San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Ask Mick LaSalle:
Will “Roma” become an all-time classic?
Dear Mick LaSalle: I enjoyed the framework that you applied to accepted classics and recent films. I am not sure how to apply your criteria to “Roma” but think I’d say it has five of the six tendencies of future classics: Topical (unsure). Timeless (yes). Great scene (yes). Great performance (yes). Dominating consciousness (yes). Complex finish (yes). How would you assess my judgment?
Ken Joye, Palo Alto Dear Ken Joye: The one variable we can’t account for in my little system is taste. People respond to different things, and we might not be right in our calculations. I don’t see “Roma” as topical. I don’t think it has a great scene or anything remotely like a great performance. It doesn’t end on a complex note. Maybe it’s timeless — maybe. It definitely has Cuarón’s dominant consciousness. So, I’d say it has two out of six, at most. But a lot of people love the movie, and you might turn out to be right.
Hi Mick: You did your best to scare people off “Last Year at Marienbad” — but to be fair, you did offer it as a challenge. I think it’s a great film — a supremely cool “Twilight Zone” episode, to be sure, but much more than that. Anyway, another perspective on this singular film.
Dennis Charles, Hayward Hi Dennis: It’s a singular film and a landmark, for sure. You can’t claim to know movies without seeing it. And it’s important that such things are seen, because their legends are often perpetuated by people who haven’t seen them, and that’s not good. I like your “Twilight Zone” comparison, especially appropriate in that “Marienbad” was made during the “Twilight Zone” era. Actually, I’d love to see a real “Twilight Zone” version of “Last Year at Marienbad,” with the camera swerving over to Rod Serling after the opening few minutes: “But this ballroom is in ... ‘The Twilight Zone’.” I’d especially like to hear what Serling would say at the end. Then I’d know what the movie means.
Sweet Mick: I can’t thank you enough for recommending “Third Person,” which I agree is one of the best movies of the century. Why do you suppose it received so little attention and such a poor reception by critics and audiences?
Caroline Rose, Palo Alto
Sweet Caroline: Good times never seemed so good. I’ve been inclined to believe they never would. As for the poor reception for “Third Person,” it’s like this: There are certain great movies that the average viewer just isn’t going to like, because the average moviegoer wants a good story with maybe a thrill or two. They’re not ambitious for the art form. They just want gut-level entertainment. Even the ones that want ideas in their movies usually want simple, easy-to-grasp ideas. Also, they get nervous if they don’t understand something. They don’t assume that all will be revealed in the end. “Third Person” tells three interwoven stories, and the connections between them are emotional and not driven by a social idea, as in Paul Haggis’ previous film, “Crash.” The connections aren’t obvious, so some viewers get nervous and disengage.
We accept that there’s music and visual art that’s great, but can’t be appreciated by everybody, at the same that we expect all movies to be puppies that jump up on your lap and lick your face. But some movies are work — but worth it.
As for the negative response of many critics, well, most critics are just average viewers, too — except they’re worse, because it’s their job to recognize greatness. When they don’t, they’re as useless as having a blind person at the top of a mast. The usual mode of bad critics, when confronting something new, is to panic and compare the new thing to some completely unrelated thing they’ve already seen. And then, their reviews explain how the new thing fails at being this other thing that the new thing wasn’t even trying to be. In this way, they punish innovation and hold back the art form. Still, some are very nice people.
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.