Month: April 2006

  • Mysteries of Windsor

    lajetee2.gif

    “La Jetee”, 1962. Written and directed by Chris Marker. Starring Davos Hanich, Helene Chatelain, and Jacques Ledoux. Narrated by Jean Negroni.

    From the files of street critic Sandoth “Guy” Fresno, recorded on fourteen postcards that arrived in chronological order this January, waterstained (or so he claimed) from Hurricane Katrina. Each postcard was identical, of the Superdome, whose story, in Guy’s mind, “would make one fuck of a movie”.

    So for starters I couldn’t take my fuckin’ bike into Windsor. The bridge, that stinkin’ tunnel, it’s no good for bikes. The Ambassador freaks me out too much, you’re riding that high, anyone could just reach over and drop you five hundred feet into the Detroit River. No thanks.

    Anyway, so I hear on the street that there’s a show goin’ on in Windsor. At the Odeon, some crazy movie called The Jetty, or The Pier, La Jetee, only no one I talk to except that Woody Allen freak at the Maple, with his ridiculous beard and leather-patch jacket (it’s August, all right, lose the fuckin’ jacket), says it in French.

    What amazes me is that no one I talked to about it ended up making the trek to Windsor to see the thing. And they missed out, man, they missed out. Like sleepin’ through Halley’s Comet–you got another seventy something years to wait, and you won’t be no Mark Twain, either.

    Anyway, so I hop on one of our awful buses, reading some John D. MacDonald (the best in the summer, let me tell you) and found myself at the Odeon some two hours later. I got their early, thought I’d preach the gospel of Anthony Mann to the crowd, only there was no crowd. So I sat down and ate a pear and peanut butter sammich, and waited.

    Windsor’s a dead town, let me tell you. Creeps me out–it’s like something from a dead future. None of the empty buildings like we have in the Motor City, but downtown closes, and there’s no personality. While I’m waiting, a guy walks up in wrinkled shirt, with little round sunglasses and close-cropped hair. He looked like Thomas Merton, man. He asked, “You’re waiting. For La Jetee?” Spoke in a frog accent. I shrugged, said, “What’s it to you?”

    He just smiled and said, “Five minutes if you please.” And walked away.

    So finally I get to go inside, me and two other people, a young girl who looked nervous, like she just skipped out of her high school’s chess club to be here, and a fat guy with a bag of submarine sandwiches. That’s it. No one is in the theater, no ticket takers, no concessionaires, nothing. It was free. The Frenchman stood in the back of the auditorium, a calm look on his face. When the girl finally sat–she wandered around the theater taking photos on her digital camera–the lights dimmed, and La Jetee started up.

    What a movie. Only it’s not a movie. It’s a photo-roman. Whatever that is. A bunch of still photos cobbled together to tell a story. With narration. Frenchy in back, smoking for God’s sake, narrating with his beautiful accent a story that made me want to break down and cry. Which I did, later, on the bus. No music–though pals tell me the original has a score–just the guy, and I think it was Marker, narrating, smoking, the sound of the projector and, at one point, bird calls. Right at that magical moment, the only moving image in the film, the woman opening her eyes one melancholy morning, and he’s making the sounds of birds at dawn, perfectly. Unbelievable.

    That’s what made me cry. It was the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen on film. And it made the mornings heartbreaking for a few days.

    Marker would narrate, and without ever clearing his throat, continue on the story of the man who jumps back and forth in time after World War III. They remade the movie in Twelve Monkeys, which was brutal, a violation, like painting tits on the Mona Lisa. Hideous.

    After the film ended, all three of us sat, stunned, until the film ran out and the screen filled with a blinding light. Marker was gone. I knew he would be; you can’t have a performance like that and not vanish mysteriously.

    Photo-roman? I kept telling myself I could make something like that–a bunch of photos, people in costume, a bombed out future. Detroit was made for a thing like that. So I dug up my old Kodak Retinette and began to take some black and white photos. I was going to do nothing more than a remake of La Jetee, on Woodward, in the abandoned train station, having the conclusion in the wrecked bleachers of Tiger Stadium, meeting by the tree that’s shooting up in the cracks above center field. A couple of pals did the acting, and I paid them in Coney dogs. They were great–we got them into some weird sunglasses from the Salvation Army, rebuilt a Buzz Lightyear doll into a crazy weapon, and made a post-apocalyptic world out of Detroit. Made the place seem like it was special, like it was on an even keel with the rest of the world. For once.

