| Entertainment & Performing Arts |
|
|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 A Cast of Killers:The Twentieth Anniversary Edition Feb 16, 2008
"A Cast of Killers" holds a number of surprises. A true murder mystery that blends silent film stars,corrupt law enforcement,and sensational journalism into a unique cocktail of intrigue and deception. For plot it ranks with the best of classic mysteries and proves the cliche that "fact is truely stranger than fiction. A must read for film and mystery fans.
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
5 Stars for entertaining story; 2-3 for veracity Aug 18, 2007
This book reads like an exciting Hollywood murder mystery (which it is), but after reading Robert Giroux's version (Deed of Death), I am inclined to believe that Kirkpatrick's version (based on research by Hollywood director King Vidor) has taken a few liberties and definitely put more weight in some of the juicy (but not necessarily true) anecdotes. Still, if you want a "can't put-down" book that talks about Hollywood of the Silent Era, you won't go wrong with this one. The subplot about Mary Miles Minter and her family is a little creepy, and at the end, somewhat sad as well.
5 of 5 found the following review helpful:
As Compelling as a Good Film, Which It Should Have Been Mar 27, 2006
A Cast of Killers is a once-in-a-lifetime read: a nonfiction tale told in the style of the best detective fiction, based on the memoir kept by the "private eye", moviemaker King Vidor, discovered by would-be Vidor biographer Sidney Kirkpatrick. Vidor didn't make the film he wanted to, based on the facts he uncovered and the conclusions to which they led, because some of the principals in the case were still around, and could have been hurt by the revelations (they also could have sued, forcing him to prove the allegations in the now forever-unmade film in court).
But Kirkpatrick wasn't under that kind of threat in 1986, and he told the story in book form much as I think Vidor might have told it on film--except that Vidor would have set the film in the 1920s when it all took place. The book follows Vidor's own investigation, undertaken in the late 1960s, and offers the conclusion he arrived at, not as the final word forever, but as the only possible conclusion given the information he'd uncovered.
The murder of prominent film director William Desmond Taylor in 1922 nearly destroyed Hollywood--or, at least, the resulting scandal nearly did. Two prominent stars, Mary Miles Minter and Mabel Normand, did have their already star-crossed careers destroyed by the revelations that came about as a result of the murder. Vidor's investigation gives reason to doubt some of those revelations, if not all of them.
What is obvious is that a murder investigation was tampered with, and quite possibly severely, by a number of the principals in the story, with the hoped-for (by the tamperers) result that the truth was never known, the most likely suspect never brought to trial. The way this all happened, as revealed by Kirkpatrick in true detective fiction style, is fascinating reading.
Then there is the matter of the movie studios' (specifically Paramount's) desperate need to do "damage control" after Taylor's murder to keep even bigger scandals from emerging, the kind that would have condemned the movie business for sure in the moral atmosphere of the 1920s, in which such a "sin" as drinking alcohol was forbidden by law. How and by what means this "damage control" was accomplished is another fascinating aspect of the story.
There have been and will be those who carp at the conclusions King Vidor (and Kirkpatrick) have reached as to the identity of William Desmond Taylor's murderer and said murderer's motive, citing this possible discrepancy and that not-fully-proven assertion. The credo of a great detective of popular fiction asserted: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
To accomplish this, you have to be in possession of a great deal of information about the crime, and about everyone even only peripherally involved, as well as the intelligence to sort it all out. Vidor had this uniquely complete perspective, knew many of the people involved, and most importantly knew the Hollywood of the era in which it all happened.
I don't think we will ever get a better, or more surprising, or more satisfying take on one of the great unsolved crimes of the early 20th century. I'm personally sold on Vidor's conclusions. I wish he'd made it into the good film he'd have been capable of doing, though his reasons for not doing so are clear and compelling.
Most importantly for those who love detective stories, fiction or fact, this is a "fireplace and hot chocolate" kind of book, guaranteed to provide great recreation and something to think about. I loved it, I've read it through six times, I'll probably read it a few more!
3 of 7 found the following review helpful:
 We'll Never Know Sep 28, 2005
A Cast of Killers is a fascinating account of the murder of William Desmond Taylor and a sleuthing director King Vidor on the trail of who murdered him. Vidor wants to make a film about the Hollywood scandal which turned up no results and left an open case for the police. Along with Colleen Moore, lover and business partner, Vidor researches a case filled with contradictions and cover-ups.
This book's print is rather large, and it makes the 300 pages go back rapidly with aid from the intriguing story. It is also highly suspenseful and entertaining. Even if the reader has no idea who William Desmond Taylor, Mabel Normand, Mary Miles Minter, or King Vidor are, he or she will still most likely enjoy the book.
The afterward is outdated by now because the book was published in 1986. All of the Hollywood names mentioned are no longer living, and it is doubtful that any of the others are alive anymore.
Even under the assumption that the story is true, one finds it hard to believe because of the format of this book. It reads like a fiction mystery novel or an episode of the popular television show Law and Order. However, this book is hardly credible. The "facts" in it are said to be from private papers King Vidor had together that were set aside for his film project. These documents consist of transcripts illegally obtained from the police and interviews from witnesses or friends to witnesses that are not deceased. None of these documents are properly cited; there is a lack of a bibliography or an appendix. The only citation states that the information was received from Vidor's son who made his father's notes available to the author. The claims the author makes about this book being the "true story of Hollywood's most scandalous murder" seem strange considering how much effort Vidor put into attempting to prove his theory. Kirpatrick seems to have made no such effort.
Other questions come to mind when regarding the validity of this book. How did Kirpatrick come across the information that Vidor knew who killed Taylor and why were the findings so easily given to him after Vidor decided NOT to publish the information in fear of hurting people? And if the book were published because the author felt that no one alive who remembered or was attributed to the case would be negatively affected, why then did the police department not confirm the accusations in the book as being valid and close the case?
This book is controversial, even today. If it were less sloppy, it could have been a major breakthrough in the case of William Desmond Taylor. As it is, A Cast of Killers is a highly entertaining and enjoyable work of fiction. Taken literally, it is only comparable to such trash as Hollywood Babylon.
5 of 9 found the following review helpful:
 A cast of likely suspects, perhaps Jul 06, 2005
While "A Cast of Killers" makes for an entertaining read, rest assured that that's all it is - entertainment. To be blunt, not only is the book full of errors, but it reads as either the hokiest mystery ever written, or at a failed attempt at irony, the irony being that it plays out like a Hollywood murder mystery.
The biggest problem with this book is that one never knows whose research the book is relying on - Vidor's or Kirkpatrick's. There are holes in this story big enough to throw a cat through - if they are holes left by Vidor, then Kirkpatrick should have filled them. If they are holes left by Kirkpatrick....ahem.
While the books does most certainly invoke the Hollywood of the 1920s, when the movies were in their infancy, it ultimately fails to either, A. shed a great deal of light on just who William Desmond Taylor was, or B. even plausibly solve the mystery of his death. I.e., most of the information about William Desmond Taylor in this book is either assumed or inferred - with little evidence to corroborate it.
SPOILER ALERT:
And as for the facts surrounding the murder that Vidor and/or Kirkpatrick present... to say that most of them conflict or simply do not compute is an understatement. For example - apparently Paramount wanted to hide the fact that Taylor was a homosexual, and sent in a team of studio employees to scour his bungalow in the hours after his death. Vidor/Kirkpatrick's evidence for this assertion is what Vidor (or was it Kirkpatrick?) apparently read through the lines of the police reports, and the insinuations of a not-so reliable associate of Taylors. Yet, after we are supposed to be convinced that Taylor was a homosexual, we are then asked to believe that Mary Miles Minter's mother killed Taylor because she thought he was going to run off with MMM. And considering that part of the evidence for this solution to the mystery is calls back and forth between WDT and MMM around the time of the murder, with WDT encouraging MMM to leave her mother and come live with him, and MMM's belief that he wanted to marry her... well, you get the picture. One doesn't know what version of WDT to believe, which ultimately hurts the book.
And, to sum it all up, in his acknowledgements, Kirkpatrick mentions Bruce Long, whose Taylorology website/newsletter provides more intelligent insight into the WDT murder than Kirkpatrick or Vidor ever imagined, calling Long a "fan" of the murder. A FAN for the love of God! Kirkpatrick would have been wise to heed this FAN'S counsel. Maybe the book would have been better.
|
| | |
|
|
