Red Line" which I enjoyed and Thomson called an "outstanding film". Before he tells us "I didn't mean to write so much about Mallick). Steven Spielberg and George Lucas get a mention then briefly passing Roman Polanski before looking at Stanley Kubrick and "The Shining". His last words here are "There is no better short description of what a director is, and no other film so demonstrates the incoming tide of Jack". This may form a question on a film studies course: "Discuss". Onto Michael Cimino and the opposing critical and commercial outcomes of "The Deer Hunter" and "Heaven's Gate". Another exam question? But then Thomson remarks that the full 219 minutes of the latter's extended version, seen on the big screen, "is a masterpiece". A short mention on Woody Allen takes us to Paul Thomas Anderson whose "Casino" is as good as Scorsese's "Taxi Driver".
"A Female Gaze"
This is a study of women directors that starts with a criticism of the Oscars not recognising Greta Gerwig's "Little Women". (I also thought it should have been up there). Thomson asks why there has been a lack of women directors until recently, so he asks the question "Can women only be in charge when they allow themselves to be seen". (Make of that what you will). Then "The history of women making films is more complex than you might think". Obviously Kathryn Bigelow is discussed, especially her "The Hurt Locker". There follows lots about women and Hollywood (directors and those behind the scenes) with the fact that now a third of all Academy voters are women. A good piece about Leni Riefenstahl and others including Ana Lily Amirpour and Jane Campion.
"Alone - The Nature of Minority"
This chapter starts with a sweeping up of people Thomson missed, but an increasingly intellectual piece where you have to be a much bigger student of film than me to absorb even some of it. However, we then find out about Barbara Loden and her 1970 film "Wanda" that Thomson calls "an essential film, a great film". (She never made another!) A section about Jewishness in American Cinema followed by a bit about the first black player to win an Oscar, Hattie McDonald in "Gone with the Wind". Although apparently her producer David Selznick bowed to pressure and she was not invited to the 1940 premier in Atlanta, Georgia. At the Oscars she was also "required to sit at a small table in the corner of the room" instead on Selznick's huge table of white people. How embarrassing is that. Spike Lee is treated to a long piece, but Thomson ignores his "Inside Man", that brilliant thriller. I wonder why? (See my post on Spike Lee on Sky Arts - The Directors).
"The Kid From The Video Store - Quentin Tarantino"
"He really is so good, and that bad". Thomson has huge mixed feeling about Tarantino, I just wonder why he has devoted a long chapter to him. And why spend four pages on "Reservoir Dogs" when he says "In 1992 I wanted to walk out on the picture ...... and to reject it's vicious smugness" .... "I still feel that". The film did better in the UK than the USA, I guess because it is quite theatrical in it's setting and ceaseless outstanding dialogue. So Thomson then agrees with it's "profuse talk ..... in the opening scene was inspired and nearly delicious". He tells us dialogue was falling into misuse in 1992 "yet here was a writer with exceptional ear and rhythm".
I think he liked "Pulp Fiction" ("the best thing QT has done") and the fact that it's female characters )including my favourite Maria de Medeiros), are treated "with affection". An independent film that cost $8.5 Million and earned $213 Million and counting. ( I think that "Kill Bill 1 and 2", "Inglorious Basterds" and "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" are equally good.) And on the subject on the latter, why do we get nearly six pages on a film he may despise and sets out to destroy so much in it, when no other gets that devotion in the book. "The film is so spoiled, it is beyond protection". And how dare he explain the final scene in so much detail (again totally messing with the general ethos of the book) and why has he seen the film "several times" when he calls it a "disgrace"? But then "a marvel of entertainment"? And what would the Harry Potter producer say when he visited Tarantino's home to read the script when those two films are polar opposites, except maybe for "entertainment". I thought Tarantino's treatment of this films female characters was worth a deeper look, comparing the Margaret Qualley as Pussycat (just a vehicle for getting Cliff to the Spahn Movie Ranch?) and the wonderful Julia Butters as Trudi Fraser (for her conversation with Rick). I also thought for the first time how Tarantino twisted history for the violence at the cinema in "Inglorious Basterds" and that final violent scene in "Once Upon a Time ......". I will have to read this chapter again as I originally thought that Thomson had lost the plot. But the book does deserve a second reading.