    But I never got around to putting the thing together–you gotta somehow get these pics onto film, you know? And record the narration. Or follow your movie around and do the yakking with it. And I never found the girl to blink in that pivotal scene. It had to be the right girl, the kind of girl Bernstein never forgets. You know what I mean? We’ve all known her. She breaks our hearts every lonely morning.

    I thought I’d try another shot at a photo-roman down here in New Orleans, maybe during the election. But it’s hard enough just trying to get the two-bits together for some buttertop bread. And people here don’t dig the movies like they do back home.

    I’ve never seen another of Marker’s films. I don’t even know why he was in Canada at the time. Actually, I don’t really know if it was him or not. Don’t want to know, really.

    I’ve still got the pictures from the Detroit experiment. If you’ve got any extra dough, send it along and I’ll credit you with producer. Won’t go to booze, except maybe for a six-pack of beer. Filmmaking isn’t without its hassles, man.

    lajetee3.gif

  • Pound of Flesh

    ouch.jpg

    I committed the cardinal sin of the kitchen last night. I let my attention stray while chopping garlic.

    Slice.

    My zucchini was a-sizzlin’ in the pan, someone had The Simpsons on way too loud, and I was thinking about my window of opportunity to get some potatoes in with the roasting chicken. I was slicing faster than I should have been and I didn’t have the requisite finger curl working for me.

    When you hold something you’re cutting, your fingers should be curled under so the blade of the knife can slide against the flat middle section of your fingers. It’s Knife Handling 101 in a professional kitchen.

    But garlic is so small and wiley, it doesn’t like to be pinned clumsily under fat, curled fingers. It prefers to skit around the chopping block. I tend to use my finger nails to hold it.

    First clove down and pushed aside, I was in the middle of the second clove when I looked up at the clock to calculate my timing.

    Slice.

    My favorite knife took a slight chunk of my left index finger, including a sweet section of fingernail. Any time I thought I was saving by rushing was squandered by trying to find a clean towel and cursing myself under my breath.

    Worse yet, I had to toss the already chopped garlic and start fresh, with a throbbing, thickly wrapped finger. With a little help, I managed to get the whole dinner to table in good time, nothing scorched except my ego. I’m supposed to be smarter than the knife.

    I’ve seen all sorts of line cooks chop sections of their hands or burn swaths of skin, most of them pissed they have to leave the line. It is rather surprising when some of the gnarlier ones get the woozy sway going at the sight of their own blood.

    Typing this entry with my cartoon-sized gauzed finger hasn’t been the most fun. I don’t mind kitchen scars, they don’t handicap me, but they do humble me. Tonight dinner may be late.

  • After The Morning After

    Here’s where I give props to some competitors: It seems a couple’a folks over at Minnesota Monthly are having some success with Before The Mortgage, a recently published anthology of essays about adult life before taking on any real responsibility. There’s a public reading tonight at Magers & Quinn bookstore, 7 p.m. And yes, I will definitely be in attendance, if only to offer emotional support to my good friend, Tim Gihring.

    This Before The Mortgage book grew out of a zine, you know. I once wrote something for the thing, even though, technically, I do not qualify… on account of my having a mortgage and all. I’m pretty sure my piece never made it to print, however. My essay was all about taking the Morning After pill with dinner at my ten-year high school reunion; and it’s even a true story! Seems I’d been practicing sloppy birth control day before the big event. And you’re supposed to take these things with food, of course, lest you submit yourself to 24-hours of queasiness. It was just coincidence that my next meal, after having picked up the prescription from Burch, was plucked off a typical D’Amico spread of caesar salad and lasagna, which was all that was being offered onboard the Centennial Showboat that night. Washed down the first in a two-part series with sapphire tonic, if memory serves. And I didn’t even feel woozy as we floated up the river and back again, despite the ever-presence of nauseating former classmates and all their pregnant bellies.

