Author: Peter Schilling

  • Tinkerer Extraordinaire

    “Dig around and find something!” Steve Jevning said, poking through a box of doll heads. “That’s how we do it here. See it, touch it, if something talks to you, grab it!” Jevning is the founder and executive director of Leonardo’s Basement, a South Minneapolis educational center for children of all ages. In a space beneath the Anodyne Coffee Shop on Nicollet Avenue, kids can do anything from computer animation to welding to mummifying Barbie dolls. The place is packed to its dusty rafters with the detritus of salvage shops, electronics warehouses, armament factories, and other enterprises that donate materials. As the pirate captain of this strange organization, Jevning presides over nearly two dozen instructors; in summer the place kicks into high gear, tripling the number of classes it offers.

    With his close-cropped hair sprinkled with dust and wood shavings, wireless specs, and muscular hands, Jevning looks every bit the mad inventor. He surveyed the room, his eyes lighting up at a humble cigar-box banjo. “Look at that,” he whispered, admiring its simple design. He absentmindedly began to pluck out a tune. “Children today are a generation removed from Dad’s garage, which is too bad. They’re swept away with Game Boys and television, and there’s not as many cool things to take apart today.” He pulled out his cell phone. “I mean, tear the cover off this and … well, good luck.”

    Jevning was once a conventional teacher—the profession runs in his family—but he chafed at all the rules and methods, so he went for remodeling and construction instead. “I hate this miserable return to the Victorian Age, where kids are vessels to be filled, this every-child-left-behind crap,” he said. When he was a student, he pointed out, if he didn’t like a subject in school, he was glad to fail. But then Steve’s fourth-grade son grew bored of his science class and asked his dad to help him and some friends “mess around” after school. Jevning saw this as an opportunity to expand his son’s education. They rented a space at the Center for Performing Arts and organized an inventors fair. That slowly evolved into classes, fund-raisers, and, finally, Leonardo’s Basement.

    Jevning’s classes are designed to engage children’s imaginations, teach them simple physics, and give them the confidence to both break and build things en route to solving problems and creating art. And always they’re just plain fun. Steve pointed to a rather creepy plastic fish with a Barbie-doll head swapped in for a fish head, and its tail fashioned from a larger doll’s hand. It looked like something Duchamp might have played with as a child. “That’s from our ‘Re-Imagined Toys’ class,” he said proudly, as one might talk about the provenance of a valuable sculpture. “Kids get a perverse fascination tearing apart Barbies.”

    Leading a visitor down a cluttered corridor, lined with shelves spilling over with plastic tubes and wires, Jevning seemed to be lost in his own mind. “This place is purposely chaotic. Kids need to be given the freedom to roam. The more freedom, the more they expand their space, the more they learn.” He gestured around the room, whose every corner was piled with junk that could be turned into a working machine or work of art: stacks of old keyboards, physics books leaning against doll heads, an upright piano with its innards exposed, medical supplies, blank cds, wood scraps, and wheels—dozens and dozens of wheels. “If we had a giant space they’d make giant stuff!” It appears that if Steve had a giant space, he would make giant stuff as well. “We’d get physical, too. We’d have ropes and pulleys so they could climb. Really get these kids going.”

    Enrollment at Leonardo’s Basement is robust—by mid-May there were waiting lists for all the summer sessions—but it is also, not surprisingly, always on financial edge. Jevning is responsible for coming up with a budget, working with donors, and, perhaps most difficult, hunting down teachers who embody the spirit of the school. Too often adults try to impose their own style on the kids, without allowing them their freedom. Good teachers often don’t stay, as their ambitions often send them down a different path.

    By summer’s end, children around the city will have floated across Lake Harriet on giant water insects, reconstructed digested mice from owl pellets, and undoubtedly created something no one at the center has ever built before—that spirit of invention is the core of Leonardo’s Basement. As an example of this, Steve stood beside what looked to be a spaceship cockpit. “This is a spaceship cockpit,” he announced. “One of the kids wanted this, so we made it”—using old oscilloscopes, dashboards from music machines, console boards and plenty of gold paint. “Someday this is going to control parts of the basement. The lights, temperature—it will really work. That’s what this place is all about: giving the new da Vincis a salon of their own.”

  • Rake Appeal { Object Lust

    I long ago discovered the correlation between the price paid for a pair of sunglasses and the speed at which I lose them. I once dropped a sweet pair of Ray-Bans over the side of a friend’s Sunfish and watched them sink to the bottom of Lake Michigan after only one week. Eventually, frugality had forced me to stop wearing sunglasses altogether. That is, until the wretched sunlight began to wear away at my good nature—squinting put me in such a foul state of mind last summer that a stranger stopped me on the street and told me I ought to smile more. It was time to get a real pair of shades.

