Tag: film

  • Rootclip Starts the Film, You End It

    This just in:

    Rootclip offers a new venue for amateur and indie filmmakers who want to take part in a joint story-telling experience.

    How It Works

    Rootclip provides an
    initial story idea with a "root" or starter clip – one to two minutes of
    compelling video that begins a story and is totally open-ended.  How the
    story ultimately ends is up to the video contributors.
     
    Contributors then submit their one-minute videos to move the story along to the
    next chapter, with voting on all video submissions so the most voted upon video
    is used for the next chapter.  A total of six chapters are used to
    complete the story – and take that initial story idea into totally unexpected
    directions.
     
    Ultimately, Rootclip is about the user community. Contributors to YouTube,
    amateur and Indie filmmakers, budding screenwriters, even actors that want to
    show their stuff – all get a chance to contribute their best material to Rootclip
    to add to the story. The best, one to two minute video submissions are added
    over time to the original story idea until an exciting six to 12 minute film is
    completed.

     

    New creativity may open
    the door to the film industry

    Talent is talent.
     Each one minute video submission that becomes a chapter in the story gets
    acknowledgment in the Rootclip video credits and a cash prize of $500.  

    The
    Grand Prize winner – which is determined by winning the final chapter round –
    receives a trip to the Traverse City Film Festival in Michigan to hobnob with Indie film producers
    and creative types.  
     
    Michael Moore, a Michigan native who needs no introduction, programs and plans this festival and will meet
    with the ultimate Rootclip winner.
     
    Where will the story end – both at Rootclip and for the most creative
    contributor?

     

     

     

  • The Films of Carlos Reygadas

    The
    screen is black. A mass of ambient sounds emerges to pull the viewer
    into an immediate state of hypnosis. Crickets and a plethora of other
    insects are making their voices heard. Cattle and roosters join in,
    birds chirping, all while the camera slowly spins around with the grace
    of a Hitchcock film. At first a bit disorientating, soon it’s evident
    we’re looking at the nighttime sky onscreen, clouds and stars all
    together to form a perfect symbiosis with the soundtrack. The camera
    settles, and some light appears on the horizon. As the sun rises, two
    trees prominently frame the scene. The camera pulls in slowly to take
    in an amazing image of a rural Mexican sunrise over a vast field of
    farmland — the color palate a hybrid of Van Gogh and Monet landscapes
    in one single, real-time, breathtaking moving image. It is now morning, and the film begins.

    Award-winning
    writer/director Carlos Reygadas’s latest film, Silent Light (Stellet
    Licht)
    , gushes with pastoral beauty from its memorable opening shot.
    No cold, distant, computer-generated trickery on display here, simply
    the natural world photographed impeccably. The film had its Minnesota
    premiere screening, followed by a Q & A with Reygadas, Friday, April
    25, as part of Cinemateca: Contemporary Film
    from Latin America
    at the Walker Art Center.

    Reygadas,
    Mexico City-born filmmaker, began his university career in Brussels,
    studying and practicing law. During his time in Brussels, he would often
    go to the Museum of cinema to see as many as three films in one day. Heavily
    influenced by the works of Tarkovsky, Rossellini, Bresson, Dreyer, Ozu,
    and Kurosawa, he eventually decided he had to go to film school to be
    surrounded by the tools he needed to become a filmmaker. Pushed by a friend
    to make short films, and given a super-8 camera, Reygadas learned how
    to use the tools of cinema by "doing." He immediately knew what he wanted
    to shoot and was full of ideas.

    From
    1998 to 1999, Reygadas made four short films, learning how to draw storyboards,
    produce, write, direct, shoot, and work with actors. He honed
    his style during his early works: Adult (Adulte – ’98), Prisoners
    (Prisonniers – ’99), Birds (Oiseaux – ’99), and
    Super Human
    (Maxhumain – ’99).

    Super
    Human
    , a six minute, 20 second short, deals with suicide (a popular subject in his features) and Reygadas’s own questions regarding
    God. It opens with a narration. The main character remembers a conversation
    he had with his mother: If you commit suicide should you go to heaven?
    (Reygadas has said in interviews he feels it’s a great human capacity
    to end our lives if we want.) His mother responds by telling him that what
    God gives us, only He can take back.

