What do you think?
Rate this book
Rebels on the Backlot
"The 1990s saw a shock wave of dynamic new directing talent that took the Hollywood studio system by storm. At the forefront of that movement were six innovative and daring directors whose films pushed the boundaries of moviemaking and announced to the world that something exciting was happening in Hollywood, even as much of the industry was mired in mediocrity." With their movies, these directors let the movie-making establishment know that there was a new vanguard ready to take over from the previous generation, and that they were ready to shatter the accepted constraints of filmmaking to do it. Their films toyed with form and narrative, shocked with their explicit sex and violence, and dizzied audiences with surreal themes and images. In making their films, the rebel directors fought their way through a studio system that by the 1990s had become part of America's larger corporate culture, conglomerates brutally focused on the bottom line and not inclined to take artistic risks.
386 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
54 people are currently reading
1258 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 61 reviews
November 20, 2020
Late in the summer of '99 I was dumped by my first girlfriend in a cabin somewhere in the mountains of Montana. Earlier that spring, RUSHMORE hit local screens. I fell in love with it. I ended up seeing the film five times during its run, and bought the soundtrack the day it was available. Between RUSHMORE and the cabin in Montana: MATRIX, EXISTENZ, ELECTION, THE WINSLOW BOY, SOUTH PARK, LIMBO, AMERICAN PIE, EYES WIDE SHUT, similarly made a lasting impression on me. Additionally, even though the anticipation was inversely proportionate to the quality of the film, I can't deny that the excitement of THE PHANTOM MENACE was a large thread woven into my cinematic tapestry of '99.
All this is to say that before getting dumped I was really into the films of 1999, after getting dumped I needed the films of 1999. I had no friends or family to turn to, so while sitting in that cabin, dumped, far away from the nearest theater, I listened to the RUSHMORE soundtrack on repeat. After I got home to the end of the year films including THREE KINGS, AMERICAN BEAUTY, FIGHT CLUB,COOKIE'S FORTUNE, THE INSIDER, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, THE LIMEY, THE STRAIGHT STORY, RUN LOLA RUN, SLEEPY HOLLOW, PRINCESS MONONOKE THE IRON GIANT, TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, CRADLE WILL ROCK, TOPSY TURVY, TOY STORY 2, and MAGNOLIA were released.
While I can now look at each of these films with a more critical eye, at the time, I embraced them all as great, most as transcendent, and a few as revolutionary. In REBELS ON THE BACKLOT, Sharon Waxman captures the dizzying sense of enthusiasm I felt at the dusk of the 20th century. Her exploration of 90's auteurs was like reading a biography of my best friend, to the point of wincing at the revealed flaws because I KNOW the meaning and reasons of those flaws.
While it is certainly not deserving of the four stars I'm giving it, the perspective and memories it engendered made it feel intimately personal. And, just as I was far too forgiving of some of the aforementioned films' flaws, I can't help but extend the same courtesy to REBELS ON THE BACKLOT.
All this is to say that before getting dumped I was really into the films of 1999, after getting dumped I needed the films of 1999. I had no friends or family to turn to, so while sitting in that cabin, dumped, far away from the nearest theater, I listened to the RUSHMORE soundtrack on repeat. After I got home to the end of the year films including THREE KINGS, AMERICAN BEAUTY, FIGHT CLUB,COOKIE'S FORTUNE, THE INSIDER, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, THE LIMEY, THE STRAIGHT STORY, RUN LOLA RUN, SLEEPY HOLLOW, PRINCESS MONONOKE THE IRON GIANT, TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, CRADLE WILL ROCK, TOPSY TURVY, TOY STORY 2, and MAGNOLIA were released.
While I can now look at each of these films with a more critical eye, at the time, I embraced them all as great, most as transcendent, and a few as revolutionary. In REBELS ON THE BACKLOT, Sharon Waxman captures the dizzying sense of enthusiasm I felt at the dusk of the 20th century. Her exploration of 90's auteurs was like reading a biography of my best friend, to the point of wincing at the revealed flaws because I KNOW the meaning and reasons of those flaws.
While it is certainly not deserving of the four stars I'm giving it, the perspective and memories it engendered made it feel intimately personal. And, just as I was far too forgiving of some of the aforementioned films' flaws, I can't help but extend the same courtesy to REBELS ON THE BACKLOT.
October 9, 2010
To be honest, this book probably only deserves three stars—however, the subject matter dovetailed perfectly with the time period in my life when I was most obsessed with (current) movies, and it was utterly fascinating to read about the creation of films that are still some of my favorites ("Three Kings," "Being John Malkovich," "Boogie Nights," and "Traffic," specifically, although with the reverberations from "Fight Club" still rocking our culture today, reading about the turmoil surrounding the creation of David Fincher's masterpiece was enthralling, too).
