ASK MICK LASALLE
Hi Mick: You say “The Gold Rush” is the only example in cinema of an artist tampering with and diminishing his earlier work. There have been quite a few cases of directors revisiting and expanding their works. Do you feel that such revisitations have always been for the better?
Kevin Walsh, San Leandro
Hi Kevin: Good point. I wasn’t thinking of home video directors’ cuts, which often end up diminishing the original film (“In the Cut,” “The Last of the Mohicans”) rather than enhancing or expanding it (“The Abyss,” “Amadeus”). Still, the “Gold Rush” situation is unique — and pretty crazy — in that Chaplin massacred his earlier masterpiece by cutting it and adding his voice-over in place of intertitles. And then he suppressed the original version for decades. Imagine a director taking a machete to his own classic, and then preventing anyone from seeing the original. That’s probably the only time this ever happened, at least on this scale.
Dear Old Mick: Most of the movies we get on DVD come with the option of watching the movie with “commentary” by the director or others involved in making the film. Is this worth watching? Does it add anything worthwhile to the experience?
Willy Frank, Berkeley
Dear Old Frank: It usually doesn’t, but once you have already seen the movie, if you like it — or, if it’s a classic, and yet you can’t understand why people insist that it’s great — listening to the commentary can help. Most commentaries are useless, and you’ll end up giving up after a few minutes, but occasionally you’ll hit a good one. Roger Ebert’s for “Citizen Kane” is pretty amazing (and it’s so nice to hear his voice again); everything Peter Cowie has done on Swedish cinema, either for Criterion or Kino, is illuminating; and listening to Gene Youngblood’s commentary on Antonioni’s “L’Avventura” makes you like the movie, even if you didn’t the first time. On the pure fun side of the scale, Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette’s giddy, embarrassed commentary on “True Romance” is worth a listen.
Dear Mick: One of the reasons some of your readers send you such vulgar and rude letters is that they’re not sitting face to face across from you. If they were, they might notice that you’re a human being. If I sent some of the letters I see printed in your column, I would be aghast, embarrassed and ashamed to see my letter in print. Your thoughts?
Jack Casetta, Berkeley
Dear Jack: This is true, but understandable. People don’t really think of newspapers as being written. They know they’re written, but, emotionally, they feel as though newspaper articles were a kind of reaction in physics. The Giants win the World Series and, boom, there is an article about it in the paper. They don’t realize — or at least don’t fully grasp — that in order for that to happen some actual person had to write that story as the game went on and then, under a very tight deadline (as in minutes), polish it up and turn it in. Rather, they see the game and the article as almost equal monoliths, as things that happen in the world, and not as things that individual people do. Likewise, if you’re reading movie reviews in the newspaper, the writer seems enlarged, by virtue of the context, so that being nasty in response doesn’t feel like one person being nasty to another, but like throwing pebbles at a building. It’s not true, but that’s what it feels like. So I get it. Still, if anyone wants to feel aghast, embarrassed and ashamed afterward, that’s OK, too.
Hey Mick: Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone likes you. Some think you’re a pompous, bloviating jerk. Just thought you should know!
Kevin Flynn, Oakland
Hey Kevin: Sorry, I meant smart, nice people. I should have been specific. 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.