What do you think?
Rate this book
Split Image
Though Anthony Perkins played roles as diverse as a lawman of the old West in The Tin Star and Eugene Grant in the play Look Homeward Angel, he is best remembered for his performance as the maniacal son of a monstrous mother in Psycho. In Split Image, Charles Winecoff explains how Psycho pigeon-holed Perkins into similar roles and stagnated his professional life. His private life was equally vexatious--his father died when he was 5 and his mother controlled his finances until she died. He was married for 19 years but remained an active homosexual, engaging in a lifestyle that ultimately led to his death from AIDS in 1992.
496 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1996
21 people are currently reading
267 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
June 8, 2024
It is always astonishing to realize how many crappy movies have been made.
This biography was somehow disappointing. Not as salacious as other reviewers here have promised, nor that interesting or insightful. A lot of detail, not much overview. Mean-spirited at times, such as when Winecoff kept mentioning that Perkins was "not even considered" for a role. Winecoff cannot possibly know everything producers had talked about.
Why do actors remain closeted for their careers? Winecoff has remarkably little sympathy. However, for young actors, all the pressures are still in place. Also this biography was written before the gay baby boom, so the biographer's attitude towards Perkins having children seems a bit dated.
(As a sad update, I learned that Perkins' widow died 9 years after his death, as a passenger in a plane that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11.)
This biography was somehow disappointing. Not as salacious as other reviewers here have promised, nor that interesting or insightful. A lot of detail, not much overview. Mean-spirited at times, such as when Winecoff kept mentioning that Perkins was "not even considered" for a role. Winecoff cannot possibly know everything producers had talked about.
Why do actors remain closeted for their careers? Winecoff has remarkably little sympathy. However, for young actors, all the pressures are still in place. Also this biography was written before the gay baby boom, so the biographer's attitude towards Perkins having children seems a bit dated.
(As a sad update, I learned that Perkins' widow died 9 years after his death, as a passenger in a plane that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11.)
April 25, 2015
Not bad, some interesting things here and there... but the author HATES Tony (and love the sexual life of the actor - altough many things seem to be too fantastic to be true!)
I must give one example: Tony has recorded 3 albums during his life - great albums, all of them (go check the reviews or listen to them yourself). But the writer gives only very brief comments about them, not caring about them, just as some passing thoughts. But on the 80's Tony did a live version of one of his most famous songs ("I'll never marry") and the author DESTROYS Tony, he says that Tony was terrible at the show, that Tony's voice cracks etc, he spends many paragraphs saying that the show was a shame, etc. But go and watch this performance at youtube. I believe it's not that bad for someone with more than 50 years and after decades since his last recording. But it seems the author rejoices in seeing Tony suffering.
Another example: the author loathes the movie Green Mansions and spends a lot of pages saying how bad the movie is. But Tony is good at the movie, his acting is very good despite the bad script. But those things don't matter for the author - he just wants to destroy Tony's image.
Anthony Perkins is a far better actor than this biography suggests.
I must give one example: Tony has recorded 3 albums during his life - great albums, all of them (go check the reviews or listen to them yourself). But the writer gives only very brief comments about them, not caring about them, just as some passing thoughts. But on the 80's Tony did a live version of one of his most famous songs ("I'll never marry") and the author DESTROYS Tony, he says that Tony was terrible at the show, that Tony's voice cracks etc, he spends many paragraphs saying that the show was a shame, etc. But go and watch this performance at youtube. I believe it's not that bad for someone with more than 50 years and after decades since his last recording. But it seems the author rejoices in seeing Tony suffering.
Another example: the author loathes the movie Green Mansions and spends a lot of pages saying how bad the movie is. But Tony is good at the movie, his acting is very good despite the bad script. But those things don't matter for the author - he just wants to destroy Tony's image.
Anthony Perkins is a far better actor than this biography suggests.
November 15, 2014
Winecoff, you're going to have to work a lot harder than this to make me hate Tony.
I read this while couch-ridden thanks to a foot injury (I fell while mopping, my toe got caught in a crack in the floor, and my toe nail was torn out of my foot from the root. Let's just say I understand why it's used as a form of torture.) I have to second the other reviews here. While Winecoff obviously did a huge amount of research for this book, some of his sources are questionable at best. Are we really supposed to believe all of these kiss-and-tell stories, most of which are second- or third-hand gossip? I took most of those stories with a grain of salt. Sadly, this oversight was not the worst part of the book; that would be Winecoff's refusal to see anything positive about Tony. Seriously! The most ridiculous example is when he discusses a performance Tony gave when he was about 45 at a televised Broadway special. He sang "Never Will I Marry," from a Broadway musical he performed in his 20s. Tony had a FANTASTIC voice, and he sounds great in that performance. However, Winecoff (or "Whine-coff," ha ha!) describes it as "grotesque." Really? REALLY? It's on youtube, so you can judge for yourself. Tony also put out a few albums in the 60s, and they're really good, but Winecoff mentions them in a footnote. He never wastes an opportunity to demean Tony's acting or singing, and always judges Tony's personal life.
The only reason I gave this book two stars is for the subject matter. The actual facts in the book are fascinating to read about, and I did learn a lot from reading this. That being said, I find Whiny-coff too catty and petty for my taste. As I said, he has to work MUCH harder than this to make me hate Tony. I think I'll go watch "Fear Strikes Out" now.
I read this while couch-ridden thanks to a foot injury (I fell while mopping, my toe got caught in a crack in the floor, and my toe nail was torn out of my foot from the root. Let's just say I understand why it's used as a form of torture.) I have to second the other reviews here. While Winecoff obviously did a huge amount of research for this book, some of his sources are questionable at best. Are we really supposed to believe all of these kiss-and-tell stories, most of which are second- or third-hand gossip? I took most of those stories with a grain of salt. Sadly, this oversight was not the worst part of the book; that would be Winecoff's refusal to see anything positive about Tony. Seriously! The most ridiculous example is when he discusses a performance Tony gave when he was about 45 at a televised Broadway special. He sang "Never Will I Marry," from a Broadway musical he performed in his 20s. Tony had a FANTASTIC voice, and he sounds great in that performance. However, Winecoff (or "Whine-coff," ha ha!) describes it as "grotesque." Really? REALLY? It's on youtube, so you can judge for yourself. Tony also put out a few albums in the 60s, and they're really good, but Winecoff mentions them in a footnote. He never wastes an opportunity to demean Tony's acting or singing, and always judges Tony's personal life.
The only reason I gave this book two stars is for the subject matter. The actual facts in the book are fascinating to read about, and I did learn a lot from reading this. That being said, I find Whiny-coff too catty and petty for my taste. As I said, he has to work MUCH harder than this to make me hate Tony. I think I'll go watch "Fear Strikes Out" now.
December 4, 2013
This started off being a very informative book about the actors life...but then it slipped into a bunch of information connected by kiss and tell stories.
It starts off well, the information on Perkins childhood is very well researched but the further into the book you get, the more it seems like the author has some kind of agenda. I will agree with the other reviewer in the fact that it seems as if the writer HATES Perkins, every one of his roles that isn't 'Psycho' is lauded here as a failure, or with the author saying he was 'mis-cast'. Despite the fact that Perkins won awards for a lot of these performances. He also glosses over any of the successful moments of his career to instead focus on the negative. Perkin's role in 'Psycho' is referenced to throughout the book, yet when we get to that period in his life, the author barely mentions it at all.
The kiss and tell stories got a bit repetitive too, with their only reason being there for the potential to shock the reader, as each story gets more and more salacious that the last one, resulting in me believing they aren't that true.
Overall a disappointing read, there were some interesting aspects to it, but you have to dig through the writers agenda and a lot of negativity to see it.
It starts off well, the information on Perkins childhood is very well researched but the further into the book you get, the more it seems like the author has some kind of agenda. I will agree with the other reviewer in the fact that it seems as if the writer HATES Perkins, every one of his roles that isn't 'Psycho' is lauded here as a failure, or with the author saying he was 'mis-cast'. Despite the fact that Perkins won awards for a lot of these performances. He also glosses over any of the successful moments of his career to instead focus on the negative. Perkin's role in 'Psycho' is referenced to throughout the book, yet when we get to that period in his life, the author barely mentions it at all.
The kiss and tell stories got a bit repetitive too, with their only reason being there for the potential to shock the reader, as each story gets more and more salacious that the last one, resulting in me believing they aren't that true.
Overall a disappointing read, there were some interesting aspects to it, but you have to dig through the writers agenda and a lot of negativity to see it.
August 3, 2015
The first time I watched Psycho was October 19th, 2013, and I've been a major fan of Anthony Perkins ever since. I own a number of his movies and I've seen all but six of them, and boast a collection of over 700 pictures of him and a poster of one of the pictures on my wall. That being said, I knew a good amount about him before I read this book, and I had been purposely keeping off reading this because I was nervous after reading multiple reviews.
I've written essay length blog posts about my issues regarding things that have come from this book and I'm going to do my best to avoid doing the same thing here (because it focuses on things that aren't really solely about him). My real rating of this book is 2.5/5 stars but I can't do halves so I rounded up.
Winecoff did do a lot of work in this book and it clearly shows. There were a variety of things about Tony I did not know until now and while I do appreciate these stories, there's a lot of things I'm iffy about. In the Author's Note, Winecoff describes his times seeing On the Beach and Psycho and confesses he was never really a fan and instead was only interested in him because he lived near Perkins his entire life.
I don't want to coddle Tony or ignore any of his bad features, and I've always been fairly sure that I've been good at not ignoring his negative attributes, but the issue with this book is it seems more like the author is out to make Tony look as bad as he can. Sure, there are good comments and stories, but around the middle of the book, he gets particularly vicious. Sometimes his wording nauseated me, grossly exaggerating things (like Tony's performance of Never Will I Marry during the early 80s - it's not the greatest thing in the world, no, but it's nowhere near as terrible as Winecoff makes it out to be).
There are a number of things in this book that puzzled me, such as contradictions in how portrayed Perkins' personality. Adding to that, there were numerous sources and bits of information that were greatly questionable. At one point it seemed to me he was using every bad thing said about Tony and ignored any good things. If it was unbiased, I wouldn't mind so much, because I know Tony could be difficult sometimes, but to blatantly ignore things that I know have been said from reading and watching interviews with colleagues and present this strange image of him that I've never seen before leaves me a bit skeptical of the truth and the author's intentions.
The book only got progressively worse in its attitude towards its subject. When Winecoff wasn't completely ignoring many of Tony's movies (most of which only got a paragraph or two most about them), he seemed fixed on completely ripping apart Tony's performance. For example, he claimed Tony was miscast in Is Paris Burning? when all his part was in it was a 2 1/2 minute cameo. I'm not quite sure how someone is miscast in a cameo, but Winecoff claims Tony was miscast in a multitude of his roles. When Winecoff wasn't saying Tony was miscast, he'd go on some weird tangent about how the role related back to Tony's sexual orientation or "tortured" past or whatever else.
Which is my other issue with this book: when Winecoff discusses Tony's sexual orientation. He appeared to feel the need to throw in random analyses on Tony's sex life and relate it back to everything else he was doing. It got a bit obnoxious after a while, especially when he made fleeting remarks that had no source to them. Although I have to admit that when Winecoff made rather specific remarks on various parts of Tony's body, I was amused.
Although I do appreciate learning more about Anthony Perkins, Winecoff didn't really delve into his head any. This "split image" he claims exists seems more like "tortured, closeted gay man" with some murky evidence to back him up. Tony was complex, but I don't feel like he's odd. Perhaps it's because my personality is very much like his.
At the same time there were numerous occasions where I had to stop reading because the negativity directed towards him was so exhausting to read. He seemed human at the beginning and at the end but in the later half of the book he was portrayed as this prissy drug addict that was full of himself when that's not what I've ever heard anyone describe him as. Once again, I question many of his sources and much of his word choice.
Altogether, though, this did give me better insight to who Tony was and I admire him as a person and an actor even more than I did before. If his intention was to leave a bad taste about Anthony Perkins in my mouth, it didn't succeed, and I love him all the same. Everybody has their bad sides and their bad moments, and Tony is no exemption.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch another one of his movies.
I've written essay length blog posts about my issues regarding things that have come from this book and I'm going to do my best to avoid doing the same thing here (because it focuses on things that aren't really solely about him). My real rating of this book is 2.5/5 stars but I can't do halves so I rounded up.
Winecoff did do a lot of work in this book and it clearly shows. There were a variety of things about Tony I did not know until now and while I do appreciate these stories, there's a lot of things I'm iffy about. In the Author's Note, Winecoff describes his times seeing On the Beach and Psycho and confesses he was never really a fan and instead was only interested in him because he lived near Perkins his entire life.
I don't want to coddle Tony or ignore any of his bad features, and I've always been fairly sure that I've been good at not ignoring his negative attributes, but the issue with this book is it seems more like the author is out to make Tony look as bad as he can. Sure, there are good comments and stories, but around the middle of the book, he gets particularly vicious. Sometimes his wording nauseated me, grossly exaggerating things (like Tony's performance of Never Will I Marry during the early 80s - it's not the greatest thing in the world, no, but it's nowhere near as terrible as Winecoff makes it out to be).
There are a number of things in this book that puzzled me, such as contradictions in how portrayed Perkins' personality. Adding to that, there were numerous sources and bits of information that were greatly questionable. At one point it seemed to me he was using every bad thing said about Tony and ignored any good things. If it was unbiased, I wouldn't mind so much, because I know Tony could be difficult sometimes, but to blatantly ignore things that I know have been said from reading and watching interviews with colleagues and present this strange image of him that I've never seen before leaves me a bit skeptical of the truth and the author's intentions.
The book only got progressively worse in its attitude towards its subject. When Winecoff wasn't completely ignoring many of Tony's movies (most of which only got a paragraph or two most about them), he seemed fixed on completely ripping apart Tony's performance. For example, he claimed Tony was miscast in Is Paris Burning? when all his part was in it was a 2 1/2 minute cameo. I'm not quite sure how someone is miscast in a cameo, but Winecoff claims Tony was miscast in a multitude of his roles. When Winecoff wasn't saying Tony was miscast, he'd go on some weird tangent about how the role related back to Tony's sexual orientation or "tortured" past or whatever else.
Which is my other issue with this book: when Winecoff discusses Tony's sexual orientation. He appeared to feel the need to throw in random analyses on Tony's sex life and relate it back to everything else he was doing. It got a bit obnoxious after a while, especially when he made fleeting remarks that had no source to them. Although I have to admit that when Winecoff made rather specific remarks on various parts of Tony's body, I was amused.
Although I do appreciate learning more about Anthony Perkins, Winecoff didn't really delve into his head any. This "split image" he claims exists seems more like "tortured, closeted gay man" with some murky evidence to back him up. Tony was complex, but I don't feel like he's odd. Perhaps it's because my personality is very much like his.
At the same time there were numerous occasions where I had to stop reading because the negativity directed towards him was so exhausting to read. He seemed human at the beginning and at the end but in the later half of the book he was portrayed as this prissy drug addict that was full of himself when that's not what I've ever heard anyone describe him as. Once again, I question many of his sources and much of his word choice.
Altogether, though, this did give me better insight to who Tony was and I admire him as a person and an actor even more than I did before. If his intention was to leave a bad taste about Anthony Perkins in my mouth, it didn't succeed, and I love him all the same. Everybody has their bad sides and their bad moments, and Tony is no exemption.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch another one of his movies.
December 25, 2022
I have awfully mixed feelings about this biography. Before I can even talk about the content, I have to make it clear that Charles Winecoff writes like a stalker — and I’m not exaggerating. I do not know the history of this author, nor the truth behind any of his supposed meetings with Tony Perkins, but I get the distinct impression from this book that Winecoff was obsessed.
There’s no doubt a huge amount of research went into this book — issues begin to arise however when stories cannot be corroborated. Tales from supposed ex-lovers certainly have intrigue, but their reliability is thin. There’s also the issue of gratuitous descriptions of Perkins’ sex life — much of which is entirely speculative, or sourced from unverified sources. It feels exploitative, voyeuristic, and strangely predatory of Winecoff to spend so much time drawing out these uncomfortable details of sex, fetishes, and addiction — much of which may not even be true.
There’s a looming sense of jealousy over the entire affair. Winecoff flip-flops between idealising Perkins in his early years and demonising him in his later years.
There’s one particularly embarrassing segment in which Winecoff berates a performance of ‘Never Will I Marry’ that Perkins sang around twenty years after his initial role in Greenwillow. After having watched the performance myself, I cannot imagine how anyone would come to the aggressively negative conclusions that Winecoff did — unless they were hellbent on seeing to it that Perkins be humiliated. Maybe that also explains the unnecessary, borderline pornographic descriptions of Perkins’ sex life. Even neutral-toned quotes from ex-lovers have been corrupted by Winecoff’s unwanted, unflattering interjections.
There’s a sneering thread that runs through this entire book that just tugs uncomfortably on every event discussed. It’s difficult to leave this book without feeling sorry for Tony Perkins, without wondering how disturbed his sons may have felt after reading this — if they ever did. You can’t help but feel that Tony Perkins would never have wanted something like this published about him.
To quote Perkins briefly from the Mike Wallace Interview 1958:
“I wouldn’t criticise anybody of their own opinion of me. If anyone thinks I’m nuts or should see a psychiatrist I’m certainly not going to take exception to a statement like that. It’s factual stories, you know — like pouring water on somebody’s head or eating spaghetti out of my hands — that’s what really hurts.”
Considering some of the stories in this biography are a hell of a lot more inflammatory and graphic than eating spaghetti with his hands, I think Tony Perkins would be aghast at this book. And honestly? I think that might’ve been what Winecoff was trying to achieve.
I’m not sure I’d recommend this book to fans of Tony Perkins’ work or to anyone who wants an accurate look into his private life — i think the problems I have with it make it a pretty poor effort of a trustworthy biography. I think the only people who might get much value from it are voyeurs who want to see a seedier, explicit side to Perkins that they would never have got from film or TV, but just remember that the book is wholeheartedly unreliable.
Did I enjoy reading it, to be completely fair? A little. There were parts that definitely excited me and had me reeling from intensity, but when you really sit back and look at the book in your hands, what you have is a gossipy puff piece from an author that clearly had an unhealthy obsession with Tony Perkins. Does it work as that? Of course it does. But as a factual, objective, kind-hearted biography? I’d look elsewhere.
There’s no doubt a huge amount of research went into this book — issues begin to arise however when stories cannot be corroborated. Tales from supposed ex-lovers certainly have intrigue, but their reliability is thin. There’s also the issue of gratuitous descriptions of Perkins’ sex life — much of which is entirely speculative, or sourced from unverified sources. It feels exploitative, voyeuristic, and strangely predatory of Winecoff to spend so much time drawing out these uncomfortable details of sex, fetishes, and addiction — much of which may not even be true.
There’s a looming sense of jealousy over the entire affair. Winecoff flip-flops between idealising Perkins in his early years and demonising him in his later years.
There’s one particularly embarrassing segment in which Winecoff berates a performance of ‘Never Will I Marry’ that Perkins sang around twenty years after his initial role in Greenwillow. After having watched the performance myself, I cannot imagine how anyone would come to the aggressively negative conclusions that Winecoff did — unless they were hellbent on seeing to it that Perkins be humiliated. Maybe that also explains the unnecessary, borderline pornographic descriptions of Perkins’ sex life. Even neutral-toned quotes from ex-lovers have been corrupted by Winecoff’s unwanted, unflattering interjections.
There’s a sneering thread that runs through this entire book that just tugs uncomfortably on every event discussed. It’s difficult to leave this book without feeling sorry for Tony Perkins, without wondering how disturbed his sons may have felt after reading this — if they ever did. You can’t help but feel that Tony Perkins would never have wanted something like this published about him.
To quote Perkins briefly from the Mike Wallace Interview 1958:
“I wouldn’t criticise anybody of their own opinion of me. If anyone thinks I’m nuts or should see a psychiatrist I’m certainly not going to take exception to a statement like that. It’s factual stories, you know — like pouring water on somebody’s head or eating spaghetti out of my hands — that’s what really hurts.”
Considering some of the stories in this biography are a hell of a lot more inflammatory and graphic than eating spaghetti with his hands, I think Tony Perkins would be aghast at this book. And honestly? I think that might’ve been what Winecoff was trying to achieve.
I’m not sure I’d recommend this book to fans of Tony Perkins’ work or to anyone who wants an accurate look into his private life — i think the problems I have with it make it a pretty poor effort of a trustworthy biography. I think the only people who might get much value from it are voyeurs who want to see a seedier, explicit side to Perkins that they would never have got from film or TV, but just remember that the book is wholeheartedly unreliable.
Did I enjoy reading it, to be completely fair? A little. There were parts that definitely excited me and had me reeling from intensity, but when you really sit back and look at the book in your hands, what you have is a gossipy puff piece from an author that clearly had an unhealthy obsession with Tony Perkins. Does it work as that? Of course it does. But as a factual, objective, kind-hearted biography? I’d look elsewhere.
September 16, 2013
I admit that I haven't read a lot of biographies, so I'm not sure if SPLIT IMAGE is how they typically are or not. It's a huge book/doorstop (almost 500 pages), but it's just fact after fact strung together. There's no real story to it. You don't get involved with the characters (in this case, Anthony Perkins). It just felt like I was reading a very long Wikipedia entry.
I can tell a lot of research went into creating this book. The author certainly did his homework, pulling together quotes from various interviews over the years, and from many people with whom Perkins came into contact during his 60 years. Unfortunately, the facts and quotes are all just observations. They don't really come from anyone who knew the "real" Perkins (AKA the man who kept his homosexuality a "secret"). There's a lot of name-dropping of celebrities and other supposedly famous people. After awhile, I couldn't even keep straight (no pun intended) who was who.
Oft times, I skimmed over certain chapters. It would have been a more engaging read if each chapter was an actual story about a part of Perkins' life instead of facts put together like "he did this, then he did this, and then he did this." And the stories I wanted to hear most about (his hidden life, his relationship with Tab Hunter, and even the making of "Psycho" felt glossed over). When I came to the chapter titled "The Black Hole," I thought, "Oh yeah! I loved that movie as a kid. I forgot he was in it. I can't wait to read about it." And then the movie was relegaded to two paragraphs within the big chapter.
Do we get to know Anthony Perkins? Not really. I did learn some interesting "facts," but that was about it. One interesting fact not included (that I learned from Wikipedia because the book was printed in the 1990s) is that Perkins' wife was killed during 9/11. She was on one of the airplanes that hit one of the World Trade Center towers. How sad is that? Their children lost one parent to AIDS and one to a major terrorist attack.
I can tell a lot of research went into creating this book. The author certainly did his homework, pulling together quotes from various interviews over the years, and from many people with whom Perkins came into contact during his 60 years. Unfortunately, the facts and quotes are all just observations. They don't really come from anyone who knew the "real" Perkins (AKA the man who kept his homosexuality a "secret"). There's a lot of name-dropping of celebrities and other supposedly famous people. After awhile, I couldn't even keep straight (no pun intended) who was who.
Oft times, I skimmed over certain chapters. It would have been a more engaging read if each chapter was an actual story about a part of Perkins' life instead of facts put together like "he did this, then he did this, and then he did this." And the stories I wanted to hear most about (his hidden life, his relationship with Tab Hunter, and even the making of "Psycho" felt glossed over). When I came to the chapter titled "The Black Hole," I thought, "Oh yeah! I loved that movie as a kid. I forgot he was in it. I can't wait to read about it." And then the movie was relegaded to two paragraphs within the big chapter.
Do we get to know Anthony Perkins? Not really. I did learn some interesting "facts," but that was about it. One interesting fact not included (that I learned from Wikipedia because the book was printed in the 1990s) is that Perkins' wife was killed during 9/11. She was on one of the airplanes that hit one of the World Trade Center towers. How sad is that? Their children lost one parent to AIDS and one to a major terrorist attack.
October 1, 2017
This was a very interesting read about the life of Tony Perkins. It's really sad what society can do to you. It seems to me like Tony felt the need that he HAD to have a wife in kids in order to be accepted by the world. I'm sure he loved his wife and sexuality is way more complex than gay straight or bi. Fact is he loved men and loved having sex with them and psychoanalysis that was very popular back in the 50s/60s messed with his head completely.
I don't agree with the comments that the author 'hated' Perkins. Sure, I see that to (mostly) everything Tony has done professionally there is some negative undertone to it and I know way too little about his work (yet) to be able to agree or disagree with the author. Fact is that Tony did some bad movies though and he should have stayed in Hollywood and not ventured off to Europe to become a movie star there The big bucks were always in Hollywood at that time. I started buying Perkins movies and so far I've been enjoying them. Do you love Brahms was lovely. Psycho is a classic (that haunted Perkins his entire life) and Green Mansions is rather bad (not even Hepburn could safe the bad plot). I'm looking forward to see many more movies with the handsome Tony Perkins. Looking at his pictures I can see why many girls and boys;) fell in love with this handsome man.
I don't agree with the comments that the author 'hated' Perkins. Sure, I see that to (mostly) everything Tony has done professionally there is some negative undertone to it and I know way too little about his work (yet) to be able to agree or disagree with the author. Fact is that Tony did some bad movies though and he should have stayed in Hollywood and not ventured off to Europe to become a movie star there The big bucks were always in Hollywood at that time. I started buying Perkins movies and so far I've been enjoying them. Do you love Brahms was lovely. Psycho is a classic (that haunted Perkins his entire life) and Green Mansions is rather bad (not even Hepburn could safe the bad plot). I'm looking forward to see many more movies with the handsome Tony Perkins. Looking at his pictures I can see why many girls and boys;) fell in love with this handsome man.
January 1, 2011
In Split Image: The Life of Anthony Perkins (Dutton,$24.95, 482 pages) Charles Winecoff, a graduate of the UCLA film school, attempts to shed perspective on the real person rather than the public image the troubled actor contrived to satisfy both a homophobic society and a tyrannical entertainment industry. Like many before him and since, Perkins was a victim of Hollywood's infamous closet, compelled to be a romantic leading man while privately struggling with his homosexuality. Furthermore, he was a casualty of typecasting early in his career after his role as homicidal transvestite Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960).
Although Winecoff's research spanned several years and 300 interviews, his book is ponderous, sometimes shocking, reading. Occasional factual blunders like making Winter Park philanthropist Jeannette Genius McKean a widow in the early 1980s and gossipy tidbits from anonymous sources mar the book's veracity, although one cannot deny the tragedy of its subject.
Although Winecoff's research spanned several years and 300 interviews, his book is ponderous, sometimes shocking, reading. Occasional factual blunders like making Winter Park philanthropist Jeannette Genius McKean a widow in the early 1980s and gossipy tidbits from anonymous sources mar the book's veracity, although one cannot deny the tragedy of its subject.
October 15, 2024
bitchy gay trash, a little mean. some lurid details abt tonys sex life, more than yr avg bio. dave decoteau makes an appearance!! a fun read because it is not reverent or respectful :)
June 13, 2025
This is one of those celebrity biographies that suffers from too much about less important career moments and a focus on homosexual history that's overblown (pun intended!). The book is bloated, overwritten, and something the very private Anthony Perkins would not have been happy with.
At 466 pages, this is the kind of massive volume that should be reserved for A-list celebrities with plenty of dirt and side stories. Tony Perkins was not that kind of actor. He was in a couple of big movies and Broadway shows before his career suffered post-Psycho. And his private life is something that he wanted to remain zipped-up (again, pun intended). The irony is that the star was a strong believer in sexuality being totally private and no one else's business, which this author simply ignores with all sorts of innuendo and half-baked hookups.
Winecoff is one of those biographers that makes bold proclamations and conjectures without facts to back them up. Whether it's Perkins' choice of roles or men, the author adds his opinion where there are no specifics or verifications. One of the biggest problems of the book is that there are no footnotes so we have no idea whether anything he writes is accurate.
For example, Winecoff proclaims that "Tony was no virgin" when he got to college. No proof, just guessing. Then this statement from Winecoff: "Quite probably Tony's first sexual experience happened in a car, for he had always been an enthusiastic hitchhiker." HUH? "Quite probably" we had better not trust anything this guy writes if he is going to make that kind of jump in logic with no facts to back him up.
The same goes for Tony's mother, who "roomed" with another woman for twenty years and rarely introduced the other woman to others. You know what that means in this writer's eyes, despite no confirmation of two having a sexual relationship.
Others are distortions and inaccuracies, such as when he states about Tony's 1958 Broadway smash "Look Homeward, Angel," that "no videotape remains of his interpretation." Um, Charles Winecoff, the first videotaped theatrical production was in 1970. Obviously no videotape remains of ANY Broadway show before then because videotape wasn't portable. (There may be filmed shows on movie cameras or tapes from TV studio versions like "Peter Pan," but there are no official remote "tapes" for any 1950s Broadway shows.
Then there's the overemphasis on theatrical productions or movies that most of us have never seen. Why devote more pages to 1950s or 60s Broadway productions that almost no reader has viewed than to "Psycho" or a couple of other Perkins' big films that tens of millions have watched?
There are a few juicy tidbits that are unearthed. Perkins went to Rollins College with Fred Rogers--yes, that Mr. Rogers--and the two spent time alone in Fred's room while "playing music." Hmm. (And for this the author makes no conjecture?) George Hamilton's gay brother was part of that college friend group, too. Interesting.
Then comes the shift, where his first heterosexual experience at age 40 is with Victoria Principal! Yes, that Victoria Principal, who could have had any star in the world but she quickly fell for Tony Perkins! That opened up new possibilities for him, leading to marriage to a 15-year-younger woman and his two children.
Winecoff then goes into overdrive, trying to present a picture of a weak, sniveling homosexual Perkins hiding behind his wife and kids, claiming a two-sided personality. Then the author goes after psychiatry and Hollywood movies that feature gay characters. He calls the movie "Cruising" "homophobic" simply because it features a gay killer. Does he call the thousands of movies where the killer is straight "heterophobic?"
Winecroff actually fits that description of heterophobic. He was raised a little rich kid and became a New York City elitist, an early homosexual marriage supporter who uses his writings for propaganda. He repeatedly mocks the idea that a man can switch from having gay sex to heterosexual sex or even be bisexual. He calls Perkins gay long after the actor has said he has changed.
It's hypocritical that in the gay world once you have one same-sex experience that means you're forever gay and can't "change" no matter who else you have sex with, yet those same homosexuals proclaim that it is possible for a straight man or woman to spend decades having heterosexual intercourse and then "change" to becoming gay or (as they would propagate) "coming out" to "the way they were born." Funny that these bigots proclaim only one type of person can change, and that's someone becoming gay.
Add to this quite a bit of negativity from the book's writer about the subject's acting and therapy (often unfairly mocking the woman who counsels Perkins to become heterosexual). I ended up feeling sorry for Perkins for being turned into a one-note gay caricature, promoting the author's LGBTQ agenda instead of seeing the actor as he wanted to be seen: "Just a person." Namely, Perkins was relatively happy being a split image where he could live his sexuality privately bit this book abuses that aspect of his contentment.
At 466 pages, this is the kind of massive volume that should be reserved for A-list celebrities with plenty of dirt and side stories. Tony Perkins was not that kind of actor. He was in a couple of big movies and Broadway shows before his career suffered post-Psycho. And his private life is something that he wanted to remain zipped-up (again, pun intended). The irony is that the star was a strong believer in sexuality being totally private and no one else's business, which this author simply ignores with all sorts of innuendo and half-baked hookups.
Winecoff is one of those biographers that makes bold proclamations and conjectures without facts to back them up. Whether it's Perkins' choice of roles or men, the author adds his opinion where there are no specifics or verifications. One of the biggest problems of the book is that there are no footnotes so we have no idea whether anything he writes is accurate.
For example, Winecoff proclaims that "Tony was no virgin" when he got to college. No proof, just guessing. Then this statement from Winecoff: "Quite probably Tony's first sexual experience happened in a car, for he had always been an enthusiastic hitchhiker." HUH? "Quite probably" we had better not trust anything this guy writes if he is going to make that kind of jump in logic with no facts to back him up.
The same goes for Tony's mother, who "roomed" with another woman for twenty years and rarely introduced the other woman to others. You know what that means in this writer's eyes, despite no confirmation of two having a sexual relationship.
Others are distortions and inaccuracies, such as when he states about Tony's 1958 Broadway smash "Look Homeward, Angel," that "no videotape remains of his interpretation." Um, Charles Winecoff, the first videotaped theatrical production was in 1970. Obviously no videotape remains of ANY Broadway show before then because videotape wasn't portable. (There may be filmed shows on movie cameras or tapes from TV studio versions like "Peter Pan," but there are no official remote "tapes" for any 1950s Broadway shows.
Then there's the overemphasis on theatrical productions or movies that most of us have never seen. Why devote more pages to 1950s or 60s Broadway productions that almost no reader has viewed than to "Psycho" or a couple of other Perkins' big films that tens of millions have watched?
There are a few juicy tidbits that are unearthed. Perkins went to Rollins College with Fred Rogers--yes, that Mr. Rogers--and the two spent time alone in Fred's room while "playing music." Hmm. (And for this the author makes no conjecture?) George Hamilton's gay brother was part of that college friend group, too. Interesting.
Then comes the shift, where his first heterosexual experience at age 40 is with Victoria Principal! Yes, that Victoria Principal, who could have had any star in the world but she quickly fell for Tony Perkins! That opened up new possibilities for him, leading to marriage to a 15-year-younger woman and his two children.
Winecoff then goes into overdrive, trying to present a picture of a weak, sniveling homosexual Perkins hiding behind his wife and kids, claiming a two-sided personality. Then the author goes after psychiatry and Hollywood movies that feature gay characters. He calls the movie "Cruising" "homophobic" simply because it features a gay killer. Does he call the thousands of movies where the killer is straight "heterophobic?"
Winecroff actually fits that description of heterophobic. He was raised a little rich kid and became a New York City elitist, an early homosexual marriage supporter who uses his writings for propaganda. He repeatedly mocks the idea that a man can switch from having gay sex to heterosexual sex or even be bisexual. He calls Perkins gay long after the actor has said he has changed.
It's hypocritical that in the gay world once you have one same-sex experience that means you're forever gay and can't "change" no matter who else you have sex with, yet those same homosexuals proclaim that it is possible for a straight man or woman to spend decades having heterosexual intercourse and then "change" to becoming gay or (as they would propagate) "coming out" to "the way they were born." Funny that these bigots proclaim only one type of person can change, and that's someone becoming gay.
Add to this quite a bit of negativity from the book's writer about the subject's acting and therapy (often unfairly mocking the woman who counsels Perkins to become heterosexual). I ended up feeling sorry for Perkins for being turned into a one-note gay caricature, promoting the author's LGBTQ agenda instead of seeing the actor as he wanted to be seen: "Just a person." Namely, Perkins was relatively happy being a split image where he could live his sexuality privately bit this book abuses that aspect of his contentment.
June 30, 2021
It’s taken me awhile to write this review, because I feel like not liking the book is somehow a dig at Anthony Perkins, and I don’t want it to be, so I am going to make it a dig at Charles Winecoff, the author. It should be stated upfront, Mr. Perkins was not alive at the time this book was written and published and contributed to it in no way.
First, it comes as no surprise when a quick check on Good Reads shows that this is the one and only book Mr. Winecoff has written. My overall disappointment in this book is that he writes with such a detachment from the source material that you don’t feel like you know much about Anthony Perkins after reading it. In fact, I think Winecoff lost a coin toss at Penguin Publishing and that he really wanted to write a biography about Anthony Quinn. When there are rare moments of Winecoff showing any feelings towards Perkins, they are ones of condescendence, pity, and homophobia.
An additionally unlikable trait about Winecoff’s writing style is his continued use of “unnamed sources,” as he happily repeats wild stories and rumors about the title character. If you don’t have the source on record telling the story first, or even second hand, don’t repeat it in your book just because it’s juicy or salacious. None of these stories would I dare repeat here to my audience (some of these reviews get upwards of four likes!) It will come as no surprise that even though Winecoff showed only a passing interest in the film career of Perkins, he is obsessed with how often the actor had gay sex and with whom!
It does appear that Anthony Perkins was a conflicted person, although Winecoff does nothing to explain the metaphor of “Split Image,” that he uses for the book’s title. Many named sources and friends do attest that Perkins was a hard nut to crack, and in fact, if an editor removed every time the words, strange, quiet, aloof, introvert, standoffish, muted, placid, odd, or muted were used to describe Tony, the book would easy drop 50 pages. But here readers must put the subject in the correct context- he was a struggling actor in the 40’s and 50’s so did he take on this persona to protect himself and his career? He did go on to marry a woman and have two children. Rest assured that this is not a topic Winecoff chose to explore. I also can’t help but wonder if Winecoff sought out and published only negative quotes he found about Tony!
I will leave you with a few interesting facts that I did learn about Mr. Perkins
1.He was good friends with Vampira (Maila Nurmi).
2. He was good buddies with Stephen Sondheim and collaborated with him often. (I feel like I should have known this one!)
3. Anthony had an impressive theater career.
4. His father was also an actor in the original Scarface.
5. The film Play it as It Lays is Mr. Perkins’ personal favorite and the one he would like to be remembered for.
One final thought- if you are an Anthony Perkins fan, and haven’t seen the 1970’s made for TV thriller, “How Awful About Allan,” check it out! Last time I checked it was free on Youtube and totally worth a watch (with a cocktail)!
First, it comes as no surprise when a quick check on Good Reads shows that this is the one and only book Mr. Winecoff has written. My overall disappointment in this book is that he writes with such a detachment from the source material that you don’t feel like you know much about Anthony Perkins after reading it. In fact, I think Winecoff lost a coin toss at Penguin Publishing and that he really wanted to write a biography about Anthony Quinn. When there are rare moments of Winecoff showing any feelings towards Perkins, they are ones of condescendence, pity, and homophobia.
An additionally unlikable trait about Winecoff’s writing style is his continued use of “unnamed sources,” as he happily repeats wild stories and rumors about the title character. If you don’t have the source on record telling the story first, or even second hand, don’t repeat it in your book just because it’s juicy or salacious. None of these stories would I dare repeat here to my audience (some of these reviews get upwards of four likes!) It will come as no surprise that even though Winecoff showed only a passing interest in the film career of Perkins, he is obsessed with how often the actor had gay sex and with whom!
It does appear that Anthony Perkins was a conflicted person, although Winecoff does nothing to explain the metaphor of “Split Image,” that he uses for the book’s title. Many named sources and friends do attest that Perkins was a hard nut to crack, and in fact, if an editor removed every time the words, strange, quiet, aloof, introvert, standoffish, muted, placid, odd, or muted were used to describe Tony, the book would easy drop 50 pages. But here readers must put the subject in the correct context- he was a struggling actor in the 40’s and 50’s so did he take on this persona to protect himself and his career? He did go on to marry a woman and have two children. Rest assured that this is not a topic Winecoff chose to explore. I also can’t help but wonder if Winecoff sought out and published only negative quotes he found about Tony!
I will leave you with a few interesting facts that I did learn about Mr. Perkins
1.He was good friends with Vampira (Maila Nurmi).
2. He was good buddies with Stephen Sondheim and collaborated with him often. (I feel like I should have known this one!)
3. Anthony had an impressive theater career.
4. His father was also an actor in the original Scarface.
5. The film Play it as It Lays is Mr. Perkins’ personal favorite and the one he would like to be remembered for.
One final thought- if you are an Anthony Perkins fan, and haven’t seen the 1970’s made for TV thriller, “How Awful About Allan,” check it out! Last time I checked it was free on Youtube and totally worth a watch (with a cocktail)!
March 9, 2019
As a keen fan of old Hollywood and Anthony Perkins alike, this book has been on my radar for some time. However, I've had hesitations about reading the material. Other reviews have long-cited the author's scathing treatment of both Perkins and of the people that he held dear during his auspicious yet tragic life. Others have cited also the Winecoffs's tendency to focus disproportionally on the more lascivious elements of Perkins' sexuality. To address Perkins' sexuality is an appropriate choice. Perkins appears to have suffered a near self-loathing struggle with his sexuality, which no doubt predicated the mercurial manner in which he lived his life. One ex-lover of Perkins, Alan Helms, noted that if Perkins' could have taken a pill at night and woken up straight-that he totally would have done it. He also cites him as one of the more tormented people about his sexuality that he'd ever met. Contrarily, and emblematic of Perkins' "split image", another acquaintance interviewed for the book recalls Perkins' joking that if such a pill existed, he would crush it under his shoe. Regardless, its fair to say that the author might have handled the sexual element of Perkins' life with more care and tact. The sexual passages of the book seem smutty at worst and flagrantly exaggerated at best (there are thick sections of pages devoted solely to the testimonializing of the very literal and graphic descriptions of Perkins' sexual encounters while Perkins' seminal involvement with the film Psycho, his 1973 wedding, his role as a doting father, his directing career, and other key components of his life are given precious little page space.
The writing style is rather good, however, and the prose matches the intensity and sharpness of the Perkins' persona. Winecoff certainly did his due diligence, interviewing a diverse and long list of Perkins' close friends, co-workers, and family members. Acquaintances from Perkins' early Hollywood years contribute perhaps the most damning anecdotes. Winecoff, peculiarly, focuses a great deal on the negative interviews--particularly from minor figures in Perkins life--when more significant personalities are marginalized.
The lion's share of Perkins' notable colleagues provide glowing assessments (one Perkins colleague muses that, "Anyone who really knew him liked him." Art Garfunkel, Fred Rogers, Alan Arkin, Bob Balaban, and Tab Hunter all share insightful and balanced opinions about him.) Winecoff does make an attempt to give a holistic and objective biography, but I still couldn't help but sense of stark cynicism in his treatment of Perkins. Anything interesting or good that is included in the biography seems quickly undercut by sarcasm or the inherently jaded tone of the Winecoff's presentation. That was a bit confusing to me and-at times-it gave me the impression that the biography really disliked his subject. Which is also strange. Regardless, it's a great read with of wealth of information on the actor (I particularly liked the bits about Perkins father, Osgood. He was quite an interesting character).
The writing style is rather good, however, and the prose matches the intensity and sharpness of the Perkins' persona. Winecoff certainly did his due diligence, interviewing a diverse and long list of Perkins' close friends, co-workers, and family members. Acquaintances from Perkins' early Hollywood years contribute perhaps the most damning anecdotes. Winecoff, peculiarly, focuses a great deal on the negative interviews--particularly from minor figures in Perkins life--when more significant personalities are marginalized.
The lion's share of Perkins' notable colleagues provide glowing assessments (one Perkins colleague muses that, "Anyone who really knew him liked him." Art Garfunkel, Fred Rogers, Alan Arkin, Bob Balaban, and Tab Hunter all share insightful and balanced opinions about him.) Winecoff does make an attempt to give a holistic and objective biography, but I still couldn't help but sense of stark cynicism in his treatment of Perkins. Anything interesting or good that is included in the biography seems quickly undercut by sarcasm or the inherently jaded tone of the Winecoff's presentation. That was a bit confusing to me and-at times-it gave me the impression that the biography really disliked his subject. Which is also strange. Regardless, it's a great read with of wealth of information on the actor (I particularly liked the bits about Perkins father, Osgood. He was quite an interesting character).
August 2, 2023
I was one of the 300 interviews that Charlie Winecoff made in the early-mid 1990's when writing his biography on Tony Perkins. I cannot say he did not like Tony P. I will say that Charlie preferred to focus on the angst Tony had as an extremely attractive and sexy gay man in a matinee idol-world. He had many mountains to climb, including that in the acting profession. Osgood Perkins was called the greatest actor of his generation in 1926 I believe, and 30 years later Tony came close as Thomas Wolfe in the theatrical adaptation of "Look Homeward, Angel".
As for my appearance in this bio/memoir: I was a 14 year old fan in 1970, a high schooler from Chicago with a substance abusing mother and three younger siblings. I wrote a play with a role for Tony, where he would rescue my mother. I was so persistent to see if he received it I called his attorney's office, which I thought was completely normal. Later I received a letter from Mrs. Janet ("Jane") Perkins, Tony's mother, ackowleding that he had received it, and that for someone my age I had a flair for dialogue. We stayed close friends and she mentored me for the next nine years.
Another young lady, ten years my senior, with looks, wealth and the Jet-Set, was also a huge fan. Since she was 14. And she was a one heck of a writer. Berry Berenson interviewed Tony for Andy Warhol's Interview magazine. As fate would have it, she became pregnant. She and Tony married. She had two sons, Oz and Elvis, all who declined to be interviewed by Charles Winecoff.
If the book were more celebratory of,the acting, intertwined with the ouerve of typecasting in entertainment, perhaps it would not have been panned by so many. But the sex was too steamy about a thespian who had a 'Split Image' but one enormous legacy. And not once previously did I mention Norman Bates, Psycho, Hitchcock or what happened ...
Abbe Miller Buck
As for my appearance in this bio/memoir: I was a 14 year old fan in 1970, a high schooler from Chicago with a substance abusing mother and three younger siblings. I wrote a play with a role for Tony, where he would rescue my mother. I was so persistent to see if he received it I called his attorney's office, which I thought was completely normal. Later I received a letter from Mrs. Janet ("Jane") Perkins, Tony's mother, ackowleding that he had received it, and that for someone my age I had a flair for dialogue. We stayed close friends and she mentored me for the next nine years.
Another young lady, ten years my senior, with looks, wealth and the Jet-Set, was also a huge fan. Since she was 14. And she was a one heck of a writer. Berry Berenson interviewed Tony for Andy Warhol's Interview magazine. As fate would have it, she became pregnant. She and Tony married. She had two sons, Oz and Elvis, all who declined to be interviewed by Charles Winecoff.
