Movie review - "Paint Your Wagon" (1969) **1/2

 Big and silly and cost way too much but the locations are gorgeous, there's some nice tunes, and it's sweet to see Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood and Jean Seberg in a musical. Everyone is trying. Seberg is more animated than in some of her efforts. Clint is getting into it too, and it's so novel to hear him sing, ditto Marvin. Decent tunes.

The movie never quite fixes on its story. The central conceit is Seberg winds up with two men but  it never really goes into that. We all know Seberg will be with Eastwood it's not a threat. There's no threat. The action dragged when a young man was introduced and this whol plot started in the third act.

The town collapsing is fun, the running time long, some nice tunes. This killed Josh Logan's movie career. 

Book review - "Dervish Dust: The Life and Words of James Coburn" by Robyn Coburn (2022)

 Robyn Coburn is an Aussie, married to James Coburn, son of the actor, so this book has an excellent inside track - close to its source but not too close. Certain it''s open about Coburn (I'll use the star's surname more) being a crap father, absent and not interested, and a grumpy old opinionated man. But a fine actor, superb speaking voice, some excellent performances. The book benefits from his letters, thoughts and interviews - as a member of the family the writer has superb access.

Coburn had a fascinating life and career. Tall, deep voiced, silver haired. He got professional work quite quickly. Benefited from being able to study under the GI Bill (he was drafted in the early 1950s but was in Europe not the Korean War). He always seemed to be able to support himself via advertisements - when starting out and later on. When he began getting TV work the jobs came thick and fast - he was ideal as villains in Westerns and played a lot of them. His film career was respectable quickly too - Ride Lonesome then The Magnificent Seven. He had a great run as a second lead. The Flint films turned him into a star but his actual period as a top level name above the star wasn't long. But 1980 there were no more film leading roles, and TV didn't give him that much longer either. But he always had his voice and cameos.

A genuine hippy. Managed to link to popular culture in odd ways - a mate of Bruce Lee's, in the Band on the Run photo, a rejected Cosmo nude centerfold (the one before Burt Reynolds), a big car importer, in some films edited badly by Jim Aubrey. 

He had a great 60s and pretty good 70s. Things went south in late 70s and took a while to bounce back. Won an Oscar with Affliction but that didn't so much for his career. Managed to appear in some iconic films though. Made a LOT of flops.

Book review - "Mad as Hell: The Making of Network and the Fateful Vision of the Angriest Man in Movies" by Dave Itzkoff

 I think Network means more to Americans who didn't grow up with public broadcasting but I recognise the film's excellence and power. This is a worthy book - the writer did his research, especiallu going through the different drafts that Chayefsky did. Getting finance was not too hard - I mean, it wasn't super easy, but it was the 70s and The Hospital had made money. Also Sidney Lumet was idea and there were stars - William Holden, Faye Dunaway.

No one wanted to play the Peter Finch part. He wasn't on any lists but his agent pestered and he got it. Though he had to audition, sulked, then called back and said "sorry darling I forgot I was an actor". Finch stories are the most lively - he got bored acting opposite Ned Beatty during Beatty's speech so started impersonating a monkey, he moved to LA from "semi retirement" because the film reignited his career, he warned everyone that black extras would find him irresistible, he campaigned for his Oscar, he'd walk to the Beverly Hills hotel every day (couldn't drive) and wait until someone bought him breakfast (so he died trying to scab a freebie), William Friedkin organiser of the Oscars told Chayefsky that Finch's black wife couldn't accept the Oscar but Chayefsky or Lumet could, Chayefsky invited her up anyway.

Chayefsky was a pain on the film but Lumet could handle it -what a bummer they just didn't pay Lumet the few extra hundred thou to do Altered States (though what happened with Arthur Hiller?). 

William Holden was boozy and insecure with emotional scenes. Fay Dunaway was terrific but freaked out about her sex scene - the author makes diva claims but she had to do most of her career surrounded by men with their hands down their pants around her. She was very sympathetic here. I think the film and Oscar made her a bit nuts - she made it to the top and didn't know what to do next, went for star parts as opposd to best parts.

The impact/fandom of the movie is well conveyed. A totally decent book.

TV review - "Fosse/Vernon" (2019) (first four eps) *****

 Wonderful. Shot like a Bob Fosse film. Excellent acted. Stimulating. Brilliant TV. Turns by actors as Joan Simon, and Paddy Chayekfsky and George Abbott. So much fun.

Movie review - "Altered States" (1981) ****

Joe Eszterhas accused Ken Russell of killing Paddy Chayefsky by what he did to the latter's script on his film - and certainly Chayefsky was unhappy. But I've got to say, while I didn't do a direct comparison and script and film, it felt faithful. Maybe not what Chayefsky wanted but the words were there - spat out, rushed through, but there - and the basic concepts felt the same.

This is an enthralling, intriguing film which takes what is admittedly a really silly idea - something out of a Bela Lugosi movie - and brings it into the modern era with plenty of mumbo jumbo and research. It explores the nature of what it is to be a man and all that stuff.

William Hurt is ideal as the lead, so young and arrogant, and Blair Brown - what happened to her - is lovely and warm (which is what the film needs to give it a human heart) as his wife. The time jump is a bit of a jolt.

Support players include Bob Balaban and Charles Haid.

Its thought provoking, gripping and much better than I'd been led to believe.

Book review - "The Season: A Candid Look at Broadway" by William Goldman (1968)

Had another read of this fabulous work and enjoyed it as much as ever - gossipy, opinionated, smart, funny it has aged very well. Occasionally it feels a little mean, with cracks about actresses weight and the section on Mike Nichols, but consistently comes up with good, original ideas and fresh takes on the theatre.

Movie review - "Ice Station Zebra" (1969) ***

Bridge on the River Kwai kicked off the golden age of guys on a mission action films - Guns of Navarone, Zulu, Where Eagles Dare, McKenna's Gold. This one came towards the end of the cycle - it probably accelerated said ending because it was a box office disappointment. It's still a lot of fun - though never quite as good as you hope it's going to be (the title is surely one of the best of all time).

The set up is very good - secret Arctic base, crashed satellite, a Yank sub sent to get there before the Ruskies, a secret agent on board. As usual in Alistair Maclean adaptations someone is a mole, or are they - and there's spies who are seen to consistently change sides. Patrick McGoohan and Ernest Borgnine are enjoyable as dodgy spy types, Rock Hudson likeable as the decent American, the one you can trust (like Clint Eastwood in Where Eagles Dare).

But I think there's a lack of action - unlike the team in Navarone or Eagles there's never any sense the sub and its crew won't get back - you just think maybe a person or two will die, which is the case. I think maybe there needed to be some massive disaster on the sub, with it leaking and sinking and only a few survivors or something - to get the blood racing.

It's entertaining, don't get me wrong - there's a lot of tough guys acting tough. But the suspense and death count are lower. And the treacherous women who usually appear in Maclean novels are missed.

Still there is fine work from the (all male) cast, which also includes Jim Brown and Australia's Murray Rose.

Book review - "Fredric March: A Consumate Actor" by Charles Tranberg

March was an odd actor - very well respected and talented, technically a star (he headlined numerous popular movies) but not very well remembered today, despite winning two Oscars. The main reason I think is that he wasn't a personality star like say Errol Flynn, Bogart or Gary Grant - you never hear someone call a part a "Fredric March type character" or a "Fredric March" vehicle. He really was a character actor with leading man looks. So many times in his career he seemed to get a role that someone else turned down - Fred March was the star you had to settle for.

Still it was an amazing career with a swag of classic films. He deserved a book although his life wasn't super exciting - small town upbringing, well off family, he attended college and went into banking but got the acting bug. It didn't actually take that long for him to make it - he had talent, enthusiasm and looks (it's always easiest if you're a good looking young guy) - and was soon a name on stage, being particularly regarded for his John Barrymore turn in The Royal Family. Then it was off to Hollywood, where he signed for a time with Paramount then freelanced successfully: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Barretts of Wimpole Street, Nothing Sacred, The Buccaneer.

Towards the end of the 30s he returned to the stage, which he gets props for doing because he was still much in demand as a movie star. I think he did it to make his wife happy but ultimately it proved to be a smart move (as Charles Tingwell once said, if you look after the acting the career will take care of itself) and his Broadway career would thrive when his star roles got less impressive - in the 50s he was no longer a box office draw, but he was a Broadway draw. March liked to blame the down turn in his movie carer on the fact he was accused of being a Communist; now that may have had a little bit to do with it, but I think more important was the fact that he appeared in a bunch of flops in the late 40s, he was getting on in years, and also he didn't fall back into some sure fire commercial genre like Westerns to stay in the public eye.

March didn't always do good work but he never sold out, always pushed himself; he seems to have been a joy for directors to work with - conscientious, diligent, aware of his tendency to ham, very open to new talents and directors, like Paddy Chayefsky and Elia Kazan when they were starting out, saying that films were getting better instead of whining about the old days. He also had excellent relationships with people like William Wyler and John Frankenheimer. This meant he was always in work, right up to the end - and it was consistently varied and interesting work too: The Best Years of Our Lives, Long Day's Journey Into Night, Gideon, Inherit the Wind, Hombre.

He was married for along time to Florence Elridge, always overshadowing her in terms of career success (on films and stage) and popularity with people - but they clearly relied on each other; he seemed to need her discipline and drive, and political nous (he was more a little boy); he was protective of her, promoted her career, and she would tolerate his many infidelities and constant on-set lechery (March was very much pro-sexual harassment in the work place). Their marriage reads like one of those arrangements where the wife basically mothers the husband. I doubt he would have accomplished half as much without her.

They adopted two kids - got along well with the girl but the boy was more of a handful, getting into trouble with the law and eventually dying in a car crash. (I wouldn't have minded more about their son actually.)

But this is a fine book, a worth tribute to a good actor and not particularly memorable star.

Book review - "Peter Finch" by Trader Faulkner

Someone once wrote that the really first rate biography of Peter Finch has yet to be written - I think that's really unfair, because there are two first rate bios which came out close to each other, this and one by Elaine Dundy. (There's also a memoir from his second wife which is worth reading.)

This has the advantage of being written by an actor who was a pupil and friend of Finch's, and being done soon after Finch's death, so there's lots of interviews with people who knew him well, plus some excellent analysis of his acting. Particularly useful is the stuff about Finch's theatre work in Australia and in England in the early 50s. A very good book and an important look at Finch.

Movie review – “Middle of the Night” (1959) **1/2

A very flawed work – miscasting, dodgy sexual politics, overlong running time, and more method acting than you can poke a stick at. But it compels, this viewer at least – partly because Hollywood just doesn’t make serious, angsty dramas anymore. And there’s some beautiful Paddy Chayefsky writing – arias and angst, the fear of again, pain of love, etc. Also it’s fascinating to see something so old school New York - black and white, location shooting, method acting, acting and acting.

Whenever I watch Frederic March I always wish someone else played the role but he’s not too bad and is better looking that Edward G Robinson. He acts all over the place, but not as much as Kim Novak, who varies from effective to dreadful, often in the same sentence.

The plot concerns their romance – she’s a divorcee, whose marriage to a musician basically constituted sex (the film’s acknowledgement and discussion of sex is striking for the time), a bit of an idiot and a child in many ways. She falls for her widowed boss who is paranoid about losing her. You kind of buy it because Novak comes across as dumb and needy.

I remember Paddy Chayefsky’s original play being more solid, building to a climax with a simple structure – this tends to repeat itself (doubt, doubt and more doubt). There’s a fine cast of New York actors in support, most of whom get the chance to ACT! themselves including Lee Grant, Lee Phillip and Martin Balsam.

Book review – “The Craft of Screenwriting” by John Brady

Superb collection of interviews with some of the best screenwriters in the business: Neil Simon, Paddy Chayefsky, Robert Towne, William Goldman, Ernest Lehman, Paul Schrader. It was published in 1982, which means there’s some poignancy – Chayefsky died not that long after his interview, Simon has just produced his first film (a career that didn’t last), Towne was about to embark on Personal Best. Full of great tips and insights eg Towne – the only way to learn screenwriting is to see your work done; Chayefsky – when you get feedback from artists it’s about the work, not the art. Brady is a brilliant interviewer – he’s always prepared and he knows his stuff.

Movie review – “The Goddess” (1958) ***

Paddy Chayefsky was one of the hottest writers in the biz in the late 50s so his original screenplay for Columbia was eagerly anticipated, especially as it rumoured the lead character was based on Marilyn Monroe. 

The result is a flawed film. 

Part of the reason is Kim Stanley’s casting – she has excellent moments but is far too old, especially when playing a high school student. Also – and I know this is a purely personal opinion – but she doesn’t have the charisma or sex appeal of Monroe. Stanley has a great reputation as a Broadway star and as an actor during the Golden Years of Television, and she’s clearly a brilliant talent. But sometimes that’s not enough – I didn’t buy her as a sex bomb. It’s just not the looks, it’s the aura (however many lovers Stanley had in real life). Also her Southern accent got grating after a while. (Apparently they offered the part to Monroe herself and she was keen to do it but Arthur Miller nixed it.)

