I usually enjoy Thomson but this book not so much. Just a bit too erudite and self indulgent. And the ARC was really hard to read. I would read his film biographies first, Welles and Selznick.

Especially because it was coming from this eminent author and movie authority, this book was a disappointment and felt slapdash. Would have been better as one essay in a series rather than a whole book.

As usual with Thomson the commentary is full of smart apercus of the impulses of what we perceive murderers are about especially as we see them in the movies. However the book is still in first draft stage ..it never quite coheres.. there are numerous non sequential comments and no overarching argument (and sometimes I positively disagreed .. no, I actually have not had impulse to kill someone , sure, extreme irritation at times but that's it). I got a quarter of way through feeling like I was ducking and diving. Il continue at some point I guess .. to see if he digs out ..

i really enjoyed reading this book, it was well researched and I had felt it was greatly informative.

A good overview of the subject which I found interesting.

Thank you to NetGalley and to the publisher for allowing me to read this in exchange for an honest review.

It is plain that Thomson is passionate about the topics she covers in "Murder and the Movies", however she rarely delved deep into them.

2 stars | DNF at 100/240

I've decided to stop reading Murder and the Movies at about halfway mark. It is plainly obvious David Thomson is passionate about the subject, and obtains a treasure trove of knowledge and trivia, however the meandering writing style makes the content very difficult to digest.

The book reads like a run-on sentence, where the subject at hand is compared with a previous topic mentioned pages earlier (often in the 15+ pages range), and the comparison itself becomes another point of discussion, to be referenced to another 15+ pages further. Not only is it difficult keeping track of all the open topics, it also feels very aimless. In short form, like an essay, I can see this tree-branching approach being very engaging, as it pairs up disconnected concepts into an unexpected conclusion. But as a 200+ pages book, it constantly feels like the author is simply spitballing random thoughts without a formalized structure.

Perhaps I'm not patient enough to read it through the end, and see how all the puzzle pieces fit together, but as someone who love cinema and am always on the look out for deep dive into the subject, I cannot recommend Murder and the Movies as a place to start.

***This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. Much appreciated!***

Murder and the Movies by the celebrated film critic David Thomson seems to be a direct continuation of ideas that he explores in one of his previous books, How to Watch a Movie.
As the title suggests, in it, the author tries to find out why we the viewers enjoy watching murders on screen.

While undoubtedly a very interesting topic, and one that has made numerous film scholars rake their brains for the past century or so, Thomson miserably fails to deliver on his promise. The reasons for that are many but here I will focus on only two.

The first is the fact that the book is simply all over the place, topic-wise. He jumps from movie to movie and from topic to topic, equally sharing unimportant anecdotes and making very philosophical and grand statements without spending any significant time to actually defend them or at least try to convince the reader in their validity. This creates the impression of the writer being a little bit cocky like he’s thinking that he is a superior great author and we the readers should just follow what he thinks.

And what he thinks, actually, is quite outdated and problematic. For example, he draws a connection between onscreen violence and murder and real-life crime and homicide, which is to say the least highly contentious. It is also something that has been proven on numerous occasions to be wrong. Yet, in 2020 we are presented with the same “finding”.

Though fans of the author might enjoy his peculiar reading of cinema texts and his confusing and problematic mixing of text and reality, Murder and the Movies is ultimately a very disappointing book and a waste of time.

3.5 stars

This book, Murder and the Movies, by British film critic and historian David Thomson, might be considered "a panorama of mayhem, a miscellany of malice." Thomson writes about the ubiquitous depiction of death and murder in the media, especially films, and asks what it says about us, the consumers who happily watch all the dying and destruction.

In his discourse Thomson skips around from topic to topic, including:

personal anecdotes: like the time his father showed him a ravaged homeless beggar, and said it was former British welterweight champion Johnny Summers;

history: like a tidbit about infamous cult leader Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre;

television shows: like the large number of characters murdered in the first season of Ozark;

mass killings: like school shootings perpetrated by "inhuman forces [that] keep getting access to guns, sometimes guns with video-game momentum";

philosophy: like his assessment that "some young people are in despair over their lives and the potential for life" so that "they begin to shift towards the impersonality of electronic media that measures lives as digital hits";

Kevin Spacey: like his opinion of the disgraced star, "who was an exceptional actor....the real and lasting thing: insightful, risk-taking, and ambiguous." Thomson laments Spacey's banishment from Hollywood, and says "he may be dead to his art - and that will be a loss to all of us as well as to the other people who could be employed on his projects";

satire: like Jonathan Swift's pamphlet 'A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick' - which suggests that 'babes' should be sold to the rich as 'delicacies and choice food stuffs';

......to riffs on Lee Harvey Oswald: Agatha Christie; Alfred Hitchcock, and more.

