Actors Anonymous
by James Franco
Little A / New Harvest, Oct 2013
304 pages / $26 Buy from Amazon
James Franco seems to want to be anything he can think of. He is an actor-writer-director-producer-musician-artist, as well as a PHD candidate. This novel, Actors Anonymous, suffers from the same desires that the author does; it wants to be every kind of novel it can think of. The novel-group of stories-abstract meta sentences is arranged in a sort of alcoholics anonymous style, with twelve chapters apparently representing the twelve steps.
“I am an actor, so I can play everything. Everyone is in me, and I am a part of everyone.”
I think the main problem with this novel is trying to separate Franco from Fiction. When I read this book, all I could do is picture James Franco. So my reading of the book was colored with thoughts of ‘what an ego’, and ‘ugh’. Another problem was what I have already mentioned; trying to be many things at once.
“Sometimes actors hate acting because it comes so easily to them. They want to break out of it because it makes them feel silly, especially when they are adults (dressing up, putting on makeup, playacting), but they are scared to leave it because it’s all they have. It’s hard to put work into something else and start over.”
There is nothing wrong with breaking the ‘rules’ of ‘literature’. Breaking these rules is what has created some of the greatest works ever. But this book just tries so hard to break rules, which were already mostly broken. Its ‘edgy’, ‘weird’, and ‘meta’, but it just reads like a list of tropes. The plot, at least I think there is a plot, is thrown about all over the place, and the excuse used to justify its lack of clarity is ‘experimental’.
“I had Campbell’s soup for lunch with toast and butter and a glass of water. There was still nocall from the agent, so in the early evening I walked over to the library again and got Lust for Life, a movie about Van Gogh. As I walked back to the apartment, the sun was sinking into the smog. Back in the apartment, the light was a tattered gold-brown. I watched the film about crazy Van Gogh.”
Which is, again, another point that I found myself getting upset at, which is James can take as many risks as he wants, write whatever he feels like, and then go home to his million dollar mansion without a care. This book is just an exercise in his many PHDs. There is nothing for him to worry about. He can write whatever he wants, and he can market it with his film career money, and sit back and think of something else to do. There isn’t any real ‘experimentation’ here; it’s just a bored white dude with a lot of money and time.
“I’m here to entertain you, but I don’t really care about entertaining you, know what I mean?”
The Novel speaks for itself.
***
Rhys Nixon is a writer who lives in Australia. He has been published in electric cereal, Gesture magazine, and posts occasionally on his blog, rhysrhys.tumblr.com. He also has a book of poetry, It’s No Big Deal, I Don’t Mind, through Poetry will be made by all! 89plus and LUMA Foundation. http://
Tags: Actors Anonymous, James Franco, Rhys Nixon
Yeah,i felt like Palo Alto was just derivative intro to CW workshop drafts.
It’s weird reading a mediocre actor, even in something that you could argue is fiction (and I totally see the difficulty separating Franco from fiction), writing about how easy acting is for most actors. Why is it so hard for him to convince me he’s anyone other than James Franco?
a writer/actor has an ego? How dare he think he has something to say.
i think part of the thing is he knows it’s a problem and so he just goes for it instead of trying to make you forget that he’s james franco, which would be really hard (and maybe actually interesting). most people who find it natural to write as someone else have trouble convincing themselves they are the person they are supposed to be. james franco is constantly being reminded that he is james franco, and obviously he pretends to be other people all the time (even though we all still know that he is james franco) so when it comes to writing, there’s no reason to pretend
I will make my points out of order —
“Which is, again, another point that I found myself getting upset at,
which is James can take as many risks as he wants, write whatever he
feels like, and then go home to his million dollar mansion without a
care.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with the work. Honestly, if this is a review of the book, this line here is simply bad review writing. You, me, every artist in the universe can take whatever risks that they want. If I go home to a one bedroom apartment or a studio or the homeless shelter I lived at for a time, when I performed poetry and sold books in SoCal, it does not change the risks I took. I still wrote whatever the hell I felt like, because fear of taking risks has nothing to do with your means, but all to do with how true you are going to be to your craft no matter the fear of “not being published or the public appreciating your work now”, instead of in the future-tense (the future-tense we all assume we may one day be read in).
“There is nothing wrong with breaking the ‘rules’ of ‘literature’.
Breaking these rules is what has created some of the greatest works
ever. But this book just tries so hard to break rules, which were
already mostly broken.”
I get that. No real disagreement, in the sense it makes me sad when I see a writer trying so hard to do something different. Not because it comes naturally, but because that is supposedly what makes one cool — doing things differently. I am not saying that is what Franco is doing, but I understand this assessment. Let’s be real though, bruh — most of the writing out there today, and you know who I’m talking about, face the same claim against their work constantly. What makes them truer than Franco? Because he has a level of “celebrity”?
“I think the main problem with this novel is trying to separate Franco
from Fiction. When I read this book, all I could do is picture James
Franco.”
Yeah, I don’t know. That isn’t the author’s fault, is it? It’s more the problem of the reader who is unable to separate between the author and the work. Unless you are one who believes an artist cannot be separated from their work, that they are one in the same. I understand, he’s an actor who wrote a book using actors as a centerpiece. That does not mean every actor in this book is James Franco. And whatever image you have of James Franco should not play into the work by James Franco, because the book is not the literal embodiment of Franco.
It just feels like this review is about everything except the actual book. And it bothers me when work is judged first (FIRST) on the author and on the work second. See the work for what it is, then look at the creator. Weigh things afterward.
Wow, relax, huh? It’s strange to me when people bark at the efforts of famous people. I’m poor and live in Jersey, but hopefully my boyfriend and I will be moving to the Hudson River valley within the next couple months. If I were to, thereafter, publish a tractus, would it be scorned because I was then, well? And if the work wasn’t even worthy of scorn, nor of praise, conversely — because it had no merit whatsoever — would it only be scorned, anyway? I’m just saying, no bad blood, let people live and do whatever the fuck they want. Commentary is a plague. Do unto you, or yolo, or whatever.
It’s a worthy point about him, the public eye and all being a constant reminder to celebrities of their own personas. And to be fair, I don’t roundly dislike his work as an actor. I suppose what I’m angling at is a criticism that has been leveled at him many times before: he should devote more energy to fewer projects and do those projects well, instead what appear to be a lot of middling, half-baked efforts. That’s probably not fair, but in Franco, I see a guy who has stretched himself extraordinarily thin. The ego stuff is what probably precludes him from seeing this, or maybe it’s that he just doesn’t care. Good for him, but I still don’t see much in his writing efforts to admire. .
Y’all know that half the people hating on Franco are still going to get themselves on the reserve list for this book at their local libraries.
franco can publish and sell books with the ease that i can post a comment. rule breaking can hardly mean the same thing for him as it does for a different author, to whom fewer people would be ready to listen. franco has our attention, and he consumes our time more easily than other writers might. while no one would blame franco for being a celebrity, one might be harsher on a book that is widely bought, read, and discussed for few other reasons (if that is your judgement).
nor do i
Here we are, Andrew, having the same conversation on a different thread! MWAHAHAHAHA
I just wanna hug James Franco, remind him there is still love in this world.
maybe if Franco sold his own shit in a can at the library, i would go and have this conversation about his work
That cold, cold literary world especially.
That’s the joy of libraries. You can hate on his stuff and not pay for the privilege.
We love the hardest, us literary folk.
i stopped paying my taxes.
…as long as you still pay your overdue fines, I suppose.
that’s the joy of libraries–even in this day and age you can still get your shit can whiffs for free. for the record I love that Franco is trying
bless me. for my entire life, i have been smelling shit for free.
Francisco Franco… really? Man, I hate that fucking guy. Fascism? Hasn’t totalitarian government already gotten the ol’ college try?? Srsly.
Yoda
I agree with just about every Franco criticism under the sun, but one that’s often neglected is that HE WAS AND IS A TERRIBLE ACTOR. I’d have more understanding for the serious attention he receives from art and literary communities if he was, say, Daniel Day Lewis or Tilda Swinton. But aside from being really great in supporting roles as a slacker/stoner (i.e. “Pineapple Express” or “Freaks and Geeks”) this guy’s most well-received career choice is a joke. I wish that got brought up a lot more in debates about his place in the art world.