Ask Mick LaSalle:
The problem with biblical movies.
Dear Prof. Mick: For Easter week, TCM showed lots of ’50s and ’60s Bible movies. They all seem pretty silly to me. What say thou? And do you have a favorite?
Steve Heimoff, Oakland Dear Prof. Steve: The problem with biblical movies is the problem with all period films: that it’s impossible to keep the era of the movie’s creation out of the movie. This is not so big a deal if you’re making “Anna Karenina” or “The Story of Louis Pasteur,” but when you’re dealing with a subject as monumental as religion, these anachronisms — either of look or manner — can be distancing, disturbing or, in the final stage, hilarious. So few of these midcentury biblical films hold up. The DeMille movies (“Samson and Delilah,” “The Ten Commandments”) are particularly awful. My favorite biblical epic is Nicholas Ray’s 1961 “King of Kings,” with its glorious Sermon on the Mount scene. My only problem with that one is the obvious wigging of Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus. I start thinking, why would Jesus wear a wig? If he’s bald, why not be bald? Or, if he’s that self-conscious about it, why not perform a miracle? The answer is the distracting reminder: It’s just an actor in a wig. Dear Mick: It seems that the dividing line between theatrical films and films made for TV is getting blurred. Given this trend, who are the most appropriate people to do the reviews for such movies: film critics (such as yourself ) or TV critics?
Ted Landau, El Cerrito Dear Ted: I think the division of labor right now is fine as it is. If we started dividing things in terms of type, rather than the intended medium, we’d get into lots of gray area. For example, a one-off TV movie may have a lot in common with a theatrical movie. But a series like “The Fast and the Furious” is very much like a TV show, with a recurring cast of characters doing similar things from episode to episode. Also, just a general point: In order to be a critic of a particular art form, you’d better really, really like it generically. Otherwise, you’re going to end up a bitter crank, because you end up seeing the art form at its worst, and regularly, in a way that’s guaranteed to kill the romance. For that reason, I shouldn’t review TV, because I don’t like it much. I like it OK, at best. Dear Mick LaSalle: In 1968, I was 15 years old and very newly in love with my 17-year-old boyfriend. We attended a showing of “Romeo and Juliet.” Directly following the balcony scene, when Romeo clambers joyfully and ecstatically down the brambles, my boyfriend leaned over and whispered in my ear, “I know exactly how he feels.” Wow. Wow. It remains one of my most splendid memories.
Elizabeth Koebsell, Forestville Dear Elizabeth Koebsell: That’s lovely. And what a nice thing that your boyfriend had the emotional intelligence to recognize both the essence of the scene and the fact that he was living it. That he actually said it out loud is pretty impressive for 17. Men usually keep that sort of feeling quiet and express themselves more through what might be called activity. I have always loved that scene — or rather, interlude — because I think it expresses male nature in a way that gets short shrift in movies: It’s not just about sexual anticipation. It’s about the universe opening up. The feeling is like being a fish and finally there’s water in the fish tank. And of course I remember being that guy and doing exactly that — having a sober goodbye at the door and then, when I knew the girl couldn’t see me, running through the streets for half a mile out of sheer joy. Anyway, wow is right. Thanks for sharing that wonderful story. And consider this: That happened to you almost 50 years ago, but you could live to be 100 on that one and always have the dignity of the loved and the beautiful.
Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.