ASK MICK LASALLE
Dear Mick LaSalle: The first time I saw “Citizen Kane,” I didn’t find it very memorable. I watched it again a few years later and I liked it, but it took me three times before it became one of my favorite movies of all time. Any similar experiences for you?
Eli Sanza, Oakland Dear Eli Sanza: No, for me it’s usually love at first sight. I’ve come to like things better on second viewing, but I don’t think I’ve ever had a case where something I didn’t like initially became one of my favorites. However, I can see how that could happen with “Citizen Kane,” because it’s not a warm and cuddly movie. It doesn’t try to make you love it. You have to make some of the effort. Dear Mick: That 2-by-4 (that figuratively hit Clark Gable in the head and transformed him) was the death of his wife, actress Carole Lombard, in 1942. Neither he nor his acting was ever the same again.
Marie Kimball, Half Moon Bay Dear Marie: Carole Lombard died in a plane crash in January 1942, which was a horrible-enough blow for Gable. But the blow was compounded by the fact that he was cheating on her with Lana Turner at the time and that Lombard was rushing back to Hollywood by plane (instead of taking the train) because she wanted to keep tabs on her husband. So he felt guilty for the rest of his life.
The story of Lombard’s death is full of what-ifs. She was taking military transport planes, and the first landed safely. Before she got on the second, she was told that she was getting bumped in favor of soldiers that needed to get to Los Angeles. But she argued that, because she was on a bond tour, she was on government business and therefore should be allowed to continue her journey. That might be the ultimate case of losing an argument by winning.
Lombard was a warm and instantly likable screen presence, gifted in both comedy and drama, and there’s no telling what she might have done had she lived. Not just talented, she was a very levelheaded and intelligent person, so that even if she stopped acting at a certain point, she might have made real contributions in other spheres.
As for Gable, he remains, at least in my mind, the standard against which all leading men must be judged. Or to put it another way, he was the ultimate male movie star. But there’s no question that the magnificent, iconic Gable was pre-1942 Gable. He continued to be a fine and charismatic actor, but an underlying wistfulness or aggrievement or uncertainty crept into his performances, and by the time he was in his early 50s, he looked older and not particularly healthy. However, his late quality of wounded, vulnerable masculinity was transformed into something beautiful in “The Misfits,” which contains his last and best performance. Dear Mick: Is it fair to trick audiences by misusing movie conventions? In particular, I’m thinking of Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan,” when the old man’s eyes (at the Normandy cemetery) dissolves into Tom Hanks’ eyes on D-Day. In all other movies, that dissolve means it’s the same person. Not here.
Tony Farrell, Oakland Dear Tony: I don’t know if the issue is fair or unfair. I can say that I’m not crazy about that kind of thing. It does feel a bit manipulative. On the other hand, we go to the movies to be manipulated, and it’s usually only when we’re not manipulated that we think of a device as manipulative. So it’s probably OK. Also, I can’t help thinking: We’re talking about Spielberg here. And though I might not be all that reserved about expressing opinions, I’d have to be downright delusional to think I can lecture Steven Spielberg on storytelling technique. I mean, Steven Spielberg. Really. I can tell him if it was good, and I can tell him if it was bad, but he knows best what he’s allowed to do.