Critically Misunderstood

McCowan !Critically Misunderstood Barbara McGowan Ripon College [McCowanB@mac.ripon.edu] Critically Misunderstood Tony Williams. Larry Cohen: The RadicalAllegories ofan Independent Filmmaker. McFarland, 1997. (453 pages, cloth, $49.59) This book contains a 267-page discussion of the television shows, films and theatrical works ofindependent filmmaker Larry Cohen, followed by a lengthy interview and separate shorter discussions with his ex-wife and other collaborators including actor Michael Moriarty. Cohen in his long career—that has spanned the era of 50's television to the making of movies for video distribution in the 90's—has been a screenwriter, director, producer, writer, and even a playwright. He sold his first script at the age of 17 to Kraft Mystery Theater and according to the author still dreams about making a large-budget, mainstream movie. In between , Cohen has done everything from working as an NBC page to convincing Irish-American fraternal groups to stage a free, pseudo-St. Patrick's Day parade for one ofhis independent film productions. The author Tony Williams—an associate professor of Cinema Studies at Southern Illinois University—describes Cohen as critically misunderstood and views him as a radical artist who uses satire to subvert the system from within. He celebrates Cohen's career as a practitioner of "guerrilla filmmaking " and identifies him as following certain signature themes throughout a varied career. These include identification with outcasts detached from the consumer society, and a suspicion of conventional human relationships as potentially oppressive. To support this view, Williams provides lengthy accounts and analyses of all of Cohen's works from his teleplays for such shows as The Fugitive and Branded to his directorial efforts including ßone, Black Caesar and It's Alive. He also furnishes large amounts ofinformation concerning the production, distribution and reaction to the films. Almost invariably, they were produced on a shoestring, and marketed as B-pictures: Black Caesar as a blaxploitation title, and Return to Salem's Lot as a horror movie. Since many were produced for direct video distribution, they were not reviewed by mainstream critics. Obviously Williams believes these titles deserve much better. The problem with William's argument is that it is difficult for anyone who is not a Larry Cohen aficionado to know ifWilliams has come up with a real instance of a neglected genius or just another example of a talented, prolific writer, and director who was not lucky or good enough to break into the major leagues ofbig budget filmmaking. Williams ' detailed descriptions of all Cohen's works point up the problem ofcommunicating the contents and feel of a film to someone who has not seen it. Williams continually alludes to comic strip influences on Cohen's style but it is hard to know exactly what this means from verbal assertion. Williams assures us that Cohen's approaches to film—while similar to John Cassavetes and Woody Allen—are more radical and innovative. Unfortunately, many works discussed are not readily available and Williams' praise of them is so fulsome that one begins to suspect that they are not all as incredibly good as he claims. In addition, Williams insulates Cohen from most criticism by blaming any shortcomings in his products on the system, the Hollywood controlled by "the new media robber barons of the late twentieth century." This book is a well researched, generally well written account of an active artist working in the constantly changing media world of the last forty years. The book—especially through the interviews—gives an interesting view of the industry at different levels from network television to independent , low budget film production. However, the book does not convince this reader, at least, that Cohen's works are brilliant allegories that deserve immense amounts of attention . Part of the reason is the admittedly difficult task of conveying film imagery and its force in book form. But the other problem is the author never seems unable to express any stance toward Cohen other than that of complete, uncritical acceptance. Ironically, a more subtle, textured approach to Cohen's filmmaking—that considered his weaknesses and strengths—might have encouraged more readers to rush to their nearest video outlet and demand some examples of the Cohen...