    I already wear prescription specs (and hate contacts, and fear laser surgery), so I needed a pair that would fit over my small Ben Franklin-style oval frames. I knew that regular shades, the type you might find at a Mall of America kiosk, would fit neither my face nor my modest budget. On a routine visit to Walgreens, however, I found just what I was looking for: the SolarShield Oval Fits-Overs.

    It has been suggested, quite successfully I might add, that I long ago abandoned any fashion pretense in favor of simple creature comforts. Perhaps the SolarShield Fits-Overs are a reflection of that—they’re unbelievably effective on a glaring summer’s day, but have yet to catch on with the trendy set. Being a whip of a man—thin and un-muscular with a diminutive head—wearing such bulging sunglasses lends me the look of Plastic Man, albeit one clad in cotton cardigans and jeans. Drivers often do a double-take when they see me on the road—admittedly, with my Fits-Overs on, I do resemble a blind man at the wheel. A friend summed it up best when I modeled them for him: “Jesus Christ, you’re not going to wear those?” But when I slip these babies on, the raging incandescence of a summer’s day is diminished, and if I don’t look cool, I at least feel that way. The SolarShield company has a number of styles, ranging from the bulging pair I like to wear in the car, to a smaller, more compact version. When the same friend stopped by later on, I was lounging in my lawn chair sporting this new, sleeker pair of Fits-Overs. I suggested to him that these were similar to the sort of shades favored by Bono. He rolled his eyes. “Bono?” he said. “Sonny Bono. Maybe.”

    With a name that seems borrowed from some turn-of-the-last-century medicine show (Cures all manner of lazy eye! Suppresses optic phantoms! A restorative for ocular fatigue!), the Fits-Overs are a more-evolved version of the wrap-arounds your great-uncle used to wear after cataract surgery, when he couldn’t allow even the smallest ray of sunlight to hit his peepers. Those glasses went well, you might recall, with his golden Sears’ golf shirts, plaid shorts, and black socks with flip-flops. They looked as though they’d been fabricated in a high school shop class—squarish slabs of opaque plastic, ugly as hell. To the benefit of mankind, someone at the SolarShield company ventured into the realm of the moderately hip, realizing that seeing-impaired sixty-year-olds might wish to look a bit edgier than in years past. In fact, the SolarShield website features pictures of all kinds of people sporting the Fits-Overs, from elderly gents to dashing young men.

    Despite their considerable size, Fits-Overs are light and comfortable. Each pair is a wonder of design, looking like something from the New York World’s Fair. The giant, polarized lenses are so dark they drop the world into a near-total eclipse, while a small, tinted porthole at the hinge of either temple allows for “peripheral protection,” and gives bus-riders like me an opportunity to eyeball the crackpot in the next seat without incident. The “integrated top bar” slides over the top frame of my prescription glasses and up against my forehead, preventing any penetration of sunlight from above.

    Best of all, because SolarShield Fits-Overs are cheap, ranging from just twelve to twenty bucks, I don’t care if I lose them. This probably means I’ll have mine forever.

  • Sometimes Children Thrive in Darkness

    pinoke1.gif

    Pinocchio, 1940. Directed by Hamilton Luske and Ben Sharpsteen, written by Aurelius Battaglia, William Cottrell, Otto Englander, Bill Peet, Erdman Penner, Joseph Sabo, Ted Sears and Webb Smith (all that for an 88 minute film!). Featuring the originally uncredited voices of Cliff Edwards, Dickie Jones, Christian Rub, Walter Catlett, Charles Judels, Evelyn Venable, Frankie Darro, and Mel Blanc.

    I’m a jerk: this title isn’t even available on DVD. You can rent it on video at any major chain or check it out at your public libraries.

    What do we give children today to help them keep in touch with their melancholy nature? They can’t go to movies anymore, not with such sunny fare as Cars and Over the Hedge. They can’t read new books, as they’re now penned by the likes of Madonna, a woman trying desperately to recapture a childhood she likely never had. Maybe children go to the museums to ponder life and death, their own frustrations, to cringe at the intense sunlight and lonliness in a van Gogh, as a three-year-old friend of mine once did.

    Fact is, I don’t have a clue–recently visiting children weren’t interested in reading E. B. White or Saint-Exupery, and mother warned that Pinocchio is too scary. Too scary? When I was young, the menace and the emotional reaction were just what I needed to help me grasp the perils of real life.

