Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
25 of 30 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Star with Class, July 4, 2000
William Mann gives us quite a gift in his book "Wisecracker: The Life and Times of William Haines, Hollywood's First Openly Gay Star". He paints for us a picture of Hollywood in its hey-day, and in the aftermath of scandal. He allows us insight into the fascinating world of silent films. But mostly, he gives us a long forgotten but much endearing star, Billy Haines.Prior to reading this book,I knew nothing about Billy Haines and his remarkable career, and I am somewhat of a movie buff. Billy once was an MGM top star, and the #1 Movie Star in 1928, only to give it all away for love. He went on to become one of Hollywood's most respected interior decorators, styling the homes of many stars and even an occasional conservative politician! What makes Billy full of class is not his brief but glorious movie career, but his attitude towards his life and love. Through Mann's extraordinary research, thorough examination of sources, and testimonials, he brings to us the life of an incredible person. I highly recommend this book to anyone who enojys biographies, or life stories!
|
|
|
17 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Ultimately Disappointing, September 14, 2001
I bought this book with high hopes, and as much as I hate to say it, I'm disappointed. There is quite a bit of info on William Haines' movie career here, and that is the best part of the book. Sadly, though, I feel the author runs into trouble in three places. First, he tries to give us a lot of context about the Hollywood of the time, but much of what he presents is quoted from other books, nearly all of which I've read and few of which I feel were adequately researched themselves. There is already too much classic-movie "scholarship" based on old press handouts and issues of "Photoplay"; I wish Mann had either dug harder for primary sources or left out material that could not be backed up by more substantive research. My second quibble is that Mann devotes most of the book to Haines' acting career- which occupied only twelve years of his subject's life- and only a small portion to the decorating career Haines enjoyed for decades after he left the movie business. The info Mann gives on this period is well-researched, but there is not anything like enough of it. My third reservation is my largest. In 1936, Haines and his lover Jimmie Shields were accused of molesting a young boy in Manhattan Beach, CA. They were run out of town; there was a hearing that ended in a dismissal. Up to a point, Mann seems to have made an admirable effort to get at the facts. Unfortunately, in his zeal to uncover the whole story, Mann found and interviewed the boy, now a retired mayor of Manhattan Beach. The ex-mayor says the molestation DID take place, and that the perpetrator was Jimmie Shields. Mann then does both his readers and his interviewee a grave disservice. Mann asserts that this may be a "false memory" implanted in the boy's mind by the adults involved in the case, saying this is a common phenomenon. Well, yes, it IS- but I think whether that is true in this instance is a determination that should be made by a doctor, not a biographer. Don't get me wrong- this isn't a terrible book. It's just not the book I hoped it would be, and the section about the Manhattan Beach incident left me cold. Contradicting an interviewee is something a biographer should do only with provable facts in hand.
|
|
|
27 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
AN ALMOST TRUE BOOK, May 10, 2003
By A Customer
For those looking for an introduction to the career of William Haines and for some insights into gay life in the 1920s and 1930s, this book will suffice. But it has as its grounding assumptions several false facts. 1) William Haines was not the biggest moneymaker or the biggest star at MGM in 1930. He was not the Gay Gable. That "fact" is gleaned from one minor poll of distributors and is not reflective of the reality that by 1930 -- even 1929 -- Haines was fading. 2) Haines was fading partly because he was losing his looks -- an odd thing to say about a thirty year old man -- but true. He was getting heavy; he was losing his hair, and he was losing the boyish look that had been the source of his appeal. 3) Anyone who has ever seen a Haines talkie will understand why his career faded. His wiseguy personna did not translate well to the talking screen. He was, in a word, obnoxious. He looked like a big obnoxious stiff. 4) Mann says that changing mores in Hollywood, mores that would soon result in the Hays Code, partly brought about Haines's downfall. Wrong. Haines was already finished by 1932, long before the Code was instituted. And in any case the Code wasn't a product of some kind of consensus within Hollywood. And there could have been no moral re-trenchment in Hollywood, in anticipation of the Code, because in 1932, no one saw it coming. And to know that, all one has to do is watch some 1932 movies. 5) Half the people Mann says were gay weren't. 6) Some of the sex stories are specious, undocumented, seventy-year-old gossip. 7) Haines gayness was a nuisance, so far as MGM was concerned, but if his movies were making money the studio would have kept him indefinitely. He was dropped because his movies were tanking. There was an honest story to tell here. Haines was a fairly major actor (for about three years). He was gay. He was out. He traveled in an interesting circle. That's all here, too. It's just the connections, the conclusions, the assumptions and the assertions that need to be taken with a bucket of salt.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|