The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood

The Whole Equation shouldn't work. It's written in a rambling style that is at times pompous, at times overly dismissive, and almost always self-indulgent. Additionally, Thomson tends to place much more importance on certain themes (like Nicole Kidman's performance in The Hours) than they deserve, thus bogging down the flow of the book.And yet, The Whole Equation does work. Once one get accustomed to the style, it's very clear that Thomson has married an intellectual's knowledge of the medium with a film lover's experience to create a history that is both informative and challenging. Particularly important are Thomson's ruminations on societal issues that motion pictures have impacted; like the increase in divorce rates, the power of celebrity, and the easy with which violence is seen as a viable (if not the only) option for dealing with disagreement. These ruminations make it clear that the strange mix of pretension and greed that fuels a movie's creation may not produce results that are beneficial to society.In the end, I was glad that my frustration with the writing style didn't overwhelm my appreciation for the book's themes. This book certainly isn't for everyone. But, for those looking for a new perspective on this topic, The Whole Equation will prove to be a worthy guide to that strangely powerful form of modern expression known as the motion picture.

Thomson's book is a great read despite (maybe because of) the idiosyncracies of the author. (We have to remember that Hollywood fashions fantasies and Thomson's wordy, often hard-to-follow ruminations throughout the book are themselves often the fantastical and unedited by-product of those fantasies he watches on the screen; and why should that be off-putting? Thomson, after all, has earned the right by his incisive criticism of film in earlier books to ruminate all he likes, hasn't he?). But I think his strictures against psychiatry and its practictioners' rush to Hollywood to score a killing with the well-heeled (who are themselves condemned for being selfish and self-absorbed and narcissistic for their reliance on the craft) is silly, even delusional. After all, Thomson spends a lot of time in his history establishing how the place can drive sane people crazy...Therefore, it's not surprising that Thomson gets the date of the publication of Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams wrong; it was 1899, not 1895.By the way, the criticisms above on Amazon were unusually thoughtful and helpful. In particular, they helped me understand the meaning of the book's title, as well as the justice of blaming Thomson for being too fast and loose with blaming HUAC solely for the awful results of putting Hollywood dissenters in jail and the subsequent blacklist. As was well said, the studios and the judiciary have a lot of the blame to share also.

Unfortunately, many reviewers here seem to be disappointed that this is not a standard history book---the author (or more likely, the publisher) perhaps bears some responsibility, given the subtitle. But it is not really fair to give a negative review to a book because it isn't the book you wanted it to be. (Admittedly, even paid reviewers in newspapers and magazines make this mistake often enough, but it is considered bad form.)Thomson is well-known as a man with strong opinions that are worth thinking about, even when you disagree. He has complex---and not easily summarized---ideas about what has driven the history of Hollywood, and anyone who has an interest in movies and their influence on our culture should consider reading this book.

An erudite, implicitly well filet of what Hollywood is and what it has meant to and for society in America and abroad. This is NOT your usual vicarious Hollywood "expose" genre documentary. This is a serious examination of Hollywood influenced filmmaking at the upper-division level. It IS quite thought provoking at times a may leave the reader in contemplation in all future TV or theatrical movie films one sees. I liked it overall.

Despite its title, this is not a true narrative history. It rambles, jumps from topic to topic. The author knows film and film history, but he's chosen to deliver it anecdotally. I finally ditched it when several pages on Chaplin were followed by several pages on Nicole Kidman. This reader kept asking, "Why is he telling me this, and why now?"

Rambling but excellent, incisive historian who gets down to facts and opinions

I had such expectations upon ordering this. Usually, I make pretty good selections to read from the various book review sources I use. In this case, I was duped.This book epitomizes high brow pretentiousness, i.e. 372 pages of pure psycho-babble. Too many pages are devoted to his obsession with the movie Chinatown, and his idol worship of Nicole Kidman. He can barely write a paragraph on cinema history without derailing into the meaning of life or some such.Somehow, I can see Mr. Thomson completing a page a day and having his wife read them back to him as he stared into a mirror...This is one that I plowed through thinking it could improve and I'd miss the salient points if I put it down early. The only thing I lost were hours I'll never regain.

THE WHOLE EQUATION reads more like separate observations than anything that coheres. David Thomson, so good in his WHO's WHO, seems to be in his own little world in a book that I desperately wanted to like, but found nearly impossible to read. The best parts are about CHINATOWN, Howard Hawks, and his trashing of TITANIC and EASY RIDERS. But, having read his other material, that's old news. The addition of sound in the 30s brought pictures forward, but moving away from black and white robbed them of something--again, old news from Thomson. In the end, I had to put it down because it was going nowhere.

I'm still reading this. However it is well up to Thomson's usual standard, being full of insight as well as very entertaining. Well worth the money for anyone with an interest in cinema and the movie industry.

Brilliant! I'm a big fan of David Thomson's writing and this lucid examination of the Hollywood film business from the silent to the modern era, is a classic.

good as expected

A profound book in many ways, written with an obvious passion for all things Hollywood. Thoroughly enjoyable.

David Thomson is probably the greatest film critic alive, and 'The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood' is an absolute masterpiece. Thomson is best known for the key film reference book 'The New Biographical Dictionary of Film' alongside his regular contributions to newspapers such as The Independent on Sunday. The front pages to this paperback edition of Thomson's 2005 book list a detailed oeuvre including such titles as 'Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles', 'In Nevada: The Land, the People, God, and Chance', 'Beneath Mulholland: Thoughts on Hollywood and Its Ghosts' and 'Showman: The Life of David O Selznick.' Thomson's best work, 'Suspects' sadly remains out of print - like the aforementioned titles it taps into Hollywood, and like this book advances on ideas about California, such books as 'City of Quartz' or multiple writings from Joan Didion ('Slouching Towards Bethlehem') who is quoted several times here...Thomson advances his history of Hollywood through the rubric of 'Chinatown' and its writer Robert Towne, with much reference to Hollywood box-office and production - which makes this book a companion to William Goldman's twin set 'Adventures in the Screen Trade' and 'Which Lie Did I Tell?' The 20-something chapters explore Hollywood and work as a history - though the book certainly is as 'provocative' as JG Ballard's cover-quote states - the fact the last 30 or so years are covered in just a few chapters sort of tells you how signifcant Thomson feels Hollywood is. The later chapters reveal Thomson's experience of watching 'The Matrix Reloaded' and how that type of cinema is different to the kind of film he championed (as 'The New Biographical Dictionary of Film' stated, Thomson's favourite films include 'His Girl Friday', 'Celine and Julie Go Boating' & 'That Obscure Object of Desire') - though Thomson notes here that someone like David Lynch ('Blue Velvet', 'Mulholland Dr.')can counter the negative view.'The Whole Equation' is one you can get lost in, as vital as the writings of Pauline Kael and more adventerous than a very good film writer such as Mark Cousins or Ryan Gilbey. The book is a joy to give yourself up to - marvel not only at the grammatical construction (a style definitely worth imitating...) but the insights and allusions to other works: Chaplin, 'The Day of the Locust', Cahiers Du Cinema, 'The Last Tycoon', 'Sunset Boulevard', Lillian Gish, Robert Towne...and surprising things like a critical reassessment of the much maligned 'Heaven's Gate' aligned to the great film book 'The Final Cut' (one of those obligatory film books like 'Film'). Thomson helpfully offers a list of related books you might want to pursue after...'The Whole Equation' is the best film book to appear in sometime, it manages to include an element of the gossip/personality focus of a book like 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' alongside more developed discourse (think Baudrillard on 'The China Syndrome' or Borges on 'Citizen Kane' - happy to veer off into historical/political or a book like Conrad's 'Chance'). Great stuff...