    Pinocchio opens with Cliff Edwards’ rendition of “When You Wish Upon A Star”, a jolly tune that is here pensive and not the upbeat crap you hear at Disney’s themeparks. We see Jiminy Cricket, a depression-era grasshopper, with holes in his gloves, his shoes coming apart, looking for a place to crash for the night. He ends up in Geppetto’s toy and clock shop, a dark place, where strange faces loom in the shadows, everything lit by the dying embers of a fire. It is at once warm and mysterious–it is the perfect hideaway for children.

    We all know the story: poor old Geppetto and his silly cat, Figaro, and sexy fish, Cleo, live by themselves in the toy store. Geppetto makes a little wooden boy, a puppet he names Pinocchio. As he readies for bed, he wishes on a star that Pinocchio would become a real boy, and, of course, in the night the Blue Fairy descends and makes the wooden boy come alive. There’s a bonus: he can become a real boy if he proves himself Brave, Truthful and Unselfish. Thus begins Pinocchio’s adventures with Jiminy Cricket, who has been given a new suit of duds and has been designated his Conscience.

    The film is episodic and really bizarre, with horrible climaxes building and building on one another. Pinocchio tries to go to school, but is intercepted By Honest John and Giddy, a fox and cat who are nothing more than petty criminals looking to score some quick dough. Singing “An Actor’s Life For Me!” the pair convinces Pinocchio, the innocent, to go with them, where they sell the boy for a pittance to a horrible, bellowing man named Stromboli.

    This whole time, the sun seems barely to have broken through the clouds in Pinocchio’s world. His Conscience, Jiminy, is a man of vanity, yearning for a gold badge that states he’s the conscience, and a bug who ogles after the girl puppets in his charge’s show–a sexually charged scene that includes can-can girls, cute milkmaids, and svelte Russian ladies who wiggle their behinds and coo “I’d cut my strings for you!”

    All this captured with probably the finest animation in history, backgrounds fraught with detail, the steps of buildings sweating in the humidity, faces everywhere, the grain and scratches on wood surfaces reflecting the dim light. And children have probably never been given a main character whose clumsiness is as touching as Pinocchio’s–you can see the boy discovering the limitations of his physical body, and his utter confusion in trying to figure out the path between right and wrong.

    But what makes me believe that Pinocchio is the greatest film for children is its underlying message: that evil cannot be defeated, that it lurks everywhere, and that only through the love of friends and family can it be endured. The stakes only get higher and higher for our poor hero–from the goofballs Honest John and Giddy, to the bullying Stromboli, to the Coachman whose goal is to harvest children, hauling them off to Pleasure Island. With its giant pugilists and solemn-faced wooden indians hurling cigars at the kids, Pleasure Island is not just a playground for truant children, but a taste of the adult world as well–and I suppose you could argue that when the kids get turned into donkeys, for sale to the salt mines, it’s a metaphor for the life of toil that faces the uneducated.

    The film culminates in a vision of biblical evil, with Pinocchio fighting a giant whale named Monstro, who has somehow swallowed Geppetto and his fishing boat. The underwater scenes are mind-boggling, but even more, they’re scary–the film is relentless in what it puts its young audience through. Eventually, Pinocchio saves his father, but not before we’re treated to an image of the boy face down in a tidepool, dead.

    I will grant you that Pinocchio has its odd moments, its weak parts–as usual, Disney doesn’t trust women, giving us only the virginal Blue Fairy and the whorish puppets who are stand ins for actresses in general. Mothers are never present in old Walt’s films, for whatever reason, but then again, Geppetto is a strong case for the power of single parentage.

    But Pinocchio has always haunted me, through my formative years and even into adulthood, this cartoon of shadows. It scared me when I was a kid, and it scared me a bit last night when I watched it again. I think about it when I’m worried about the world; I think of it when I’m worried about children. And I think of it when I see adults who act like children, who seem to want to retreat to Disneyworld and forget that there’s a world out there–perhaps that’s their own little Pleasure Island.

    pinoke2.gifpinoke1.gif

  • Better Late than Never

    gore.gif

    An Inconvenient Truth, 2006. Directed by Davis Guggenheim. Created by and Starring Al Gore (and, yes, today’s politicians are stars).

    An Inconvenient Truth has been marketed, without a hint of irony, as ‘the most terrifying film you’ll ever see’. There’s some truth in that, though not, I think, in ways the filmmakers intended. For myself, watching Mr. Gore speak with passion and eloquence made me wonder just where this guy was back in the year 2000, and what this country would be like today had he emerged six years ago. To me, that’s terrifying.