If the book were more celebratory of,the acting, intertwined with the ouerve of typecasting in entertainment, perhaps it would not have been panned by so many. But the sex was too steamy about a thespian who had a 'Split Image' but one enormous legacy. And not once previously did I mention Norman Bates, Psycho, Hitchcock or what happened ...
Abbe Miller Buck
December 19, 2019
I had read the first Perkins biography, "A Haunted Life" way back in 1996 but Winecoff's book is easily the better researched and ambitious volume to date about Anthony Perkins. Unfortunately the author spends too much time on the unsavory aspects of Perkins' personal life rather than his career. It's chock full of salacious detail about his many gay lovers, relationships and one night stands. He's portrayed as something of a sex addict, making his death at 60 from AIDS feel nearly inevitable.
For someone who loved watching Perkins in Goodbye Again, Friendly Persuasion as well as Psycho, it left a bad taste in my mouth. The other figures in Perkins' life don't come out too well either - his mother, Janet Rane Perkins, apparently misled a poor waif-like character, Teno, into thinking she'd leave him an inheritance but left him impoverished instead. In fact there is so much negativity about Perkins' character (he was rigid and uptight; he was a manipulative jerk who betrayed his lover Tab Hunter for a movie role; he cruelly mocked women who were attracted to him), you almost want to embrace Norman Bates - at least that fictional character wasn't so devious and calculating.
Perhaps Winecoff was trying to make the point that the Hollywood closet was so toxic that it distorted Perkins' character, but the connection isn't made clear. The actor comes off looking like a brainy but sleazy guy who was endlessly dishonest with himself and others, and not particularly nice to work with.
For someone who loved watching Perkins in Goodbye Again, Friendly Persuasion as well as Psycho, it left a bad taste in my mouth. The other figures in Perkins' life don't come out too well either - his mother, Janet Rane Perkins, apparently misled a poor waif-like character, Teno, into thinking she'd leave him an inheritance but left him impoverished instead. In fact there is so much negativity about Perkins' character (he was rigid and uptight; he was a manipulative jerk who betrayed his lover Tab Hunter for a movie role; he cruelly mocked women who were attracted to him), you almost want to embrace Norman Bates - at least that fictional character wasn't so devious and calculating.
Perhaps Winecoff was trying to make the point that the Hollywood closet was so toxic that it distorted Perkins' character, but the connection isn't made clear. The actor comes off looking like a brainy but sleazy guy who was endlessly dishonest with himself and others, and not particularly nice to work with.
March 1, 2023
this is fully a horrid biography, like i want to make that clear outright. charles winecoff tells on himself early on that he had a very biased picture of anthony perkins because his brief run-ins with him made him feel like he was his "shadow self" "doppelganger" dogging him around (weirdo). he extends a lot of energy into personally degrading tony's performances and including the most negative thing every critic had to say. a lot of the "sources" are gossip and rumor-based, impossible to verify. he spends so much focus on every minute detail of perkins' sex life it's exhausting, like i actually did not need to hear everything about every single person he's fucked. at times you have to stop and just fume at how openly uncharitable this biographer is being towards his subject.
HOWEVER. i picked this up because i was interested in how perkins basically created the role of norman bates, and the impact of that character on the rest of his life, so i can definitely say i got a lot of material on that front! this is certainly a Text that i feel like has given me a lot to work with in that regard, but it's just an awful failure as a biography to me
HOWEVER. i picked this up because i was interested in how perkins basically created the role of norman bates, and the impact of that character on the rest of his life, so i can definitely say i got a lot of material on that front! this is certainly a Text that i feel like has given me a lot to work with in that regard, but it's just an awful failure as a biography to me
July 6, 2017
[aggressively hugs this book]
apparently everyone hates this book but I don't. it didn't make me hate tony, no, quite the opposite.
apparently everyone hates this book but I don't. it didn't make me hate tony, no, quite the opposite.
May 14, 2025
Wildly interesting, Perkins led a fascinating, sad life that ended in tragedy. Some interesting tidbits, he was a bit of a teen idol even having released some pop albums. He went through conversion therapy, it's so sad how ashamed he was of himself. This did get better over time, but the conversion and sham marriage deeply troubled him. He was widely talented and considered for numerous high-profile roles. I am better for knowing more about his life.
While the facts were interesting, I feel like the author didn't much care for Perkins. At times, he came off as condescending and jerky. It was distracting to the overall reading experience.
While the facts were interesting, I feel like the author didn't much care for Perkins. At times, he came off as condescending and jerky. It was distracting to the overall reading experience.
November 28, 2023
Fascinating read about the man who portrayed cinema's premiere psycho Norman Bates. This book goes behind the scenes of his life and shares details that most would never have known. Lots of detail is found in this hard to put down book about one of the greatest actors ever known. By the end you will understand why the book was called "split image" and come out with a new understanding of the man and the passion he had for his craft.
February 21, 2019
This was an interesting book but hard to read. I felt like it was a history book the way it documented every tiny bit of info on his life, from his movies to relationships, acquaintances, etc. It also jumped around to where it was hard to follow at times.
Read
April 22, 2025dnf after reading like 20%
cannot stand this fucking book. the way it’s written. the way it at times seems to doubt perkins’ own accounts of things. also this guy wrote for breitbart of his own will I don’t want to give him a second of my time anymore goodbye
cannot stand this fucking book. the way it’s written. the way it at times seems to doubt perkins’ own accounts of things. also this guy wrote for breitbart of his own will I don’t want to give him a second of my time anymore goodbye
July 19, 2019
Kind, gripping, informative. Well-written... and I completely forgot there was a Psycho 4?
February 21, 2020
#15 of 130 books pledged to read during 2020
November 12, 2023
Great biography really interesting
November 23, 2025
TRAGIC! I had no idea Anthony Perkins was so relatable. So many aspects of his life resonated very deeply. His longing for a father figure, his guardedness, the insecurities, the privacy, the kinky stuff, his appreciation of art/music, to even his marijuana abuse and his motivation to become heterosexual. It all hit home.
Hollywood is such a corrupt and cruel place; this read just emphasized that all the more.
I did struggle a bit with the author himself. I found myself wondering if he even respected the human being at the center of all his research. There were various crude & unnecessary remarks all throughout the book. I couldn’t help but scoff & roll my eyes at the blatant jabs. It felt as though the author simply refused to give Mr. Perkins his flowers; it was a little off putting. I guess the concluding chapters made up for it though…maybe.
Oh Mr. Perkins, the world would’ve been your oyster had you lived to see how accepting (and even celebrated), the lifestyle you lived in secrecy, is today.
Rest in peace, you handsome unique soul.
Hollywood is such a corrupt and cruel place; this read just emphasized that all the more.
I did struggle a bit with the author himself. I found myself wondering if he even respected the human being at the center of all his research. There were various crude & unnecessary remarks all throughout the book. I couldn’t help but scoff & roll my eyes at the blatant jabs. It felt as though the author simply refused to give Mr. Perkins his flowers; it was a little off putting. I guess the concluding chapters made up for it though…maybe.
Oh Mr. Perkins, the world would’ve been your oyster had you lived to see how accepting (and even celebrated), the lifestyle you lived in secrecy, is today.
Rest in peace, you handsome unique soul.
May 25, 2025
The author opens the book by telling us his interviewees scrutinized him throughout this project. The repeated question was “Why Tony Perkins?”
Perhaps the full response from the interviewees was, “Why Tony Perkins? You don’t seem to like him.”
This book is a damn mess and a wasted opportunity. My question is how did Winecoff get the chance to write this as his first book especially since he is a pedestrian writer?
Winecoff uses many anonymous sources. My go-to question when deciding to add anonymous sources is, “Is anything this person says absolutely necessary to complete the narrative?”
In Winecoff’s book, the answer is no. I have read many biographies and no other biography I read goes into such specific, graphic details on a subject’s sex life than Winecoff does with Perkins. There are several anonymous sources that comment on Perkins’ precise sexual predilections. It’s unnecessary and wastes pages that could be focused on important events that Winecoff never addresses.
Also, should Perkins' promiscuity be surprising? Is Winecoff unaware that a perk that attractive celebrities have is an active sex life? Would a subject who was straight be described in this manner?
Winecoff almost always says something negative about Perkins’ performances. His description of one of Perkins’ performances felt so off that I re-watched this scene from On the Beach after reading this: “Nor was his performance [satisfactory]. Tony’s version is one of the most inappropriately strange performances of his career… shifty-eyed, painfully thin…when he makes his sleepy wife some tea, it almost seems he’s about to poison her.”
Was I that much of a fangirl that I missed the malicious undertones of Perkins’ performance?
No.
Winecoff is looking for things that aren’t there. Also, when this was book was published it would be hard to obtain a copy of this and any other Perkins movie that wasn't a Psycho movie. Winecoff is free to have his opinion but without being able to view it yourself, a reader could be inclined to take Winecoff's opinion as fact.
In On the Beach Perkins plays a grounded, loving character, probably the most grounded in the film. But I’ll give Winecoff this, Perkins does look too thin.
It’s not as if Winecoff didn’t have ample bad movies/ performances to choose from but Winecoff decided to ridicule Perkins’ movies regardless of the quality.
Winecroff minimizes horrible onset experiences that happen to Perkins, while putting emphasize on Perkins’ alleged bad behavior.
It does look like Winecoff did get access to some high-profile people. However between the anonymous sources and constant, needless insulting of Perkins professionally and personally, I don’t trust him. Any independent uncorroborated anecdotes I have to assume are false.
This is the only book Winecoff published other than a revised version of this book when Perkins’ wife, Berry Berenson, died in the attacks of 9/11. I guess he needed to exploit that while he had the opportunity.
Winecoff portrays like Perkins as a one dimensional villain who deserves every horrible thing he gets. Perkins was no saint, but that doesn’t make him the devil. Anthony Perkins was complex, something Winecoff doesn’t understand or ignores.
So yeah, Mr. Winecoff. Why Tony Perkins?
Perhaps the full response from the interviewees was, “Why Tony Perkins? You don’t seem to like him.”
This book is a damn mess and a wasted opportunity. My question is how did Winecoff get the chance to write this as his first book especially since he is a pedestrian writer?
Winecoff uses many anonymous sources. My go-to question when deciding to add anonymous sources is, “Is anything this person says absolutely necessary to complete the narrative?”
In Winecoff’s book, the answer is no. I have read many biographies and no other biography I read goes into such specific, graphic details on a subject’s sex life than Winecoff does with Perkins. There are several anonymous sources that comment on Perkins’ precise sexual predilections. It’s unnecessary and wastes pages that could be focused on important events that Winecoff never addresses.
Also, should Perkins' promiscuity be surprising? Is Winecoff unaware that a perk that attractive celebrities have is an active sex life? Would a subject who was straight be described in this manner?
Winecoff almost always says something negative about Perkins’ performances. His description of one of Perkins’ performances felt so off that I re-watched this scene from On the Beach after reading this: “Nor was his performance [satisfactory]. Tony’s version is one of the most inappropriately strange performances of his career… shifty-eyed, painfully thin…when he makes his sleepy wife some tea, it almost seems he’s about to poison her.”
Was I that much of a fangirl that I missed the malicious undertones of Perkins’ performance?
No.
Winecoff is looking for things that aren’t there. Also, when this was book was published it would be hard to obtain a copy of this and any other Perkins movie that wasn't a Psycho movie. Winecoff is free to have his opinion but without being able to view it yourself, a reader could be inclined to take Winecoff's opinion as fact.
In On the Beach Perkins plays a grounded, loving character, probably the most grounded in the film. But I’ll give Winecoff this, Perkins does look too thin.
It’s not as if Winecoff didn’t have ample bad movies/ performances to choose from but Winecoff decided to ridicule Perkins’ movies regardless of the quality.
Winecroff minimizes horrible onset experiences that happen to Perkins, while putting emphasize on Perkins’ alleged bad behavior.
It does look like Winecoff did get access to some high-profile people. However between the anonymous sources and constant, needless insulting of Perkins professionally and personally, I don’t trust him. Any independent uncorroborated anecdotes I have to assume are false.
This is the only book Winecoff published other than a revised version of this book when Perkins’ wife, Berry Berenson, died in the attacks of 9/11. I guess he needed to exploit that while he had the opportunity.
Winecoff portrays like Perkins as a one dimensional villain who deserves every horrible thing he gets. Perkins was no saint, but that doesn’t make him the devil. Anthony Perkins was complex, something Winecoff doesn’t understand or ignores.
So yeah, Mr. Winecoff. Why Tony Perkins?
November 4, 2013
Attempting a biography of someone who's known for witholding facts about himself and leading a double life is a challenge. Winecoff talked to something like 700 people, going back to Perkins' childhood and college days (surprise guest star: Mr Rogers. they went to school together). He does a pretty good job of showing what Perkins was like as a friend and fellow actor, though he never gets under his skin. I actually found this more satisfying than those biographies that purport to have the key to the thing that drove the person's life, something I don't think is accurate.
Anyway, Tony Perkins's father was a famous actor who died when he was 5; his mother was domineering and withholding. She was in a long term relationship with another woman. Through his life older women were drawn to him and took take care of him and he lived a closeted gay life until he made a conscious decision to become straight, encouraged by his therapist, Mildred Newman of How To Be Your Own Best Friend fame. He was convinced that all the problems in his life were because he was living the “empty” gay lifestyle, and he wanted a conventional family. He married Berry Berenson and they had two kids and apparently a happy marriage, though the book has plenty of gossip about whether he continued to have gay relationships. He died of AIDS. He was driven by worry about how good his acting was and he could be cruel to people who cared about him; he was unhappy for much of his life.
I hadn’t known a lot about his career beyond The Friendly Persuasion where I developed a crush on him, and Psycho. The book goes into great detail about his stage and movie jobs which I found interesting, along with the descriptions of other theater people. I’m surprised at how many of his movies I’d seen and forgotten, and enjoyed the 60s-70s-80s nostalgia. It’s a good biography though I was annoyed by the constant foreshadowing (“Ten years later they would meet again under very different circumstances.”)
Anyway, Tony Perkins's father was a famous actor who died when he was 5; his mother was domineering and withholding. She was in a long term relationship with another woman. Through his life older women were drawn to him and took take care of him and he lived a closeted gay life until he made a conscious decision to become straight, encouraged by his therapist, Mildred Newman of How To Be Your Own Best Friend fame. He was convinced that all the problems in his life were because he was living the “empty” gay lifestyle, and he wanted a conventional family. He married Berry Berenson and they had two kids and apparently a happy marriage, though the book has plenty of gossip about whether he continued to have gay relationships. He died of AIDS. He was driven by worry about how good his acting was and he could be cruel to people who cared about him; he was unhappy for much of his life.
I hadn’t known a lot about his career beyond The Friendly Persuasion where I developed a crush on him, and Psycho. The book goes into great detail about his stage and movie jobs which I found interesting, along with the descriptions of other theater people. I’m surprised at how many of his movies I’d seen and forgotten, and enjoyed the 60s-70s-80s nostalgia. It’s a good biography though I was annoyed by the constant foreshadowing (“Ten years later they would meet again under very different circumstances.”)
Read
February 14, 2014There have been a few books written about Perkins. This is the best. Very well researched, with all the 'hidden gay side of Perkins' out (literally, ha ha), on the page.
April 24, 2014
I enjoyed this book a lot especially the start of the book. As it goes on, there is a lot of hate it seems. It seems that the author didn't like any of Tony's work after he had done Psycho.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews