San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
ASK MICK LASALLE
Dear Monsieur Mick: Siskel or Ebert?
Robert Freud Bastin, Petaluma
Dear Monsieur Robert: For years, I would have said Gene Siskel. I liked that he was enthusiastic about movies without being a weird introvert as some film critics are. I liked that he was interested in other things, and that he was a proud member of the bald community. He seemed urbane and cool, not like somebody going through life watching movies around the clock.
However, I eventually got to know Roger Ebert a little bit, and he was a great guy. I’d never met him in person, but he went on a San Francisco radio station saying nice things about me. He even wrote jacket blurbs for two of my books. He knew he was the Big Guy, and he used that platform to promote and encourage other critics. Plus, his behavior during his long illness was so exemplary that it speaks to his character, which was not, as I initially thought, that of a nerd, but of a courageous and extraordinary man.
Finally, I admire that he didn’t coast on his success. He pushed himself and wrote a number of books. So of the two, Ebert was the more serious critic.
I like Siskel, too — a lot — but at this point I’d have to say Ebert.
Dear Mr. LaSalle: You seem haunted by the Kennedy assassination. Whence comes this?
Michael Biehl, San Francisco
Dear Mr. Biehl: I’m not haunted at all. Aside from Josiah Thompson’s “Last Second in Dallas” (which I wrote about on April 11), I haven’t read books about it. But it has been an ongoing point of curiosity for me, because the Zapruder film is clear in what it tells us, and yet many Americans still buy the official account. As Chico Marx once asked Margaret Dumont, “Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” I choose the latter.
Dear Mick: How do I assess the contributions of a director vs. actors when rating a movie? If talented, experienced actors were given a good script and told to “just do it” without a director, would we get a good movie?
Pat Marriot, Los Altos
Dear Pat: Good actors, with a respectable cinematographer and editor, could conceivably give you a good movie. But without the unifying, overarching consciousness of a superior director, a great movie would be highly unusual.
A good director holds the entire movie in his or her head, visually and conceptually, so that the whole experience, scene by scene, moves forward in one direction. You can recognize a director’s contribution in the elements that have to do with the movie as a whole: the look, the collective performances, the ideas communicated wordlessly and the tone.
Dear Mick LaSalle: What do you have against science fiction? The genre has produced some alltime great movies, like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Blade Runner.”
William Montgomery, Walnut Creek
Dear William Montgomery: If I had to sit through either movie again, I’d dread it — especially the former.
The bottom line is that we all have genres we particularly enjoy or don’t enjoy, and for me, science fiction is not one that I associate with pleasure. This doesn’t mean that I can’t give a good review to a scifi movie, or tell a good one from a bad one, or even a great one from a good one. And I’ve enjoyed many science fiction movies over the years. But left to my own devices, I’d almost never watch one, because unless it’s amazing, I’m going to wish I didn’t bother – as opposed to, say, a romantic comedy, which I can enjoy even if it’s lousy.
This isn’t a matter of critical judgment, but of personal taste. For most people, critical judgment and personal taste are identical, but for critics they absolutely must be different.
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.