"The Last Irishman"
I will not dwell on this final chapter as Martin Scorsese's film was meant for Netflix, with only a three week release in cinemas (very limited screens, David, so why did you not say that). With no nationwide release, so for me not a proper cinema movie!
Of course the book concentrate on his "Metropolis" from 1927. We were told how the film went hugely over budget with a cost of Five Million Marks. Lang gave up writing early in his career, it was his second wife Thea Von Harbor who wrote his German films. Moving alone to the United States, he was contracted to MGM and first released Fury in 1936. Then dashing through to 1953 when "The Big Heat" was a big success.
Next up was "Everyone's Friend - Jean Renoir"
The book has a lot to say about his "La Regle du jeu" released in 1939 and restored in 1958. It was originally a big commercial failure with French audiences. But Thomson wonders if this one of THE great movies? I was more interested in the fact that at the end Thomson name checks Pedro Almodóvar's "Pain and Glory" as a masterpiece of compassion. Not sure about that, but my top film of that year.
The award winning director "In Dreams - Louis Bunuel"
Thomson is obviously impressed as expected by Bunuel's "Belle de Jour", "That Obscure Object of Desire" and "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie". The first (1967) won European awards, the second (1972) the Oscar for best foreign language film and the third nominated in that same category in 1977. Earlier he had retired from film making until nearing fifty he returned to Mexico where his "Los Olvidados" won the best director prize at Cannes and later a jury award there for Nazarin. His final film in Mexico was "The Exterminating Ange".
Next a director I knew well, especially from the series on Sky Arts. This was "A Natural Liar - Howard Hawks"
Thomson talks about the film "Red River" having made a big impression on an eight year old Hawks. I think I might have liked Westerns at that early age but they no longer have any interest for me. Most of his movies made big profits, he has a huge list of successes. There was a nice piece about his film "Bringing Up Baby". Also see post on The Directors on Sky Arts.
I was looking forward to seeing what Thomson would write about Alfred Hitchcock.
"The Man Who Watched Too Much - Alfred Hitchcock"
I'm never sure about Thomson's prose. What does this mean: "He was anxious to be unique and even on the spectrum". I have no idea. So much in this chapter was very familiar. However there was a nice comparison between the British and Hollywood film industries. Then "Vertigo" was a serious flop when it opened , but now made the 2012 "Sight and Sound" poll as best film ever made.
Next an outstanding chapter about "God? - Orson Welles"
Him and Hitchcock, two very big guys in both sense of the words. Neither wrote screenplays, although Welles claimed he did. "Citizen Kane" is described as "the best ever American Film" (the author, not me). Thomson expands "a study on the futility and the addiction of trying to be great at the expense of life". An interesting piece on "The Magnificent Ambersons". Welles the actor is dismissed, except for his role as Harry Lime. His excursions to Europe ended with a return to direct and act in "A Touch of Evil" with "that serpentine opening shot in which a car goes over the border before exploding. Called a superb movie and "an effective dark thriller. I have always thought it was Welles best film, even after watching Citizen Kane. Thomson wraps up this chapter with his last neglected films including "F for Fake". (Also a clip from Citizen Kane with the newspaper headline "Fraud at the Polls". I wonder who used that?)