Chayefsky may have written this for the screen but it comes across as a filmed play – specifically one by Eugene O’Neill. (There are even headings for each act.) He ducks against his previous naturalism – there are long monologues by actors. Indeed each scene basically centers around a monologue: mum complains about having a kid; Stanley talks in a car while on a date about her family and hopes and dreams; Stanley falls for the drunken son of a silent film actor (Law and Order DA Steven Hill); Hill talks about his past; Stanley talks about her boyfriend ball player (Lloyd Bridges); Bridges talks about his family; Stanley has a breakdown. Occasionally Chayefsky spices things up with a dialogue eg Stanley and Hill – it’s a shame there wasn’t more.

There’s some wonderful writing and remarkable sequences especially Stanley yelling she wants to die at her mother’s funeral. Not a lot of laughs, though – even when Stanley become the biggest star in Hollywood she doesn’t have any fun, or even nice clothes. A lot of key incidents happen off screen eg Stanley becoming famous, attempting suicide, breakdown of her marriage with Hill – that’s not necessarily a criticism, more an observation. 

It's annoying how Steven Hill's character - established as a morose, suicidal drunk - comes back all reformed because of having a child; I didn't buy that, or his air of superiority. The film doesn't quite work, and should have been done as a play - or with a different lead - but it's worth watching; essential if you're a fan of Chayefsky.

Book review – “Rage and Glory: The Volatile Life and Career of George C Scott” by David Sheward

I wondered why Scott never inspired a biography until now – he was a genuine box office star for a time there as well as being one of the most critically acclaimed actor of his generation, and a very colourful character. Maybe he was just too much of a wanker – constantly smacking women and getting drunk on location, wasting his talent in inferior films. I’ve always wished there was one, because he did an excellent interview reproduced on the Images website which piqued my curiosity. 

 

Scott discovered acting while studying journalism at the University of Missouri; his first acting job was the defence lawyer in The Winslow Boy and it’s not hard to imagine even a green George C Scott being sensational in the role. It’s hard to break into acting but easier for good looking, masculine men with tremendous presence – there’s always jobs going for bosses and presidents.

 

He married while still at uni (to an actor), soon fathering two children. This didn’t stop him from going off to New York to establish himself as an actor with his girlfriend (another actor), leaving the wife and kids back home. The girlfriend got pregnant, so Scott hit her and later tried to smother her with a pillow. Both the wife and girlfriend left him (and remarried), then Scott got married again (a third actor) and became a father again. 

 

A second move to New York saw his career finally take off via an impressive turn on stage as Richard III. He soon established himself off Broadway (William Goldman says when he saw him on stage in Children of Darkness it was like being hit with a powerful force, a recognition of greatness, only comparable to Al Pacino in The Indian Wants the Bronx and Brando in Streetcar). There was also small screen success in the Golden Years of TV. He left wife number three and their child for Colleen Dewhurst (another actor).

 

During all this time Scott was always getting drunk and into fights – he would hit strangers in bars, his wives and girlfriends. He constantly cheated (he tried to leave Dewhurst for Ava Gardner and later left her for another actor, Trish Van Dere), brawled (he seriously beat Gardner and Dewhurst) and gave magnificent performances. Always respected as an actor, for a brief moment Patton turned him into a genuine box office name and he enjoyed some follow up hits (The Hospital and New Centurions) before a series of flops reduced his status as a star… although never as a name actor. (He turned down a number of major films including Network and The Godfather.) He constantly returned to stage, having two big hits in Plaza Suite and Sly Fox. In the 80s and 90s the quality of his output (performances and works in which he appeared) steadily declined, but he remained in demand until his death.

 

I don't think I've ever read a biography were I kept thinking "this guy should have gone to gaol". A month or two behind bars in the 60s might have done Scott the world of good. Obviously a tormented man, but even after reading this I'm not sure why - I don't think Sheward is, either. But being a good biographer (solid research, lucid writing) he sets out the facts as best he can and lets the reader draw his own conclusions. The million dollar question - would Scott have been as good an actor without his demons?

 

It's a thorough overlook of Scott's life and career - marriages, family, kids, houses, directorial career (a lot more extensive than I'd thought). Sheward is particularly strong on theatre, with lively recreations of some of Scott's productions, including working with Nathan Lane, Larry Gelbart, etc. Scott was intelligent - but not as intelligent as I think he needed so be. Certainly not enough to lay off the booze or be a decent producer. Marvellous actor, though.

Play review – “The Latent Heterosexual” by Paddy Chayefsky

Chayefsky’s last produced play is a patchily brilliant, heavily flawed work, destined to not be revived for a while due to an unfortunate beginning idea: a gay middle aged novelist who has a hit gets married for tax purposes and finds himself enjoying the straight life. 

It’s a shame this element of the plot is in there because it’s dated, isn’t that funny and isn’t really needed – this is really a satire on corporations (business laws, taxes, trust funds, shares, debentures) and how one man allows himself to turn into a corporation… kind of like The Hospital meets Rhinoceros, only for business.

Some absolutely brilliant dialogue and speeches but too much of it is hitting the same note, i.e. long monologues describing business stuff (not having characters making fun of it, just describing it). So the play goes on too long – this felt like it would be a really effective one act play. 

Some of those notes are terrific, though – it hits real heights and it’s a shame Chayefsky refused to sell the film rights to Joe Levine (apparently because Levine intended to star Zero Mostel, who played the role on stage and had been hard to deal with). Oh, it’s another Chayefsky work where a hot young girl is horny for a middle aged man.

Play review – “The Passion of Josef D” by Paddy Chayefksy

Chayefsky’s least successful play on Broadway and you can see why audiences mightn’t go for it – all those Russian names and long history, it goes on for a long time, isn’t exactly feel good entertainment, and Chayekfsy is a bit too much in love with his research. 

But it’s marvellous – rich, bold, moving. There are funny moments and moving moments, too – a mixture of theatrical styles (Brecht, music hall, naturalism). Characters say asides to the audience at the end of scene, or break into song. There's violence and sex, lots of political talk and some symbolism.

The plot starts at the beginning of the 1917 Russian Revolution and goes up until Lenin’s stroke in 1924. We hear a lot (perhaps too much) about Stalin’s upbringing and character – the devoted, ruthless revolutionary, who finds God in the form of Lenin – a brilliant, tormented genius. The schisms of the party, Stalin’s romance with his revolutionary second wife, the struggles of the time – it’s all brilliantly, vividly conveyed.

Some superb moments, like the opening scene where we meet Stalin, who chats amiably to his prison guard who’s just let him out because of the revolution – then kills him. Or Lenin’s monologue five years after the revolution (any of his monologues, really), Stalin’s wife’s declaration of love for her husband, the two businessmen who symbolically kill themselves, the cameo of Trotsky. It’s wonderful and you really wish someone would revive it (a natural for a drama school looking for pieces with a big cast).

(Reading this made me check Shaun Considine’s excellent biography of Chayefsky. Apparently Charles Bronson almost played the lead role – it was even announced – before it went to Peter Falk. And Elia Kazan wanted to direct it for the Lincoln Centre but Chayefsky was impatient and ended up directing it himself on Broadway.)

Book review – “Paddy Chayefsky Scripts Vol 2 – Hospital, Network, Altered States” by Paddy Chayefsky

A reminder – if any were needed – of Chayefsky’s brilliance. These are three superb scripts, full of passion, humour, rich characters, dynamic dialogue and research (they’re all really well researched) – they could all be greenlit tomorrow. Okay, they’re not perfect – Chayefsky really had an obsession with young women falling in love with middle aged men: The Hospital, Network, Middle of the Night…

 

The Hospital is dynamite social satire – it’s a bit more (though not much more) realistic than Network, which was more prophetic. The through line concerns a spate of mysterious deaths which are afflicting a large hospital. In a way it’s a monster film – so too is Network, with the Peter Finch character as the monster. I didn’t notice until reading this that you didn’t need the William Holden character – he doesn’t do anything except have a fling with Faye Dunaway.

 

I was particularly interested to read Altered States because I’ve never seen the film – shooting was an incredibly turbulent time, with Chayefsky being devastated by the result, despite having a clause which ensured not a word of his script could be changed. (He even sacked a director, only to replace him with Ken Russell.) It’s a version of the Jekyll and Hyde story about a uni professor, Jessup, determined to experiment with different states of being. Brilliantly researched, full of far out concepts, it’s something special. And what’s more it has a happy, positive ending. No middle aged-young woman romance here – although there is a professor-student one, and there’s lots of sex.

Play review – “Gideon” by Paddy Chayefsky

Entertaining version of the famous Biblical story - not as highly regarded as The Tenth Man, apparently, but I enjoyed it more, mostly because there's more story. Fun dialogues between Gideon and God, plenty of spectacle and interesting characters.

Play review – “The Tenth Man” by Paddy Chayefsky

This has a great idea – a modern-day exorcism of a girl by some Jews in New York city – and memorable characters and lines, particularly the suicidal lawyer. But there’s not enough story – it needed a reversal or something (although I did like the ending where the lawyer turns out to be exorcised.) Would look good on stage with all the rituals being done.

Play review – “Middle of the Night” by Paddy Chayefsky

Back in the 50s, television plays were occasionally adapted for the movies and Broadway. Chayefsky’s Marty became an Oscar-winning film; Middle of the Night was turned into a play, then became a feature. Marty was the story of a romance between two “uglies”; this is about a love affair between a middle aged widower and a young girl. It copies Marty’s structure quite closely – we meet the two separately, their relationship flowers to the surprise of all around them, family opposition sees them split up, they get back together. It’s written with heart and is effective – lonely people meeting each other, etc etc. Not quite as good as Marty because you get the feeling the two lovers here would have another chance of a drink at the last chance saloon whereas the Marty duo only had one shot at the title.

Book review – “Little Caesar” by Allan Ginsberg

Edward G Robinson is one of those movie stars who will probably only have one biography written about them, so it’s lucky this is a pretty good one. His story should stand as an inspiration for short, ethnic, pudgy ugly actors – he started at a young age and took a while for his career to get going, but he worked hard and was versatile with plenty of energy, and soon he was in demand on stage. A couple of decent parts saw him become a Broadway star and he was heavily in demand by the studios even before Little Caesar.

In hindsight it’s not hard to see why – most oohing and aahing about stars concerns how good looking they are, but there’s always room for a “character actor” star, especially one who can convey gravitas eg Morgan Freeman, Wallace Beery, Judi Dench. You can cast them as gangsters, cops, royalty, etc – people for the spunk rats to bounce off. Little Caesar then gave Robinson the role of a lifetime – literally, he could sponge off that image for the rest of his life. Being intelligent and ambitions he didn’t want to; like most Warners stars he hankered after better roles and fought the front office to get them; sometimes he succeeded too (a cop in Confessions of a Nazi Spy, a nebbish in The Whole Town’s Talking, a scientist in Dr Ehlrich’s Magic Bullet).

Robinson suffered greatly during the blacklist. I was unaware of how much stick he came in for – I figured because he wasn’t officially put on the list or put in gaol it wasn’t too bad. Well, I was wrong – he was frequently bagged in the columns and dragged in front of HUAC several times. This despite never actually being a member of the Communist Party (he was a do-gooder and a soft touch). In that horrible way of the time to get out of it he had to go through this medieval-like purging ceremony, admitting he had been duped. He even named a few names. (I’m convinced HUAC went after him especially hard because they wanted to nab a famous actor on top of all these writers and directors they had; along with John Garfield he would have been the biggest star tarnished by McCarthyism).

Robinson’s career suffered a decade dip accordingly. His tenure as a top rank star probably would have faded anyway – he was lucky to have it as long as he did – but he missed out on a decade’s worth of juicy roles. Robinson’s ability and castability meant he got good parts up until the end of his life, apart from the greylist period. However, even during that he made some decent Bs (Hell on Frisco Bay, Illegal), and found Broadway stardom again in Chayefksy’s Middle of the Night.

Robinson seems to have been an admirable person in many ways: good causes, artistic (great painting collection), a gentleman, intelligent. But he doesn’t seem to have been a particularly good father – Edward G Robinson Jnr was a boozer from the age of 12, constantly getting in fights and trouble, having a lousy acting career. His first marriage was also unhappy – she sounds like a bit of a bitch but also every time she had a nervous breakdown and wanted to get a divorce Robinson would send her to a clinic to get “fixed”… until he had a full on affair and wanted to dump her for his new wife. So that sounds a bit creepy. Maybe Robinson spent too much time thinking about his paintings, work and political causes and worry about his family. (The book is a bit hazy on this, apart from pointing out he picked up the tab for his useless son throughout his life.)

If Robinson had a stressful late 40s/50s, he had a very pleasant last decade or so in his life. He remarried happily, was in steady work, developed a love for travel, got involved in civil rights again, had some great roles (including The Cincinnati Kid). This is a good bio, a worthy treatment of an interesting star, being well researched and particularly strong on blacklisting.