ASK MICK LASALLE
Dear Mick: Earlier this year, there was a major push by many critics to nominate Jacob Tremblay (the little boy in “Room”) for a best supporting actor Oscar. Did you think his performance was Oscar-worthy? Also, in your opinion what are the greatest child performances in film history?
Juzo Greenwood, Berkeley Dear Juzo: I didn’t think his performance was Oscar worthy. I thought it was barely movie worthy, but that’s just me. As for notable child performances, Ruby Barnhill in “The BFG” is fresh in mind — she was terrific — and that leads me to think of Drew Barrymore in another Steven Spielberg movie, “E.T.” Shirley Temple was pretty amazing, though it’s hard to differentiate one movie from another. Alain Cohen is lovely in the French film “The Two of Us” (1967). But probably the greatest child actor of all was Haley Joel Osment, who was remarkable in every role he took, including as the boy who sees dead people in “The Sixth Sense.” Dear Mr. LaSalle: Do you write the little blurbs under the pictures in your column? They are occasionally quite funny, for instance the one about Putin.
Jason Gillespie, Grover Beach Dear Jason Gillespie: I don’t, so it’s always part of the fun for me, on Sunday, to see what the editors come up with. Dear Mick: You tricked me into seeing “Knight of Cups,” a complete waste of 118 minutes. My final thought as the screen mercifully went black was, “A filmmaker in love with himself.” There was only this man’s self-indulgent ego on the screen.
Larry Snyder, Berkeley Dear Larry: No, that’s not it. You’re free to like or dislike anything you like or dislike, but I’m probably in a better position to tell you, as someone who was on the wavelength of that movie, that “Knight of Cups” is not the expression of a director’s selflove. It’s an expression of Terrence Malick’s love of life and humility in the face of creation. The film is an awed and mystical response to existence. It’s the farthest thing from egotistical. It’s joyful and humble, an attempt to capture a sense of various consciousnesses moving through the physical world. Anyway, it’s not the kind of thing that will appeal to most people, but if you’d liked it, part of what you would have liked is that it’s the opposite of what you’re saying it is. It’s an ecstatic work of art, not an intellectual exercise by someone trying to aggrandize himself. It’s the real thing, but if you don’t respond to it viscerally, there’s no point in forcing yourself. Dear Mick: What do you think of Michael Haneke as a director?
Claudia Woo, San Francisco Dear Claudia: Michael Haneke has made great (“The Piano Teacher,” “The White Ribbon”) and bad films, and some genuinely good films that are torture to sit through, most notably “Amour.” The one kind of film he hasn’t made is a compromised film; that is, an insincere film. He has to be counted among the important of contemporary filmmakers, even if his work is not exactly lovable. Dear Mick: Just stumbled upon a 2009 movie, “Mother and Child,” that I had never heard of, despite being an avid moviegoer. I was drawn to the cast, Annette Bening, Naomi Watts and Kerry Washington, among others, and by the fact that it had won awards at Sundance and Toronto. It was a sensitive, grown-up movie. What happened?
Bronni Galin, Mill Valley Dear Bronni: It was a sensitive, grown-up movie, starring three terrific actresses, and so it took a loss, despite a low budget of only about $7 million. This is a problem. Basically, the way it works today is that a movie starring women has to be practically a masterpiece and have tremendous critical support, or else it dies. This doesn’t leave producers with much of an incentive to do the right thing.
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.