For the most part, though, Thomson dissects death in films, and our reaction (or lack of reaction) to the killings....be it murder, manslaughter, casualties of war, or something else.

As a renowned critic, Thomson saw a plethora of movies, from little known films shown in only thirteen theaters - like Keith Maitland's 'Tower, to blockbusters - like Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. Thomson opines about detective films; true crime movies; war films; comedies; live theatre productions; television series; and books - ranging from early entertainments to modern ones.

Thomson's appraisals are generally detailed and long, covering many aspects of the arts, especially movies. For films, Thomson discusses things like plot; scenes; denouement; actors; director; cinematographer; location; cost; prizes; remakes; and more. To provide a taste of Thomson's thoughts, I'll give some brief examples:

⦿ Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining': "One of the coldest comedies ever made, and an admission of how murder can get into our blood. In The Shining, RED RUM sounds like a pick-me-up for a cold winter's night, until we see that the scrawled word in the a mirror says MURDER."

⦿ Steven Spielberg's 'Jaws' - "There was really no future in Jaws if that opening scene didn't provide the enterprise with a good-looking corpse.....ripped and shredded by [shark] teeth."

⦿ Anthony Minghella's 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' - "Tom Ripley feels an urge to murder his new chum, a perfect, arrogant shit named Dickie Greenleaf".....and then thinks of something brilliant...."He could become Dickie Greenleaf himself." Thomson says, "Tom does it in existential irony, to pass the time, and as a response to the absolute unfairness of being alive." (Note: This assessment is a bit too philosophical for me. Maybe Tom is just a greedy shit. 😝)

⦿ Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' - "Hitchcock was English, till the end. Faced with the slaughter of Marion Crane, he did it daintily, fastidiously. He boasted that, in that shower scene in Psycho, you never saw a knife entering flesh. It was just that you thought you had seen it." (Note: In my opinion, that shower scene is waaaay not dainty. 🥺)

⦿ Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's television documentary 'The Vietnam War' - "It is steadily conceded that official 'permitted' combat killing was one thing, and the casual offing of civilians, or 'the wrong gooks' was another. Still, there will always be a conservative interpretation of military killing that regards it as men's work, a duty that will let guys be all that they can be." (Note: This seems harsh, but true. 😏)

⦿ Director David Fincher - "Fincher is one of the few exceptional and personal directors left in America. When I say personal, I am talking not just about the authentic signature of his style - he is a planner more than a poet, and an expert with the camera, with sound and actors - but in his choice of material." (Note: Fincher's films include: Alien 3, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and Gone Girl.)

⦿ David Fincher's 'Se7en' - "John Doe (the murderer) is one of the most organized and authoritative people in cinema. He devises murders that would be beyond the imagining of most of us. You'd have to love your work to have such care and patience over it." John Doe uses the seven deadly sins as his motive, and "to demonstrate gluttony, a man has been forced to eat until his stomach bursts - here are the spilled guts." (Note: This is one of the most scary and disturbing movies I've ever seen. 😨)

⦿ Fred Zinneman's 'Day of the Jackal' - Edward Fox played the Jackal, an assassin hired to kill French President Charles de Gaulle. "The drawn-out process of preparation for the killing makes us hushed accomplices to it all, and Fox seems like a good fellow dedicated to the task. A part of me sees that film repeatedly in the daft hope that the Jackal might succeed - it is HIS day." Ha ha ha 😊

⦿ Martin Scorcese's 'Taxi Driver' - "It is a searing portrait of a lost soul, a would-be saint, a Vietnam wreck, a man uncertain how to go mad but drawn to it, and a dangerous, likely killer (called Travis). Travis thinks of saving a maybe-fourteen hooker. In that process he murders three people, and it is up to us to decide how justified or deranged he is."

To make his point about murder in movies, Thomson writes, "We know that "murder is not at all pleasant.....It's horrid; It's bad; It's the last thing in the world you want to have come your way." He goes on, "But why do you watch so much of it if it is really hideous, or disturbing, or simply not your kind of thing?"

For myself, I'd answer that we watch movies - or read books - because they're entertaining. I don't agree with Thomson's tarring us with the brush of 'indifference to killing' because we watch detective movies or war films and the like. I'd say, we just want a bit of escapism. 😊

On the downside, the book is a bit all over the place and overly philosophical. Still, I enjoyed the narrative, and would recommend it to movie buffs - who'd appreciate Thomson's extensive knowledge of the entertainment industry.

Thanks to Netgalley, the author (David Thomson), and the publisher (Yale University Press) for a copy of the book.

I can tell that "Murder and the Movies" was written by somebody with interesting thoughts but this book unfortunately offers little depth on the broad topics it covers. Thomson jumps from film synopsis to political commentary to memoir throughout the book and doesn't linger on any one topic long enough to say anything particularly convincing. I'd be interested to see how the author would handle a narrower topic of discussion, as this book is well-written despite its other faults. Thanks to NetGalley for providing an advance copy for review.

I love the movies and I do like a spot of murder with my morning coffee, but for me this books misses the mark. I am well aware, that I am probably the minority in this respect, but i have to say it bored me.

I read this on my kindle, whether, it is just the proff i read, but it does not seem to have any chapters, I am the kind of reader that likes chapters, I like to reach the end of a chapter before i stop reading , this just had constant text and it was a tad overwhelming, call me strange, I don't care!

I get the point of the book and the author is trying to make us use our brains, by thinking about murder and society, are we now so numbed by the everyday occurance in popular culture, ie, books, films and TV, let alone listening to the news are we loosing our morale code?

I did like to read the film references in this, especially if i have watched the movie and especially remember the scene in which the author is writing about, but alas, this was a no from me.

This is about the age-old question of aesthetic spectatorship: why do we derive pleasure from observing evil acted out? Aren’t we = complicit, mixed up in the wrongdoing of others, even if only through the desire or imagination? Aristotle raised this issue all those years ago, but he lacked Thomson's moral confusion.

This thoughtful and readable book is about the age-old question of aesthetic spectatorship: why do we derive pleasure from observing evil acted out? In deriving enjoyment from the spectacle of suffering (here murder) aren’t we complicit, mixed up in the wrongdoing of others, even if only through the desire or imagination? Aristotle raised this issue all those years ago, but he dived into technical aspects of plot without letting the moral issues get under his skin. Thomson is stong on the questions and doubts.

Thomson’s writing is always casually thoughtful, mixing movie history, first person asides and direct address to the reader. He is charming company, open and eloquent and with an encyclopaedic knowledge of film always puts neat examples within our reach. This is the right style and tone for a conspiratorial chat about what we really get from movies.

Thomson raises moral questions of great complexity. Do we delegate our evil desires to films creating the distance necessary for plausible deniability? Is there a fatal complicity between shooting a film and cold-blooded shooting? Worryingly, having raised these issues so brilliantly it is a bit frustrating that they tend to vanish or get replaced by the next beguiling set of thoughts. At times the book becomes a list of films that rehearse real-life murders or female killers, or sniper films. Then it draws to a close.

At the end of the book he praises Akomfrah's video installation Vertigo Sea, which features 3 screens of ocean scenes. Thomson says this sets up 'many fluent associations, half-heard rhymes, or crossed references'. That is Thomson's own style as well. I would add the sense of depths but also a mobile surface. An enjoyable journey; just don't worry about your destination.

Review based upon an ARC copy supplied by NetGalley

david thomson's 'murder and the movies' has some of the most lyrical writing in an academic-adjacent text i have ever read. his analyses of movies are succinct yet enjoyable, offering different views on murder within the media we consume and whether or not we, as the audience, are complicit in the killings we witness through the screen. he positions the watcher as a voyeur of sorts, and i found it fascinating to read about.

however, thomson's views are clearly of his time in several ways. repeatedly referring to sex workers as 'whores', for one, and i feel there was an unfair bias against women. nearly every chapter focuses on male killers and women as their victims, while women killers only receive a single chapter, as if thomson didn't really care for understanding the brutality of women. in many films focusing on women killers, the driving force behind them is generally due to previous sexual trauma they suffer, and it felt like thomson didn't spend enough time exploring that element of their narratives.

there is also a lot of talk about kevin spacey and woody allen, as well as roman polanski, figures who are very much disliked in the film world due to being abusers. thomson insists that their acting and directing skills are 'real' and should therefore not be pushed to the side; however, the trauma of their victims is also very much 'real', and it's not really much of a loss that they are so hated now when the people they have hurt have to live with what their abuse for the rest of their lives. i've found it difficult investing myself in film criticism and theory because so many critics insist that these 'greats' be cherished when so many of them were abusers, overlooking genuine talent in favour of people who used their power to hurt others throughout their careers.

when a writer spends more time critiquing others for refusing to watch films made and featuring abusers, than he does on women in film and their narrative arcs, it's very hard for me to enjoy the work. i think the editor of thomson's book should have taken a step back and thought long and hard on if allowing a white man in his late 70s to make up excuses for abusers was a good idea to include in a book releasing in 2020.

in spite of my issues with thomson's thought process, this is one of the quickest nonfiction academic works i've ever read, and if you think you'd be able to stomach the more heinous parts of the analyses, i feel that he offers some interesting insight into viewer participation.

My thanks to Netgalley and Yale University Press for a copy of “ Murder And The Movies” for an honest review.
I found this to be a very entertaining and informative book. I’ve read David Thomson books before and so know how extensive his film knowledge is, and how readable his style of writing is ,without being too technical
Reading this has made me want to rewatch films that I haven’t seen for ages , and ones that I seem to have missed.
Recommended to anyone who loves films

Through NetGalley.com, I read an advanced copy of Murder and the Movies by David Thomson, a long time film critic/writer of great note. The author explores how films have evolved in their depiction of death/murder in conjunction with how society has changed.

From Agatha Christie to The Godfather, Hitchcock to Kubrick, Thomson discusses many of the biggest films in the last hundred years. From the rather chaste way movies handled murder in the ‘30’s to the blood and gore of today, the author clearly illustrates how the movies have changed over time. Further, Mr. Thomson examines the relationship of how art influences life and vice versa including the troubling increase in mass shootings that plagues our society.

This was a quick read that I devoured in one sitting. Both entertaining and thought provoking, I would strongly recommend this book. 5 Stars.

Plenty of people have tutted and clutched their pearls at cinema's fascination with killing, but for the most part they're Mary Whitehouse types, and they would say that, wouldn't they? I won't say we should ignore them, but only because ceaseless vigilance is necessary to stop them regaining the least foothold. There is no interest in what they have to say, no merit. They are conforming to type, and fundamentally they have no understanding of what film can be, what it means, even – for all that they fear its corrosive effects – of its real power.

David Thomson, though, was at Britain's first public screening of Psycho. He's spent a long career analysing and rhapsodising about films. So when he starts voicing similar worries...well, it's not so much that he might be right. It's not even as unprecedented as all that; even now, plenty of people get a touch of the old late-life repentance. If it becomes a habit, if he starts popping up hither and yon suggesting that maybe censorship would be a good idea after all, then I shall rapidly lose patience. But one brief work expressing his compunctions, one anomalous cry de profundis in a career otherwise devoted to praising the medium? That's interesting. And I'd always much rather read something interesting than something correct (For pleasure, I mean. If it's the instructions to a vacuum cleaner, I'll take dull but accurate every time). Handy, then, that Thomson is, for me, nearly incapable of writing a piece that doesn't sparkle. Your mileage may vary on that, of course, and this is him in full flow; if you don't already know that you like his style, one of his standard reference works, or the bigger, more solid books like The Big Screen and The Whole Equation, might be a better place to start. This is associative, hopping from idea to idea, dropping in whole chunks of autobiography, frequently comparing films that exist to ones which do not but make for fascinating parallels all the same. It's not even entirely a single piece so much as a collection of linked essays with recurring themes – above all, the complicity of filmmaker, audience and killer even in films which ostensibly go along with conventional morality as regards murder being, on the whole, a bad thing. Is he right? I don't know. I don't think he's entirely wrong, and I enjoyed reading his argument. I loved the little details like Alec Guinness demanding Kind Hearts & Coronets have more deaths, even if it was one of the times I found myself mentally rechristening the book (in a Royston Vasey accent) ''Ow Many Killin's?'

There are gaps, of course. There always will be, especially in a book this brief. Some are unavoidable; he was writing in 2018, in a gap between school shootings (at one point he presciently suggests that maybe the solution was to abolish schools – and hey, the 2020 stats from the US confirm that as a success!), so the tedious fact of time means he can't include Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood, a fascinating example of a director known for his violence making a film in which the audience is praying for the violence never to begin, just as we would in real life, just like you don't expect to when watching Tarantino. Elsewhere, though...his presumed director is male, and not very nice – Hitchcock looms large, in all senses. Now, if you asked me to picture a director, I would indeed default to picturing an unpleasant male, but other flavours are available, and particularly when there's a passing mention of The Hurt Locker I thought, now wouldn't Kathryn Bigelow be an interesting case study, her films certainly not shying from death and damage? Would he find a difference in her approach? From this book, at least, we'll never know.

Still, much like those films whose counterfactual versions Thomson considers (The Seventh Seal courtesy of Preston Sturges!), while I might like to see other worlds' versions of Murder And The Movies, I definitely appreciated the one I got – the late, contradictory, but beautifully phrased thoughts of one of my favourite film writers. As mortal as he's evidently feeling, long may he keep evading the Reaper, whether Bergman's version or Sturges.

(Netgalley ARC)

If you've read David Thomson's novels Silver Light and Suspects, you're familiar with how he plays with movie history. He mixes the characters in films with the actors who play them. For Thomson the history of Hollywood is no more or less true than the stories on the screen.

In this book Thomson asks us if we could commit the crimes the filmmakers use to entertain us. What he won't do is let us off the hook. The point of movies is the audience identifying with the hero. But what if the hero is a monster?

(Thanks to NetGalley and Yale University Press for a digital review copy.)

Through a broad sweep of film history, a renowned movie critic offers insights into how the treatment of death on screen has evolved. I enjoyed reading the author’s witty remarks and learning how Hitchcock and others worked. Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing an advance copy for an honest review

This is the book I never knew I needed. A comprehensive examination of death and film and what it says about our humanity. I loved these interpretations that made me think and question my viewing habits