Seeing Is Believing: Or How Hollywood Taught Us to Stop Worrying and Love the '50s

by Peter Biskind

Seeing is Believing is a provocative, shrewd and witty look at the Hollywood fifties movies we all love - or love to hate - and the thousand subtle ways they reflect the political tensions of the decade. Peter Biskind concentrates on the films everybody saw but nobody really looked at, classics such as Giant, Rebel Without a Cause, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and shows us how movies that appear politically innocent in fact bear an ideological burden. As we see organization men and rugged individualists, housewives, and career women, cops and docs, teen angels and teenage werewolves fight it out across the screen, from suburbia to the farthest reaches of the cosmos, we understand that we have been watching one long dispute about how to be a man, a woman, an American - the conflicts of the time in action.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, History, Media Tie In, American History, Cultural Studies

371 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

Peter Biskind is an American cultural critic, film historian, and journalist, best known for his tenure as executive editor of Premiere magazine from 1986 to 1996. He attended Swarthmore College and authored several influential books on Hollywood, including Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and Down and Dirty Pictures, some of which became bestsellers. In 2010, he published a biography of Warren Beatty titled Star: How Warren Beatty Seduced America. Biskind is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, with work appearing in major publications like Rolling Stone, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He served as editor-in-chief of American Film from 1981 to 1986. His books have been translated into over thirty languages. Despite his acclaim, some critics, including Roger Ebert, have challenged the accuracy of certain anecdotes in his works.

Reviews

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Biskind covers an incredible number of Hollywood movies herein, and gives the reader many of the best/worst/most incongruous lines from otherwise forgettable vehicles. Nice to have this book as a cheat sheet to help me avoid indulging my 50's Americana obsession via more crappy DVD reissues (besides, I've seen enough westerns and war movies for one lifetime).

Biskind oversimplifies in categorizing "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (yes, I know I should italicize that title, but I'm too lazy to do html)as right wing, given that in interviews the film's director Don Siegel denied that he was anti-communist. Siegel also directed "Dirty Harry" (NOTE TO IMAGINARY PERSONAL ASSISTANT: please italicize that title) and said that it was not a right-wing film, so maybe the director's in denial, but I prefer to think that "Body Snatchers," the finest of 50s paranoid sci-fi thrillers, is open to more than one simplistic interpretation.

Biskind could have worked at a incorporating a few synonyms for some of his categories, especially "conservative," a word that in recent years has been repeated so many times as short hand for so many things it's virtually lost its meaning. Though it's standard in film writing it's also annoying that the director's name is "above the title" and screenwriters are rarely, if ever, mentioned as contributing to a film's vision. Gore Vidal wrote a brilliant evisceration of the auteur theory which should have put a rest to such nonsense. I don't have a link to it handy (NOTE TO STILL IMAGINARY ASSISTANT: find me that link).

Those quibbles aside, Biskind's arguments are well developed for the most part, and his range of references outside of film history and criticism make this a very useful read. I found the stuff on corporate liberalism's emphasis on social control via therapeutic middle ground very sharp. His analysis of gender roles in 1950s Hollywood is also excellent.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not a great lover of film books - they almost always disappoint me - but this one was both amusing and, to a limited extent enlightening. What I am not sure of is whether the author's arguments actually have any more foundation then Tarantino's rant about Top Gun (in case you don't know he made up scenes and gestures so that the film would conform with his thesis). This is a particular concern because Mr. Biskind is also the author of 'The Sky Is Falling: How Vampires, Zombies, Androids, and Superheroes Made America Great for Extremism' which ranks as one of the greatest waste of my reading time, and that is saying something. My memory is that in this book he got it right and thankfully I read it before I read the other load of tosch. Still I am wary of reading his other books, but this one is sharp, funny and, maybe, informative.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

In spite of what you might be led to believe by the cover image and typography, this is not of a piece with Biskind's books on Hollywood on- and off-screen from the '70s to the '90s. Rather it deals with the politics and semiotics of American film in the 1950s, the time of McCarthyism and Reds under the bed. I've only seen one of the films deconstructed (and that 15 years ago) but this was an interesting read nonetheless. Just don't make the same mistake I did in assuming it would be another gossipy exposé.

