Ask Mick LaSalle:
Where are Churchill and Hitler in ‘Dunkirk’?
Hi Mick: I enjoyed “Dunkirk” tremendously — beautiful photography and good editing. However, I thought it would have been a better film if they had had Churchill’s famous speech in his voice and also thought they should have showed the scale of the hundreds of private boats that crossed the channel. What do you think?
Nancy Gale, Tiburon Hi Nancy: That would have been fine, for another movie. The strategy of “Dunkirk” was to show you nothing but what you’d have experienced had you been there. So a godlike overview of all the ships and boats coming in (with the soundtrack inevitably blaring the horns of hope and ultimate triumph) wouldn’t have been appropriate. The same goes for Churchill’s speech. The average evacuee probably would have first encountered it in print, not on the radio. The film stayed true to that limited, intense experience. Dear Mick: I was disappointed with “Dunkirk” because it didn’t tell the bigger story. It needed two scenes of perhaps two minutes each. One from England where the prime minister called for everything that floats to cross the English Channel. It would have been inspirational. Second, a scene where Hitler delays an all-out attack on Dunkirk, hoping for a peace treaty with England. Your thoughts?
Robert Evans, Merced Dear Ed: The average British soldier never got to see Churchill, much less Hitler, and the experience of “Dunkirk” was of not knowing these things, of really not knowing what was going on. Christopher Nolan conveyed not knowing what’s going on by making the audience not know what’s going on. An inspirational scene would have ruined that effect. Inspiration is a feeling we get when we are assured of triumph and are no longer frightened, when we have the luxury of an overview. It would be possible, for example, to make an inspiring movie about 9/11, but if one were to make a movie about what it actually felt like on Sept. 11, 2001 — to convey that feeling — you would concentrate on the uncertainty and the fear. You wouldn’t step back to show the president with a bullhorn, or Paul McCartney entertaining cops and firefighters at Madison Square Garden. You’d stay close to the actual experience of the day. Hi Mick: In my day, there were the great theaters on Sutter and Van Ness, several theaters on Geary Street, a theater on Union, a theater on Chestnut, the Fillmore, the Northpoint, a couple on California near Polk Street, and I’m not even close to remembering all of them. What happened? Paul McGrath, Cameron Park,
El Dorado County Hi Paul: Home video, followed by home theaters. Also multiplexes. Most of the theaters you’re referencing were single-screen theaters — the Northpoint was the best of them, with the biggest screen, the most comfortable auditorium and the best projection in the city. But at the time those theaters were around, there was no Century 9, no Metreon, no revamped Embarcadero and no Kabuki theater. So business models change. But this is the usual pattern of life, isn’t it? Nothing seems to be happening, and then a generation passes, and everything’s different. But people are enjoying these new places just as other people enjoyed the old places. The locations don’t matter, just what people bring to them and take from them. Dear McMick: After watching thousands and thousands of films, there must be certain actors that you tire of seeing. You obviously have no choice, but does it perhaps jade your reviews in some cases?
Robert Freud Bastin, Petaluma Dear McRobert: No. Actually, a kind of Stockholm syndrome kicks in, and I wind up liking them all over again. Even when I’ve given up on people, they’ve often surprised me by doing something really good and winning me back. And I am always happy to change my mind. Possibly because I spend my working life manufacturing opinions, I don’t hold onto opinions as though they were precious jewels of self-definition. I love being proved wrong. It’s a relief to know that not everything is my responsibility.