26 replies to this topic

[Jim Tudor]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread with my first ever post to this fabulous board, but I just picked this book up at Cornerstone 2004, and I've got thoughts about it. I would've gotten it last year, except they didn't have any. I was bummed, until I read an excerpt in one of the magazines, and, to be kind, was less than impressed. But as the year wore on, my curiousity about the book grew as my unimpressedness faded. Getting the book this year wasn't a priority, but I told myself if I had money left over, I'd resubscribe to the mag (for what it's worth), and get the book as a hopeful freebie. Well, the book wasn't quite free, but it was discounted, and they did throw in a crappy t-shirt, so I was set.

I'm only forty or so pages into this book, and I have to say, it's making me kind of mad. Yes, this guy is well versed in movies, (at least he's seen a lot of them,) but there are areas where he deliberately hurts his attempted points by not providing some necessary research information because "it's late and I'm too tired to check right now", or "I'm in a grumpy mood." I'm sure this is all a big barrell of laughs for him and his circle of friends whom he wrote this book for, but for the rest of us, it would be nice to get through a paragraph without having Higgins go on about himself.

Also, his choice for films to spotlight, while certainly unconventional (points for that), are also downright weird, even lame. He starts with "The Black Hole" since it's the first film he ever saw, then riffs on "High Plains Drifter" (to be fair, I haven't seen that one yet), "Changing Lanes" (see? Lame.), and "Hannibal"(!!!). He tosses off comments about the value of "American Beauty" and "Reservior Dogs" ("better than 'Pulp Fiction!'"), but it all comes off as transcribed coffee house banter, at best. At worst, it's a self-conscious, self-congratulatory ego trip by a guy who was somehow lucky enough to get published. Any number of people on this board could've run with this concept and put out a book at least twice as good as this one. I'm going to press on read it, but every time I put this book down, Higgins leaves ME in a grumpy mood.

Jim Tudor
Film, DVD, and comic book reviews at Imagine 'Dat Online

Edited by Jim Tudor, 13 July 2004 - 02:02 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Jim! Great to see you here! That makes at least four DADLers! Post early, post often!

[Jim Tudor]

Thanks Peter, happy to be here. The forum atmosphere suits me more than the email list method, which I quickly get behind on.

Great job speaking and leading the "Jesus of Montreal" discussion at Cornerstone, by the way.

JiM T

[Persona]

Jim, welcome to Arts & Faith.

You've already convinced me that i will someday write a book.

-s.

Edited by stef, 13 July 2004 - 11:08 PM.

[MattPage]

Hi Jim,

Welcome to the board. I heard Higgins speak at Greenbelt last year where his book was released in the UK. Having never even heard of him before then I can't really imagine what it would be like reading the book without having heard him speak. Perhaps your post enlightens me to this.

However, having heard him speak I think must throw a totally different light on the matter. In the flesh he comes across as very humble rather than the kind of person that would endlessly "go on about himself". And the circle of friends you mention is one you feel drawn into really early on. You can't really help liking the guy when you hear him talk, and you pretty much feel that you're in that coffee house listening to what he has to say (and saying a bit back in return). Maybe its just the Irish acccent, but I think there's something abut his general demeanour that maybe doesn't come across as a "self-conscious, self-congratulatory ego trip" if you don't know him.

More this has the effect of going with the guy on a journey through film, hence the references to the first film he ever saw. etc. The writing style is very conversational and there's a certain lyricism to it which I think is where the off hand comments come in and the more refined writing style goes out.

I do agree with you that "Any number of people on this board could've run with this concept and put out a book at least twice as good as this one" (or at least as good). There's nothing amazingly profficient in it, and as much as anything that comment reflects the quality of writers on this board. That said I admire what he tries to do with his rosetta stone, (which was pretty much all he said at Greenbelt) and he is nicely quotable here.

The other strength of the book is how it relates to its target demographic. There's been numerous comments on the "Relevant" thread about this demographic, how relevant it really is, and that it fails to challenge people. So for a Relevant book, this is good stuff. If they'd done a book that was all Tarkovsky & Kieslowski they would have left most of this demographic behind save a few of the calready converted. As it is its accessible style & mix of films is an important stepping stone for helping that generation to engage more with cinema. Our church is largely that demographic (many of them would probably lap Relevant up if we got hold of a UK version) and so that's why I bought the book for our church library. Perhaps it just appeals more to British & Irish sensibilities.

Its not amazingly deep and profound or written in a technically brilliant manner, but its is accessible and it does push the boat out by profiling films other than Bruce Almighty and the Matrix, and I at least found it fun to read.

So I'm not blaming you for not liking the book, or holding out much hope that the last few chapters will win you over, but hopefully you can appreciate that he's not an egotist getting his dream come true, and suggest that if you're ever looking for a book to help people get more into better films then this might be worth passing on.

Matt

[Jim Tudor]

Thanks Matt, for the insight to Higgins in person, but as Alan pointed out, my beef is with how the book is written. I could get behind the self-conscious references and humorous asides if he had the meat to back up a lot of what he's saying, but substituting funny little excuses in place of facts isn't why I read a book. I don't doubt you that Higgins is a fun and even compelling guy in person, but when I spend my time and money on his book, I don't want to be forced to go to other books to verify him.

If this kind of writing is what it takes to reach the "Relevant" demographic and interest them in deeper studies of film, then my heart goes out to them. Methinks Tony Campolo ought to be a little more discerning of where he writes introductions.

Shoddy fact-checking and self-indugence aside, my ultimate problem with the book is the way it's just another work exclusively utilizing the popular-amongst-Christians worldview breakdown method of film analysis, but less focused and less professional than even most of those.

And just what the heck does he mean when he mentions that David Cronenberg is one of the key filmmakers to understanding the whole of North American cinema today?!? (I paraphrase, because like Higgins, I'm too lazy to check the exact quote.) (But I would if this were a published book!) That just sounds downright wacky to me.

Jim Tudor
Film, DVD, and comic book reviews at Imagine 'Dat Online

[MattPage]

: Tony Campolo ought to be a little more discerning of where he writes introductions

Well that's definitely true - does he turn many down?

Matt