The author, who normally writes about politicians, sets out to investigate what is it about Wayne that made him so iconic/political that he continued to be listed as one of the greatest American male movie stars long his death. A character accepted as definitively Male, and yet is usually overlooked by academics who specialize in gender-studies. The goal (according to the intro) isn't a biography written for fans so much as a critical analysis interested in the part Wayne plays in America's political myth of self. The book says its intent is only to consider who Wayne really was and his actual history, in order to compare those to the constructed (spun) image and the Hollywood myths surrounding him, in order to clarify that construction.
Please note that above I referred to the intent as described in the intro and title, not what the book actually does. This book reminds me of some of my very WORST papers, the ones where I write a great intro paragraph, get lost and confused along the way, never actually support any of my arguments, or have a clear central one to begin with, and then at the very end I come up with biggest 'grand' statement of utter bullpuckie I can, hoping the proff will get so confused in my grandiose conclusions as to forgive the mess that was the paper.
Additionally, there are parts of Wills' narrative that ring false, so for instance when talking about the director Ford, it feels like the author has his own 'narrative' that he's pushing so hard that it feels like listening to partisan politics. There's no nuance to it, it's too black or white and therefore untrustworthy. Now you might be saying to yourself, 'well Wills' very liberal and this reviewer must be a conservative' only I'm not, I'm also a liberal. However, it sort of puts my teeth on edge when authors are so busy trying to indoctrinate that they push their arguments to incredulity.
The final conclusion is out in L.A.-L.A. land, making comments about how our relationship to cities is different from the rest of the world, and that this is an extension of our separation of church and state....??? The author says that all cities are built around a religious point (rather than an economic one, as most are), and even gives St. Paul's in London as an example. Problem is, St. Paul was built on the site of roman temple, and London was never a religious center, not even in ancient times.
The book says its about the construction of Wayne, and spends a lot of time describing scene by scene various movies he was in, and what went on behind the scenes of the making... but rarely if ever does the author broach the central issue of the introduction of how did these movies ring in the national consciousness as part of the construction that is the political image of John Wayne the movie star.
The book is in fact over 300 pages, and if you whittled it down to just the bit where the author does do this, its maybe a 15 or 20 page paper .... double spaced. Now these 20 odd pages are very good.
Also, if your interest is not in the political image of Wayne but rather you're a film student interested in how the films were made, a shot by shot analysis, what was going on in the background and any petty squabbles on set, this book does go into great detail about that.
It does not however do what it claims it set out to do, at least not really. By the end of the book you're not really any more knowledgeable about the politics of celebrity of Wayne than you were at the start