ASK MICK LASALLE
Hello Mick: I am so glad you like the new Bond flick. I was worried. The reason I was concerned was that stupid song. On NPR a few weeks ago, they had a couple of academics talking about the Bond songs and how they matched up to each other. They played the new one, and it was jaw-droppingly (is that a word?) awful.
Ed Williams, Palo Alto Hello Ed: Jaw-droppingly is a word, and “jaw-droppingly awful” is exactly right. I saw “Spectre” at a screening where they had this crazy idea to screen the video (“Writing’s on the Wall”) before the movie, so that half the audience thought at first that they were seeing the beginning of the picture. It’s a horrible song, and its damage was compounded by the fact that we had to sit through it yet again during the opening credits a few minutes later. To the movie’s credit, it was able to survive and even thrive despite those handicaps. “Spectre” is an excellent Bond movie with a ghastly opening song, which is better than the reverse, which has happened more than once. Hi Mick: You sometimes let English-language abominations in people’s letters go by in your column, and I’m writing to try to influence you to do some (more?) editing to them to prevent things like this, which it hurts my head to read: “After seeing ‘Day for Night,’ Truffaut was accused by his contemporary Jean-Luc Goddard of being a liar in making the film.” Ouch! I’m sure you see the problem.
Caroline Rose, Palo Alto Hi Caroline: I see it now, of course. (Grammatically, it reads like Truffaut saw the movie and then was accused by Godard, when, in fact, Godard saw the movie and then accused Truffaut.) These misplaced and dangling modifier mistakes are sometimes easy to overlook, because people often talk this way, but through intonation make their meaning clear. I was reviewing a movie on the news once, and as I was reading the teleprompter, I realized I had a dangling modifier, and I tried to correct it and ended up fumbling all over myself on live TV. In that case, I should have just left it in — few would have noticed, anyway. But speech is one thing. Print is something else, and in print, it’s just wrong and looks awful. I like people to write to me in a natural way, and not assume airs — I’d prefer people to relax and just write in the way they talk. But in exchange, I should provide a decent safety net. Thanks for pointing this out. Hi Mick: Seeing the picture of Jennifer Beals next to your column reminds me that the movie contains a great example of how the unseen can be more interesting than the seen. Her changing out of her dance clothes underneath that loose-fitting top was one of the sexiest scenes ever. Much more so than if she’d actually taken the thing off.
Berkeley Cheoate, Berkeley Hi Berkeley: I’m glad you said “can be,” because it really depends on who is unseen and who is being seen. You’re probably right about “Flashdance,” to the extent that it’s possible to know. On the other hand, I wonder if anybody under the age of 45 would remember Phoebe Cates if she’d been unseen rather than seen in the “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” pool scene. It’s not that she didn’t do other things — she was really good, for example, in the “Lace” miniseries. Yet it’s that moment by the pool, right at the start of her career, that has remained her most indelible moment onscreen. Indeed, there is probably no other person in the history of the world who has had such lasting, wholehearted approbation for taking off a bikini top. That was 30 seconds before the cameras in exchange for more than 30 years of grateful appreciation. So there’s no rule about these things.
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 length.