San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Will actors wear masks in movies?
Dear Mick: As screenwriters had to confront plot implications following the advent of cell phones, so do I wonder how writers will integrate the face mask born during the COVID pandemic? Do you think the mask will be a sine qua non for contemporary movies, or will masks appear only to disappear?
Stewart Lindh, Sausalito
Dear Stewart: One of the nice things about these masks is that they not only protect you against the plague, but they also protect you against commonplace afflictions, like the common cold. So it’s possible, even when this is over, that people may still find uses for their masks, on an occasional basis. We probably won’t throw them out.
However, I do think that when the pandemic is over, people will want to forget about this weird period, and we won’t be seeing many masks in movies — unless the movie is dealing with this specific time.
Generally speaking, nobody wants to look at a masked actor. If I’m paying to see Jennifer Aniston, I expect eyes, nose and mouth. Or I want twothirds of my money back.
Dear Mick: It is a sad and unbelievable fact to me that Faye Dunaway essentially lost her brilliant career because of one historically bad performance in “Mommie Dearest.” How could that could happen? Has it ever happened to anyone else?
Chris Hammond, San Rafael
Dear Chris: I’m not sure that happened to her. I know she thinks it wrecked her career, and I guess she would know, but her acting is fine in “Mommie Dearest.” I don’t think people are reacting to her acting in that film. The problem, if there is one, is rather that the role provided a prism through which to perceive Dunaway, the person, as well as her career. That is, audiences saw her in that movie and thought, “Yeah, she’s like that.”
Now, I don’t think that that’s necessarily accurate. I met her once, in an interview setting, and she was really charming and magnetic — albeit after making me wait for an hour and a half. But people saw her in that movie, playing Joan Crawford, and Dunaway and Crawford morphed for them into one scary lady.
As for other actors this has happened to, the classic is the silent star John Gilbert. He was the most successful leading man in Hollywood. Just huge. He made his first talking picture, and immediately fan magazines started speculating that he was finished. That one movie didn’t completely sink his career, but it damaged it irreversibly — and it’s hard to know exactly why.
Dear Mick LaSalle: You definitely have to ration yourself (when it comes to seeing depressing movies), don’t you? I remember seeing “Glengarry Glen Ross” when I was unemployed. I could tell it was a good movie, but it was the worst possible time to see it!
Tom Lucas, Oakland
Dear Tom Lucas: You do. At least you knew why it wasn’t a good movie to see. Sometimes you can see a movie and dislike it and not realize that the problem is you.
I was reviewing “Inside Llewyn Davis” and watched it with my wife. Our orange cat had died two days before, and there was an orange cat in the movie getting some rough treatment, and we decided that the movie was terrible. About a week later, I was about to write the review and decided that I needed to get a quote right, so I put the movie back on, intending to fastforward through it. I watched a minute and started laughing. It was a comedy! I’d missed this obvious fact entirely the first time, because I was fixated on the cat in the movie, but really on my own cat.
Isn’t it awful what artists have to deal with? They spend years making movies and then get reviewed by critics whose cat died on Tuesday.
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.