    —Yes, but if God were
    perfect he would not test us.
    —Life is a
    gift not a test.

    I admired my
    mother, but wasn’t satisfied with these explanations.

    The rest of
    the short plays out a scene at a beach, and shows a man tying himself
    down to be taken by the tide as a boy and his mother discuss an old
    story she used to tell him—leading to more frustration for the
    main character. Throw in an odd sexual encounter with the mother and
    the climactic death of the man on the beach, and you have the beginnings
    of a filmmaking talent whose career knows no bounds.

    Japan
    (Japón)
    , released in 2002 and screened at the Walker in 2003, won
    the Golden Camera Special Distinction at the Cannes Film Festival. The
    film, shot in grainy 16 mm, highlights many of Reygadas’s strengths:
    shooting landscapes — it is shot in cinemascope (he got the idea from
    Gaspar Noe’s I Stand Alone, the first film Reygadas saw shot
    with 16 mm in scope) with an anamorphic lens, squeezing the image and
    showing off the beautiful Mexican countryside and rolling mountains;
    his insistence to work only with non-actors and his ability to pull
    natural, realistic performances from them; big, biblical themes that
    ruminate in nearly every scene, but are culled from the minutia of everyday
    people living fairly simple lives; long takes that pull the viewer into
    the reality of the characters; little use of score, mainly using ambient
    sounds or diegetic music for the soundtrack; graphic sexual encounters
    featuring actors not typically seen in films having sex (i.e. old, unattractive,
    and fat people); focus on characters over story, and characters full
    of contradictions. All of his films feature extremely memorable opening
    and closing shots that resonate in the mind of the viewer and are inescapable
    from memory.

    In
    Japan
    and his other two features, its obvious Reygadas has a fondness
    for his actors, and their characters in the film. But he also has deep
    respect for the audience, and isn’t the least bit pretentious. He
    uses his films to speak truths about the human condition and reveal
    his philosophy on life, but never speaks down to the audience, instead
    choosing to show the action and let the viewers come away with their
    own interpretation.

    Another
    common theme is his films’ enigmatic titles. Reygadas hates titles,
    but realizes they’re a necessary evil. He wanted to call Japan
    Untitled, like some of his favorite works of art, but couldn’t bring himself to do it because he thought
    it would be "pretentious and horrible." He finished the film, concluding that
    it was about light coming after dark and the cycles in life, like the
    sun rising again. Three countries came to mind: Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.
    Ultimately, he thought Japan had the most significance to rising sun
    in the minds of an audience, so he went with that.

    Japan
    follows a character known only as "the man" (played by Alejandro Ferretis,
    whose untimely death at age 59, in 2004, remains shrouded in mystery),
    a painter from the city looking to end his own life. He speaks bluntly.
    When asked in the opening why he wants a ride to a mountain he responds:
    "To commit suicide." When he meets a religious old woman named Ascen
    (Magdalena Flores) and asks to stay at her farmstead, a loving bond
    quickly forms. We never understand fully why the man wants to kill himself.
    After several unsuccessful attempts at suicide (the last one featuring
    a wonderful 360 degree helicopter shot on the peak of a mountain), the
    man finds solace in helping Ascen (her name short for Ascension, which
    she says is short for Christ ascending to heaven without any help) fend
    off family members who want to tear down her barn wall and transport
    it elsewhere.

  • The Short Side of the Oscars

    At this year’s Academy Awards, there will be films that — believe it
    or not — are actually judged on their artistic merit. No one will
    remember them a year from now, or probably even a month from now, but
    these reels contain imaginative innovations and emotional depths that
    surpass those evoked by any nominee for Best Feature-Length Film. I’m
    speaking of course (of course!) about the nominees for short films.

    As every year, ten movies — five animated and five live-action — have been selected from around the world to vie for the golden
    trophies in a lesser-known, lesser-cared-about subset of the Oscars.
    None of these films was ever widely distributed; none took any sort of
    cut from the box office; none will fetch big DVD sales. For the most
    part they bounced around festival circuits, garnering praise and niche
    attention. Still, they range from dreamy to lifelike, uplifting to
    devastating — all of them (except one) mini-masterpieces.

    By and large, the animated shorts were more creative than the
    live action vignettes. This isn’t so strange — cartoons are inherently
    more imaginative than life; one might say a photograph is a fact, a
    painting an interpretation. And while all the animated shorts take
    pains to tell a story, some of them seem more preoccupied with their
    medium, and feel like odes to animation itself. Which is totally okay.
    One of the great joys of these films is their cinematic lawlessness. There is
    no obligation to plot, and no actors to placate. As such, the directors
    and animators enjoy a freedom to do as they please. Not incidentally,
    this is stuff that makes Persepolis and Ratatouille look like fare for Saturday morning television.

    My Love, a Russian film by Alexandre Petrov, is
    literally a breathing Impressionist painting. An October palette of
    watercolors smears the screen as we watch a sixteen-year-old boy,
    Anton, fall in love variously with his maid and his neighbor. "She
    stepped out of the novel as if from a dream," Anton says of his current
    infatuation, and indeed, the entire film seems to have sprung from
    Petrov’s subconscious (and completely in tact). The story — a
    straightforward tale of peasant courtship – runs too long, but this
    seems deliberate, as if Petrov wanted to extend the movie just so he
    could keep painting it.

    The likely winner (or at least the most buzzed-about), Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf,
    is another labor of love. A thirty-minute exhibition of stop-motion
    animation, it allegedly took 100 artists, sculptors, and animators five
    years to make. Can you imagine someone spending five years on Alien vs. Predator?
    Clearly this is not art for the sake of entertainment. It’s a realm
    where attention to detail is revered above all-every eyelash is molded
    anew for each frame of the film. Set in modern-day Russia, (and thus
    giving the story a fresh twist, as the scenery includes a heavily
    graffiti’d urban center), we watch Peter as he tries to escape from his
    grandfather’s backyard into the wilderness beyond. The interplay
    between boy/duck/cat/wolf is as tense and intricate and heartfelt as
    anything in No Country for Old Men.

    Rounding out the animated nominees, Madame Tutli-Putli and Even Pigeons Go To Heaven
    are exhibitions of computer effects. The figures look so human that at
    times it’s easy to forget one is watching something animated. Which is
    why, in the Canadian Tutli-Putli, one is so viscerally scared as we watch some beast of the night cut out a person’s kidney. I Met The Walrus,
    a recorded interview between then-fourteen-year-old Jerry Levitan and
    John Lennon finishes off the group. In it, every single word Lennon
    speaks is turned into drawing, so the dialogue becomes this sort of
    visual representation of itself.

    Between each film, much whispering ensued amongst the
    audience, as if there was a need for instant discussion and digestion.
    And there’s a lot to be talked about. When one leaves the theater, the
    emotional and intellectual impact really is the same as if having sat
    through five features. The way a good short story is said to contain
    the same elements and even the same depth as a novel, so these short
    films imprint themselves upon the faculties.

    What they lacked in visual imagination, the live action films
    made up for in storytelling. Though the narratives were fairly linear,
    they all worked to expose their characters’ emotions, stripping them
    barer and barer until, in each short (save one) there was no more
    sentiment to be squeezed. In these films, it’s as if the narrative is a
    predator, its prey being emotion, and the narrative will not stop
    hunting until it’s sure it has tracked down and strung up and tortured
    and exposed its target.

    At Night,
    a Danish film, because apparently Danes make films now, is more morally
    complex than all the feature-length nominees combined. Three young
    women are in the oncology ward of a hospital, awaiting their imminent
    deaths. There is Mette, who at this point can barely move anymore;
    Sara, who is to undergo an operation that could either cure her or kill
    her; and Stephanie, whose illness has made her suicidal. It is December
    30th,
    and together they celebrate the New Year because they are unsure
    whether Sara will survive her surgery the next day. Here in the U.S.,
    we take a sort of Mary Poppins approach to our dramas, wherein, for the
    past few decades at least, the genre of ‘tragicomedy’ has emerged and
    taken precedent. We temper our heartbreak with humor, and tell
    ourselves it’s because the absurdity of pain is funny at times. Really,
    though, it’s because we simply can’t stomach anguish without a sugar
    coating.