    In retrospect, I’m pretty sure my essay sucked. What a horrible topic, first of all! Second: there are plenty of tough-to-tackle issues involved with sloppy birth control, not to mention with serial dating and childless-ly reaching the thirty-year hump. I didn’t adequately unpack any of them, dammit! Plus, I didn’t even bother to style the thing. It was a shitty effort. Sorry for that goes to BTM and MN Mo editor Rachel Hutton. See ye tonight. And good luck hawkin’ your book, yo!

  • This Is Not Deja Vu All Over Again

    I was walking around New York this past weekend and I kept seeing cabs with these snazzy ESPN sports tickers scrolling across their roofs. I saw the Twins-White Sox score on one of the things late Friday night, and then saw what I thought was the same score Saturday night. I just assumed the information didn’t get updated very often. I had no idea until I got back here this morning that the Twins essentially played the same shitty game three days in a row.

    I refuse to believe this is ‘here we go again’ until it’s so obviously ‘here we go again’ that I can no longer deny that it is, in fact, ‘here we go again.’

    Or something like that.

    In the meantime, I’ll have nothing further to say until this team atones for its sins by winning another series.

    Or at least another game.

  • Simplicity

    place_setting.jpg

    After a hectic weekend of entertaining, Monday can be daunting. Friday night we hosted a cooking class at our house for seven people. We did a kind of Spring Thing with sauteed leeks and asparagus over polenta and halibut with freshly made pesto. I made basil ice cream with lemon-rosemary pound cake for dessert, because I do love the savory sweets.

    Saturday was debut night for one of the Girls’ new beau. He did very well considering he was thrown into a dinner party with ten people who can finish each other’s jokes. We threw a Boy/Girl menu on the table: steak/lobster, classic hashbrowns/quinoa with hearts of palm, and the oddly symbolic asparagus and leeks for everyone! For dessert I tried to make a seductive terrine of layered ice creams, chocolate and port wine. It was sort of a sloppy mess, but so were we, a little.

    Sunday we recovered and ate fried chicken from the Minnetonka Drive-In.

    So, Monday. I feel that I should make a dinner for the family tonight, to start the week off right. But I’m still a little sick of doing dishes and I don’t want to see another asparagus or leek for at least a week. The weather also plays a huge factor in the meal, and since it’s not really warm and it’s not really cold, my mind is a wee bit fuzzy.

    I think I’ve decided to roast a chicken. Even though our meals weren’t extremely intricate this weekend, they were big productions. A roasted chicken is an easy and satisfying dish that reconnects you with the elemental basics. Butter, garlic, lemon, rosemary, that’s enough.

    Before I caught my stride with roasted chicken, I would pour through books and websites to compare recipes and try to figure out the best, best, best way to do it perfectly. I’d come out with raw interiors and blackened skin or over-salty and under-flavored. It wasn’t until I really let go that I mastered the chicken. I stopped looking for a recipe, I trusted my gut.

    I put a whole chicken (SmartChicken is a nice grocery store option) in a roasting pan and rub it stem to stern with butter, nearly every lovin’ inch. Then salt and pepper to the same degree. Slice a smallish lemon in half, put one half inside the chicken with a chunk of butter, squeeze the other half over the top of the bird and throw it in the pan. Cut an entire head of garlic in half, place both halves in the pan. Pluck most of the leaves off some rosemary stems, sprinkle the leaves on the bird and toss the stems in the pan. In a 400 degree oven, time it so you are roasting for thirty minutes per pound. I’m not a baster, I think it’s a silly and wasted effort, my chickens are juicy without it. Check for doneness early, the skin should be golden and crisp, the juices clear when the breast is poked with a skewer. Take the bird out, let it sit on a platter for a few minutes while you deglaze the roasting pan with some white wine.

    There will probably be potatoes of some sort, maybe some rice. Now that I’m thinking about it, there could be some asparagus if the clouds break and the sun comes out. But definitely no leeks.

  • Yak Yak Yak

    Well, since I’m yet to give an official nod to National Poetry Month, we’ll make this a books-n-reading-themed Secret o’ the Day.

    Most important (at least in my mind): The May issue of The Rake hit stands today, and is also posted online. What’s not online, however, is the Literary Supplement we produced to celebrate the opening of the new Minneapolis Central Library, later this month. (It’s, uh, “poly-bagged” along with our May issue–get to yer local newsstands, fast!) Check it out for original pieces by Robert Bly, Kate DiCamillo, Bill Holm, and other great Minnesota authors.

    On that note: There’s another MELSA-sponsored reading of Minnesota Book Awards nominees today, this one at Ramsey County Library in Roseville and centers on the nominees for history and biography.

    Okay, poetry! Have ya’all checked out the Laurel Poetry Collective? I have not, sadly. Not yet anyway. But there’ll be a good chance tonight when they give a reading at the Roseville Barnes & Noble. Will I be there? No, sir.. I’ll be up to my eyeballs in work and “r&r recovery.” But I’m hoping to check them out come May, when the Collective’s work will be the featured text block at Ignited, an exhibition of handmade books–coming soon to the Minnesota Center for Book Arts.

    And come Tuesday, I promise to return with spitfire and grit. (T’was a long, exhausting weekend.)

  • 2006: Year of the Weird?

    13oclockmovie.gif

    Doodle by Steve Willis (scroll down link for bio).

    For a year that includes a new Mission: Impossible, a big-budget Robin Williams comedy, a remake of one of the 70s worst disaster films (Poseidon Adventure) and yet another slate of comic books flicks, it is with great pleasure that I am able to point you, dear reader, to the short list of this year’s oddballs. And by oddballs I mean the truly weird, the types of movies that twist your insides when you watch them, make you disgusted, angry even, and serve, in your advanced years, as a safer method of hallucination. Except for the last entry–that one just looks like fun.

    Inland Empire by David Lynch

    It’s been five years since Mulholland Drive, and finally David Lynch is back with its supposed sequel Inland Empire. Frankly, this could go either way: Lynch has made, in my mind, three great films–unbelievable, classic films that I’ll watch my whole life–in Eraserhead, Blue Velvet and the aforementioned Mulholland. That said, he’s also made some of the worst films I’ve ever seen in Wild at Heart, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (unbearable) and even The Straight Story. There’s no way of knowing if Lynch can build on Mulholland or if he’s just going to make yet another incomprehensible piece of trash.

    Supposedly in theaters late this summer or early autumn.

    Lunacy by Jan Svankmajer

    Hell if I know what brought me and a few friends to the Oak Street one summer night to see Little Otik years ago. But Jesus Christ, I haven’t been so freaked by a film since, well, since I took in Blue Velvet at the Goodrich Lansing Mall. Otik is a strong concoction of uber-Freudian fable, pedophile drama, and horror, involving a woman who adopts, and nurses, a tree stump. This stump, Little Otik, grows eyeballs, lips and a tongue, all of which is stop-motion animation using pig eyes and tongues for the effects. The stump eats cats and people. Bloody and creepy. Now my wife can’t think of soft-cooked eggs without flinching.

    Lunacy is Svankmajer’s first film since Otik, some six years ago. You can see a preview of Sileni (Czech for lunacy) here (it’s in Czech, and the version with English subtitles hasn’t been released yet). Supposedly it’s about a lunatic asylum, and has dancing pork tongues that also drink beer.

    Should hit our shores this fall or winter.

    The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes by the Brothers Quay

    I don’t know much about the Brother’s Quay except that their a pair of American weirdos who have relocated to Europe (don’t know where) and have made Svankmajer their personal hero and make surreal claymation cartoons. This is their second full-length feature, involving a beautiful diva who is killed and whisked away by a madman to a distant island, where she meets a poor soul who can piano tune anything, including earthquakes. If you can find the Sight and Sound from two months hence you’ll see the full page ad for the film, which is so painfully sexy I can’t imagine why anyone would fail to see this movie.

    Theoretically opening this fall.

    Drawing Restraint 9 by Matthew Barney and Bjork

    Frankly, I have no clue what this movie’s about. Something tells me that when I’m through watching it, my feeling will be the same. Barney’s films frighten me, and I have yet to see any of them. The Cremaster series, which I’ve missed in part due to scheudling conflicts and my own cowardice, look as bat-shit crazy as anything I’ve ever seen. Drawing Restraint 9 looks equally weird.

    Barney and Bjork board a Japanese whaler that also has a mold shaped like a tablet, filled with liquid petroleum jelly. As the ship plows into the arctic, the jelly cools and becomes a sculpture. I guess that Bjork and Barney engage in a number of Japanese ceremonies involving dancing, tea, the vomitous gunk that whales eat, and eventually cut their own legs off. Or something like that.

