Reviewed:
Eisner's autobiography
(written with Tony Schwartz)

Still, the book is at times really interesting. On the whole, a mixed bag.

A few examples: he makes it sound like he created DCA's California theme. Or that Splash Mountain was somehow his brainchild. He's sneaky the way he does it though. Take Splash Mountain: "It grew out of a visit to Imagineering that Frank and I made with my son Breck, then fifteen, on a Saturday afternoon just weeks after our arrival at Disney" (209). Uhhh no it didn't, Michael. It did not "grow out of your visit"; the idea already existed! A page later, he acknowledges that Tony Baxter had created the ride. But here, he phrases it as though he had something to do with it.

I came away sensing pretty strongly that this is what Eisner prides himself on. Not in coming up with the original idea, but in having selected the good projects on which to follow through.

In the book, this comes across as an act of desperation to me, as if he's yearning for critical approval. And, like I said, I don't find it all that convincing, precisely because he tries so very hard.

Though the name-dropping could be annoying I did find it fascinating because it showed how this group of minor executives (Eisner, Diller, Ovitz, Katzenberg, et al.) kind of progressed as a class until they were all in major positions of power.

To hear him tell it, every clash he's ever had with a show biz personality was never his fault. This is so unrealistic as to render him in general rather suspicious.

In other words, if he skews the truth sometimes, maybe he does it alot. I have a good example: on p. 94 he sounds a bit like Clinton in his defensiveness. He thinks it's unfair that he has this reputation of making commitments only to reverse them, and he comments: "I never fake enthusiasm, but I also never assumed that saying let's do it was synonymous with let's do it no matter what." This is mincing words and it just ... grates on me.

He should just admit that he's wrong sometimes. It would sit so much better with me.

But I can understand why a producer would be upset to find initial enthusiasm only to be later told that it isn't worth if the budget is $80 million.

Where I did notice a lack of self-reflection was in his dealings with Katzenberg. He mentions that from early in their relationship they respected each other but also had problems. Unfortunately, the only problems we ever hear about are Katzenberg flaws, none are Eisner's. That did bother me.

As further proof check out p. 333, Eisner's smug comments that doomed Disney's America.

I felt at the time (I was working on my history BA at the time) that people were WAY overreacting to the threat Disney posed to history.

It is my general criticism that at the end of the book as it got closer to current time, Eisner simply became a booster for everything, mostly because it goes against his policy to air dirty laundry and most of the people were still with the company as of writing (for this reason, he probably should have taken his wife's advice and waited to write this book). 

The more cynical reason I saw for providing little attention to Ovitz was that Eisner was probably trying to avoid the need to discuss and justify the golden parachute.

However, the several chapters before them were, in my opinion, the best part of the book. During those chapters, Eisner stopped talking about himself and started talking about the corporate expansion, through home video releases, synergy, EuroDisney, Broadway, and so on. These were all very interesting stories.

I really wish he had spent more time specifically discussing how Wells' death affected management of the company.

Switching tracks slightly: what do you make of the title? It's commercially viable I suppose, but I find it unrevealing. Which "work" is in progress? Disney the company or Eisner the man? And the subtitle is just too vague and full of buzzwords to mean anything, if you ask me.

And what I find interesting about this point, is that while it is a lesson he seems to have internalized, it is my sense that this is exactly what happened at Disney over the last couple of years. They became so focused on synergy and cross- promotion of existing products that they forgot to focus on innovation.

My final comment would have to be a reminder that I did not hate this book at all, despite all my misgivings. It made for interesting reading in fact. But I did not care for Eisner before, and do so even less after reading the book. If there are readers out there such as myself with a prejudice against him, they would be well served to know that this book does little to assuage their fears.

Eisner's worst traits are amplified here, at least in my biased opinion.

Once Eisner is out of his teens, the reader is going to find very little personal information in this book. Because of that I found myself evaluating Eisner more as a businessman than as a person or artist. 

You'll have to admit that regardless of what you think of the man, you must admit that he has been a fabulous business success story. This book lets you see how Michael Eisner himself views that story and if for no other reason was worth the read.