[Jan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Biskind's categorizations are helpful for giving a general understanding of Hollywood and film during the 1950s, but they're ultimately reductive. It seems to me that there are more nuances in these films, their tropes, and the ways in which they negotiate between censorship and acceptability. While he always does interesting analyses, the book is driving towards the same point at all turns; it comes off as repetitive and makes it feel like it is much longer than it actually needs to be.

[Tom Stamper · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a fan of 1950s movies and political analysis, I found Biskind's book to be a treasure trove if analysis and insight. It helps to have seen the movies in question. I was probably around 70%. I would like to watch the other 30% and read it again.

[Andrewh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Readers who enjoyed Biskind's gossipy and journalistic romp through the New Hollywood years and the Miramax era may be slightly disappointed by this earlier work. It is firmly in the tradition of 1980s cultural studies film analysis, which makes for slightly repetitive and, frankly, fairly tedius reading - Biskind's knowledge of these films is impeccable but the coldy reductive tropes of the approach leave you wondering why he felt the need to bother. Very good on On the Waterfront though.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Biskind is a genius at describing fifties films as a consequence of fifties history and culture. He made me rewatch "High Noon" and love it and I'm starting on Sirk movies next. Though he doesn't get into a lot of analysis of the mise en scene in the movies he looks at, he is a keen observer of actors and how they reinforce or challenge the ideological narratives of the script.

[Simone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for class, liked quite a bit. The chapters were he focuses on individual films, especially if you have seen the individual films in question. Anyway, although his point doesn't address ideology, I found his reading of the films interesting.

[Wendeline Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very theoretical in comparison to Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, but still interesting for its look into mainstream 50s American cinema.

[James barrett]

meh, not as insightful into the film making process as easy riders and raging bulls. more of a film analysis and not a very interesting one at that.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had a Chinese from Singapore friend once who told me, "Sometimes I think America doesn't need a Ministry of Propaganda. It already has Hollywood". For proof, look no further than SEEING IS BELIEVING, Peter Biskind's terrifying and at times comic, black comic, view of Hollywood films of the Fifties. The best way to approach conformism in Fifties films is to look at all those religious movies meant to get America, "back to God", and, presumably, away from Communism: THE ROBE, SAMSON AND DELILAH, SOLOMON AND SHEBA, and the godfather of them all, Cecil B. De Mille's remake of his own THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. De Mille says to us in his introduction to the film, "the struggle was the same as today: Shall man serve God or the state?". That's right: Yul Brinner's pharaoh is a stand-in for Josef Stalin! This brings up a second genre, the aliens are Communists out to get us: INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, INVADERS FROM MARS, and the classic RED PLANET MARS, where God broadcasts from outer space to the Russians. Biskind's point, however, is more profound. In Fifties films every trace of individuality was severely punished: Joe Gillis in SUNSET BOULEVARD, Sal Mineo in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, and the murderous non-conformists found in Hitchcock; Uncle Charlie in SHADOW OF A DOUBT and Bruno in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. Blacks and Latinos do not exist in this cinematic portrait of America except as servants and hired hands, take George Steven's GIANT for instance. Women are quite visible but only in defending the home and raising another generation of conformists; Polly Bergen in CAPE FEAR, and all those Rock Hudson-Doris Day romantic comedies. Female sexuality is double damned. Look what happens to Gloria Graham in Fritz Lang's THE BIG HEAT. I do not think, however, that these movies are liable to only one reading, as Biskind contends. Hitchcock's films undermine middle class morality even while celebrating it, and even a turkey like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS inspires hope for civil rights. Biskind is provocative, at times wrong, and often engaging.

[Fraser Sherman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Biskind argues that 1950s films have a political subtext. Centrist films believe the system works and individualists need to get with the program, though they disagree on who should run the system (federal or local government? Scientists or ordinary guys?); radical films of the right and left glorify the rebel and the individual, though in different ways. The films also tell viewers how to think about women, sex, power, child-rearing and manhood.
It's an interesting and thought-provoking analysis, though occasionally strained. Biskind argues that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a right-wing anti communist film (short answer: no) but that's just a cover for an attack on American conformity. Similarly the giant ants in Them symbolize the Communists, but that's just a cover for an attack on American radicalism. That's not even remotely persuasive.
That said, this has enough interesting thoughts I found it worth rereading.

[Andrew Corsini · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays on various films from the fifties and sixties, beginning with 12 Angry Men and ending with Dr Strangelove. I'm always up for a good analysis of 13 Angry Men as I believe every single liberal election (or referendum) loss can be charted back to the film's thesis -- passive facts win out over emotional arguments. Indeed, a leftist perspective can look at another part of the film's message and find ever greater fault: "we must have faith in our institutions". Some of these analyses are more interesting than others. I'm pleased Biskind watched a bunch of obscure movies, such as the Robert Mitchum One Minute to Zero and the Jimmy Stewart Strategic Command, certainly adding to my already overwhelming watchlist.

[Gareth · Rating 3 out of 5]

A deep dive into the political subtexts of 1950s Hollywood, Seeing Is Believing should not be confused with Peter Biskind’s more celebrated and scurrilous behind-the-scenes books like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. This is Biskind’s own analysis of dozens of films across multiple genres: how conservative, pluralist, centrist, left or right wing they are, what they say about gender roles, how they reflect the other films of the time. It’s heady and well-argued stuff, but slow going. Biskind has enough wit to keep it interesting and it definitely puts these films in a new light.

NB: I’d rate it 3.5 if half stars were available.

[Dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit to finding this quite heavy going. I was looking for a nice overview of 50's cinema from a great film writer, which Biskind of course is, but instead got quite a dry academic take on how the political right, left, and centre were represented in film. Plus lots of sexual politics.
I'm sure for the right audience this is excellent stuff, and I did enjoy chunks of the book here and there, but they were more the exception.
One for the serious film student

[Mick Meyers · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read a few of Peter biskinds books they are well researched and are an interesting read.books that give an insight to some well known and not so well known films and gives a different take on them.i am still of a belief that as alfred Hitchcock supposed to have said if he were to deliver messages at all he would have become a postman.

[Kieran McAndrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Biskind has always been able to break down complex arguments into something accessible to everyday readers and 'Seeing is Believing: How Hollywood Taught Us to Stop Worrying and Love the 50s' is a useful and thought provoking book exploring the complex politics of American cinema in the 1950s (as ever, there is some overlap of era).

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some really great analysis to a point, but it attempts to cover so many films that it does get a bit repetitive after a while.

It starts and ends well, but certain chunks of the book were not needed.

[JD · Rating 4 out of 5]

As always with Biskind’s books, I’ve enjoyed diving into the decade through the films that came out of it. Really interesting read, especially how it discusses the politics of the era and how they were viewed through the films.

[Catnaitab · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting analysis of fifties Hollywood films alongside the wide American political spectrum of the time. Easy to follow and easy to read.

[Brettsinclair70 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Politics, westerns, aliens, men and women mix in 50s movies..

[Susan Louise · Rating 3 out of 5]

This read like a PhD thesis which was a good idea in theory but the evidence didn't entirely back up the opening hypothesis. My personal ignorance of both the politics and films of the period left me at a disadvantage as I kept having to research both to give background to the content. Interesting idea - and provoked an enjoyable discussion at my book club.

[Michael O. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Biskind's absolutely right about pretty much everything he says, but the book is clearly an early one for him, and grows repetitively tedious, and needed editing. Still, he remains a fun writer, and no book this correct, no matter its stylistic issues, deserves less than four stars.

[Martin Empson · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://resolutereader.blogspot.com/20...

[Tracey]

NOT AT LIB 10/08 - Referenced in The Mouse Machine (Telotte)