Reel lives

When you do a book like the "Biographical Dictionary," you get a lot of feedback from the general public about what you included or left out and also your take on things. Over the years that you've worked on this book, what are some of the most notable or recurring things people have said to you about those decisions?

Last night I was giving a talk about the book to a very friendly audience and there was one gentleman who made it very clear that he was a big fan of the book. But he said that he was actually offended by the entry that appeared for the first time in the third edition, about Johnny Carson. Johnny Carson seemed to him to be a person from a completely different world. I said that I understand that and tried to explain that Carson is in the book because when I came to America -- very eager, greedy to learn about America -- I watched a lot of television and Carson struck me as a man who was so expressive of certain American male attitudes.

There's also the fact that when Carson was on TV and in his prime, he was on for a number of hours per year that was the equivalent of 50 or 60 films. People on television, sometimes, we know awful well. And including him was a kind of gesture, to say, "Don't forget, there's a whole lot of TV people who we watch on screen, and often on film, too, who aren't in this book." And maybe they could be. Maybe this book should be a biographical dictionary of the screen or of screen people. Because maybe that's the crucial thing. The screen is the invention, more than film or tape. A few people have remarked on the Carson thing. Film purists find it jarring.

There are always people left out. This time there are some Asian and Iranian filmmakers, with great claims to be in the book, who are not there. I'd have to say that reflects the fact that I've not seen enough of their films. I have to be honest about this book. But whenever you end it -- and you know this because you did a reference book -- you leave people out, and you've got to live with it.

It's always surprising what people zero in on, though. You think, I've got to cut so-and-so, but I'll never hear the end of it, and then nobody makes a peep. Instead they're on your case for not including someone you didn't seriously consider.

A couple of young people have looked at the book and said, "Adam Sandler's not in it." That's a good point. Adam Sandler doesn't interest me, so he's not in the book. But he's important, so maybe I should have said, "Why doesn't he interest me?" and written about that. Whenever people complain about an omission, they've got a point.

On the whole now, though, people have learned -- and accepted or not -- that it's a book to be read. The idea that it's a reference book is a bit of a trick. It's a book to be read, to make you begin to argue. It's meant to be provocative and to encourage some kind of critical conversation, in your head and with your imagined version of me. What's nice about going to a bookstore and meeting people is that you get into that conversation for real.

Do you have a favorite new entry?

The one I worked hardest over was the Graham Greene one. It's not that I like Greene, but he's meant a lot to me in my lifetime and I take that very seriously. But I think the one I felt the best about was the Hoagy Carmichael entry. Did you know, by the way -- I only heard this recently -- Ian Fleming believed that Hoagy Carmichael should have played James Bond?

That's unimaginable. He's too short, and there's never been anyone more Midwestern than Hoagy Carmichael.

Totally, totally! Makes Ian Fleming sound even stranger still. A very strange man.

Do readers have a favorite entry?

One of the entries that gets most persistently brought up in a teasing but fond way is the entry on Angie Dickinson. As long ago as the first edition, I wrote that I could even stop the book there because she's my favorite actress. I love her -- I've never met her -- I truly love her. Whether she's my favorite actress, well, that's a silly concept. I said it to provoke, and I said it because she was probably the most far-fetched of my favorite actresses. If I were to list all of my favorite actresses, she'd be the one -- either her or Tuesday Weld -- that would raise the most eyebrows, because Angie Dickinson and Tuesday Weld are not thought of as great actresses in the Dame Edith Evans category. So, it would get an argument going. And I adore her.

One of my favorite entries is the James Dean one because it includes a description of you seeing him on-screen for the first time, and what the theater was like, an old-fashioned movie palace.

That one's had a lot of attention, too. From the very beginning I knew I didn't want every entry to begin "So and so was born and etc." I knew that as often as I could I wanted to get a very personal opening, that started an unexpected line of thought or argument about a person. A few of the entries do begin with a first encounter with someone. Dean was very special because by the time I saw my first James Dean film, he was dead already.

So he was already tragic before you first saw him?

Absolutely. That makes a big difference. The cult had begun and when you went to see a James Dean film in England you knew that you were going to an extended funeral.

Next page: The art of being photographed