Ain't It Cool?: Hollywood's Redheaded Stepchild Speaks Out [Paperback]

"Ain't it Cool?: Hollywood's Redheaded Stepchild Speaks Out" starts out promisingly enough. The opening chapter explores Knowles' turbulent formative years coming of age in a severely troubled family environment. Raised by hippie parents who peddled vintage movie memorabilia for a living, Knowles' adolescence was thrown into chaos when his mother without warning abandoned her brood to move back in with her own family in rural Texas. Knowles was soon forced to join her there, amidst the company of relatives that, as Knowles describes it, were "the closest I've personally come to consummate evil". His mother eventually succumbed to chronic alcoholism and passed away under tragic circumstances. By then Knowles, now in his late teens, had returned to Austin to live with his father, whom he lovingly describes as his "best friend". Over the next several years Knowles helped his father run his memorabilia business until, one fateful day, an accident he suffered working at a collectors' fair left him immobilized for six months. This was during the mid-90s, when the Internet was just starting to make its way into domestic households. With little previous experience in computers, Knowles was soon expertly scouring the newsgroups and chat rooms, offering his insight and opinions to an attentive audience of fellow film aficionados. He learned to use the Internet as a research tool, digging up rare tidbits of news, gossip and conjecture and repackaging them for newsgroup distribution. Eventually he started his own website dedicated to the pursuit of providing original, breaking news about films in every stage of development and production. And thus, Ain't It Cool News was born.

Up to this point Knowles' tale is heartfelt, honest, and moving. Quickly, however, the book lapses into a self-aggrandizing portrait of the Movie Geek as Internet Revolutionary. He spends 300-plus pages fervently justifying his existence, bragging incessantly about the influential role his website has served to the culture of film fandom and to the film industry itself. He liberally dispenses anecdotes of his experiences rubbing elbows with Hollywood royalty, having us believe that movie directors routinely call him up in the middle of the night asking for career advice. He paints himself as a steadfastly independent-minded, free-thinking "film advocate" whose loyalty cannot be bought, but can be earned by making a good film. The only problem with that latter point is that, if one were to do a little research, this assertion of journalistic integrity is put into serious question. Knowles himself touches briefly upon some of the more disparaging accusations in his book, such as the controversy surrounding his coverage of the "Godzilla" world premiere in Times Square, but he is more defensive than apologetic in tone about his alleged transgressions and never admits to any wrongdoing.

I was also troubled by two chapters in Knowles' book that aggressively attack fellow Internet reporter Matt Drudge, and National Research Group chairman Joseph Farrell, respectively. In the latter case, I can understand Knowles' disillusionment with the film industry's controversial audience test-screening process (which Farrell's company solely administers), but I fail to see how distributing Farrell's private phone number to the press and obsessively analyzing a list of movies that Farrell may or may not like-in an attempt to infer something about his character-is helpful to Knowles' cause. The chapter dealing with Matt Drudge just feels dirty and cheap, as well completely out of place in the book. It is not appropriate for Knowles' to tout his own "Jeffersonian, liberal-humanist agenda" in the form of a critique on Drudge's personal politics, and then try to disguise it as a discussion on journalistic ethics. That in itself seems, to me, unethical.

The final chapter of the book is a call-to-arms for Hollywood to make better pictures, and Knowles offers a number of (highly unrealistic) suggestions on how the industry can alter its existing business model to accommodate his appeal for qualitative change. While I couldn't agree more that Tinseltown has for the most part been putting out an abysmal product for years, I have to question Knowles' own conviction that "movies should be better". Recalling some of his film reviews I had come across in the past, I decided to go to his website and see just how bad he thinks the majority of today's studio-produced pictures are. "Armageddon", "Charlie's Angels", "Rush Hour 2" and "The Mummy Returns" all received glowing reviews. It seems to me like Knowles is perfectly content with the kind of product Hollywood is churning out these days, so it's mystifying that he would purport to want to see broad changes in the way studios make films. Or maybe he just wants to establish some kind of journalistic credibility by offering a pseudo-intellectual analysis on the state of the industry. In any case, there seems to be a bit of disingenuousness on Knowles' part, both pertaining to his questionable journalistic standards and to the apparent contradictory nature of his attitude about the kinds of films Hollywood should be making.

There is no question that Knowles is a knowledgeable and passionate movie enthusiast who has a lot to offer in the way of film appreciation and connoisseurship and, to that end, his website will always serve a purpose. It is perhaps advisable, then, that the next time he decides to write a book, that should be the sole focus of his efforts.

So it is with little doubt in my mind that Harry's first book "Ain't It Cool? Hollywood's Redheaded Stepchild Speaks Out" will be met with both loving and loathing. Harry's fans will love the book regardless, Harry's detractors will hate it. Anyone unfamiliar with Mr. Knowles should well stay away from this poorly written tome.

Much like his site, Harry's book focuses way to much on his perception of things. Mind you, it is his book, and he can do whatever he pleases, but this autobiographical/film philosophy hodge podge comes across as little more than a self serving, self congratulatory ode to himself.

Note to Harry: When other people call you "revolutionary", it's creates the perception of truth. When you call yourself "revolutionary", well that's just kind of sad.

This book could have been so much more. Knowles has forgotten the fundamentals that made him popular in the first place. While he still wears the mantle of "outsider", he is anything but, and he makes that abundantly clear with constant anecdotes about Hollywood types that he rubs elbows with, and filmmakers that call him all the time just to talk. Metaphorically speaking, it's like the friend at work who gets promoted, then becomes your boss. They try and tell you that "nothing's changed", when in reality, they're welling up with pride and looking forward to the first time they can reprimand you. Harry's anecdotes all have that "ha ha, i'm here and you're not" vibe. Rather than a wide eyed, outsiders look at the internal mechanisms of the film industry, you get an anecdote laiden book, full of painfully obvious observations by a writer (or Three) who acts as if all of this is owed to him for some inexplicable reason.

Much like the Internet IPO's, Harry's book is something that should have been sold off two years ago. Aint It Cool: The Book, could be easily equated to the rise and fall of the internet. It has lots of potential, has way too much worthless information, and ultimately is nothing more than a complete waste of time. Personally, i don't believe in the internet's ability to make or break films. For every Blair With Project, there's dozens of other films that are released, make money, and perpetuate the careers of people supposedly hated by the Internet community. At the same time, Internet celebs and cult phenoms like Bruce Campbell have a difficult time finding roles. I don't believe Harry Knowles is some sort of visionary who has the ability to change the film industry. He's just a guy, and that's why i liked him to begin with. That's why i went to the site and read his grammatically challenged columns. This book has none of that charm. The book is an overwritten homage to Harry, and what he feels his role in the industry is.

Harry, if you write another book, let me give you a piece of advice. Just be yourself, and let the industry define your role in it. Spend more time on your thoughts and feelings about film, not the industry. Save your "geek manifesto" and other such nonsense. At the heart of your success if a normal, everyday guy. You were once easy to identify with. This book shows you are far from that point.

My other major complaint about the book is the fact that it took 3 people to express the thoughts of one man. Autobiographies with ghost writers? One of whom workled for Film Threat, a site that has spewed forth more bile about Harry than any other? Curious... Not even taking that into account, i can't concieve that it took 3 people to write and regurgitate this drivel.

Ain't It Cool? Is definetly a book that warrants reading if you're a fan of Knowles, and also a book to read if you're a detractor of him as well. There's enough morsels for the die hard Aint It Cool fans, and more than enough ammunition for the Aint It Cool critics. Personally, i just wish he had a more enjoyable book. All the posturing and posing, and self serving tales of his success do little to endear him to new readers. Harry might maintain his following with this book, but it certainly won't win him any new fans.