As anyone who has studied film will know, there is plenty of reference material devoted to Ridley Scott and his work. Do the Dewey Classification 791.43s need another addition to their already burgeoning shelves? Laurence Raw managed to convince Scarecrow Press that they do and the result is The Ridley Scott Encyclopedia.
In a short but useful introduction, Raw admits that writing the Encyclopedia “proved a most enjoyable task”. He takes time to explain his attempt to classify entries into four basic categories; Scott's work as a director; significant people involved in Scott's projects; general thematic issues that Scott addresses; and films by other directors that have influenced Scott. This multi‐faceted approach means that reading the entries themselves is rarely boring, sometimes enlightening, mostly engaging and often wonderful.
The entries on Scott's movies and major television works are excellent starting points for anyone interested in development and production aspects of this side of his work. They also examine how individual movies or television productions were critically and commercially received. In addition, they explore recurring themes such as masculinity that Scott uses in his work. Usefully, each theme is expanded upon in its own cross‐referenced entry in the encyclopaedia.
The thoroughness of each entry could prove a stumbling block for potential browsers. For example, at first glance the entry for Numb3rs looks problematic. Four pages of the generously proportioned book are devoted to what is essentially, an episode guide, listing the original transmission times, directors, etc. As usual, this is rendered instantly out‐of‐date by the delay inherent in getting a book to press. In this case, the episode guides misses two seasons – almost 40 episodes. However, closer examination of the analysis that follows the episode guide reveals a microscopic attention to the salient points, cross‐referencing specific episodes, and referring to individual directors. This is combined with an analysis of recurring themes, matched to other themes in Scott's work, and generous amounts of commentary on possible influences. This entry on its own is enough to showcase the extraordinary fine detail that the content delivers, and the value that it offers both in its detail, and extensive use of cross‐referencing. There is, of course, a standard index for the volume. However, I would have preferred to see an additional index devoted just to film and television productions. It is generally an easier way to navigate large texts.
Raw attempts to include entries on a number of Scott's television adverts. Scott himself suggests that he has directed over 3,000, but Raw sensibly opts to concentrate on just 25 of these. A small selection, but still a greater attempt at analysing Scott's contribution to this field than any other reference material devoted to him. The individual entries for the adverts, although naturally much shorter than the film ones, are still impressively researched, and economically written.
I was impressed with the confident decision to shun sections for “padding” sake. One cannot help but feel that lazier volumes would include otiose sections such as “lists of awards won by Ridley Scott” Rather, Raw has included these accomplishments in the individual entries, thus giving them a much needed sense of context, which is often missing from those generic lists.
It is important to point out the effort in terms of referencing that has gone into producing the book. Instead of lumping them all at the back of the volume, the vast majority of individual entries contain their own list. In some cases these are supplemented by a bibliography of further reading. The level of detail, and number of works cited (such as the accompanying data for Alien) can mean that these lists are longer than a lot of other individual entries. They become, in essence, individual lists of further reading for each entry. Accuracy of the encyclopaedia entries when compared against other reference works seems excellent.
There are perhaps too many ‘easy’ entries. The Films after 9/11 entry suggests that political issues played a more significant role in his films. But this is essentially a rehash of all the other ‘films after 9/11’ arts commentary one can find. Given my strong defence of the coverage that Raw has endeavoured to include in the volume, it seems churlish to pick on specific entries. Occasionally however, it does feel like Raw strays too far into irrelevancy. The c.170 word entry on The Andromeda Strain (1971) is vaguely interesting, but its only relation to Scott is that he executive produced the 2008 remake – the entry for which thankfully returns us to the erudite commentary that can be seen in the majority of the book.
However, it is easy to see how these forays into specifics contribute to the rich experience that the volume delivers. I was surprised, and somewhat delighted, to see an entry for the Bee Gees, who it seems once contacted Scott about making a film in an attempt to emulate the Beatles’ success with A Hard Days Night, only for financial problems on the Bee Gee's side to terminate the project.
Lord Puttnam's rather obsequious, slightly rambling, ode to Ridley in the form of a foreword adds little to the reference value of the work, but doesn't overly distract in the way that other forewords or editor's notes can.
Minor quibbles aside, the overriding feeling is that Raw has achieved a breadth and depth to the work that would be the envy of many other reference works sitting on the same shelf. As mentioned, Raw suggested that writing this book was most enjoyable. It is a pleasure to admit that reading and browsing the volume is equally enjoyable. Scarecrow Press has done it again, keeping the crows away from the fields of rich, succulent, detailed works of reference.
This is not an inexpensive addition to stock, but I would argue an essential one for anyone wishing to add value to their reference collection. The breadth of content elevates the book beyond just another volume about Ridley Scott. As such the books in the 791.43s should, quite frankly, move over and make room.