    Here are the links where Bjork and Barney try to explain themselves. And the preview.

    Premiering at the Walker May 5; opening later at the Lagoon.

    And finally Snakes on a Motherfucking Plane.

    This one doesn’t really fit, except to say that I can’t believe anyone came up with this thing. Snakes is high concept: for those of you not in the know, high concept means that you get an a movie based on a single idea, or concept. Twins is perhaps the best example–imagine the laughs with Danny DeVito and the Governor of California as twin brothers. That’s not a story, it’s an idea and a bad one. Most high concept films are worthless, but this one seems to write itself. Some goofball gets it into his head to assassinat some world leader or government lackey by bribing a member of airport security to unleash 400 poisonous snakes on an airplane. For Christ’s sake. Of course, the pilots have to die, a young woman will be in danger, you’ve got to save the damn target, and, on top of it all, Samuel L. Jackson is the star. I like snakes, my wife loves snakes, and my brother, well, he’s batty. And we’re all going to see this thing the day it opens.

    This thing isn’t going to be anything too weird, or complicated, or beautiful or intelligent. But pay attention when a people are having fun making something–often those are the best times in a darkened theater.

    Snakes has been the subject of a million gossipy conversations on the net; it opens this August.

    snakes.gif

  • Wandering Eye

    mulholland1.gif

    Kinky Boots, 2006. Directed by Julian Jarrold, written by Geoff Deane and Tim Firth. Starring Joel Edgerton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sarah-Jane Potts, Ewan Hooper, Linda Bassett, Nick Frost and Jemima Rooper.

    Now showing at the Uptown Theatre.

    The Notorious Bettie Page, 2006. Directed by Mary Harron, written by Harron and Guinevere Turner. Starring Gretchen Mol, Chris Bauer, Jared Harris, Sarah Paulson, Lili Taylor, and David Straithairn.

    Now showing at the Lagoon Cinema.

    Mulholland Drive, 2001. Directed and written by David Lynch. Starring Naomi Watts, Laura Elena Harring, Ann Miller (wonderful in “On the Town”), Dan Hedaya, Justin Theroux, and Lafayette Montgomery as the Cowboy.

    Looping continuously through my brain in moments of weakness.

    I love Mulholland Drive. There’s so few times when a movie will strap me down onto the electric chair and throw the switch with abandon. I can’t think of another flick that entertains on so many levels–it’s terrifying, funny, mysterious, creepy, and easily the sexiest picture I’ve ever seen. It’s the perfect movie.

    Sexy? Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ on a Popsicle Stick it’s sexy. The muckity-mucks at the Hollywood Citadel haven’t been able to match its allure, not with all the lingerie in Chicago (boring), all the toplessness in Showgirls (like a spike in the brain), nor Secretary or any other movie. It’s the plot, I’m telling you, the characters and the story that on numerous occasions culminates in a beast popping out from behind a dumpster, a spine-tingling cowboy suggesting we be ‘good’ or some of the most intense girl-on-girl lovemaking you’ll ever see. In Lynch’s world there’s that feeling of being trapped in a sinister place, trying your damndest to get a grip on everything and then, suddenly, finding yourself in bed with Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring. I’m catching my breath even now.

    There’s little connection between The Notorious Bettie Page, Kinky Boots and Mulholland Drive, other than I was thinking of the latter while being bored by the former pair. Comparing them would be like comparing a Playboy magazine to a dirty joke to that time you dropped two hits of acid and ended up with some woman with a poster from the Breeders Pod album above her bed and who interrupted everything to show you her ball python and who told you that you were like Iggy Pop except like a child with sideburns. In any case, one’s the real deal, the others are just pablum. Like those mystifying nights with a real human being, one movie haunts you for days. The others make you feel empty, if they make you feel at all.

