Ask Mick LaSalle:
Were intimate scenes in “Red Sparrow” prurient?
Dear Mr. LaSalle: What struck me about “Red Sparrow” was the number of times that the camera framed and followed Jennifer Lawrence when she was wearing only a teddy or negligee. It seemed to me that the director’s interest was purely prurient, because none of these (about four) scenes advanced the plot.
Bill Adler, Mountain View Dear Mr. Adler: “Red Sparrow” is a star vehicle whose aim is to explore Jennifer Lawrence’s essence as refracted through a story that just happens to be about a Russia ballerina turned spy. In that sense, scenes of Lawrence/Dominika in silent contemplation do advance the movie’s intention, if not the plot, in that they showcase her thinking and being. Whatever she’s wearing doesn’t matter — actually, I really didn’t notice the outfits either way. It’s all about putting the star on a pedestal for viewers to see her. She’s the whole story. Dear Mick: Just heard some guest programmer on TCM say how inspiring “To Kill a Mockingbird” is and how we must remember how one man standing up can make a difference, totally ignoring that that did nothing for poor Tom Robinson, the black man Atticus Finch was defending! And I realized that in the movie Robinson wasn’t a person who had a horrible tragedy, but was what Hitchcock called the MacGuffin, the stirrer of the plot that has no intrinsic importance, except to show how noble Atticus is!
Chris Hammond San Rafael Dear Chris: Exactly. “To Kill a Mockingbird” tries to present the ending as hopeful, because the weirdest white guy in the town makes a friend, and meanwhile the falsely accused black defendant is dead. I know Atticus Finch has inspired a lot of people to become lawyers, but I don’t get it, because he loses his case — and worse, doesn’t do much to win it. He doesn’t try to reach the jury on their level, but instead invites the jury to join him on his own lofty plane. He’s the kind of liberal who cares less about winning than he does about stewing in his own soup of ego and
purity, and as such, he gets me a little sick, because he’s not a guy you want with you in a foxhole. He’s useless. And he reminds me, actually, of the parade of neurasthenics who showed up at the Oscar podium, making their pronouncements and persuading no one, while parading their groupthink for the group. Sure, that’s what America is craving, lessons in morality and social deportment from some of the most privileged, narcissistic people in the entire country. The whole time I was thinking, if this is turning me off, in San Francisco, I can just imagine how this is playing in the rest of the country. Dear Mick: Which of your favorite films say the most about you? In other words, what are the most “Mick LaSalle” films?
Eli Sanza, Oakland Dear Eli: I could rattle off a lot of self-serving titles right now, but I don’t think this is something that people can answer about themselves. People might think that “The Shawshank Redemption” or “To Kill a Mockingbird” says everything about their inner life, but we might look at them and think, no, “The Amazing Mr. Limpet” or Steve Martin in “The Jerk” really captures them. I mean, the fact that I’ve seen “Camille” about 50 times maybe says something, but I don’t know if it says something about me or just my taste, or my taste when I was younger. The extent to which taste intersects with character is a mystery. Hitler, for example, liked “Camille,” too, and Trump likes “The Godfather.” So does Obama. And I know smart, nice people who like disgusting zombie movies. I don’t know if any of this means anything. Dear MiMiMiMick: To me a great movie critic is a combination of taste, patience, fortitude, candor, humor, memory, vocabulary, writing skills and imagination. Did I miss anything, and of this list, which are most important?
Robert Freud Bastin, Petaluma Dear MiMiMiMy Sharona: I think it’s essential to be born in Brooklyn.