A strange section on director "Godordian - Jean Luc Godard"
His productivity (15 films in eight years) is compared with Terence Mallic (10 films in 47 years). Why is Thomson comparing Godard's low budget films with David Lean's "Doctor Zivago"? And why a whole piece on Lean and British films in cash strapped post war Britain, interesting though it may be? The title of this chapter "Godardian" (his influence on future directors) gave the author the opportunity to discuss many of his followers. So then over eight pages before we get to "Jean Luc Goddard was born in Paris ......". And later "when Geoff Hurst scored the fourth goal at Wembley in 1966". What does that have to do with anything here? Something to do with being alive? Then I'm not at all interested in advice about the plot of his films. "Pierrot le Fou" (for instance) has a full page. Sometimes I wonder if Thomson is not too intellectual for me, especially when he describes Godardian as "also a forecast of confusion where once there seemed marvels fit for a Rousseau jungle". I have no idea.
Is "The Ghost of Nick Ray" a one hit wonder?
He could have been a ghost as I had never heard his name. But in 1955 he directed the iconic movie "Rebel without a Cause". Prior to that his films included "Flying Leathernecks" in 1951 with John Wayne and "Johnny Guitar" in 1954 with Joan Crawford. At fifty he directed the biblical epic "King of Kings" in 1961. With a budget of $5 Million, it earnt $13 Million. And "Orson Welles read the gravity-heavy narration, without credit and for cash in hand". His next film in 1963 wasn't so commercially successful, but I liked "55 Days at Peking". Although Ray had to be replaced during the shoot as he went off the rails. There was a great description of a troubled man that ends "If only Nick Ray had had some wise producer to look after him - someone like Stephen Frears".
"A Very English Professional - Stephen Frears"
I think Thomson likes Stephen Frears: "His record is exceptional in it's variety and skill". "Mary Reilly", "Dangerous Liaisons", "The Queen" and "A Very English Scandal" have all been "talking points". The author discusses "State of the Union" (another TV hit) where married couple Rosamund Pike and Chris O'Dowd meet in a pub before their latest therapy session, just ten minutes for each ten minute episode written by David Hare. I thought they were marvellous.
"My Beautiful Laundrette" is only mentioned in passing and Thomson chooses instead "Sunset Across The Bay" (A Play for Today on the BBC) as one of the best things Frears has done. He also liked 1984's "The Hit" which he called "very entertaining". Frears has two Oscar nominations and won three out of seventeen BAFTA nominations. A very English professional.
"The American Auteur"
Here was a nice introduction about how directors became universally recognised and now reaching "celebrity status". An interesting piece about Peter Bogdanovich and his "remarkable debut" Targets followed by "three beauties in a row" until he went downhill. Next Thomson talks about Robert Altman and photographer Gordon Willis, before he spends some time on Francis Ford Coppola. A couple of pages about Terence Mallick (not my favourite director, although I might try his first film "Badlands". I had also forgotten he directed "The Thin Red Line" which I enjoyed and Thomson called an "outstanding film". Before he tells us "I didn't mean to write so much about Mallick). Steven Spielberg and George Lucas get a mention then briefly passing Roman Polanski before looking at Stanley Kubrick and "The Shining". His last words here are "There is no better short description of what a director is, and no other film so demonstrates the incoming tide of Jack". This may form a question on a film studies course: "Discuss". Onto Michael Cimino and the opposing critical and commercial outcomes of "The Deer Hunter" and "Heaven's Gate". Another exam question? But then Thomson remarks that the full 219 minutes of the latter's extended version, seen on the big screen, "is a masterpiece". A short mention on Woody Allen takes us to Paul Thomas Anderson whose "Casino" is as good as Scorsese's "Taxi Driver".
"A Female Gaze"
This is a study of women directors that starts with a criticism of the Oscars not recognising Greta Gerwig's "Little Women". (I also thought it should have been up there). Thomson asks why there has been a lack of women directors until recently, so he asks the question "Can women only be in charge when they allow themselves to be seen". (Make of that what you will). Then "The history of women making films is more complex than you might think". Obviously Kathryn Bigelow is discussed, especially her "The Hurt Locker". There follows lots about women and Hollywood (directors and those behind the scenes) with the fact that now a third of all Academy voters are women. A good piece about Leni Riefenstahl and others including Ana Lily Amirpour and Jane Campion.
