Biographies have
changed. Like other history books the authors aimed for a impersonal detached
and objective tone. Now, with changes in taste and philosophies, the authors’s
voice has become much more idiosyncratic and for mine, obtrusive. When Pamela
Stephenson, for example, is writing about her husband Billy Connolly, such a
personal approach may be justified. But many biographies these days seem to be
written in a much more direct even chatty style, even when they don’t enjoy
such a personal relationship with their subject.
The three latest
biographies I have read have spread across the gamut of modern biography. One
is old-school objective, another focussing on one section of its subject’s
career, and the third an unauthorised biography of a still-active artist covering
his entire life.
The first was Bomber Harris: His life and times the
life of Arthur Harris, who led Britain’s Bomber Command during World War II.
Harris still a controversial figure and Bomber Command’s tactics are still the
cause of argument. But from Dunkirk through to Normandy, bombers were the only
way Britain could fight against Nazi Germany and give support to the Russians
on the Eastern Front. After the war, Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments,
said the damage done by the bombers, the extra guns and troops stationed in
Germany to combat them, was as effective as a second front and a large part of
the reason Germany lost. This still leaves plenty of room for arguments about
tactics and strategies, and morality.
There is no easy
answer but the author fairly lays out the facts, opinions from others from the
era, and gives differing conclusions from other historians, while presenting
his own findings. In the end we get a pretty clear picture of the man both as a
person and as a military commander, his strengths and his flaws. If the book is
somewhat dry to read, and does get a bit bogged down in detail, it does what it
sets out to do: tell the life and character of Arthur Harris.
The second book is not
quite a biography but I’m not sure what else to call it. Clinton Heylin’s Despite the system: Orson Welles versus the Hollywood Studios examines the Welles’ Hollywood career, from Citizen Kane through to Touch of Evil from when he had complete
control of his film to becoming a director for hire. Here the author is not
afraid to make his voice heard at all and is quite scathing about a number of
previous biographies of Welles, as well as praising a few others. He is
especially scathing on half-arsed psychological assessments of Orson Welles
that ‘explain’ the number of films he did not finish. By contrast he shows the
hurdles the Welles had to overcome in terms of budgets and studio politics.
These are real, identifiable and demonstratable. And as an explanation of
Welles’ career, much more satisfying.
Welles’ personality of
course did not help him in playing studio politics. He was never afraid to call
a shovel a shovel or an idiot an idiot. He did have a tendency to indulge
himself at some expense to his employers. But he deserved better than what he
got. Welles’ control of his film Kane was unprecedented but now it is not
uncommon. Directors now have complete control of their films and what do we
get? More Kanes? No, we get “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Chrystal
Skulls” and the Star Wars prequels. It takes more than total control to make
good art
Heylin also gave me an
insight into Welles’ films I had not had before. Welles’ is a Brechtian
film-maker, drawing attention to the techniques of film as you watch it. Also,
as a result of his work on radio, he had a much more interesting and integrated
approach to the use of sound in film. Even today he would still be a radical in
Hollywood. When he was able to get these factors together, it made Welles’
films identifiable almost at a glance – and a listen.
He also puts to bed,
for mine, the theory that Welles did not write Citizen Kane, but rather, at
best edited what Herman J Mankiewicz wrote. Simply put, Mank’s scripts before and
after Kane was formulaic pot-boilers. Welles on the other hand was making films
that challenged Hollywood’s aesthetic, narratives and techniques for the rest
of his career. Welles was always ready to give Mank credit when it was due,
the ‘Rosebud’ Macguffin but one
example. It’s time some of his detractors gave Welles the same courtesy.
The next in this
biographical triumvirate is Low side of the road: The life of Tom Waits by Barney Hoskyns. I am an enormous fan of Waits, the wide range of his musical styles and his fun, provoking, often moving lyrics. Hoskyns is open about the music he likes and the music he finds not so essential. He is also ready to admit that others may disagree with his assessment - a radical approach for a critic. This is an unauthorised biography which
often means a hatchet job, but not in this case. This is an admiring biography,
while not shying away from aspects that Hoskyns does not find as admirable.
It’s an entertaining and informative read. I was delighted to read that all the idiosyncratic names that pepper Waits' work are from people he has known.
Waits has lead an
interesting life both professionally and personally. But unusually for these
times, he keeps his private life very private. He also believes that an
artist’s work should speak for itself and not be interpreted through the narrow
lens of autobiography. This is
part of what makes Waits such an oddity. All art is supposed to be confessional
and revealing one’s private life is supposed to be a sign of honesty. Both
these ideas, though popular, are questionable. (Incidentally, Arthur Harris
declined several offers to write his autobiography. He thought he had said
quite enough on the subject.)
Waits and his wife and
collaborator Kathleen Brennan asked people not to talk to Hoskyns, and Hoskyns
is quite open about that. However a number of people did speak to him, and
Waits himself has a sheaf of interviews published over the years, including
several with Hoskyns and the result is a good read, a good biography. Once
again, it had me going back to the music to listen to it with new ears, always
a good sign.
Three books, three
different approaches. All three are worth reading, but do any of them crack the
mystery of their subject? Ultimately no. Where talent for music, film or
leadership comes from is unsolvable. Welles and Waits have given us great art,
Harris is one of those responsible for our freedom. They are imperfect as we
all are. Perhaps in the biggest terms, biographies are another tool in our
ongoing attempt to make sense of human existence and the meaning of life. Or perhaps
we just find people interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment