I have not read the Lumet book. Should be interesting though. I've been reading Larry McMurtry's book called Books, A Memoir. It's more about his obsession on collecting books, than movies, but he mentions movies a bit here and there and Hollywood too as he used to live in the area when they had optioned his books to make into a movie: Hud, The Last Picture Show, Lonesome Dove, etc. Since I have a collector mentality, and like to collect books as well, I find it interesting.
Ando, glad you are enjoying Books by McMurtry. He has another one called Roads, which I've not read, but sounds interesting. You might also enjoy the book by Peter Bagdanovich called Who The Hell's In it. It's conversations with some of Hollywood's famous actors.
I like Hitchcock, so that would be something I'd be interested in, thanks.
Glad to see you survived Sandy and even have power! For the past few years I've been making my way through Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World which begins with Homer and ends with Freud. I skimmed the two volumes of Aristotle and skipped the ancient math texts. I started reading Virgil but lost interest. Also skipped Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Augustine, Thomas Aquinus, and Dante. Currently I'm halfway through Montaigne's essays having just finished the book length Apology For Raimond De Sebonde, the gist of which is summed up by the line from Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Speaking of Shakespeare, his entire oeuvre comprises the next two volumes in the set.
I have the 1952 edition. The 1990 edition includes more recent literature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World
I used to sell these motherfuckers. There was a prepared pitch that was to be used to sucker unsuspecting marks into buying this shit.
I call it "shit" because their format is particularly obnoxious to those who actually like to read. I can't stand double-column texts myself -- many of the volumes are tedious and uncomfortable to wade through. Plutarch, for example, was a drag. (In fact, I read it alongside the North translation in a much more enjoyable print layout.) Gibbon, Shakespeare, etc. are scrunched into too few volumes.
What keenly annoyed me was the Adler-Hutchinson pomposity -- the educational elitism that first decides what are the great books, then decides what are the key ideas contained in those books, indexing and -- for lack of a better word -- "concordat-ing" them into an additional volume dubbed, with intellectual relish, The Syntopicon, perhaps the most useless and least used device in the history of education.
The first set didn't include de Tocqville -- and I'm not even sure that Freud made the list -- and the absence of Guicciardini is a decided blow.
In short, there's value in reading the authors highlighted in The Great Books series, but you bettah awff reading them in more accessible publications.
Yeah, well I happened to have them in my possession - part of my dad's library. I didn't waste any time on the introductory Great Ideas volumes. I rather enjoyed Plutarch though and Herodotus and Thucycdides as well.
-- and the translations are old. One would think that for the dough they charged for a set of those books they could pay for new ones.
I can't remember, but isn't the Herodotus translated by Rawlinson and Thucydides by Crawley (or Jowett)? You can get a better -- and far more readable -- Herodotus from Penguin, translated beautifully by de Selincourt.
And if you're hysterical to reprint a centuries old version of Thucydides, the Hobbes translation is the best I've ever read -- though I admit it's not the easiest to read. The University of Chicago press already publishes it in a paperback edition. And that's the same school where Adler and Hutchinson made their home.
I guess my biggest gripe is that their whole format seems designed less to disseminate great books and ideas than to seal them reverently under glass.