If Waxman had perhaps focused more completely on the artistic side of bringing the films into being, this would have been an easy five-star winner. However, I got bogged down in the budget numbers and the endlessly rotating cast of studio figures—how can a reader be expected to commit an executive's name to memory when, two paragraphs later, they've been shuffled out of a job and into the historical dustbin?
Regardless of the flaws in the book, I can't recommend it highly enough for anyone who is a fan of the six directors. Or even just three of them. And the George Clooney/David O. Russell goodies in the appendix were AWESOME.
If Waxman had perhaps focused more completely on the artistic side of bringing the films into being, this would have been an easy five-star winner. However, I got bogged down in the budget numbers and the endlessly rotating cast of studio figures—how can a reader be expected to commit an executive's name to memory when, two paragraphs later, they've been shuffled out of a job and into the historical dustbin?
Regardless of the flaws in the book, I can't recommend it highly enough for anyone who is a fan of the six directors. Or even just three of them. And the George Clooney/David O. Russell goodies in the appendix were AWESOME.
July 6, 2015
Fabulous examination of the 'generation' of film-makers that includes Tarantino, Fincher, Jonze, Anderson & others. Waxman unloads the good & the bad about these guys, without ever taking sides, & accords them an important place in cinema history. Highly recommended for those interested in film.
August 7, 2016
~now i know~
July 7, 2016
The 1990s in cinema were something else. Hollywood had blown itself out of proportion with excess. America was suffering a recession, teenagers stepping into adulthood were cynically coming to grips with their future, ultimately forming a nihilistic philosophy that saw resurgence in rebellious behavior much akin to the late 1960s and early 1970s. A major facet of this attitude began to be imprinted in the Hollywood indie scene. Who knew that these maverick directors would change the system forever into something brilliant and beautiful, but ultimately short-lived and in dire need of a chronicle. Rebels on the Backlot is one such chronicle. Albeit flawed in more ways that one, Sharon Waxman's history of six major indie directors and their biggest 1990s projects is an enjoyable read.
Along with the likes of James Mottram's superior "The Sundance Kids", Waxman's book's main flaw is its limited capacity. While she explores the 1990s in general and delves deep into the productions of some great films (mainly Boogie Nights, Three Kings, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, Being John Malkovich, and Traffic), she only provides tiny footnotes for the handful of other directors putting out stellar work at the time such as Wes Anderson, Alexander Payne, Bryan Singer, Todd Haynes and Sofia Coppola. While focusing on a select few might be a good approach to add more information instead of listing off directors and movies, Waxman seems to be mostly interested in the press and money-related issues of the above-mentioned films. Much like Peter Biskind's "Down and Dirty Pictures", Waxman provides business exec talk and documents the painstaking quarrels each director endured while making the films that formed a new wave of Hollywood cinema and a new generation of moviegoers with gritty, profane, and unique pictures that have each stood the test of time.
Waxman's main point in this book it seems is that each of these filmmakers were incredibly lucky. Being in the right place in the right era at the right time with the right people. No era will ever be like it ever again, and this point is solidified with details of the endless risk-taking, moody executives, even moodier filmmakers, and tried-and-true lay-it-on-the-line ballsy ambition. There are some great lines in this book, among them quotes I hope were really said such as David Fincher to producer Arnon Milchan: "Ten years from now you'll still be picking up chicks saying, 'You know, I was the producer of Fight Club.'"
A strong point in the book, despite the heavy presence of executive decisions, is the executives themselves. Certain producers are named, some good, some bad. The prestigious Weinsteins are aptly mentioned, and their friendship with Quentin Tarantino (and the Oscars) are there; Bob Shaye, and even Rupert Murdoch make appearances that set the stage for many of these would-be kingpins of the indie crowd. There is some emphasis on Cannes, not enough emphasis on Sundance, and Waxman does sometimes juggle the content in a masterful way. One particular chapter detailing the trifecta of development for Magnolia, Being John Malkovich, and Fight Club is particularly great, as is another chapter focusing on the dynamite year of 1999 and its many successful (or cult) films.
A second problem I had with this book was the slow beginning. Waxman starts with the scene's two main beginners (Steven Soderbergh and Quentin Tarantino, with a little bit on David O. Russell), while in my opinion, not giving due credit for the 1980s indie progenitors that helped pave the way for the 1990s crowd. Names like the Coen brothers, Jim Jarmusch, Spike Lee, and David Lynch are mostly absent and the ball pretty much gets rolling with Soderberghs 1989 surprise hit sex, lies and videotape. Most of what follows in the early chapters read like something out of Variety magazine or Rolling Stone. Nitty gritty stories about Tarantino, Soderbergh, Russell, and Paul Thomas Anderson's relationships; celebrity gossip, and clippings from old interviews that don't seem to lend a unique voice to the filmmakers themselves as it all seems like celebrity archaeology than documentary. Waxman drops this later on in the book once the productions start to form, but this dull beginning may put the curious reader off.
A third and final problem that I encountered with this book is its timeframe. Waxman mainly covers ten years (1990-2000) in the lives of these filmmakers, some of them through the high and the low. Aside from a small conclusion detailing a "where are they now"-type setting, the book just ends at 2000 with little acknowledgement towards the vast amount of talent that was truly indie during the 1990s. Waxman is more interested in the Hollywood, and although books have to end sometime, this one seemed a little on the dull side.
Some positive traits of this book are seen in the actual quotes from the filmmakers themselves. Although some of them talk about relationship and celebrity rag b.s. that should be reserved for magazines, some interesting exec talk abounds. I believe this book was most well-known for documenting the on-set tensions between actor George Clooney and director David O. Russell on the set of Three Kings. Waxman provides ample detail of this controversial encounter, and even has both Clooney and Russell give their sides of the story. Yet I was wanting more out of the overall experience.
Despite my general panning of this book, it was actually a fun read. Waxman is good with her words, it is just the content that sometimes proved tedious. One major good point of "Rebels on the Backlot" is her inclusion of certain heavy-hitters in the 1990s Hollywood scene that helped set the path for the rebels. Movies like The Matrix, Election, and Rushmore get some attention but mostly as setups. Another point of good measure for the book is Waxman's sometimes-delving into an extra production from some of the directors. Projects such as Soderbergh's personal, experimental, and bizarre Schizopolis are mentioned; and chapters are dedicated to Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia despite his major focus being on Boogie Nights. However, if you would like to know about Se7en, Jackie Brown, or The Limey you may be disappointed.
For a real page turner I would suggest Mottram's "The Sundance Kids" which praises the vision of the directors and has a much more artistically-driven approach (along with many more of the filmmakers from this era including everyone from this book), which also details the production woes and cautionary experiences of the directors.
Along with the likes of James Mottram's superior "The Sundance Kids", Waxman's book's main flaw is its limited capacity. While she explores the 1990s in general and delves deep into the productions of some great films (mainly Boogie Nights, Three Kings, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, Being John Malkovich, and Traffic), she only provides tiny footnotes for the handful of other directors putting out stellar work at the time such as Wes Anderson, Alexander Payne, Bryan Singer, Todd Haynes and Sofia Coppola. While focusing on a select few might be a good approach to add more information instead of listing off directors and movies, Waxman seems to be mostly interested in the press and money-related issues of the above-mentioned films. Much like Peter Biskind's "Down and Dirty Pictures", Waxman provides business exec talk and documents the painstaking quarrels each director endured while making the films that formed a new wave of Hollywood cinema and a new generation of moviegoers with gritty, profane, and unique pictures that have each stood the test of time.
Waxman's main point in this book it seems is that each of these filmmakers were incredibly lucky. Being in the right place in the right era at the right time with the right people. No era will ever be like it ever again, and this point is solidified with details of the endless risk-taking, moody executives, even moodier filmmakers, and tried-and-true lay-it-on-the-line ballsy ambition. There are some great lines in this book, among them quotes I hope were really said such as David Fincher to producer Arnon Milchan: "Ten years from now you'll still be picking up chicks saying, 'You know, I was the producer of Fight Club.'"
A strong point in the book, despite the heavy presence of executive decisions, is the executives themselves. Certain producers are named, some good, some bad. The prestigious Weinsteins are aptly mentioned, and their friendship with Quentin Tarantino (and the Oscars) are there; Bob Shaye, and even Rupert Murdoch make appearances that set the stage for many of these would-be kingpins of the indie crowd. There is some emphasis on Cannes, not enough emphasis on Sundance, and Waxman does sometimes juggle the content in a masterful way. One particular chapter detailing the trifecta of development for Magnolia, Being John Malkovich, and Fight Club is particularly great, as is another chapter focusing on the dynamite year of 1999 and its many successful (or cult) films.
