RICHARD GERE:THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT
by John Parker
Headline Book Publishing, London
(mass market paperback 331 pages ISBN 0-7472-5161-4 $11.95 U.S.)
(hardcover 282 pages ISBN 0-7472-1558-8 $24.95 U.S.)Book Review by Angel
© 1997 ANGELIS PRESS“It was never the money.”
So declares Jodie Foster, in the character of Laurel Sommersby. She is leaning over Richard Gere, a razor in her hand. As she lifts the razor from his neck, he raises his arms and places his hands, with some hesitation, around her waist.
“Couldn’a been love — now could it?” he drawls. Narrowing her eyes, she virtually hisses at him, “COULDA been.”
A deafening silence follows as Foster lays the razor against the throat of her long-lost and frequently abusive husband, Jack. His hands instinctively retreat to a respectable distance. She flicks the blade at his exposed throat, menacingly punctuating the words, “if you’da been the least.....little.... bit..... kinder.”
Mr. Parker, I really wanted to like your book. And maybe I “coulda,” ‘if YOU’da been the least..... little ....bit.....kinder.’ It WAS the money, wasn’t it?
Right from page one, John Parker makes it painfully clear why Richard Gere (justifiably) chooses to avoid writers like the plague. RICHARD GERE:THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT is yet another “unauthorized” biography of a reclusive celebrity, and it’s no surprise why anyone connected with the actor didn’t authorize it. After two decades of prodigious efforts on his part to distance himself from the press, Richard Gere is hardly an overexposed (no pun intended) celebrity. Consequently, those who admire him and his work (and their numbers are substantial) are hungry — literally starving — for words about the man. Parker could have had a huge best seller on his hands, had his attitude been a little more respectful — or at the very least, objective — toward his subject. In my opinion, he defeats his own purpose with this book.
John Parker has apparently settled on a formula that works for him. A prolific, self-styled “celebrity biographer,” he has published more than a dozen “life stories” of the British Royal family and selected Hollywood stars. How or why he “selected” Richard Gere for this “tribute” is beyond me. Since his work is unauthorized, one can be relatively certain that every “direct quote” in this book has already been published elsewhere, although proper credit is seldom given to the source. Not having seen his royalty statements, I presume he earns a handsome living writing this stuff; else he would find another outlet for his prose. Having read his “biography” of Richard Gere, I am not inclined to want to read his other work.
Richard Gere is a star of some magnitude in the world. A multi-dimension individual, he is recognized globally as much for his humanitarianism and his devotion to his spiritual practice as for his lengthy film career. What Gere has managed to do with his life and talents, in spite of the artificial environment of his profession, is worthy of note, and certainly deserving of some measure of respect. Parker’s intended audience, one would think, are those who would gleefully plunk down their hard-earned money to learn interesting things about a man they feel they care about. This author’s attitude throughout the book seems tailor-made to alienate just such an audience. Incidentally, since the paperback edition of this book is twice the price of comparably sized mass-market paperbacks, Gere’s fans would be his natural target market. Either Parker is totally unaware of who his readers are, or he’s thumbing his nose at them all the way to the bank.
To his credit, Parker does manage to provide some engaging behind-the-scenes stories regarding Gere’s films and his early work in the theatre. Many of his fans may be unaware of how extensively he worked in New York and British theatre before Hollywood came calling, and Parker does an admirable job of filling in those blanks. I found it of some interest to learn how many times Gere and John Travolta were volleyed about by the powers-that-be in Hollywood, and how one or the other actually wound up starring in the resulting films. Gere’s passion for the making of BREATHLESS and his process of auditioning actresses for the role of Monica was quite entertaining. His intense three-year struggle to make MR. JONESs is chronicled in some detail. Much of this information may be “old news” to long-time followers of Gere’s career. I must admit, THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT contains quite a few genuinely interesting anecdotes concerning his films, things I didn’t know and was pleased to learn.
On the other hand, Parker’s writing is so transparent, one needn’t be a psychic to figure out which paragraphs were generated by material from an “official” or previously published source, which are innuendo and rumor, which are pure fiction and which are just mean-spirited speculation. Parker himself can’t seem to make up his mind whether he wants to be perceived as an admirer of Gere or a detractor. Rarely, if ever, does he comport himself in print as an objective observer. Therein lies his biggest weakness as a biographer. He fails (miserably) to maintain a stable position, and his ambivalence ultimately costs him his focus. Consequently, he winds up sounding, more often than not, like a gossip columnist rather than a biographer. His literary voice is only one (very small) step above tabloid journalism.
I found his research flawed in many areas, as well. To begin with, he quotes Gere’s birthdate incorrectly. From this I surmise that any old source will do for Mr. Parker, and that checking for authenticity is not of primary importance to him. When describing the plots of some of the films, he misinterprets the scenes, giving one the impression he might not actually have seen the films he’s describing. If you’re going to write a biography of a person, at least make sure you get your facts right. I admit that accuracy is a sore spot with me, and such inaccuracy gets my back up for the rest of the experience.
We all know that recognition of Richard Gere’s early film work focused (for better or worse) on his sex appeal rather than his talent. Hollywood loves a “sex symbol;” his acting has always been highly underrated and considered secondary to the bankability of his sex appeal. But Gere has evolved into a magnificent actor, a mature, socially-responsible adult and a citizen of planet earth who deserves to be shown some respect. Parker consistently fails to do so.
Not even Gere’s biggest fans would suggest nominating him for canonization. He is, after all, a human being, and like most of us, probably has whole chapters of his life he would prefer not to remember. Parker would like us all to remember him for very little else.
It’s true that Richard Gere chose not to fit the mold from the very beginnings of his career. He did not kiss Hollywood’s ass until he became a big star and then turn his back on it. He has ALWAYS been deeply passionate about his work AND his privacy — for good reason. Parker discounts this, focusing instead (as often as possible) on the kind of “bad boy” antics that send tabloid readers into a feeding frenzy. The author expends an inordinate amount of ink pandering to reports of Gere’s rumored homo- and/or bi-sexuality, his willingness to display his body on screen, his “rude” behavior in his early Hollywood years (reacting in kind to rude — and stupid — questions.) Especially annoying is Parker’s preoccupation with the speculation concerning Gere’s sexual preferences. It’s used as bait on the back cover, and Parker continually draws the reader back into this simmering cauldron of rumor and innuendo. Just when you think you’ve read the last of this sordid subject, he manages to interject it once again in yet another context. Enough already.
A couple of times in this book, one almost gets the feeling that Parker is actually going to say something complimentary about Gere’s acting. But even then we’re left with COMPLIMENTUS INTERRUPTUS, leading to the same old repetitive stuff that fails to recognize the fact that truly brilliant acting leaves the audience unable to distinguish between the character and the actor. Gere makes it look too easy, and critics are constantly tearing him down for not showing more effort. (I often think Gere just can’t win with the critics; fortunately, he ignores them and continues to provide audiences with great film experiences.) True, this is supposed to be a biography, not a critique of the subject’s talents. However, if you bring it up (as Parker does too many times) it is incumbent upon you to make your position clear. Usually, when making a derogatory remark about Gere’s acting ability, Parker is careful to suggest that the words (‘Some say...’ ‘There are those who say...’) come from someone else’s mouth. Parker himself fluctuates back and forth until the very last page (‘Some considered that given the ups and downs of his career, this resurgence was barely deserved, especially by one of such fickle talent. Gere has never had much to boast about in terms of acting achievement...’) where he shows his true colors and disregard for the man’s skills.
I didn’t much care for Parker’s thinly-veiled suspicion of Gere’s devotion to Buddhism and his friendship with the Dalai Lama. References to his spiritual quest and human rights causes are made merely as an afterthought, and often with an air of superiority and derision. Parker tries to leave the reader with the impression that Gere escapes into Buddhism when he doesn’t get his way in Hollywood, when in fact he has been an ardent practitioner for two decades.
It’s easy to live a monastic life if you’re cloistered; the really hard part is to put your spiritual principles to work in your life every day, out in the world, where “there be dragons.” Gere is a man who LIVES his religious principles, and so becomes a threat to those who only give lip service to their own. Richard Gere is an artist whose medium is film; a man whose occupation earns him considerable financial rewards. He admirably employs his wealth, together with his celebrity status, to benefit the forgotten peoples of the planet. Parker does scant justice to these facets of the man’s life. Am I nominating Gere for sainthood? Not at all. But his efforts in support of human rights in Central America, China and particularly Tibet could fill volumes. They are barely mentioned in passing. Whole chapters — surely at least ONE? — could have been devoted to Gere’s endeavors on behalf of the world’s downtrodden. What we get instead are SIX CHAPTERS (out of a total of eighteen) devoted almost exclusively to Cindy Crawford.
It is only natural that a biography of Richard Gere would have to include some significant mention of his marriage to Crawford, the only truly high-profile portion of his life. Ironic that this man who had always fiercely protected his personal privacy would be drawn into his only marriage with a woman whose middle name is publicity. Such is karma. Unfortunately, Parker devotes the entire last third of his book to Crawford, creatively demonstrating his talent for fiction by trying to make us believe he had “behind-closed-doors” access to the most intimate details of their married life. Certainly, it was easier for him to dig up tons of gossip concerning Crawford during those years, since her ubiquitous image and frequently indiscreet statements are legion, but the audacity of this author’s capacity for presumption amazes me.
There are frequent references to Gere’s long-time friend and personal photographer Herb Ritts, although Ritts’ stunning work does not appear among the thirty-odd black and white photos in this book. They are mostly stills from Gere’s films (and one particularly ridiculous photo of Crawford.) An appendixed filmography provides bare-bones info (director, co-stars, studio, release year) of all of Gere’s films up through 1995; much more detailed filmographies are available elsewhere.
Be forewarned, if you admire and respect this man as an actor and a human being, John Parker’s RICHARD GERE:THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT will disappoint you. If you are looking for a “biography,” you won’t find it here. If you prefer gossip, this could be your cup of tea. Of course, if you and your friends enjoy parlor games, you could give a prize to whoever finds the most repetitions of the adjectives “salubrious,” “iconoclastic,” “homoerotic”and Parker’s undisputed favorite, “arrogant.” I won’t go so far as to say, “Don’t bother to read this book.” There ARE parts of it worth reading, if you can wade through the trash. I’d suggest instead that you borrow a copy (although you won’t find one in any library in the USA - I’ve already tried) rather than to add to John Parker’s fortune at the expense of Richard Gere. Personally, I’d rather see the purchase price donated toTibet House.
Comments? e-mail me: angels@midcoast.com“Angel” is an award-winning, best-selling author whose own non-fiction is frequently tongue-in-cheek,but always meticulously researched and (except for the foregoing book review) excrutiatingly non judgmental.
Back to The Richard Gere Page