Customer Reviews

Osgood and Anthony Perkins: A Comprehensive History of Their Work in Theatre, Film and Other Media, With Credits and an Annotated Bibliography

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is basically a textbook, quite dry and academic, except for the author's occasional slips of mild witticism which occasionally make up an entire chapter (usually when she was unable to come up with any hard information). I found this admirable for its obvious effort, but ultimately unsatisfying as it offers little to no insight into either Perkins personally, and has a funny tone of proprietariness and prudishness. Also, why the high price? Not worth it. Stick with the biography.

I opened this book with high hopes, being a huge fan of Tony Perkins, and was disappointed to find it consists largely of flippant remarks/opinions by its author rather than any serious probing or insight into this remarkable theatrical family. As a listing of career moments, it is fine, but as a biography or anything deeper than a roster, it is very thin. Some of the so-called chapters are merely one paragraph long, in which the author says she could not come up with any info.

The author didn't do her homework. Ten minutes of Google yields more fruit that this tome. Her appraisal of "The Ghost Writer" pilot is particuarly obtuse, as the version she saw was obviously heavily edited unlike the ones currently on view on You Tube. A shabby excuse for a book, devoted to subject matter that deserves better. Understandably, this is now out of print. How it was published in the first place is mystifying.

Laura Kay Palmer's book was a treat and is a treat to any Anthony Perkins fan. She covers absolutely every bit of work Tony ever did and thankfully exposes what a gifted and brilliant actor/director/screenwriter/singer he was and always will be. It helps considerably that she knows whereof she speaks. Her reviews of his music and film and television work,(that which was available), are incisive, intelligent and unbiased, contrary to what one might expect from a fan of his work. When she likes a film that was poorly received by critics and public alike, she supports herself very well and backs up her competent criticism with elements of the work in question that failed to dawn on critics of that time. She also speaks out heartily against the "post-Psycho revisionism" that almost completely destroyed any respect he had as an actor up to this point. She also conjures up quite an impressive bibliography, which is worth reading by itself. Pick this up instead of Charles Winecoff's SPLIT IMAGE.