Ask Mick LaSalle:
A connection between “Body” movies?
Hello Mick: I have been thinking about “Body Heat” (1981) and “Body Double” (1984). Although they are different in story line, they both seem to be connected in some way that I cannot place my finger on; because they also seem to be different stylistically. Do you see any correlations to the two movies?
Will Loomis, Foster City Hello Will: Well, they both have “Body” in the title. So that’s something. They’re both from the early 1980s. They both feature a blond femme fatale, Kathleen Turner and Melanie Griffith, respectively. They’re both neo-film noirs, so they have a similar worldview despite having different styles. They both exploit the possibilities of noir in an era without censorship. And they’re both, in a way, derived from Alfred Hitchcock, though with “Body Double” it’s more overt. So, yes, lots of connections. Dear Mick: I suspect I am at least No. 4,273 to protest/wonder about your list of favorite movies from the ’30s and ’40s. What about Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” and “Touch of Evil”? I consider them masterpieces.
Rick Wise, Oakland Dear Rick: “Citizen Kane” is a great film, but it’s not a personal favorite, and the person asked for a list favorites, not a historical best list. And “Touch of Evil” is from 1958, so it didn’t qualify. I’m not sure “Touch of Evil” would make a similar list of 1950s favorites. It might. Dear Mick LaSalle: Do you think if filmmakers have a different view of something from a beloved book, that they should change it in a movie adaptation if the change alters the author’s original intent?
Brad Hennig, San Francisco Dear Brad Hennig: Sure. The book still exists. The book is a book, and the movie is a movie. A lot of the “Harry Potter” movies might have actually been watchable and even halfway bearable had the filmmakers not felt obligated to treat each movie like a video transcription of a book. However, if you change something, you own the change, and if the change makes things worse, then there’s a legitimate cause for criticism. Julian Fellowes’ adaptation of “Romeo and Juliet” was a travesty. He rewrote parts of each line and wrecked everything he touched. On the other hand, when Orson Welles adapted Kafka’s “The Trial,” he decided that Joseph K. was “guilty as hell,” and then he followed through and made it interesting. Dear Mick: What is your evaluation of Marlon Brando’s career? Also, do you consider Actors Studio training to be a valid professional discipline?
Iris Shay, San Francisco Dear Iris: He had a great career, obviously, most of it front-loaded, but with a serious second flowering in the 1970s. At the same time, there was something perverse about him that didn’t quite respect acting or other people for admiring his acting. Sometimes when I see him in old interviews — and this is someone I never met, so I’m just talking about an impression — I do wonder if his intelligence came close to matching his talent. So much of what he says is utter nonsense. Maybe he was putting everyone on, or maybe he was the custodian of an ability he couldn’t quite understand or control. With Brando, I do feel that there was something wrong with him that got in the way of his further achievement — although that’s a presumptuous thing to say when you actually add up his great performances. As for the Actors Studio, many important talents have come through that institution. Obviously, it works for some people (though it didn’t do much for Marilyn Monroe, except make her worse). There are lots of approaches to acting, and every great acting teacher uses (or used) a different method, whether it’s Bill Ball or Bill Esper or Lee Strasberg. They’re basically providing road maps to the actor’s internal life, and then, just as important, a roadmap back, toward expression. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you do Siri, Mapquest, Waze or Google Maps, so long as you get there.