    A confession: I walked out of Bettie Page. It’s boring. Gretchen Mol bears a striking resemblance to Page, has a gorgeous body, yet is thoroughly without charisma and therefore, sex appeal, emotionally or physically. The film is lit on the cheap, looking as though the action were shot under Wal-Mart fluorescents. There’s no story to speak of, except that we see the rise of Bettie Page as an S&M starlet, in flashback, as she awaits questioning at the hands of Estes Kefauver, who may be one of the goofiest Senators in history, and nothing like David Straithairn. Anyway, the movie is filled with scenes of Bettie posing, of being surprised by the male response to her nudity, and of her trying to break into pictures. Which, I remember thinking, was nothing like that moment in Mulholland Drive where Naomi Watts auditions for a part with that drunken creep, some overtanned has-been and that disturbing director who almost looks like an elder Eraserhead goading them on. And Watts suddenly slips into character, whispering and drawing nearer to the creep, pretending to have a knife in her hand, and when she kisses him ever so softly and you’re just mesmerized, melting inside, and you wish to God you were the old creep and then the Eraserhead director yells ‘Cut!’ and you’re shaken from your reverie and… whew. In any case, Bettie Page had none of that.

    For instance, there’s a scene where Bettie is gang raped, and it’s hollow, no fear, no tension, and Bettie seems to have rebounded nicely five minutes later. We know Page is a natural in front of the camera because everyone says so, not because we actually see it. For Mol is far from a natural, and hasn’t the warmth of a mannequin in a second hand clothing store.

    Supposedly, the film switches into garish color, but I didn’t get that far, having walked out to enjoy the sunshine and ponder the philosophy of Naomi and Laura Elena in bed together. And I’m glad–the black and white cinematography in Page was cheap and lifeless to go along with the acting. My own memories of Mulholland Drive had much more color and intensity.

    Kinky Boots also lacks sexiness, odd considering it’s ostensibly about, well, being kinky. The plot concerns a young guy whose father kicks the bucket, leaving the son with an old and respected shoe factory in a small blue collar English town. This is one of those bucolic factory burgs that seem to exist all over the British Isles, at least according to films like this and The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill and Came Down A Mountain, The Full Monty, Waking Ned Devine, etc. This little town, with all its crazy old characters, needs the shoe factory. But the poor owner, played by Joel Edgerton (and looking like a fifty-cent Dennis Quaid) can’t make ends meet, so our hero shuffles into London–where he and his shrew of a wife really want to live–and meets Lola, nee Simon, (Chiwetel Ejiofor) a cross dresser who works at a gay bar. Lola has the solution: make kinky thigh-high boots strong enough for a bloke as large as Ejiofor to wear without the heels giving out. Hijinks are theoretically supposed to ensue.

    Apparently, the effects of globalization in England has resulted in one economic boom in the guise of comedies like this–from Monty, a good film whose lessons went unheeded here, to Brassed Off, to this. Ejiofor seems to be following Philip Seymour Hoffman’s path to Oscar glory, taking on the requisite cross-dresser role and eating up scenes like he’s trying out for the school play. Joel Edgerton is lost in the main role and possesses no comic timing. As I said, the film lacks sexiness, but it also is malnourished in the humor department, and hasn’t even the sweetness of any story about people coming out of their shells. There’s just scene after scene of blue-collar innocents learning to love a jolly fellow like Ejiofor, who happens to wear a dress.

    If this film had been the least bit daring, it would have made Edgerton’s character fall for Ejiofor, but of course no one’s out to make a good movie, just a bucketful of money off the back of The Full Monty.

    Bored while watching Kinky Boots, I again flitted to Mulholland Drive, in part thinking how glad I was not to have seen either Watts or Harring in any of those boots. That’s just not sexy. This faux-Ealing comedy is nowhere in David Lynch’s interest range, and I should be glad for that–maybe he could have done something with a shoe factory, but it would probably involve pygmy chickens bubbling blood and midgets dribbling coffee down their shirts. And cowboys. Creepy, disturbing cowboys. All of which is endurable when Naomi Watts is coming down the line.

    In short: there’s lots to see and do this weekend, some good stuff at the Mpls/St. Paul International Film Festival, and perhaps even simply renting Mulholland Drive late one night.

    mulholland2.gif

  • Dopes on Science

    Never mind the science, here’s the politics. Not content with denigrating the science behind any cogent understanding of evolutionary biology or global warming, now the Bushies are taking on medicine.

    Despite the clear scientific evidence that marijuana has medicinal uses such as combating nausea in chemotherapy patients and pain and anorexia in AIDS patients, Bush wants the DEA and the political appointees at the FDA, not the National Academy of Sciences, to tell us what we ought to think.

    Do you ever wonder what those guys in the administration are smoking?