    An Inconvenient Truth serves two functions: to warn people about the dangers of global warming and to spring Al Gore back into the public eye. It succeeds quite well in both accounts, although I can say that, for myself, virtually none of Gore’s information was new. The film is terrifying if you’ve had your head in the sand for fifteen years or have gleaned all your news from Newsweek.

    For a movie that claims to be bi-partisan, Truth clearly serves to jab at the current administration (no argument here) and gives us quite a personal bio of Mr. Gore–in fact, it often appears similar to those patriotic bios they show at conventions.

    What concerns me is that An Inconvenient Truth, in my mind, has no place on movie screens. I don’t know quite how we reached this point, where our nation’s theaters have become marquees for what really amounts to propaganda–lest we not forget that propaganda is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if we agree with it. But does it belong in a movie house? Look around, and now we’re seeing documentaries taking up tremendous amounts of space in our art-house theaters. There’s Michael Moore’s films, Super Size Me, The Yes Men (horrible), and the forthcoming Who Killed The Electric Car? and The US v. John Lennon… all of these films could be shown on PBS–Ken Burns does it, after all, to greater success than many of these movies–and leave the little space we have for foreign and indie films alone. By showing Truth in a theater, you’re really only attracting those people who are willing to go out of their way to see it. And those people are pretty much in your camp, anyway.

    Gore is still his stiff self at times, and I’ve heard from not a few critics and friends how he still hasn’t got it, as in how Al Gore still couldn’t hold a crowd like, say, Jeb Bush. Which is sad, really: it shouldn’t matter whether a guy can’t come off as being someone you’d want to have a beer with, or whether he can do the job. At times Truth veers into the bizarre, such as when there are animations of polar bears and cute frogs. “You’ve got to save the frog,” Gore laughs. But then there are a few arresting images to go along with his portents of gloom and doom, such as giant fishing boats rusting in the nearly barren Aral Sea, an image of startling and terrible beauty. Perhaps someday Gore’s message will finally sink in; perhaps when he is someday president. An Inconvenient Truth seems aimed at both goals.

    X-Men: The Last Stand, 2006. Directed by Brett Ratner, written by Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn. Starring Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Ian McKellan (still the best reason to watch this series), Famke Janssen, Anna Paquin, Rebecca Romjin, Kelsey Grammar, Patrick Stewart, James Mardsen, Shawn Ashmore, Aaron Stanford, Ben Foster, and character actors Josef Sommer, Anthony Heald, Michael Murphy, and Bill Duke.

    X-Men III is a decent picture, a comic book picture, which is two strikes already in my book. The X-Men franchise has fascinated me predominantly because of the complexity of Magneto’s character. As played with great relish by Sir Ian McKellan, this Holocaust survivor is easily the most fascinating person in the whole franchise, someone you can relate to as well as hope for defeat.

    As usual, the humans mean absolutely nothing, and it strikes me as the greatest weakness of the series that a relationship between a human and a mutant was never explored. Humans are so weak in these films that inevitably the plot always comes down to battles between the mutants, which leads me to wonder why in the hell is earth even in the picture? You could put the whole kit and caboodle on another planet, and you wouldn’t lose anything.

    Once again, discrimination is the name of the game, and supposedly the X-Men series is a great lesson on the perils of prejudice. Hogwash. No one who cares watches X-Men for anything other than brain candy, and those who could stand to learn something about bigotry don’t learn from a comic book movie. In this episode, there’s a strong gay subtext: the father of a mutant seeks to ‘cure’ his son, who is about as homosexually iconic a character as I have ever seen in a mainstream film: young, with blonde locks, bare chested and in tight jeans, with angels wings. It’s as if Tony Kushner wrote the damn thing. Again, nothing’s wrong with this, except that this character has virtually no purpose except to fly around and save his father from peril.

    X-Men has been rightly criticized for its ham-fisted direction, although I’ll say that Bryan Singer isn’t much better–a decent technician with little emotional connection to a plot. Brett Ratner just lets the thing fly, lots of explosions, lots of overacting that’s not kept in check (it wasn’t under Singer’s hand, either). There has been much worse fare this summer.

    xmen.gif

  • Belly Flop

    nacho1.gif

    Nacho Libre, 2006. Directed by Jared Hess, written by Jared and Jerusha Hess and Mike White. Starring Jack Black, Hector Jimenez, Ana de la Reguera, and Darius Rose.

    Mexicans sure are funny. This was hammered into my cranium about ten minutes into Nacho Libre. Early on, we see Jack Black serving grotesque meals to poor orphans, all the while talking like Speedy Gonzalez, that icon of Hispanic thespianship. Wrapped in sharp cinematography and a smart soundtrack and featuring a cast of bug-eyed, gaping children–all of whom are cute as buttons–Nacho Libre looks good, but could be the worst film I’ve seen this summer (were it not for some tight competition in the guise of Mission: Impossible, Poseidon, and The DaVinci Code). I’m not Hispanic, so I can’t say that this film insults my race; I can say that something this monumentally unfunny and mean-spirited insults me as a person.

    Oddly enough, since I endured Nacho last Wednesday, the film has been widely praised as ‘sweet’. This is baffling. Nacho Libre dislikes many of its characters and has an outsider’s view of a culture, lazily researched. It’s ostensibly for kids but without a strong child character, just a selfish man in the character of Nacho and the actor Jack Black, who plays him. The plot is fast and loose, seeming more along the lines of one of those awful Saturday Night Live skit movies (Superstar, Stuart Saves His Family, etc.) and utterly without character. The humor as broad as Jack’s waistband, and I think there might have been ten laughs total in a packed theater.

    The facts: Jack plays Nacho, son of a Mexican priest and a Scandinavian missionary, orphaned at a young age. Since losing his parents, he has been in charge of cooking hideous meals for the other orphans, basically green gunk that gives the priests diarrhea (thus begins the first of many unfunny bathroom jokes). Nacho loves the Lucha Libre wrestlers, those masked, caped buffoons who throw each other around in the ring, and who supposedly made some groovy films in the 70s, which this film utterly fails to pay homage to. Anyway, Nacho decides to become a Lucha Libre in order to get some glory and raise money so that the orphans can have something decent to eat.

    Admittedly, you don’t need much of a plot to make a good comedy about Lucha Libre wrestling. Perhaps you don’t need a Hispanic playing the lead role, either–after all, Chuck Heston played a Mexican man in Touch of Evil, weakening a tremendous film (in Nacho, I yearned for the talents of the apparently too-thin John Leguizamo, or for side-kick Hector Jimenez to helm the thing).

    “I pulled a Meryl Streep,” Black said, explaining his training for the role of Nacho. “I worked hard to perfect my accent. I wanted it to be kick-ass, but it was not easy.” That’s probably because it’s hard to be kick-ass like Streep when you’re a mediocre actor. Black is funny, but his ego demands to be center stage in this film, barely allowing other actors to breathe. And the film has its moments of thinly veiled disgust: Jack’s character is never humiliated to the extent of his pal Esquelito, who has shit smeared in his face, his hair pulled out, and is chased by a tremendously fat woman who has to crawl on all fours through tunnels like a sewer rat. It’s apparently fun to show this woman as being grotesquely fat, whereas Nacho is simply fat and fun, a man of eventual dignity.

    Both the Hess’ Napoleon Dynamite and Mike White’s The Good Girl are rife with moments of loathing for characters unlike themselves– Dynamite still bewilders me; I thought it was fun to watch but filled, at times, with moments of unnecessary cruelty. And the girlfriend in White’s School of Rock is the one sour character in an otherwise charming film.

    Perhaps I’d ignore much of this if the damn thing had just had a laugh or two. But the comic timing is leaden, and the scatological humor is so thoroughly out of place that the kids in the crowd didn’t even respond to it. Nacho Libre has the appearance of a movie that was fun to make, something that, had I been a member of the cast or crew, I’d have fond memories and a ton of belly laughs. Unfortunately, none of us were on the set, so we’re treated instead to an inside joke that barely registers a smile.

    Nacho Libre is mercifully short, and when I emerged from the theater in my grumpy mood, I wondered to myself if white culture has ever had its movie equivalent, of people with goofy accents and a dumb plot with lame, insulting jokes.

    Maybe it’s The DaVinci Code.

    nacho2.gif

  • A Plug For the Good Guys

    Since it seems as if The Oak Street Cinema isn’t going to open its doors to rep cinema anytime soon (if ever), fans of the old school can head on down tonight to the Matchbox Coffee Shop (1306 2nd Avenue NE–just off Broadway) where the affable Barry Kryshka is going to show Watermelon Man. According to Barry, they’ll show Melvin van Peeble’s bizarro comedy “come hell or high water”–which might be the case if the weather doesn’t break. If my in-laws weren’t in town, I’d be there.

    ASPIRING FILMMAKERS: Head on down to the Bell Auditorium tomorrow to glom the rules for the 24 Hour Feature Film Challenge. Check out the link for all the info…

  • Conversations Real and Imagined: Route 17 and 21 Film Critics

    bus1.gif

    “OK, see, the thing I’ve got in my head is that we’re finally nearing the Armageddon because even the Godless are starting to freak out. Hollywood, that’s the Gomorrah of our time, and what’s going on? Religion. Look at it: Da Vinci Code, The Omen, that Mel Gibson thing with the Indians, even that Al Gore Truth movie’s about a liberal freak-out. The Break-Up’s about figuring out godlessness and even X-Men is about defeating the mutant who goes against God. Nacho Libre takes place in a monastery. Poseidon, too, is a remake of a film with a priest at its center, even though it has a name reflecting ancient, heretical gods.

    “A stretch, you say? Have you seen those movies? You saw Mission: Impossible–notice I didn’t mention that one. They said Jesus was a stretch my friend. And until you’ve walked in the valley, as I have, down at Southdale, let me tell you, you can’t see it. Hollywood’s scared, scared of the savior, scared of the end of time…”

    “If you ask me, The Break Up ought to be about how a sexy woman like Jennifer Aniston breaks the hell up with that fat bastard, what’s his name, and all his fat friends. Why the hell would any girl that looked like Jenn-A sleep with a tub like that?”

    “I sometimes wonder if that Muslim thing isn’t such a good idea–graven images and all, you can’t have likenesses of Allah and such. OK, you can’t have a likeness of Mohammed, whatever. I’m thinking more of Christ and God, this stuff applied to Christianity. Yeah, you’d lose all that great art but you wouldn’t have the Da Vinci Code either. Or that 3-D Jesus I saw at a garage sale last week. They’re both freakshows–mark my words, you’ll see dozens of copies of the book and the movie along with that Left Behind shit at the sales in just a year. Scary, man, truly scary…”

    “You know what would be cool? If there was a Yugo in that Cars movie. I saw one of those on the highway, and it seemed to me like you get a lot of jokes out of that. Old jokes, maybe, but I liked Yugos…”

    “Well, now, I’ve listened to nearly nine hundred shows of A Prairie Home Companion in a row, without break. 882 to be precise. To my knowledge, I’ve heard every show there is, and I have a record of every guest and song and advertisement. The joke ads, that is. I began at the dawn of my streak, but have since added journals that reflect recordings I’ve heard that weren’t in chronological order. Someday, someone at Minnesota Public Radio will want this information.

    “My problem is trying to figure out where to put the movie. Because I saw it, as well as listened. I’ve seen the show live twice, but there wasn’t a conflict because it was a broadcasted show. Obviously, the movie has not been broadcast. Also, were the musical guests real? Do they count? One of them died backstage, but of course he isn’t really dead. And then again Meryl Streep actually appeared at the Hollywood Bowl show, which I have notes for.

    “I’m thinking the best solution is a separate volume for the movie, don’t you think? With specific details? Good idea… perhaps I should write Mr. Keillor…”

    Over The Hedge was stupid. I hate Over The Hedge! I want to see Cars but I hate Over The Hedge! Why can’t I see Cars? I hate Over The Hedge!”

    “OK, so it’s gross and I’m crazy. But I would lick the sweat and bugs off Guy Pierce anytime…”

    “So there’s this new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, OK? And they’ve got this website, with the sound of creaking signs and stuff, OK? So I go to check out the trailer, and I can’t–’cause you can’t see it until after ten p.m., OK? Damn, man, this sumbitch is gonna have some gore, right in the preview. I’m waitin’, waitin’, can’t wait, and ten comes, and the God-damn thing’s nothing more than a normal short–nothing scary, just the usual. The movie might be good, but shit, wait ’til ten, there’s got to be some real cuttin’ up, heads and stuff, OK? Well, there’s not. Nothing. God-damn.”

    “Wow. I wouldn’t want to be that Brandon guy from the new Superman. Look at Christopher Reeves–and the guy from the TV show offed himself. Cursed, that’s all there is to it. At the least, the guy’s going to lose his shirt in the stock market…”

    “God, summer movies suck my brains out my eyes…”

    bus2.gif

  • The Auteur Cometh

    obviousangel.gif

    My digital camera is gone; above, stock photo subtly suggesting that the Virginia Madsen character is an angel. Get it? There’s more in case you don’t…

    A Prairie Home Companion, 2006. Directed by Robert Altman, written by Garrison Keillor. Starring Garrison Keillor, Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Virginia Madsen, Kevin Kline, Lindsay Lohan, John C. Reilly, Woody Harrelson, Maya Rudolph, Sue Scott, Tim Russell, Tom Keith, Tommy Lee Jones, and, once again swept under the rug, L. Q. Jones.

    After all this time, the “Prairie Home Companion” movie is coming to a theater near you. After months of peeking at celebs in their favorite pizza joints, reading about their exploits around St. Paul, and feeling that warm flush of pride when every last one of them proclaims that Minnesota is just the gosh-darned greatest place on the planet, we finally get to see the movie they came and left in a hurry for. And it is the best thing Robert Altman’s done in since Gosford Park. The problem, as I see it, is that Gosford Park was a great movie sandwiched in between piles and piles of garbage, like Dr. T and the Women. While A Prairie Home Companion is not garbage, it’s far from great. In fact, it’s often infuriating.

    A caveat: I’ll grant that my response to the film might reflect my often cynical view of the people of this fine state more than the movie itself. Frankly, I don’t get “A Prairie Home Companion”. I think the monologues are fine, if not eternally redundant, about people I could care less about, and it’s humorless, while trying to be funny. The music is good; the skits are hilarious if you’ve heard them once. Twice, three times, four, they sound the same.

    As for the movie, the story’s a mess: The great radio program is being cancelled, which affects its performers in different ways–like crying, to reflect that they’re sad. Apparently, a Texas Christian concern has purchased WLT–the parent company is a commercial station in this fantasyland–and is going to shut it down because it’s out of style, according to The Axeman, played with utter boredom by Tommy Lee Jones. This particular show features Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin as the Johnson Sisters, the last remaining pair of a family singing act, and the cowboy act Lefty and Dusty, who are John C. Reilly and Woody Harrelson goofing around. Of course, Garrison Keillor leads the cast, along with Kevin Kline as Guy Noir, tripping over everything, telling lame jokes, and drooling over the Dangerous Woman. Madsen is the Dangerous Woman, an angel there to ease someone into death, and giving the cast the heebie-jeebies. The show goes on, we learn that Streep and Keillor once had an affair, and that Lindsay Lohan, as the daughter of Streep, is going to sing at the end but forgets the sheet of paper with her lines. At closing, everyone sings and it’s just beautiful.

    Nothing much else happens, which is par for the course with Altman. To criticize this would be akin to grumbling about gazpacho because it’s cold. This is a movie that is ostensibly capturing the beauty of this beloved radio program. We get Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin as performers, and the two actresses just shine. The film is worth admission alone for Tomlin–I absolutely loathe the fact that this beautiful woman is not cast in more films, so I’ll enjoy her where I can. Keillor is fine playing himself–I don’t think there’s any doubt that he’ll be nominated for an Oscar for Screenplay or Best Supporting Actor, as that’s just the thing the Academy loves to do. Once again, Altman elicits some wonderful performances from his cast, yet once again he indulges some of the worst: Kevin Kline has not, in my memory, been as unfunny as he is in this film. He seemed at times to be mimicking Steve Martin doing Peter Sellers in The Pink Panther (it doesn’t help that Guy Noir is a seriously unfunny character).

    In spite of the songs and the show, A Prairie Home Companion is an Altman film–you can, for the most part, leave Keillor behind. In fact, I know of no director who so embodies the auteur theory, so much so that he seems to delight in wrecking screenplays or diminishing the role of a screenwriter to a cipher–Keillor seems to have written this thing in his spare time, which is part of what must have attracted Altman. A Prairie Home Companion reminds me very much his films The Company and Nashville–the weak plot and interest in the art of the first, the backhanded, hateful approach of the latter. Altman dislikes people and his camera style also suggests that he doesn’t think the audience can get subtle clues. He doesn’t like tight scripts that get a point across, or reveal too much about a character.

    Altman’s films are rarely ‘about’ anything, anything coherent that is. Gosford Park was a brilliant skewering of class attitudes–but as much as I enjoyed it, this type of thing was much more pointed sixty years earlier, and many of its fabulous shots are straight out of Renoir’s Rules of the Game. It’s actors weren’t the usual Altman crew–Gosford’s entire cast seemed unwilling to go casual, as is usually the case, diving deep into their character’s souls to bring an emotional clarity that hasn’t been seen in Altman’s work before or after. In A Prairie Home Companion, there is no emotion: the show is coming to an end and you wouldn’t know it affects except that everyone keeps repeating how sad they are and cry at times. Clearly, the end of PHC is meant to jab fans in the ribs, and the utter lack of meaning makes it seem cruel, like a college philosopher at a funeral, wondering about the meaning of life while the rest of us mourn.

    Despite having written for The Rake about Altman’s work, I have to admit that his movies elude me–and yet, it’s not so much that their meaning eludes me, but it’s a feeling akin to coming late to a party you weren’t invited to in the first place, all inside jokes and conversations about people you don’t know. A Prairie Home Companion is no different–a galaxy of stars has condescended to make a cute little movie about our favorite radio show, stars who beam and laugh and have a great time, but don’t bother telling any of us a story that has any meaning in our lives. Is it enough to just watch actors having a good time? Much has been written about the sheer beauty of the performances in this film, and yet a great performance, in my mind, takes you into the character, makes the story come alive. It makes us become one with the actors onscreen. Altman’s films keep them separate.

    Which leads me to wonder what fans of the show will want from this movie. The problem arises that in Altman’s world we are given a backstage pass to what life is like on a radio show–and yet a documentary would have given us real characters, and exposed the thing, warts and all, from Keillor to the producers to the sound guys and perhaps even the janitors. So what is the point of A Prairie Home Companion, the movie? We get a plot so hackneyed and unfocused it brings no insight to the show, or even to life itself. Like many of Altman’s films, A Prairie Home Companion seems to be… well, it seems to be about making a Robert Altman film.

    Altman has said that this movie is about death–“Everybody dies in the end!” he barked at a recent press conference–and in a City Pages interview he added, “You can sit on the street corner and watch people die just walking past you… Some guy’s coming down the street with a cane and a shopping bag and you know this cocksucker’s not going to be alive in two years. Then you see little babies being pushed in their carts who have no idea what the quality of their lives is going to be. It’s very…I don’t even know what I’m talking about. But that’s the kind of thing that impresses me right now.” Unfortunately, since Altman doesn’t give a flying handshake for his story, his characters, or his metaphors, it’s hard to believe he cares about people in his movies–it’s no mistake that he refers to a dying man as a cocksucker. For Altman cares about his actors–that’s all. But when you care only for your actors, and don’t care for the characters they play, or the story they’re in, well, then you don’t care for your audience. People care about “A Prairie Home Companion”, and for a movie that is about this beloved show’s end, it is nothing more than an excuse for these actors to party. And it’s enough, in Altman’s mind, to let us watch his party from a distance.

  • Guerilla Movies, Noir Books, and my brief plug for the World Cup

    Tonight, in an alley behind the Matchbox Coffee Shop (1306 2nd Avenue NE–just off Broadway) a great guy named Barry is going to show some keen flicks. In his words: “We shoot video onto the painted brick, fairly large. We have a portable speaker, but I’m hoping to get FM transmission up and running as well (drive-in style). There’s no parking behind the Matchbox, but plenty in the neighborhood. Chairs/blankets are recommended.” Even better: you get to vote on the movie! Your choices:

    Clerks
    Slapshot
    Watermelon Man

    Don’t hate me: I haven’t seen any of those movies, though I wish I’d checked out the latter two (Kevin Smith… no thanks).

    And: Tonight at Once Upon A Crime, a reading of the new book Twin Cities Noir. The Rake’s own femme fatale has a write-up, which includes a nice slam on awful theater.

    And now for something completely different: I’m jumping on the World Cup bandwagon, in part because of Matt Weiland and Sean Wilsey’s The Thinking Fan’s Guide to the World Cup. With essays by Nick Hornby, Robert Coover, and especially Alexander Osang’s melancholy tribute to the East German teams of old, this is wonderful book that really drives home the beauty, joy, and significance of an event that typically elicits yawns from us Americanos.

  • The Yard Calls, Friends Still in Town, the Movies are Generally Insipid

    This just in from our Hollywood Operative: Neil LaBute, who you’d would think would know better, is trying his hand remaking The Wicker Man. Big mistake.

    The original Wicker Man is a triumph of ham, of cheap thrills, creepy Scottish countrysides made even creepier by poor camerawork, and a ridiculous script that seems as if it were concocted by the lovely fools at Hammer Studios (it wasn’t). It’s a product of its times, the free-lovin’ late 60s and early 70s. There were sexy witches with near-beehive haircuts, almost-hippies in thick Scottish sweaters, all of whom spend time screwing each other’s brains out in the town square, and educate their children that this is good religion.

    The new Wicker Man–watch the preview here–looks as if a corporate vampyre drained the story of its life.

    And this: so you can buy your very own Fisher Price Academy Award. Laugh, or cry?

    And finally: you want a movie to see? Check out “Zero For Conduct” at the Walker. Playing every hour on the hour (when open), through June. When I get a minute, I’ll check it out and write it up.