A second problem I had with this book was the slow beginning. Waxman starts with the scene's two main beginners (Steven Soderbergh and Quentin Tarantino, with a little bit on David O. Russell), while in my opinion, not giving due credit for the 1980s indie progenitors that helped pave the way for the 1990s crowd. Names like the Coen brothers, Jim Jarmusch, Spike Lee, and David Lynch are mostly absent and the ball pretty much gets rolling with Soderberghs 1989 surprise hit sex, lies and videotape. Most of what follows in the early chapters read like something out of Variety magazine or Rolling Stone. Nitty gritty stories about Tarantino, Soderbergh, Russell, and Paul Thomas Anderson's relationships; celebrity gossip, and clippings from old interviews that don't seem to lend a unique voice to the filmmakers themselves as it all seems like celebrity archaeology than documentary. Waxman drops this later on in the book once the productions start to form, but this dull beginning may put the curious reader off.
A third and final problem that I encountered with this book is its timeframe. Waxman mainly covers ten years (1990-2000) in the lives of these filmmakers, some of them through the high and the low. Aside from a small conclusion detailing a "where are they now"-type setting, the book just ends at 2000 with little acknowledgement towards the vast amount of talent that was truly indie during the 1990s. Waxman is more interested in the Hollywood, and although books have to end sometime, this one seemed a little on the dull side.
Some positive traits of this book are seen in the actual quotes from the filmmakers themselves. Although some of them talk about relationship and celebrity rag b.s. that should be reserved for magazines, some interesting exec talk abounds. I believe this book was most well-known for documenting the on-set tensions between actor George Clooney and director David O. Russell on the set of Three Kings. Waxman provides ample detail of this controversial encounter, and even has both Clooney and Russell give their sides of the story. Yet I was wanting more out of the overall experience.
Despite my general panning of this book, it was actually a fun read. Waxman is good with her words, it is just the content that sometimes proved tedious. One major good point of "Rebels on the Backlot" is her inclusion of certain heavy-hitters in the 1990s Hollywood scene that helped set the path for the rebels. Movies like The Matrix, Election, and Rushmore get some attention but mostly as setups. Another point of good measure for the book is Waxman's sometimes-delving into an extra production from some of the directors. Projects such as Soderbergh's personal, experimental, and bizarre Schizopolis are mentioned; and chapters are dedicated to Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia despite his major focus being on Boogie Nights. However, if you would like to know about Se7en, Jackie Brown, or The Limey you may be disappointed.
For a real page turner I would suggest Mottram's "The Sundance Kids" which praises the vision of the directors and has a much more artistically-driven approach (along with many more of the filmmakers from this era including everyone from this book), which also details the production woes and cautionary experiences of the directors.
Read
June 21, 2020At its best when relaying anecdotes and summarizing the reactions of critics and audiences. Waxman’s tendency to insert snarky appraisals of these filmmakers and their careers often feels off-the-mark — due in part to the fact that the book was published in 2005. The book seems to suggest in its final pages that David O Russell, PT Anderson, David Fincher, and Stephen Soderbergh all had their best work behind them based on their most recent efforts at time, respectively: I ❤️Huckabees, Punch-Drunk Love, Panic Room, and Solaris. Of course, the truth is that all of these directors had great work (some would say their best films) ahead of them: The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Phantom Thread, Zodiac, The Social Network, The Informant!, and Contagion. Only Soderbergh could be said to have peaked during the years covered in this book — and he did so in stunning fashion releasing Out of Sight, The Limey, Erin Brockovich, and Traffic (the last two making him the first director since Michael Curtiz to have have two films nominated for Best Picture in the same year).
Of course, that’s all with the benefit of hindsight. Part of the fun here is the gossipy immediacy of Waxman’s reporting (she had cooperation from all of the filmmakers discussed), so some dated assessments and a few errors (Julia Stiles isn’t in Traffic, for example) are a small price to pay. I certainly found myself sharing lots of interesting facts and on-set details with whoever happened to be around.
Of course, that’s all with the benefit of hindsight. Part of the fun here is the gossipy immediacy of Waxman’s reporting (she had cooperation from all of the filmmakers discussed), so some dated assessments and a few errors (Julia Stiles isn’t in Traffic, for example) are a small price to pay. I certainly found myself sharing lots of interesting facts and on-set details with whoever happened to be around.
November 16, 2025
primary takeaway: Essential legacy-TarantinoEverything 19-year-old-me hoped John Pierson’s Spike, Mike, Slackers, & Dykes could have delivered [rather than satisfying only abbreviated expectations].
One of the better 1990s Independent Film Movement-monographs; Eclipsing Christine Vachon’s Shooting to KillShooting to Kill or Ted Hope’s Hope for Film: From the Frontline of the Independent Cinema Revolutions by Ted Hope , imo.
May 6, 2020
I was very excited about this book when I purchased it. But I could not go through it for the life of me. I was first put off by the tabloid like approach in the very first few pages that "detailed" Tarantino's relationships through second-hand (if not third-hand) stories. I tried to stick around incase it became more interesting. But soon the book turned into an unreadable list of detailed events. "This person did this, then this person did that and by the way Tarantino was horrible to his old friends."
While I appreciate the effort that went into the research of this book, it definitely needed an editing hand and better storytelling to tie things together. But like I said, I couldn't finish it, so maybe people with more patience than me can get more out of it.
While I appreciate the effort that went into the research of this book, it definitely needed an editing hand and better storytelling to tie things together. But like I said, I couldn't finish it, so maybe people with more patience than me can get more out of it.
July 19, 2018
Very informative and tell-all book about five maverick directors of the 90's. Though personally, it feels like David O'Russell is mostly included because of his feud with George Clooney. It seems odd to at this point in history not to include in more depth, Wes Anderson, The Coen Bros., Kevin Smith, or Sophia Coppola, (she's mostly mentioned as Spike's girlfriend). The book was written in 2005, right before Fincher, PTA, Soderbergh, and Spike Jonze had somewhat comebacks (or at least made some of their most interesting films, so the book ends with the attitude that these filmmakers time was over. Which is ya know, funny.
October 28, 2022
I guess I read this around 2005 when it came out but wanted to revisit as a companion to Easy Riders & Raging Bulls. Like that one, it’s hard to tell how accurate this is although Waxman at least scores interviews with all her main subjects. So there’s that. This resonates more than Biskind only because I lived through the 1990s as a movie goer and so it go to shit in 2000 (and never bounce back if you ask me). The QT stuff is juicy and gossipy but the latter stuff is much more insightful and important reporting. Again, not sure this is gospel but a real page turner and that’s just as important.
January 19, 2023
Trashy, gossipy, relentlessly fun, though Waxman does not have the most accurate understanding of this era since the book is written in 2005 and much has happened since then. Using Harvey Weinstein as a lionized source is definitely a detraction, but I wonder about the themes raised in her book since I experienced and loved many of the films. I think that Waxman has pushed me to think of my favorite directors as real, flawed people, and that hurts a bit since my ignorance allowed me to enjoy the art in a relative vacuum.
July 29, 2025
Very entertaining and informative about this exciting time in goonwood. Really enjoy hearing the nitty gritty of what goes on - takes some of the shine off the assumed glamor, a lot of grinding and stress behind the scenes, just like any job. I wonder who the next visionaries will be as this group ages out. We need non-superhero focused directors with ideas, stories and grit to emerge …. (And the financing and belief and ecosystem and attendance to support it)
January 16, 2021
This book covers, with great depth and fairness, a pivotal point in history for cinema. It’s a wonderful slice of history for those who are passionate about movies. It gives a great appreciation for the pioneers of modern cinema, even though there’s a lingering sadness that so few of them were/ are gracious or decent people.
November 10, 2017
Well researched. Some tedious parts - wish it had been shorter.
January 19, 2021
3.5
3 on its own, 4 within the genre
3 on its own, 4 within the genre
April 22, 2022
I found it enjoyable but would have included a few more directors and movies.
May 6, 2022
Not as interesting as I had hoped, for such a great era in cinema this takes an oddly gossipy and bleak approach
July 4, 2022
Read in 2005. Focuses on six directors including Tarantino, Soderbergh, David O. Russel, PT Anderson, David Fincher and Spike Jonze. Illuminating.
Read
April 26, 2023I don't believe a word David O. Russell says in this book.
December 31, 2024
This is hands down my favorite entertainment industry book and a must read for anyone in the entertainment industry.