    Makes you wonder if the stoners at Macalester aren’t really on to something.

  • What Makes A Manager Good?

    I don’t know if there’s a manager in the Major Leagues that gets a blanket pass from his team’s fans.

    Maybe, you’d think, Joe Torre would, but anybody who’s ever spent any time in New York listening to sports talk radio (don’t ask) knows that every move Torre makes –and doesn’t make– is as scrutinized and subject to fanatic screeds as the decisions Ron Gardenhire makes here in Minnesota.

    I’ve thought about it for years, and I still can’t make up my mind about what sorts of qualities, characteristics, and personality traits I’d want were I hiring a manager for my imaginary baseball team.

    There have been plenty of instances where obvious boneheads have managed excellent teams, and even managed clubs that won world championships (Bob Brenley being the example that comes immediately to mind).

    Once upon a time –not all that long ago, really– I used to be able to rattle off the names of every manager in the Major Leagues. Right off the top of my head, no problem. A lot of those once-upon-a-time managers were as famous as the players on their teams, and recognized primarily for their fiery and colorful personalities and combativeness with umpires. I’m thinking of guys like Leo Durocher, Earl Weaver, Billy Martin, Dick Williams, and Tommy Lasorda. Or old warriors like Gene Mauch.

    I still haven’t made up my mind whether any of those guys were great managers or not. Among that group there were certainly a lot of different philosophies, many of them tailored to the sorts of teams they managed. Looking over their career records makes it hard to draw any definite conclusions, other than that when they had good players to trot out there every night they tended to win.

    I think the same thing is probably just as true today, but I also suppose it’s possible that a truly lousy manager (Butch Hobson, for instance) can actually sabotage a decent team’s chances to win.

    I also know that today there an awful lot of pretty anonymous characters out there wearing manager’s uniforms in Major League dugouts.

    What really are the fundamental qualities of a good manager?

    One of them, I’d think, would be the ability to recognize talent in his organization and to make the best use of the talent he does have. That seems pretty obvious, but it’s always surprising to me how many guys who get these jobs fail even that most basic of tests.

    With all the money in today’s game, and the big egos that come with it, more and more it seems like the job really does boil down to the job title –an awful lot of time and attention has to be paid to managing disparate personalities in the clubhouse and on the field. People always talk about leadership and chemistry with regard to big league clubhouses, and it’s struck me in recent years that with almost every team those intangibles flow first and foremost from the manager’s office.

    Other than personnel decisions, it’s a manager’s strategic approach –or lack thereof– that leads to the most debate among fans: making out the batting order, calling for sacrifice bunts or hit-and-run plays, stealing bases, and the handling of the pitching staff. All of these decisions are a constant source of debate, and tend to look brilliant when they work out and counter-productive when they don’t.

    The bottom line, of course, is the bottom line: Whether a team wins or loses. When there seems to be a consistent pattern to the way a club wins or loses I suppose you can draw some conclusions about how much of the credit for that goes to the manager and how much to the players.

    I watch a lot of baseball games, though, and have watched a lot of baseball games over the last several decades, and I pretty routinely see managers –even supposedly good managers– make decisions that have me scratching my head.

    So, you tell me: what is that makes a manager good? Who are the great ones in the Major Leagues today, and why? What do you have against Ron Gardenhire, or what might you say in his favor? And, finally, if you ran the zoo and could pick anyone, who would you hire to manage the Twins?

    I’m headed to New York for a few days, and, weather permitting, might take in a Yankee game.

    Before I go, though, I’d also like to discuss what the hell seems to be wrong with Jesse Crain. I did think it was strange when his strikeout rates –which were always pretty impressive in the minor leagues– declined so drastically last year, even as he was inarguably effective.

    I’ll tell you one think I noticed the last couple years that seems to be missing from his approach so far this season: Last year in particular he was one Minnesota pitcher who was never afraid of pitching inside, and his above-average fastball was a great weapon for keeping opposing hitters from crowding the plate. I remember remarking that I couldn’t remember the last Twin pitcher who brushed back so many batters, usually early in the count.

    I haven’t seen much, if any, of that so far in 2006, and Crain looks to me like he’s consistently finding too much of the plate with his pitches. I think it might be time for him to get back in touch with his inner Don Drysdale.