ASK MICK LASALLE
Dear Mick: My wife and I had the pleasure of viewing “Mr. Holmes.” We were both moved by Hattie Morahan’s one extended scene near the film’s end. Is her performance strong enough to earn a supporting actress nomination?
Richard Baiardo, San Jose Dear Richard: It’s strong enough but probably isn’t long enough. That’s why, when I give the Mickie Awards at the end of the year, I include the categories best actor and actress in a small part. So far the academy hasn’t caught on, but give them time. Hattie Morahan is the key to that movie. If she was anything less than great, “Mr. Holmes” might have been less than good. Hi Mick: I am so happy you mentioned the movie “Modern Girls” not just once, but twice! It’s one of my favorites that I feel nobody else likes or even knows about.
Karen Goldstein, San Francisco Hi Karen: I recently showed that in a film appreciation class, and several of the older people walked out halfway and actually dropped the course, but the middle-aged ones, the people who were in their teens and 20s when “Modern Girls” came out in 1986, got it. It was written by a young woman, Laurie Craig, and it has a certain truth and spirit to it. It’s clumsy, and it feels raw and low budget, but the performances are there. It’s a fine example of the “one great night” genre, and it captures something about being young in the 1980s, maybe better than any other movie I’ve seen. Dear Mick LaSalle: Why do I enjoy reading reviews about films you don’t like more than reviews of films you do like?
Alan Drucker, Los Osos Dear Alan Drucker: Everyone likes to read about the misfortune of others, and a review of a bad movie is a double misfortune — the misfortune of the critic who saw it and the misfortune of the people being reviewed — so it’s double the fun for everybody. But if you’re asking specifically about what I do, my approach is simple: I avoid sarcasm. Sarcasm is actually a blunt instrument in criticism, very imprecise about went wrong, and very distanced from the miserable experience of seeing something awful. Instead I try to state the problem as bluntly as I can, because, ironically, bluntness in criticism is a precision instrument. The added advantage is that, if you don’t try to be funny but instead say what you mean in exactly the way you mean it, nine times out of 10 the review will end up being funny anyway, because readers don’t expect unvarnished directness from a critic. They expect you to get out your snuff box and make believe you’re George Sanders in “All About Eve.” Hello Mick: Several years ago I saw “I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang” at New York’s Film Forum, and a handful of people apparently found the dialogue so funny that they snickered at nearly every line. Why are some people not able to take something seriously if they consider it “old”?
Brian Cruz, Queens Hello Brian: The obvious answer is the shortest, that they’re morons. The longer answer is that many people labor under the false assumption that 2015 represents the pinnacle of human advancement and that anything that differs from how we talk or act indicates something lesser. They don’t realize that social practices and behaviors are in constant flux, and everything that they take for granted as obviously right and modern will soon seem as outmoded as the flip phones that Carrie and her friends use on “Sex and the City.” Those same knuckleheads who snicker at classic movies will be snickering at everything new in 30 years. Their inflexibility with regard to time will ultimately make time laugh at them, until they’re all sitting on the porch telling each other that nobody has written a good song since Katy Perry.