    Director Christian Christiansen (love that name) has done away with the patina. At Night
    is kind of like a bruise you keep poking and it just gets bigger and
    bigger and bigger, more painful, and finally you just know it’s going
    to bust. Its very lack of levity may prevent it from taking the Oscar,
    though in terms of affecting filmmaking, it certainly deserves to win.

    All the other shorts, though, are just a tad too cute. Tanghi Argentini
    is about a guy who meets a woman online and ostensibly wants to learn
    the tango to impress her, but really he’s trying to hook up his lonely,
    tango-savvy co-worker. Il Supplente presents us with a man who
    poses for a few minutes as a substitute teacher and wreaks havoc on a
    high school class, only to be belittled like a child when he goes into
    his own office. Actually, these two in particular, though clever and
    charming, feel a bit like extrapolated Super Bowl commercials.

    The Mozart of Pickpockets is similarly cute, and goes
    maybe a little deeper than the two films mentioned above. In it, a pair
    of bumbling miscreants accidentally adopt a deaf-mute boy, who turns
    out to be a master thief. He, the boy, scrambles under the seats at
    movie theaters and steals purses from women caught in a cinematic daze.
    The two men are apparently gay, which is artsy, and they really seem to
    care for each other and the boy, which is also artsy. But at the end of
    the film, I just don’t know what the message is, whereas after At Night, there is a haunting sensation that pervades for days.

    Finally there’s The Tonto Woman.
    For the life of me I can’t figure out how it picked up a nomination. It
    is the only film with breasts in it — unnecessary breasts, I would
    argue, which turns them into gimmicky breasts, which may have then been
    enough for the nod. Or maybe there were only five short films made all
    year, so they had to let it in the running.

    Here’s how it goes: A woman was enslaved by a group of Mojave
    Indians and they tattooed her chin, so that when she returned to
    ‘regular’ society she was an outcast. In comes Ruben Vega, who
    immediately falls for her. One wonders what sort of psychological
    condition Vega has that he should instantly become infatuated with the
    town’s exile. Clearly he’s a sadist, too, as he parades her around town
    to her obvious embarrassment. In the end nothing is really solved,
    except for that the credits role and the next film comes on, which is a
    good thing.

    Remarkably, The Tonto Woman
    was the only American output in the live action category. The others
    hail from Denmark, Belgium, France, and Italy. If you include the
    animated shorts, the country list includes Russia, Canada, and England,
    too. Considering the heavy bias toward American films in the ‘regular’
    categories, it’s kind of amazing how international this particular
    group is. Especially if you’re of the mindset, as I am, that these are
    the best films being judged in the entire ceremony. It shows, I think,
    that cinematic artistry, and cinematic mastery, transcends the U.S.
    border — is even rare within the U.S. border, the evidence would suggest.

    In short (no pun intended…okay, yes it was), these films
    function as the true artistic center of Academy Awards. Their very
    existence lends Oscar night the legitimacy it needs to keep from
    devolving into the mere popularity contest it so badly wants to be.

    Written for realbuzz.com, by former Rake intern Max Ross.

  • The Insanely Eupeptic

    “ … Sure, it’s all there, but it’s kind of a tease. We’re definitely guilty of teasing.”
    —Joel Coen, on Barton Fink

    If you’ve visited the website for No Country for Old Men (opening November 9), you might have read the claim that the Coen brothers’ newest film “strips down the American crime drama and broadens its concerns to encompass themes as ancient as the Bible and as bloodily contemporary as this morning’s headlines.” As promotional copy goes, this is not just a bold assertion, but quite out of character for the Coens, suggesting that, for once, they have attempted to make a real-world movie and not the usual cartoonish oddity on which they have built their artistic reputations. If you’ve been watching the Coens’ movies since the beginning, you know that the boys have made their mark in peddling fun and don’t take anything seriously. But after years, this outlook has yielded films with, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, very little there there.

    So fans of the Coen brothers have taken heart at the news that the brothers, in adapting a novel for the first time in their careers, chose a title from the decidedly hard-boiled Cormac McCarthy; coming out of the Cannes Film Festival, it was seen as a triumphant return after years of mediocrity.

    With its strange characters, Southwest setting, a complex plot involving a lost bundle of cash and plenty of outrageous violence, McCarthy’s novel shares a number of hallmarks from the Coen oeuvre—more specifically, from their noir films, which include their first, Blood Simple (1984), Miller’s Crossing (1990), and 1996’s Oscar-winning Fargo.

    Blood Simple was a cool piece of work, slow yet compelling, with its bizarre camera angles, low-life characters and their oddball dialogue, and a plot that circled back on itself like a snake swallowing its own tail. Its deadpan humor and gushing violence were great thrills in that pre-Tarantino era; personally, it made me want to make movies (though I didn’t get around to it), and seek out noir beyond Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler. Eventually I discovered Jim Thompson and James M. Cain—the latter’s work was a primary influence on Blood Simple, which, as a shallow masterpiece, portended great things for its creators.

    The Coen brothers are certainly neither the first nor the last filmmakers to pay homage to their favorite cinema. After all, these were boys who, growing up in St. Louis Park, used to remake movies on Super-8, including one title, Advise and Consent, that they hadn’t seen but thought sounded cool. For a fledgling cinephile, watching the Coens’ work could lead to other discoveries through its references to Howard Hawks, Preston Sturges, Busby Berkeley, and even David Lynch. You could do little wrong hunting down the myriad references at your video store—even though it begins to expose the Coens as less than meets the eye by comparison.

    Miller’s Crossing was the single instance of the brothers’ homage working in utter service to the plot. This incredible film, based on a hybrid of Dashiell Hammett’s Red Harvest and The Glass Key, was at once their greatest work and the one movie that seemed to reflect a deeper concern for their characters. The plot bedevils anyone who tries to summarize it, but involves rival gangs, Irish and Italian, and musings on the nature of loyalty and friendship. Its violence was at once disturbing and ridiculous, most notably in the scene in which Leo (Albert Finney) shoots a man through a window, making the guy do what one critic called the “Thompson jitterbug”: a quivering gangster is kept standing by the bullets from a rival’s Tommy gun, while simultaneously firing his machine gun (and shooting his own toes off). If the manic pace and startling violence didn’t hook you, the rich characters made you want to watch it again and again.

    But after that, the Coens hit a wall called Barton Fink. It’s often forgotten that Fink was, before Fargo, their most acclaimed film, becoming the first and only movie in the history of Cannes to win best picture, actor, and director. But the movie is a strange thing, schizophrenic, the first half seeming to be their most personal effort yet, the second half a baffling parable of … what? The Coens had written the script in three weeks, supposedly in an attempt to recharge their brains while writing the demanding screenplay for Miller’s Crossing. And Fink looks tossed off: Is this merely a parody of the writer in Hollywood, a Lynchian examination of an artist’s mind, or a strange entertainment devoid of meaning? Is it just, as Joel Coen said, “a tease”?

    It’s a question that dogs their every film. In interviews, the Coens fail to answer probing questions—such as the meaning of the myriad hats that show up throughout Miller’s Crossing, or the weird scene in Fargo with Marge and her pal from high school. The brothers seem determined to obfuscate, arguing that they’re only having fun, that the movies are just entertainment devoid of connection to life in general and their lives in particular—or else they shift the focus to their detailed craftsmanship.

    At times it does seem as if the Coens look on their subjects cavalierly. When asked by one interviewer about the comic and thriller elements in their movies, the two evoked Chandler and Hammett and Cain, suggesting that those writers were grim, but that the tones were upbeat, or as Ethan put it, “insanely eupeptic.” This is a pretty shallow interpretation of these works, especially Chandler’s, whose novels are bleached with the sun-bright despair of Los Angeles. Think of the doomed Harry Jones in The Big Sleep, who gulps poison to protect the woman he loves, or the ruined blonde, Silver Wig, a tragic figure who vanishes into the night. These characters, each of whom probably takes up fewer than five pages in the book, have more emotional resonance than any figure in the Coens’ entire body of work.

