Customer Reviews

Rage and Glory: The Volatile Life and Career of George C. Scott

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

 

 

I am currently writing a book on the making of "Patton" and was eager to read this George C. Scott biography, given the actor's key role in that film. I write this review with mixed feelings. David Sheward has done an impressive job of interviewing Scott's friends and family in an effort to develop the man's personality and character. He has also consulted the numerous interviews that Scott did throughout the years. These resources are usually the only type of primary resources available for doing the history of the film industry. When I was in school at USC, I quickly learned that Hollywood does a horrible job of preserving its written records.

The result is that Sheward has some news stories tell about Scott. The man was a brilliant actor with few peers, but he was horrible insecure and full of self-loathing. When things went wrong, be it on the set or in his personal life, he got angry, really, really angry. He overcompensated with the bottle and alcohol only fueled his rage. Film buffs, however, have known about Scott's personal demons for years; he was quite upfront about them.

The ultimate problem with this book is that it offer its readers no new insights into the man. Sheward--through no fault of his own--never interviewed his subject and had no direct access to letters, diaries, or oral histories. As a result, you get a feel for how Scott moved through the acting profession and how many people felt about him, but the man himself seems a little absent from his own story.

FINALLY A BOOK ON GEORGE C. SCOTT...AND A DAMNED FINE ONE!!!
George C. Scott was among the greatest actors in movie history, his performance in Patton (1970) one of the greatest pieces of acting ever put on film. But he was a man plagued with rage, self loathing and a ferocious temper that exploded it seems at the most inopportune times. He was a difficult interview (trust me, I tried) but possessed the ability to channel most of his rage into his work.
Sheward's book is excellent, a fine study of a man we will never understand because he never understood himself. The author captures the many contradictions that made Scott the prickly personality he was, but the writer also captures the sublime artist that was Scott.

On page 295 of Mr. Sheward's bio of the great George C. Scott, mention is made of Scott's desire to star in an unrealized film of "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" -"the best-selling book on an Indian massacre of 1876." Well, Custer's Last Stand happened in that centennial year...but not Wounded Knee. That atrocity happened in 1890. A trifling error...perhaps.

On page 275 of the book here under discussion, according to the author Scott - in preparation for the make-up applications for his role in "Beauty and the Beast" - had a "death mask" made. Well, since George C. was alive at the time, the correct phrase would be "life mask." Only dead people can have death masks made of their features. Many, most people on some level realize this. A trifling error, perhaps.

On page 104, the author writes with regards to Stanley Kubrick's approach to film: "Singular in his vision, Kubrick was most concerned with the grand sweep of his overall design. ...the director was most intrigued with the look of his films, and not as focused on the acting, music or script." Now, anyone who knows anything at all about Kubrick knows that this take on his approach to cinema is absolute nonsense. Kubrick cared about EVERYTHING with regards to his movies - even down to poster design and the sound systems of the theatres wherein his films played. A trifling error, perhaps.

Perhaps not, though. These few trifling errors are ones I was able to catch. However, not being an authority on the life of George C. Scott makes one wonder, therefore, how much else in this book is fallacious. How many other errors slipped under the radar? I think I also got a sense of a book written more for profit than privilege when Scott's magnificent performance in "The Hustler" is touched upon and not a word is said of his interactions with either of his costars Paul Newman or Jackie Gleason. From then on the book seems cobbled together by press clippings, movie and theatre reviews and somewhat shallow interviews with some of the players in Scott's life. The book, basically, has none of the "rage and glory" of the book's very title: it ends up being little more than a linear laundry list. The great actor deserves better and will hopefully get a truly in-depth treatment in the future, something along the lines of Peter Manso's Herculian take on "Brando." I hope so, anyway.

I personally know the author. I was disappointed in the book.
1-It was poorly edited
2-Although Scott is described as a private man his multiple marriages and abusive, violent behavior in public seems to belie the "private" description.
3-The book starts in a serious vein but at points becomes chatty and gossipy.

I have other books by this author and I'm a huge fan. this is a very compelling read. I highly recommend it.

David Sheward's book missed the mark with its title. Rather than RAGE AND GLORY, it should have been titled RAGE AND MORE RAGE. No actor was better able to project that emotion than George C. Scott. In a roller-coaster career topped by winning the gold for PATTON, he portrayed a number of fascinating yet repellent characters brimming with rage, avarice and many other unlikeable characteristics. Tragically his personal live was as unhappy and self-destructive as many of the roles he played. Sheward takes a long-overdue look at this unique individual.

Scott's beloved mother died early; his father was distant and uncommunicative. Growing up with a chip on his shoulder, Scott discovered alcohol and the die was cast. Wanting the security of marriage, he went through a series of wives yet each marriage floundered as Scott ran away from the responsibility that went with the marriage. Intensely shy yet bubbling with barely surpressed anger, he made few friends.

His record in Hollywood and Broadway was as mixed, some hits and many misses. Yet whatever he was in, Scott was always eminently watchable and, especially in movies, often stole the spotlight from the film's star. THE HUSTLER, for example, was Paul Newman's film but Scott's Bert Gordon character was the one that held your attention. His memorable line at the movie's end - "You owe me MONEY!" grabbed the viewer by the collar. Likewise Scott's loony-goony General Buck Turgidson in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE was a hoot.

Sheward does a workmanline job of chronicling Scott's tempestuous life and career. Though he apparently had input from almost 50 Scott family members and friends, he seems to have relied awfully heavily on previously published books, magazines articles, etc.

After reading RAGE AND GLORY, I had one thought: "What glory?" Scott certainly triumphed in the awards category with Oscars, Obies, Tonys, etc. but did they bring him happiness? Sheward's book makes me wonder if this talented yet troubled man ever knew happiness. You'd like to hope so.

Movie fans will want to add RAGE AND GLORY to their collection. It tells you everything you wanted to know about George S. Scott and more. Recommended.

If you like A&E's Biography or the guilty pleasures of "The Jersey Shore" this may be the book for you. "The volatile life and career of George C. Scott?"Yawn!

YES, I DID ENJOY READING THS BIO FROM COVER TO COVER. HE WAS TRULY ONE OF OUR GREATEST ACTORS OF THIS PAST CENTURY. BUT HE WAS A DEEPLY DISTURBED MAN.MY MAIN BEEF WITH THIS AUTHOR IS THAT IN THE FIRST PAGES OF THE BOOK, HE NEVER ONCE MENTIONS HIS HERITAGE. I EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO CONTACT THE PUBLISHER THRU EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS TO GET THIS QUESTION ANSWERED. NO RESPONCE!!! THAT REALLY GOT MY GOAT. NINE OUT OF TEN AUTHORS THAT WRITE BIOGRAPHIES ALWAYS , IN THE OPENING PAGES, PUT IN IMPORTANT FACTS. SUCH AS DATE OF BIRTH, HERITAGE,AND SO ON..BUT IT WAS VERY INFORMATIVE..FRANK TAGLIERI