"Alone - The Nature of Minority"
This chapter starts with a sweeping up of people Thomson missed, but an increasingly intellectual piece where you have to be a much bigger student of film than me to absorb even some of it. However, we then find out about Barbara Loden and her 1970 film "Wanda" that Thomson calls "an essential film, a great film". (She never made another!) A section about Jewishness in American Cinema followed by a bit about the first black player to win an Oscar, Hattie McDonald in "Gone with the Wind". Although apparently her producer David Selznick bowed to pressure and she was not invited to the 1940 premier in Atlanta, Georgia. At the Oscars she was also "required to sit at a small table in the corner of the room" instead on Selznick's huge table of white people. How embarrassing is that. Spike Lee is treated to a long piece, but Thomson ignores his "Inside Man", that brilliant thriller. I wonder why? (See my post on Spike Lee on Sky Arts - The Directors).
"The Kid From The Video Store - Quentin Tarantino"
"He really is so good, and that bad". Thomson has huge mixed feeling about Tarantino, I just wonder why he has devoted a long chapter to him. And why spend four pages on "Reservoir Dogs" when he says "In 1992 I wanted to walk out on the picture ...... and to reject it's vicious smugness" .... "I still feel that". The film did better in the UK than the USA, I guess because it is quite theatrical in it's setting and ceaseless outstanding dialogue. So Thomson then agrees with it's "profuse talk ..... in the opening scene was inspired and nearly delicious". He tells us dialogue was falling into misuse in 1992 "yet here was a writer with exceptional ear and rhythm".
I think he liked "Pulp Fiction" ("the best thing QT has done") and the fact that it's female characters )including my favourite Maria de Medeiros), are treated "with affection". An independent film that cost $8.5 Million and earned $213 Million and counting. ( I think that "Kill Bill 1 and 2", "Inglorious Basterds" and "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" are equally good.) And on the subject on the latter, why do we get nearly six pages on a film he may despise and sets out to destroy so much in it, when no other gets that devotion in the book. "The film is so spoiled, it is beyond protection". And how dare he explain the final scene in so much detail (again totally messing with the general ethos of the book) and why has he seen the film "several times" when he calls it a "disgrace"? But then "a marvel of entertainment"? And what would the Harry Potter producer say when he visited Tarantino's home to read the script when those two films are polar opposites, except maybe for "entertainment". I thought Tarantino's treatment of this films female characters was worth a deeper look, comparing the Margaret Qualley as Pussycat (just a vehicle for getting Cliff to the Spahn Movie Ranch?) and the wonderful Julia Butters as Trudi Fraser (for her conversation with Rick). I also thought for the first time how Tarantino twisted history for the violence at the cinema in "Inglorious Basterds" and that final violent scene in "Once Upon a Time ......". I will have to read this chapter again as I originally thought that Thomson had lost the plot. But the book does deserve a second reading.
"The Last Irishman"
I will not dwell on this final chapter as Martin Scorsese's film was meant for Netflix, with only a three week release in cinemas (very limited screens, David, so why did you not say that). With no nationwide release, so for me not a proper cinema movie!
November 23, 2022
I love the movies, and I'm highly interested in the art of directing! I really enjoyed being walked through the filmographies of some of the folks that are worshiped by my film professors.
While this book did quench my thirst to learn more about some of the greats, it also felt like there was a lot of filler - some of the chapters were about seemingly inconsequential directors that were written about only because of a personal connection with Mr. Thomson.
One thing I did really enjoy was the brief critiques he provides throughout the book - what a way with words this man possesses!
I look forward to reading some of his more celebrated work.
While this book did quench my thirst to learn more about some of the greats, it also felt like there was a lot of filler - some of the chapters were about seemingly inconsequential directors that were written about only because of a personal connection with Mr. Thomson.
One thing I did really enjoy was the brief critiques he provides throughout the book - what a way with words this man possesses!
I look forward to reading some of his more celebrated work.