June 6, 2013
i like the book very much,it presents the directors as normal human beings going through their share of struggles to be at the position where they are at currently now,
all of them have struggled ,take any story for ex
Soderbergh :-He was trying to do various things from the age of 16 to get a movie made ,his internal conflicts,his problems with intimacy which to an extent is the charge labelled against his movies also,that his moves are icy and too cool in nature ,his internal struggles esp after the success of slv,his next 6-7 yrs of struggles as to really find out who he truly was and how he reached that path
Steven's struggle to fit into the system,then how he got invigorated again for the pure love of making movies after Schizopolis ,just the sheer joy of making movies ,then he hit jackpot with out of sight ,which was based on his previous relationship with Casey silver(he also mentioned it in detailed interview with vulture ),how he meet Clooney ,then his journey to the top with movies like limey,erin and traffic ,the entire cycle of around 2-3 yrs which was the most productive in his life but it came after he spent 6-7 yrs struggling to find out who he really is and what he wants to do ,Schizoplois just reinvigorated his love for the pure craft of cinema and never looked
back again ,his relationship with his first wife is covered in detail
David Russel:- his struggle in mounting spanking the monkey ,he is a bit of late comer ,as i have read in previous interview,he got inspired by Gus Van Sant's Mala Noche to dramatize his own personal experiences ,how he got funding and how he wrote it while on the jury duty ,his success,then the next movie and finally his conflict with clooney,the book presents both sides honestly ,now looking back after a decade ,one can say that both have found their perfect groove,David now is able to work with a group of ppl who are more attuned
to his sensibility and style of working and this shows in performances he got from ppl in the fighter and silver lining playbook ,clooney is a different sort of an actor ,witever was the cause,i am happy that russel his found his groove and now finally making the movies he wants to make after years of wilderness and missed opportunities,
PTA:-he is a wunderkind really ,the most surprising piece of info book gives is about QT being a mentor for PTA at the start of his career,again he is a driven sort of personality ,just to do best at the one things in which you are really good at ,very much the lead character in boogie nights ,his relationship with his father ,his career trajectory ,esp his struggle with sydney/hard eight ,again personal style filmmaking esp in boogie nights/magnolia
QT:- the book really presents a sort of negative view of QT as person,most of his earlier frnds accuse of him ditching them once he got success but i feel its really the Roshomon effect,QT is still the last man standing and still going great guns ,why aren't other as successful as him if they were so talented ,the book covers his relationship with Harvey Weinstein of Miramax ,his entire journey from being a wanna be to becoming the voice of his generation.his
relationships with woman at various points are also covered in detail.must read for a QT fan
Fincher:-the book covers his fascination with film from childhood ,then trying out for various jobs in special effects division of various films but his final goal was always making films,his first experience wasn't that good but he was able to recover with 7 ,he also formed a lasting partnership with brad pitt just like soderbergh/clooney,the book covers in detail the entire behind the scenes before the making of fight club and how fincher got his vision through fox studio's hierarchy.i think book doesn't cover fincher's personal life in as much detail as it does with other directors.
Spike Jonez:- well he is the most youngest of the group,his first movie released in 1999 ,by that time most of other five were 3-7 films films old ,i really think Richard Linklater should have been an ideal candidate as the 6th person,but then its author' decision,spike also comes across an eccentric,painfully shy person who just wants to do his work ,there are funny stories about his interactions his john malkovich,his lack of knowledge of film history unlike others like QT but then as some one says in the book"he will be original atleast",there is also brief mention of spike's relation with sofia coppola and how it helped him in mounting being John Malkovich,
ultimately ,this is a fantastic read,i love all 6 of them and their stories are told in interlocked ,non linear format ,all of them have showed guts,tenacity to survive in tough film world,all of them are still working and at the peak of their game,Soderbergh has just retired from filmmaking but i am sure he will be back soon ,this is a must read for any film lover.
all of them have struggled ,take any story for ex
Soderbergh :-He was trying to do various things from the age of 16 to get a movie made ,his internal conflicts,his problems with intimacy which to an extent is the charge labelled against his movies also,that his moves are icy and too cool in nature ,his internal struggles esp after the success of slv,his next 6-7 yrs of struggles as to really find out who he truly was and how he reached that path
Steven's struggle to fit into the system,then how he got invigorated again for the pure love of making movies after Schizopolis ,just the sheer joy of making movies ,then he hit jackpot with out of sight ,which was based on his previous relationship with Casey silver(he also mentioned it in detailed interview with vulture ),how he meet Clooney ,then his journey to the top with movies like limey,erin and traffic ,the entire cycle of around 2-3 yrs which was the most productive in his life but it came after he spent 6-7 yrs struggling to find out who he really is and what he wants to do ,Schizoplois just reinvigorated his love for the pure craft of cinema and never looked
back again ,his relationship with his first wife is covered in detail
David Russel:- his struggle in mounting spanking the monkey ,he is a bit of late comer ,as i have read in previous interview,he got inspired by Gus Van Sant's Mala Noche to dramatize his own personal experiences ,how he got funding and how he wrote it while on the jury duty ,his success,then the next movie and finally his conflict with clooney,the book presents both sides honestly ,now looking back after a decade ,one can say that both have found their perfect groove,David now is able to work with a group of ppl who are more attuned
to his sensibility and style of working and this shows in performances he got from ppl in the fighter and silver lining playbook ,clooney is a different sort of an actor ,witever was the cause,i am happy that russel his found his groove and now finally making the movies he wants to make after years of wilderness and missed opportunities,
PTA:-he is a wunderkind really ,the most surprising piece of info book gives is about QT being a mentor for PTA at the start of his career,again he is a driven sort of personality ,just to do best at the one things in which you are really good at ,very much the lead character in boogie nights ,his relationship with his father ,his career trajectory ,esp his struggle with sydney/hard eight ,again personal style filmmaking esp in boogie nights/magnolia
QT:- the book really presents a sort of negative view of QT as person,most of his earlier frnds accuse of him ditching them once he got success but i feel its really the Roshomon effect,QT is still the last man standing and still going great guns ,why aren't other as successful as him if they were so talented ,the book covers his relationship with Harvey Weinstein of Miramax ,his entire journey from being a wanna be to becoming the voice of his generation.his
relationships with woman at various points are also covered in detail.must read for a QT fan
Fincher:-the book covers his fascination with film from childhood ,then trying out for various jobs in special effects division of various films but his final goal was always making films,his first experience wasn't that good but he was able to recover with 7 ,he also formed a lasting partnership with brad pitt just like soderbergh/clooney,the book covers in detail the entire behind the scenes before the making of fight club and how fincher got his vision through fox studio's hierarchy.i think book doesn't cover fincher's personal life in as much detail as it does with other directors.
Spike Jonez:- well he is the most youngest of the group,his first movie released in 1999 ,by that time most of other five were 3-7 films films old ,i really think Richard Linklater should have been an ideal candidate as the 6th person,but then its author' decision,spike also comes across an eccentric,painfully shy person who just wants to do his work ,there are funny stories about his interactions his john malkovich,his lack of knowledge of film history unlike others like QT but then as some one says in the book"he will be original atleast",there is also brief mention of spike's relation with sofia coppola and how it helped him in mounting being John Malkovich,
ultimately ,this is a fantastic read,i love all 6 of them and their stories are told in interlocked ,non linear format ,all of them have showed guts,tenacity to survive in tough film world,all of them are still working and at the peak of their game,Soderbergh has just retired from filmmaking but i am sure he will be back soon ,this is a must read for any film lover.
December 9, 2013
I just finished this book, loaned to me by a friend, thanks primarily to last weekend's "icepocalypse." It's about six "rebel" film directors from the worlds of indy movies, music videos, and advertising, all of whom got a chance to make movies for Hollywood studios eager to capitalize on those directors' edginess back in the 1990s. The result, unsurprisingly, was culture clash. The spotlighted directors are Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, David O. Russell, Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, and Spike Jonze. The first third of the book moves very quickly through the first half of the '90s, with a heavy emphasis on Tarantino, before shifting focus to the making of the movies Boogie Nights, Traffic, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, Magnolia, and Three Kings. The author does a good job of profiling the directors, some of whom are very idiosyncratic and some of whom are just jerks, and of providing a look at how movies get green-lighted and made. The writing is serviceable, but the book was obviously written out of order and stitched together afterward, and the seams sometimes show. I'm sure this was due to the fact that she had to rely so heavily on interviews with her six subjects and others in the movie business, which were not always easy to get. But the book sometimes felt disjointed, and I had more than a few deja vu moments where I read something I knew she had already written about elsewhere. Still, as someone who saw most of these movies when they came out and remembers the decade very well, I appreciated how the book brought the era into sharper focus and made me realize how these directors and these movies were part of a trend or movement, more so than I did at the time. The title is a bit of a misnomer, though. These directors did get the movies they wanted made from within the system, but her conclusion gives the impression that after these movies came out, the studios "conquered" the directors, not the other way around.
November 30, 2015
Relying heavily on second hand stories, Waxman's book is still one of the best books on the late 90s crop of indie directors going mainstream and the troubles they had with the studios. The stories about Jonze and Being John Malkovich are worth the price of admission alone in my opinion.
Sadly marred by its gossipy tabloid slant a times, it's still an engaging read. Nowhere near the level of Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film but all the same Waxman writes passionately (even if she is biased and opinionated) about film and her portrait of Quentin Tarantino punctures the pop culture deification in just a few sentences, as you picture the unwashed, unlovable stoner watching lifetime and realize that, yes, that fits just as well as the demi-god of violence that has been built up by years of press releases that become like scripture to the QT faithful.
Not perfect, but worth a look.
Sadly marred by its gossipy tabloid slant a times, it's still an engaging read. Nowhere near the level of Biskind's Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film but all the same Waxman writes passionately (even if she is biased and opinionated) about film and her portrait of Quentin Tarantino punctures the pop culture deification in just a few sentences, as you picture the unwashed, unlovable stoner watching lifetime and realize that, yes, that fits just as well as the demi-god of violence that has been built up by years of press releases that become like scripture to the QT faithful.
Not perfect, but worth a look.
December 27, 2013
I have to admit I was a bit disappointed with Sharon Waxman's Rebels On The Backlot (2006). The premise was appealing to me, in which Waxman reports on the lives and careers of Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction; Steven Soderbergh, Traffic; David Fincher, Fight Club; Paul Thomas Anderson, Boogie Nights; David O. Russell, Three Kings; and Spike Jonze, Being John Malkovich. These are some of my favorite films of the last 20 years, but I would have liked to see more critical analysis and discussions of the films and less about the behind the scenes antics necessary to get the films made. all that insider stuff was tedious for me. There was much too much about the flaws of the directors and in-fighting between the directors and studio executives and/or actors. It seemed as though there was some score settling going on here and Waxman's opinions were too apparent and not of much value to this reader.
November 17, 2015
As a source of inspiration, almost functioning as a self-help book on how to navigate through the Hollywood-system (spoiler: by having your way at all costs), it is wonderful. Waxman's storytelling is very captivating and the way she presents the story, especially during the Soderbergh and Fight Club chapters, had me going through this in no-time.
But it rarely goes beyond the 'creatives struggle with the suits' side of the story. It's an insightful look at '90s Hollywood, but it fails to actually capture what these 'maverick' filmmakers set out to make. And the tone is too often too disparagingly towards the rebellious nature of the filmmakers, which is kind of a bummer.
Still a lovely read, and a book I'll probably return to in the future, whenever I feel the man is getting me down.
Also, how can you sum up American Independent '90s and not mention Harmony Korine once? For shame.
But it rarely goes beyond the 'creatives struggle with the suits' side of the story. It's an insightful look at '90s Hollywood, but it fails to actually capture what these 'maverick' filmmakers set out to make. And the tone is too often too disparagingly towards the rebellious nature of the filmmakers, which is kind of a bummer.
Still a lovely read, and a book I'll probably return to in the future, whenever I feel the man is getting me down.
Also, how can you sum up American Independent '90s and not mention Harmony Korine once? For shame.
May 1, 2008
I felt the scope of this was too broad for any sort of real depth or insight.
It's worth a look for anyone interested in the work of Fincher, Jonze, Russell, Tarantino, Soderbergh, or Anderson. I found the sections of Fincher and Anderson to be the most illuminating. The Tarantino stuff certainly had a negative spin to it and told me nothing I didn't already know from other books.
A book that takes a similar approach to a different period (the seventies) and is far more effective is Peter Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls."
It's worth a look for anyone interested in the work of Fincher, Jonze, Russell, Tarantino, Soderbergh, or Anderson. I found the sections of Fincher and Anderson to be the most illuminating. The Tarantino stuff certainly had a negative spin to it and told me nothing I didn't already know from other books.
A book that takes a similar approach to a different period (the seventies) and is far more effective is Peter Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls."
December 29, 2015
Credit to the author for coming up with a good book that spends a lot of time on movies that I think are self-indulgent crap (Reservoir Dogs, Three Kings, Fight Club). Lots of good dish too, what any book about Hollywood needs. Best tidbit - Warren Beatty took a meeting for what turned out to be the Burt Reynolds' part in Boogie Nights. Egomaniac Beatty though tried to talk PT Anderson into giving him the Dirk Diggler role. Also detailed is Harrison Ford's turning down the drug czar part in Traffic so that he could make What Lies Beneath, Hollywood Homicide, Random Hearts, etc.
December 12, 2007
I started this book months ago, then paused in reading to to FINALLY watch "Magnolia" which I had purchased years ago. Good movie, and good book, full of lots of inside scoop on the big new directors of the early '90. I would have liked to have seen more focus on women or people of color though....those directors weren't necessarily as popular or influential as Tarantino or Soderbergh, they still deserved more than a cursory mention. Overall, though, a good read if you are into movies.
August 2, 2011
This is one of the series of books I'm reading to get a better understanding of the entertainment industry. By following six of the more (critically) successful directors through the 1990's the book gave a good overview of the rise of the studio in-house art divisions.
The book was fairly entertaining and mildly insightful but it did make far too much effort to make the six director's followed throughout the book seem important.
The book was fairly entertaining and mildly insightful but it did make far too much effort to make the six director's followed throughout the book seem important.
November 19, 2012
Interesting. I don't know a whole lot about how movies are made or even the background of most movie directors but this was interesting. I still haven't seen a lot of the movies mentioned in this book ("Three Kings", "Fight Club", "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia") and honestly, I had thought the book would be about older directors like Spielberg or George Lucas but maybe I should have looked at the cover a little better. ^^;
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews