A frustrating book, especially since Goldman is one of my favourite writers, and there hasn't been an in-depth critical analysis of his work since Richard Andersen's in 1978. Egan puts in all this time and effort into analysing Goldman's novels, short stories and non fiction... but when it comes to the screenplays he goes off the finished film, which is unfair, and criticises the acting and direction, which shouldn't be the scope of this book.
It feels very under-researched - he refers constantly to Goldman's papers at Columbia Uni but doesn't seem to have accessed them, or read early drafts of screenplays, or his unfilmed screenplays and unproduced plays. He's only done a couple of interviews, too, and barely seems to have glanced at any newspaper archives.
It's annoying because what he did find out was fascinating (eg how A Family Affair got produced, John Brady's involvement in Adventures of the Screen Trade) - I just wish he'd put in more effort. And while I appreciate the effort Egan puts into looking at the novels, and some of his criticisms were first rate (eg Goldman's over use of sports metaphors, appreciation for his skill as a journalist), other bits of it seem narky and mean. Of course, this judgement is no doubt influenced by the fact that I disagreed with his criticisms, but too many of them had a touch of the "nyah nyah nyah"s.
I enjoyed it, I'm glad it exists, I just wish the author had put in more effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment