Chronicle film critic Mick LaSalle also answers questions about what it means when people disagree about movies.
Philip Seymour Hoffman, who won wide acclaim for his work as an actor, died in 2014 at age 46. He’s seen here at the screening of “The Master” during the 69th Venice Film Festival on Sept. 1, 2012 at VeniceLido.
Photo: Tiziana Fabia/AFP/GettyImages/AFP via Getty Images
Hi Mick: If your favorite living actor is Robert Redford, who is your favorite dead actor?
Bob Tarun, Reno
Hi Bob: In the 20thcentury, there are lots of candidates, but it comes down to James Stewart, James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart, with Stewart having the slight edge.
In the 21st century, there’s less competition, because most of them are alive, but even in a crowded field, it would have to be Philip Seymour Hoffman. Every time I see him in a movie, it reawakens an overwhelming sense of loss. I loved everything about him— his shlubby body, his weird beautiful face, his voice, his humor and his truth, which he brought to every scene he was in. I am seriously not over it.
Robert Redford's decades-long acting career includes the 2018 movie “The Old Man & The Gun.”
Photo: Eric Zachanowich/Associated Press
Dear Mick: Robert Redford always seemed to play himself, but you’re right about how a part of him always remains unknowable. The only question, and it doesn’t really matter, is whether the characteristics you describe are just who he is in real life, or whether it’s great acting by someone who decided he wanted to come across a certain way.
Joe Garrett, Berkeley
Dear Joe: It has to be both. He is too smart to not know how he does what he does, but I also think what we’re seeing is his own way of expressing emotion. That’s who he is, whether it’s what he is in real life or just the aspect of himself that makes it to the screen. Either way, it’s him.
But like you say, it doesn’t matter how he gets his effects, just that he gets them.
Joaquin Phoenix in a scene from “Napoleon.”
Photo: Associated Press
Dear Mick LaSalle: Quick reaction to your recent review of “Napoleon.” Seeing how this movie failed to capture the essence of Napoleon, I still believe that the best portrayal of Napoleon in film may be the one in Woody Allen’s “Love and Death.”
MW Vader, Grass Valley
Dear MW Vader: You’re talking about veteran actor James Tolkan, and yes, he was good. But my favorite Napoleon is Rod Steiger’s in “Waterloo” (1970). It’s a bizarrely underrated movie, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, who made the Russian “War and Peace” (1966).
Steiger is the right size and temperament, as well as the right age, playing Napoleon at 45 when he was 45.
Movie critics GeneSiskel, left,and Roger Ebert didn’t always agree on movie reviews. What those differences meant is up for debate.
Photo: Penguin Random House/TNS
Dear Mick: Roger Ebert said of Gene Siskel, “When you disagree on a movie, you’re not disagreeing on the movie. You’re disagreeing on who you are. If I don’t like a movie and he does, then I’m not saying that the movie is flawed, I’m saying that he’s flawed.” Do you agree with that quote?
Gary Scholick, San Rafael
Dear Gary: I’m too familiar with the randomness of people’s responses to movies, and to art in general, to think that, if I disagree with someone, I must also think that there’s something wrong with them. However, I do recognize that disagreements over movies often seem personal and bigger than the movie itself. It’s possible to find in every movie some vision of life, some philosophy.
People will sometimes see a movie that they recoil from philosophically and immediately start imagining a world ruled by that precise vision of life that offends them. If a critic endorses that same movie, they’ll see the critic as working to bring about this world— so, within seconds, they’ll react as if the critic were threatening them with the destruction of everything they value.
If Roger were still around, I’d ask him if he was exaggerating to make the point that that’s how an aesthetic disagreement feels, or if he meant what he said literally. My guess is the former.
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.
Mick LaSalle
Follow:
Mick LaSalle
Mick LaSalle is the film critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, where he has worked since 1985. He is the author of two books on pre-censorship Hollywood, "Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood" and "Dangerous Men: Pre-Code Hollywood and the Birth of the Modern Man." Both were books of the month on Turner Classic Movies and "Complicated Women" formed the basis of a TCM documentary in 2003, narrated by Jane Fonda. He has written introductions for a number of books, including Peter Cowie's "Joan Crawford: The Enduring Star" (2009). He was a panelist at the Berlin Film Festival and has served as a panelist for eight of the last ten years at the Venice Film Festival. His latest book, a study of women in French cinema, is "The Beauty of the Real: What Hollywood Can Learn from Contemporary French Actresses."
He can be reached at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com.
More In Movies & TV
Related Movies
- Find ShowtimesXHorror
- Find Showtimes9 to 5ComedyPG
- Find ShowtimesShang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten RingsAction