Also by David Thomson Nicole Kidman The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood The New Biographical Dictionary of Film In Nevada: The Land, the People, God, and Chance The Alien Quartet Beneath Mulholland: Thoughts on Hollywood and Its Ghosts Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles 4–2 Showman: The Life of David O. Selznick Silver Light Warren Beatty and Desert Eyes Suspects Overexposures Scott’s Men America in the Dark A Biographical Dictionary of Film Wild Excursions: The Life and Fiction of Laurence Sterne Hungry as Hunters A Bowl of Eggs Movie Man “Have You Seen. . .?” This book has been optimized for viewing at a monitor setting of 1024 x 768 pixels. “Have You Seen. . .?” A Personal Introduction to 1,000 Films DAVID THOMSON Alfred A. Knopf New York 2008 THIS IS A BORZOI BOOK PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF Copyright © 2008 by David Thomson All rights reserved. Published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. www.aaknopf.com Knopf, Borzoi Books, and the colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. Originally published in Great Britain in paperback by Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books Ltd., London. Portions of this work originally appeared in Brick: A Literary Journal. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Thomson, David. Have you seen? : a personal introduction to 1,000 films / David Thomson. — 1st ed. p. cm. “This is a Borzoi Book.” eISBN: 978-0-307-27052-8 1. Motion pictures—Plots, themes, etc. I. Title. pn1997.8.t46 2008 791.43'75—dc22 2008000634 v1.0 For Laura Morris Build your film on white, on silence, and on stillness. —Robert Bresson . . . the frenzy on the wall . . . —Jean-Paul Sartre Acknowledgments I was first approached to try this book by explored. I have been lucky enough to be Nigel Wilcockson of Penguin in London. It there in need at a time in his life when his was a prolonged process. After The Biograph- passion moved toward film. He is a great edi- ical Dictionary of Film, I did not believe it tor—and all he does is read you, think about was a sane idea to write another very long it, argue, and guide you into being a little book on the same subject. But Nigel was not better. to be told no and saw little evidence that I was Beyond the publishing assistance, I rely on sane. He talked to me. He sent me superb a group of friends and family with whom I see books on the churches of England as inspira- or discuss films. Again, we do not agree all the tion. He never stopped until he had per- time. But we have seen that as the point. I suaded me to say yes. Then he left Penguin, have benefited from remarks, recommenda- and for all I know he is now leading other tions, and insights, and helpless cries of pain authors astray for other houses. The one and ecstasy from so many people. But these thing Nigel omitted to say in his campaign— are the ones I can remember now: Mark that I would enjoy doing the book—came Feeney; Tom Luddy; Edith Kramer; Pierre through with such surprise that I knew I must Rissient; Jean-Pierre Gorin; Scott Foundas; always thank him first. His role at Penguin, as Richard and Mary Corliss; Andrew Sarris and my editor, was then filled by Simon Winder, Molly Haskell; Richard Schickel; Richard who proved to be a dedicated friend, a Roud; Richard Jameson and Kathleen patient and invaluable editor, and a tower of Murphy; Patrick McGilligan; Greil Marcus; strength, even though I declined illustrations Peter Bogdanovich; Mark Cousins; Ty Burr; and a rating system. Michael Ondaatje; Anthony Lane, Quentin In America, the book was taken up by Curtis, Gilbert Adair, and Jonathan Romney Knopf, who had published me often before: (all in their time fellow film critics at the thus, I fell into the hands of a proven team— Independent on Sunday in London); Antonia Bob Gottlieb as editor, Katherine Hourigan Quirke; Jim Toback; Paul Schrader; David as managing editor, Roméo Enriquez as pro- Packard; Steven Bach; Jeffrey Selznick; Holly duction manager, Kevin Bourke as produc- Goldberg Sloan and Garry Rosen. Many of tion editing maestro, Kathy Zuckerman as these people are all the more remarkable for publicity director, and Carol Carson, who being interested in many things beside film. designed the jacket. These people are some And that leads me to the vital company in any of the best friends I have had, in or out of filmgoer’s life—the other people in the publishing. If I mark Bob Gottlieb down as dark—Anne, Lucy, and five children (Kate, captain of the team, it is only fair. Bob is a Mathew, Rachel, Nicholas, and Zachary), book man, and a very good writer (though he most of whom know the problem of keeping only found that out, I think, after he had me awake at some films. It is the just reward stopped commissioning and editing so many for insomnia that I sleep most easily at the books). There’s a lot that we don’t agree on, movies. Why not? I always suspected they but there is no one with whom sporting dis- were dreams. agreements can be so thoroughly enjoyed and viii Introduction I wanted a “bumper” book for your laps, a actually created two types of Best Picture— volume where you could keep turning the the Hollywood prize, for Wings, and an arty pages and coming upon juxtapositions of the one for Sunrise.) So it’s a surprise that in fanciful and the fabulous (Abbott and Cos- Brussels in 1958, a gang of historians put tello go to Zabriskie Point?) or some chance Murnau’s The Last Laugh way ahead of alphabetical poetry that might make your his Sunrise. I can recall a time when “film scalp tingle—like Bad Day at Black Rock writing” took that estimate for granted. Yet leading into Badlands. I wanted old favorites now The Last Laugh feels like an academic to be neighbors with films you’ve never heard exercise—while Sunrise is different and dan- of. I wanted you to entertain the unlikely pos- gerous every time you see it. sibility that “everything” is here. Of course, it This book is not simply my one thousand is not—everything remains out in our scat- preferred films offered with whatever mix- tered “there.” ture of authority I can muster or generosity Choosing their top ten is a game most film you will allow. I like or love many of these critics are accustomed to—and one that movies and I hope you will feel that in the allows depressives to ask, “Are there really reading and come closer to sharing my plea- ten worth keeping?” (This is a healthy doubt, sure. The first purpose or wish behind the more useful than the routine thumbs up on question in my title is not to establish you as two or three fresh masterpieces every week.) an expert in film studies but to give you a Writing about a select hundred is a regular good time—or a better time than you have form of bookmaking—the exercise of taste been having. makes a moderate-sized book and a harmless More than that this is a book created to pantheon. But going for a thousand is a ges- meet the question frequently asked of anyone ture toward history—it seems to require that with a reputation for knowing about films. the selector weighs the old against the new. It’s “What should I see?” So “Have you It’s like wondering whether Beowulf can talk seen...?” is ar esponse to that uncertainty. to Lolita. I knew early on in thinking about this book How is it that a thousand seems to omit so that I could not face it as David Thomson’s many more than a whimsical ten? How can “best” films. My favorites are here—but there ten hundred escape being an outline of the is a monotony in writing or reading about just history of the medium and of our jumping the splendid. As my editor, Bob Gottlieb, tastes? If you’re picking ten, you may not con- observed on reading an early draft, “We’re sider the silent era in Sweden. But if you’re snowed under with ‘greats’ and I’m still on doing a thousand, then those Stillers and B!” Enthusiasm is too easy and it can lead to Sjöströms deserve reappraisal. And they may lazy writing and formulaic thinking. Very be among the best early films we have. often in a book like this you can signal your Equally, it’s touching to find in Irene critical stance to a reader with just one bad- Mayer Selznick’s private letters that, in 1927, tempered dismissal as easily as and more rap- the cool, inside crowd in Hollywood reck- idly than a hundred raves will permit. (So The oned Sunrise was the best film they’d ever Sound of Music is in here, along with Doctor seen—and surely the harbinger of great cre- Zhivago, The Ten Commandments, The Last ative changes. (The newly founded Academy Laugh, and others. You’ll find them.) A little ix