March 26, 2021
Prolific British film critic and historian Thomson ("The Biographical Dictionary of Film") writes with breezy, effervescent assurance and lucid insight about filmmaking and filmmakers in A LIGHT IN THE DARK . These 15 razor-sharp essays offer thoughtful biographies of numerous film directors and assessments of their work. Thomson will remind many film buffs of Pauline Kael in his ability to combine succinct, maverick appraisals with an encyclopedic knowledge of films to back up his beliefs. His life and career overviews of the directors are equally original and fresh.
Even fans who have read many biographies of Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock will find those concise chapters full of new insight. Thomson calls Welles "a perfectionist who loathed his own meticulous craft, and a philosopher who had lost faith in meaning." He believes Welles intentionally sabotaged many of his films (including TOUCH OF EVIL and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS) by walking away from them so he could blame others for ruining them. Thomson writes that the pitch of suspense in Hitchcock's films is "tied to his smothered lust." He also theorizes that Hitchcock's brutal film PSYCHO was his revenge on filmgoers who rejected his most nakedly confessional film, VERTIGO.
Among the many other directors profiled and critiqued here are Fritz Lang, Nicholas Ray, Jean Renoir, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Bogdanovich, D.W. Griffith, Robert Altman, Leni Riefenstahl, Howard Hawks, Jane Campion, Stephen Frears and Spike Lee.
A LIGHT IN THE DARK is an astoundingly entertaining, persuasive and cohesive collection of essays that should delight film buffs with new insights and new titles to add to their "must see" film lists.
These 15 entertaining essays on numerous filmmakers and their work are insightful, succinct and exciting.
Even fans who have read many biographies of Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock will find those concise chapters full of new insight. Thomson calls Welles "a perfectionist who loathed his own meticulous craft, and a philosopher who had lost faith in meaning." He believes Welles intentionally sabotaged many of his films (including TOUCH OF EVIL and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS) by walking away from them so he could blame others for ruining them. Thomson writes that the pitch of suspense in Hitchcock's films is "tied to his smothered lust." He also theorizes that Hitchcock's brutal film PSYCHO was his revenge on filmgoers who rejected his most nakedly confessional film, VERTIGO.
Among the many other directors profiled and critiqued here are Fritz Lang, Nicholas Ray, Jean Renoir, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Bogdanovich, D.W. Griffith, Robert Altman, Leni Riefenstahl, Howard Hawks, Jane Campion, Stephen Frears and Spike Lee.
A LIGHT IN THE DARK is an astoundingly entertaining, persuasive and cohesive collection of essays that should delight film buffs with new insights and new titles to add to their "must see" film lists.
These 15 entertaining essays on numerous filmmakers and their work are insightful, succinct and exciting.
July 3, 2021
Not so much a history of movie directors so much as a collection of meandering musings about his favorites and their place in the cinematic world. The author has a self-consciously breezy, almost gossipy style (often noting who was sleeping with who in narrative nonsequitors), and substitutes breadth for depth in his discussions. As a result, the book leaves the reader with the feeling that although Thomson knows a lot about film and has a lot of opinions about the people who make them, he can't articulate why or how the one he highlights changed the industry or made an indelible mark through their vision or personality.
January 27, 2022
It's terribly unclear to me who the intended audience is for this book. If it's for the novice cinephile, then this is terrible - the author assumes you have a near encyclopedic knowledge of his chosen directors. If it's for the knowledgeable, then it's an unnecessary work, operating as a survey from high altitude. If it's just to prove the author's credentials, then maybe it's a success? Confusing sentence structure, biases, odd topic choices, meandering essays with obscure theses ... this is unenjoyable and minimally informative.
June 25, 2021
My take on the book-- appreciative, but mixed:
https://www.americanpurpose.com/artic...
June 11, 2021
As usual with Thomson, equal parts perceptive and bullshit.
August 24, 2021
An opinionated look at some of the greatest movie directors from the past and present. I probably wasn't the intended reader, as I only knew about half of the directors, and the author wrote as if you had seen many of the movies listed. Of chief importance to Thomson is how the movies of directors evoke much or their own personality, which often times centered on obsession, control, women, and the control of women.
Thomson walks a thin, ever-shifting line about how to praise directors that were in general bad people, or more specifically used their profession to get close to women, and their films to document their obsession with them. This is a book written in a post Harvey Weinstein world, and its compelled to declare what is morally right and wrong, while also pleading that certain great directors don't get canceled. But how do we do both? The womanizer Howard Hawks, Polanski (who Thomson doesn't protect), Wood Allen (who Thomson mentions has never been tried in court)? How to defend Leni Reifenstahl, Hitlers great female Nazi propaganda director? He spends a few pages doing this.
But then he criticizes Tarantino for his non Pulp Fiction movies and especially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for being misogynistic and glorifying violence. In his review of this movie, Thomson interprets Tarantino's vision in a way to defend his anti-woman, anti-moral statements. His understanding does not match well with Tarantino's book of the same name, which provides extended backstories and narration that allows us to understand the characters clearer. So rest assured, Cliff isn't gay (that was the only reason why Thomson could see why a man would not accept an underage hippies advances), and women aren't discarded as mere objects to be abused.
Thompson has been doing this long enough to have formula to apply for when we should view a movie by his the directors vices, or the moral implications of a movies message, or when to stretch a personal interpretation into the only interpretation. I wish I understood it
Thomson walks a thin, ever-shifting line about how to praise directors that were in general bad people, or more specifically used their profession to get close to women, and their films to document their obsession with them. This is a book written in a post Harvey Weinstein world, and its compelled to declare what is morally right and wrong, while also pleading that certain great directors don't get canceled. But how do we do both? The womanizer Howard Hawks, Polanski (who Thomson doesn't protect), Wood Allen (who Thomson mentions has never been tried in court)? How to defend Leni Reifenstahl, Hitlers great female Nazi propaganda director? He spends a few pages doing this.
But then he criticizes Tarantino for his non Pulp Fiction movies and especially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for being misogynistic and glorifying violence. In his review of this movie, Thomson interprets Tarantino's vision in a way to defend his anti-woman, anti-moral statements. His understanding does not match well with Tarantino's book of the same name, which provides extended backstories and narration that allows us to understand the characters clearer. So rest assured, Cliff isn't gay (that was the only reason why Thomson could see why a man would not accept an underage hippies advances), and women aren't discarded as mere objects to be abused.
Thompson has been doing this long enough to have formula to apply for when we should view a movie by his the directors vices, or the moral implications of a movies message, or when to stretch a personal interpretation into the only interpretation. I wish I understood it
October 4, 2024
Movie directors have traditionally stayed behind the camera - unknown artists quietly creating their moving vision. But with the evolution of the auteur, some directors have claimed celebrity status as cultural storytellers. ‘A Light in the Dark: a history of movie directors’ by David Thomson is an anthology of essays, each examining a famous and influential director, and some cultural film developments. Many of the expected names are here, from Fritz Lang to Quentin Tarantino and all possess an interesting story of artistic perspective and endeavour. The problem in this book lies with the writing. Writing about artistry doesn’t require further artistry by way of flowery flamboyant writing which only detracts and undermines the integrity of the information presented. Each chapter is a literary muddle and becomes lost in the language. Consequently the directors being discussed become secondary to the author’s unnecessary self-indulgent florid prose. Unfortunately the end result is regret in not having ignored the book and instead just watched the movies.
January 8, 2026
David Thomson seems to prioritise flaunting his personal filmic knowledge and opinions on particular movies as opposed to presenting a definitive "history of movie directors."
It did pique my interest and expand my knowledge slightly - but is definitely inaccessible at moments when exploring unfamiliar directors or their work. What makes this quite a big flaw in my opinion, is the ease to get lost when the reader is unknowledgeable towards a random-ass movie from the 1940s (Thomson treats every film he writes about, as common knowledge), and if you have seen all these films, then the analysis would be unnecessary for this already educated reader.
The final chapter and conclusion has already proven a bit outdated, even from 2020. Claiming the last 4-episodes of Ozark as the "essential film of 2020" feels a little biased and off-course as an ultimate conclusion to the history of movie directing.
It did pique my interest and expand my knowledge slightly - but is definitely inaccessible at moments when exploring unfamiliar directors or their work. What makes this quite a big flaw in my opinion, is the ease to get lost when the reader is unknowledgeable towards a random-ass movie from the 1940s (Thomson treats every film he writes about, as common knowledge), and if you have seen all these films, then the analysis would be unnecessary for this already educated reader.
The final chapter and conclusion has already proven a bit outdated, even from 2020. Claiming the last 4-episodes of Ozark as the "essential film of 2020" feels a little biased and off-course as an ultimate conclusion to the history of movie directing.
February 11, 2022
A better subtitle for this would be “A Reflection on Movie Directors,” as it’s more about Thomson’s thoughts and criticism of meticulously chosen directors, rather than an overall history. That doesn’t make it any less fascinating, and it’s much more personal. I don’t agree with all of Thomson’s opinions on certain films he brings up, of course, but his elegant writing makes it clear why he’s one of the most respected writers on film.
I do have to note…there is a really blatant mistake here, when Thomson notes that “The Piano” lost Best Picture to “Driving Miss Daisy,” even though it actually lost to “Schindler’s List” four years later. I’m probably nitpicking, but it really bugged me because he argues that “The Piano” lost to a safe film, when the film it really lost to is anything but safe.
I do have to note…there is a really blatant mistake here, when Thomson notes that “The Piano” lost Best Picture to “Driving Miss Daisy,” even though it actually lost to “Schindler’s List” four years later. I’m probably nitpicking, but it really bugged me because he argues that “The Piano” lost to a safe film, when the film it really lost to is anything but safe.
December 16, 2022
The wry, chatty style won't appeal to all, but I rather liked the subjectivity. In that vein, the list of directors covered isn't intended to be exhaustive, or even particularly representative a sample. The writing is unashamedly discursive, assuming a fair bit of knowledge from the reader.
It also steers well clear of the type of details more suited to a reference work, which the motivated can pick up most anywhere (many by Thomson himself), whilst remaining a good primer for directors I was less familar with.
Thomson obviously doesn't hold back on topics spanning classic hollywood, the new wave, auteur theory, as well as discussions of minorities, the male gaze, Tarantino, and the Netflix effect .
Much to stimulate, to disagree with, and some perhaps regrettable omissions, but having points argued in a literate way was for me the book's greater strength.
It also steers well clear of the type of details more suited to a reference work, which the motivated can pick up most anywhere (many by Thomson himself), whilst remaining a good primer for directors I was less familar with.
Thomson obviously doesn't hold back on topics spanning classic hollywood, the new wave, auteur theory, as well as discussions of minorities, the male gaze, Tarantino, and the Netflix effect .
Much to stimulate, to disagree with, and some perhaps regrettable omissions, but having points argued in a literate way was for me the book's greater strength.
January 29, 2025
This book has an extremely misleading title, as it is not a "history" of film directors, but rather, a case study on a few, and then an uneven spattering of opinions on many others. The first half starts out promising, seemingly going into detail on each director's career and life, then it derails. Chapters are filled with tangents and asides, ignoring more influential names in favor of personal favorites (and, at times, friends) of the author.
There are so many issues in the latter chapters. Why talk about a director largely in television? Why have a chapter on female directors, then ignore Agnès Varda, Chantal Akerman, and simply namecheck Alice Guy? Why have a chapter on minorities only to spend half of it not discussing them?
Although the writing itself is entertaining, this is far from the best book to read about directors.
There are so many issues in the latter chapters. Why talk about a director largely in television? Why have a chapter on female directors, then ignore Agnès Varda, Chantal Akerman, and simply namecheck Alice Guy? Why have a chapter on minorities only to spend half of it not discussing them?
Although the writing itself is entertaining, this is far from the best book to read about directors.
December 23, 2021
Excellent tight survey of the role of the director in movies, from the silent era to Quentin Tarantino.
Thomson is one of the best film critics left standing - the profession has been decimated in recent years leaving no real heirs to Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris in terms of insight and influence - so his words seem like a dispatch from a foreign land.
Thomson sees theatrical movies winding down in this era and the waning power of star film directors. He writes at one point that episodes from the Netflix series ‘Ozark’ were stronger than most movies from that year. Some of the best ‘directing’ now is done almost anonymously in the writer-producer dominated world of streaming television.
A must read for anyone interested in movies.
Thomson is one of the best film critics left standing - the profession has been decimated in recent years leaving no real heirs to Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris in terms of insight and influence - so his words seem like a dispatch from a foreign land.
Thomson sees theatrical movies winding down in this era and the waning power of star film directors. He writes at one point that episodes from the Netflix series ‘Ozark’ were stronger than most movies from that year. Some of the best ‘directing’ now is done almost anonymously in the writer-producer dominated world of streaming television.
A must read for anyone interested in movies.
September 29, 2021
I found this to be an excellent read. The author's extensive knowledge, film history, and popular culture history come together to provide a great history of famous directors. I enjoyed learning about some directors I knew nothing about and finding out something new about directors I had thought I knew well. I'm left with an extensive collection of films and books to read as additional recommendations are included.
It is not a light read and one I will definitely revisit. However, it is a thorough and well researched book that those looking to learn more about historic films & directors should find relevant.
It is not a light read and one I will definitely revisit. However, it is a thorough and well researched book that those looking to learn more about historic films & directors should find relevant.
January 7, 2022
I truly geeked out on much of this book. It features anecdotes about film history and some of my favorite directors. And Thomson really does a fine job at a monumental task. However, the end is unnecessarily abrupt, and Thomson gets in his own way throughout much of the book rather than sticking to his wonderful ability to walk us through the fascinating aspects of film history through the lens of some of its famous directors. Still, those frustrations are minor compared to the excitement I felt reading much of this book.
November 4, 2021
This is probably a great source of information about movie directors for film buffs or students, but for someone such as myself who doesn't know much about movies, I didn't get much out of it. The author talked about films I'd never heard of, and people I didn't know. Any comparisons to other films or references he made probably made a lot of sense to most readers - just not me. Thus, it was a poor choice of a book to read for me.
April 3, 2023
Books on film directors and screenwriters will always do very well in my review section. Thomson adds clarity and thoughtfulness to his love letter to directors, but is not afraid to poke holes in some famously popular films and the people behind the camera. This is a must read for anybody that prefers the hypnotic trance that still takes place at the movie theater. The one you just can’t get no matter how big the television is in your family room.
July 20, 2022
Thomson continues to be one of the most engaging film critics writing today. This was an enjoyable, informative, insightful read. His chapters on female and minority directors were somewhat problematic at times, but he acknowledges his biases as an 80 year-old white man as best he can.
September 28, 2022
Intelligent Review of Film Directors
I only wish this analysis of great film directors, so elegantly written, would have been deeper on some directors while others needed less emphasis.
I only wish this analysis of great film directors, so elegantly written, would have been deeper on some directors while others needed less emphasis.
September 1, 2020
At its best, as superb as Clive James' Cultural Amnesia; at its worst, far too pleased with itself.
May 4, 2021
definitely not an introductory book - will revisit once my knowledge of film is greater.
January 6, 2022
Just wonderful, passionate writing about the art form that we are letting slip through our fingers.
February 13, 2022
informative but dry biographies of several well known directors.
July 27, 2022
I was hoping this would give me substantive information. It was disappointingly vacuous.
March 19, 2023
Meticulously researched, but the execution falls apart because it reads/sounds like someone who doesn't even like the film industry.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews