Ask Mick LaSalle: Did “Phantom Thread” get better upon reflection?
Hi Mick: When I saw “Phantom Thread,” my reaction was, “Interesting film, competently made.” But the movie has stayed with me. I find myself thinking about it more and more as a powerful, subtle exploration of the characters’ psyches, almost Bergman-like. Do you often reconsider a film’s merits, even months after seeing it, and revise your opinion more positively?
Tom Higgins, Oakland
Hi Tom: Often? No. One reason for that is that most movies aren’t “Phantom Thread,” which is worthy of thought even if you don’t love it. Another is that the nature of what I do almost precludes reflection, at least past a certain point. By the time the reviews are in Friday’s paper, I’m already thinking about next week. But yes, it happens sometimes, and I’m always happy to change my mind. I find it comforting. Dear Mick: It was fascinating to watch “Moulin Rouge” (1952) again. I had seen it when it first came out and had forgotten everything except the scene in which the woman visiting the gallery is scandalized by the picture of the woman undressing. That was etched in my memory, as are particular scenes from other films I have watched. Is that common?
Jim Madison, Menlo Park Dear Jim: You’re talking about the wonderful John Huston movie, starring Jose Ferrer, about the life of Toulouse-Lautrec. It is odd how that happens, the one scene that you remember. I saw the movie when I was a kid, circa 1970, because my father was a big Jose Ferrer fan, and there was one scene in the movie that I always remembered, too, but it was a different scene. It’s when Toulouse-Lautrec is on his deathbed and hallucinates that a friend — the singer played by Zsa Zsa Gabor — has come to see him. She says, as if walking into a party, “Darling! I heard you were dying, and I just had to come!” Dear Mick LaSalle: A phrase I’d like to see banished from movie reviews is “instant classic.” Popularity and acclaim can be judged in the time of a movie’s release, but surely classic status is up to future generations. Paul Dana, San Francisco
Dear Paul Dana: Banished is a little harsh. It depends on how the phrase is used. Sometimes, maybe most times, people just mean it as compliment. But if I say something is an instant classic, I mean that literally. I think I used the phrase, if not in the review, then in subsequent comments, about Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood.” And I definitely used the phrase to describe the massage scene in “Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates.” It’s a phrase I tend to avoid because overuse has robbed it of its impact, but as an idea, it’s not outside the scope of what critics should be thinking about. In fact, that’s the essence of what critics should be looking for, the rare thing of lasting value. And though, as you say, these things are up to future generations, there is no guarantee that future generations will be any smarter than the current generation. So the goal of the critic is to give the future a nudge. All criticism, in a sense, is an effort to win the future. The present is just the battlefield where the war for the future is taking place. Now — as for words and phrases that need to be banished. I’d go with “robust.” And “Full stop.” Hey Mick: In “The Big Sleep,” Dorothy Malone says to Bogie, “Looks like we’re closed for the rest of the afternoon,” and pulls down the shade, fixes her hair and takes off her glasses, while Bogie fixes them a drink. No music swell, no ocean pounding the shore, but something happened. Hmm?
Tom Hulsey, Walnut Creek Hey Tom: I suppose. Basically, the only evidence we have that anybody had sex in the 1940s and ’50s is by inference — little moments like that, and the fact that the human race didn’t die out. There was even a Baby Boom, though I’ve always assumed that it was caused by a stork invasion.
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.