ASK MICK LASALLE
Dear Mick: My dear husband is of the opinion that constant swearing in a movie might lend itself to the creativity of that particular movie. I hold the opposite opinion, that it takes away from the creativity or, at the very least, is unnecessary. Please tell me what you think.
Terri Littlefield, Martinez
Dear Terri: I’m with your husband on this one. While it’s true that excessive cursing is the first resort of amateur playwrights and screenwriters — and that bad language, in itself, has no particular value — you can’t make a Scorsese or Abel Ferrara movie and have everybody talking as if they drink tea with their pinkies up. In the right context, naughty language is absolutely necessary, or else you end up with the Jets in “West Side Story” singing about the “whole buggin’ ever-lovin’ street.” Now that’s offensive. It offends your intelligence, and takes you out of the movie, reminding you that the lyricist wasn’t free to write what he meant. Hey, look, not everything is to everyone’s taste, and that’s fine. But never allow yourself to be offended by the truth in art.
Hi Mick: It took you two films, but you finally saw how awful “The Trip” films are. You came to the same conclusions I did, albeit somewhat late: Why watch these people?
Thomas R. Whiting, El Granada
Hi Thomas: You’re referring to my rave for “The Trip” and my pan of “The Trip to Italy,” and you’re thinking I was wrong the first time and right the second time. Honestly, I’m not sure if I was right both times or wrong both times or wrong one time. It’s possible that, like I said, “The Trip to Italy” is horrible and “The Trip” is great. But it also could be a matter of mood, that these are movies that either hit you right or wrong in the first five minutes, and that’s that. I suppose to test this, I could watch “The Trip” again, but after “The Trip to Italy,” I doubt I’ll ever do that.
Dear Mick: Which do you think is better — a good documentary or a good film?
Paul Stewart, Pleasanton
Dear Paul: If they’re both identically good, they’re of equal quality. But I think of it this way: A documentary is like a nonfiction book, and a narrative feature is like a novel. A nonfiction book can still be good even if the writing isn’t great, so long as it contains information that’s interesting and useful.
But a novel has no reason for existence except to engage and delight. If there is no ongoing pleasure or reward in reading it, no one will bother. Thus, even though a good documentary is just as good as a good narrative feature, the fiction is more of a miracle, because its success depends on seducing people, nonstop, for 100 or so minutes.
Dear Mick: I’m disappointed you didn’t review “Life of Crime.” I greatly appreciate your analysis of Jennifer Aniston’s performances.
Nick Griffin, Oakland
Dear Nick: I was on vacation and was sorry to miss it.
I might be the only film critic in the country who takes Jennifer Aniston seriously — probably because I never watched “Friends” and don’t read the National Enquirer. I know her only from movies, and so I appreciate her as a talented comic actress, with a quality of exalted averageness (like Olivia de Havilland or Nathalie Baye) that allows her to be, onscreen, a kind of idealized version of a normal woman of our time. She also has a natural ruefulness that can be well used in drama.
Her popularity is sometimes held against her, and yet it’s probably the best indication that her work will last. Long-lasting popular movie stars almost always date well.
This is not the case, by the way, with popular music. It’s possible to be enormously popular and then, a generation later, sound awful — for example, consider the entire output of Three Dog Night.