    Consider death in the Coens’ films. Their characters kick the bucket in a variety of distinctive ways: buried alive, blown apart by a grenade, diving off a skyscraper, fried in the electric chair, drowning at the bottom of a river (in a knowing but ultimately empty nod to The Night of the Hunter), succumbing to a heart attack, and, most famously, by ax, then disposed of in a woodchipper. Now, in No Country for Old Men, they are dispatched by a coin-flipping psychopath wielding a slaughterhouse stun gun. But we remember the gruesome murders more than we mourn the people who suffer them. Joel Coen has said that he loathes people crying in movies. So he’s made no film that has ever moved anyone to tears, or even a lump in the throat. Even Preston Sturges, whose work has influenced so many Coen brothers films, has done as much in his madcap comedies.

    With this in mind, could the Coens be hoping to piggyback onto some deeper meaning by adapting a novel from Cormac McCarthy? From early reviews, it sounds as if No Country for Old Men sticks close to the intensity—and the spiritual gravity—of the book, and you certainly couldn’t describe this McCarthy title (or anything from him) as “eupeptic.” There’s also some indication that No Country resurrects some of the gravity of Miller’s Crossing and its literary inspiration in Hammett. As with McCarthy, novels from Hammett are sparse things, where violence explodes suddenly and affects people in all too real ways.

    This change from the Coens would be a welcome relief. While there’s nothing wrong with films as simple entertainment, if they lack any feeling, any sense of emotional connection, any characters who are remotely real, what makes a Coen brothers film any more significant than, say, the newest Michael Bay flick—except that it’s made to appeal to artsy cinephiles? Looking back at a Preston Sturges comedy, it’s easy to see how it speaks both of its specific time and of people in general. Not so with the Coens.

    For nearly twenty years, I’ve been hungering for them to make another movie on the order of Miller’s Crossing, and I’ve been disappointed with every new film. Just as I’ve come to wonder if anything truly concerns the Coen brothers, maybe the brothers themselves have come to ask themselves a similar question. And maybe with No Country for Old Men, we’ll both have an answer.

  • The Devil Wears Nada

    “Combining collegiate potty humor with flashes of surrealistic brilliance, comedies such as Anchorman, Wedding Crashers, and Old School represent the height of the Hollywood crossover, appealing to old smart alecks, young dumb alecks, and anyone in between who appreciates gratuitous nudity and boner gags.”

    That’s stripper-turned-critic-turned-screenwriter Diablo Cody reviewing The 40-Year-Old Virgin in City Pages. As film editor at that publication, I gave the assignment to the then-Minneapolitan artiste during her short stint in what she has since deemed “yellow journalism.” In 2005, I thought hers was a solid take on the Judd Apatow film, not yellow in the least (and told her so). Now it looks to me like a shrewdly determined formula for the script, then recently completed, of Cody’s own major motion picture, Juno—which, like Apatow’s Knocked Up, carries an initially unwanted pregnancy to comedic term and, uh, delivers.

    I’m not saying that one collegial potty mouth—Cody or Apatow—plucked dirty little secrets from the other’s bowl, or that the two consensually shared a stall en route to their word processors. I’m only gathering from the near-simultaneous appearance of these babies, Knocked Up and Juno, that there must be something in the air around a young woman’s pregnant belly these days that smells like opportunity—particularly to those like Cody, newly transplanted from Minneapolis to L.A., who are aspiring to the “height of the Hollywood crossover.”

    Born Brook Busey in suburban Illinois, “Diablo Cody” has long been a gleam in the eye of this twentysomething tease. Now, finally, the character’s conception is complete. Juno, which placed second among a hundred-odd movies in competition for the Toronto Film Festival’s audience award in September (and which opens next month), isn’t just a fully formed creation, but practically the blueprint for a commercial comedy in the post-post-feminist aughts.

    Well-rounded enough to reel in multiple demographics, the title character is a sassy adolescent from suburban Minnesota (the movie was shot near Vancouver, alas) who digs Suspiria and the Stooges (raw power, grrrl), discovers she has a bun in the oven (that geeky track star was too sweet to resist!), and calls Women Now for abortion info (choice!). But by the time she meets the hopeful adoptive yuppies from St. Cloud, a.k.a. “East Jesus Nowhere,” young Juno has agreed “this is one doodle that can’t be undid.” (Bring the whole family!)

    When Cody appeared onstage after a jam-packed Juno screening in Toronto, she was clothed—in a tight Superman tee, Jeff Spicoli kicks, and a red thrift-store skirt short enough to flaunt the tattoo on her impressively chunky thigh. (The critic is allowed to review the stripper’s body of work, right?) With star Ellen Page (Hard Candy) and director Jason Reitman (Thank You for Smoking) standing alongside, the first-time screenwriter informed the crowd that the movie isn’t autobiographical. “I’ve never been pregnant,” she confessed. Nevertheless, Cody knows a bit about giving up a baby: She did, after all, sell her first-born screenplay to Fox Searchlight, which brought Little Miss Sunshine into the world.

    Like that ingratiating Oscar winner, Juno is a cute bundle sired by none other than sugar daddy Rupert Murdoch; it’s an alternative-looking movie that won’t lack for blockbuster publicity and promotion, especially in awards season. I mention this not to dis Cody’s punk offspring for its privileged surrogate parentage (who wouldn’t sell her first script to Searchlight?), but to suggest that Juno, as corporate “indie” fare, thoroughly fulfills its critic-author’s crossover ideal. The first hour’s broad vulgarity (boner gag: “All I see are pork swords!”) is strategically placed to make the second half’s ultrasound conservatism a tad easier for “young dumb alecks” to stomach. And in the end, this old-fashioned women’s picture isn’t entirely unrecognizable as the work of a man whose dad made Meatballs—even though director Jason Reitman (son of Ivan) took patronizing pains in Toronto to credit Cody and Page as “two very special, very talented, beautiful women who have changed my life.” (Reitman also felt compelled to commend his spouse for delivering their baby in between his two other productions.)

    Then there’s stridently contradictory Cody: “the naked Margaret Mead,” as she fancied herself on David Letterman’s set last year, who bared her bod in the Skyway Lounge on a lark (en route to cashing Penguin’s check for Candy Girl: A Year in the Life of an Unlikely Stripper). A true Cody completist would’ve studied her work on the pole to determine whether and how this social satirist puts her money where her mouth is (or is that the other way around?). Still, as crossovers go, one needn’t have caught Cody’s dildo shows at SexWorld to know that, this li’l devil of a Catholic girl—now shaking her thing for Mr. Steven Spielberg—is in a class by herself.

  • To The Barricades

    As I was watching the mid-June press screening of Michael Moore’s new movie Sicko, I could almost hear the lips of the conservative bloggers and talk show hosts beginning to smack as the smell of fresh meat wafted over the media landscape. Moore, whose Bowling for Columbine won the Academy Award for best documentary, won’t disappoint. The basic premise of Sicko—that the American health care system is sick (in all senses of that adjective)—is not disputed by any serious observer.

    Unfortunately, Moore can’t resist taking his point to the furthest reaches of the political landscape: Cuba. In order to show up our government and our health care industry (is that redundant?) he ferries a troop of Americans, whose health has been ruined as much by our system as by their own misfortune, to Cuba, where they are given free examinations and extremely cheap medicines. The fact that a number of these people were sickened by working at the site of the World Trade Center attacks makes Moore’s point unmistakable—when our reviled Communist enemy Fidel Castro provides better health care than we do, we ought to reexamine how we’re doing things here.

    Moore, of course, never uses a needle when a cudgel will do. He frequently undermines his own arguments by not filling in the subtleties that might call his conclusions into question. In his exuberance, he provides unlimited fodder to his right wing critics and those in the pay of the medical industry. The attacks should start in earnest June 29, the day the movie is released.

    The main point I took away from Sicko though, was the conclusion Moore drew from France. Yes, that France, the one that many people believe belongs alongside Iraq and Cuba in the Axis of Evil. Moore pointed to the frequent mass demonstrations in France as having a real effect on the government; those manifestations of public outrage prevent the government from being too influenced by capitalist pressure to cut social benefits. As he put it, “In France, the government is afraid of the people. In America, the people are afraid of the government.”

    We have 47 million Americans without health insurance. We have the leading Democratic candidate for president, who once was the primary national advocate for universal health care, now taking massive contributions from health care companies and expressing more “moderate” views. We have enshrined in law that the government which represents the people is prohibited from negotiating bulk drug prices for the benefit of its citizens. We have story after story in the mainstream press about children dying as a result of losing their health insurance. We have two recent stories in the New York Times about doctors in Minnesota taking large payments from drug companies to promote non-indicated uses for their products. And we have the local CEO of a large medical provider who wasn’t satisfied with the billion dollars he’d made by cherry picking who would get coverage and who wouldn’t, and so manipulated the dating of his stock options so he could make even more.

    So, is it time to put away our “Freedom Fries” and try exercising some real freedom? Shall we take to the streets?

    Not so fast.

    Although my natural inclination is to recall my youth during the Vietnam war and dig out my STRIKE! T-shirt from the bottom of the attic trunk, it ain’t gonna work this time. When naïve people say that the country learned nothing from Vietnam (and that’s how we got into Iraq) they grossly underestimate how smart the guys who own the government are. They certainly have learned how to quell dissent.

    The situation regarding health care is only going to change when business realizes that it’s ultimately bad for business to have an unhealthy work force. When we have economic studies that show that the country is worse off because workers are afraid to change jobs because they’ll lose their health care, when economic studies show that American companies are less competitive because they have to bear the costs of health care for their workers, and when we have studies that show that communities which are the home to large employers who don’t provide health insurance are having to bear the costs of that lack of care by subsidizing local hospitals, we might have some change. Such studies do exist, but they have no chance against the massed strength of the drug and health care companies

    The health care problems of this country will only get better if the rest of the business community decides that it is in its own best interests to put gross anti-government ideology aside and throw its own economic muscle behind buying back the government. We hear all the time about how small business is the real backbone of this country. This might be our chance to find out if small business actually has one.

    Let the attacks commence.

  • The Mystery of the Girl Who Didn’t Care

    I raised three daughters who spent their childhoods reading Harry Potter. So I had never encountered the Nancy Drew mysteries until Malcolm, my seven-year-old son, received a copy of one in a bookstore earlier this year. Apparently, Nancy Drew wasn’t selling, so to spark interest the store was giving away The Secret of the Old Clock, the first book in the series, with purchase of any two children’s books. The story, to me, was rather predictable, and Nancy Drew, the eighteen-year-old daughter of a well-to-do attorney, was so wholesome as to be unbelievable. But my son loved the book.

    Malcolm got hooked on Nancy Drew mysteries; before two months passed he had burned through five of them and was begging for number six. Now any time we go to a library or bookstore, he bolts for the Nancy Drew section, which is easy to locate: The original fifty-six titles, with their bright yellow spines, blaze a four-foot stripe across the shelves of the children’s section. But even though the series has been in print continuously since 1930, having sold more than eighty million volumes worldwide, these days the once popular collection’s bright hue has been dulled by the dust of disinterest.

    According to Carol Dosse, a children’s librarian at the Minneapolis Central Library, girls—the books’ primary readership—are no longer captivated by the teen sleuth. “Girls are savvier now than when Nancy Drew was written, and they’re looking for something more contemporary to their world.”

    Nancy Drew was the brainchild of Edward Stratemeyer, a book publisher who originally conceived the series to appeal to young adult readers. But as years passed, children apparently became more sophisticated; today, seven-year-olds like Malcolm can easily consume the 180-some-page novels. It’s not surprising, then, that teenage girls have lost interest in Nancy Drew.
    What’s popular today is R-rated fiction like the Gossip Girls series, by Cecily von Ziegesar, which Dosse said is “big with girls as young as fifth grade.” Gossip Girls are affluent teens who “live in gorgeous apartments, go to exclusive private schools, and make Manhattan their own personal playground,” as the jacket copy says. Here’s a taste from the opening pages of You Know You Love Me: A Gossip Girl Novel.

     

    “To my Blair Bear,” Mr. Harold Waldorf, Esq. said, raising his glass of champagne to clink it against Blair’s. “You’re still my little girl even though you wear leather pants and have a hunky boyfriend.” He flashed a suntanned smile at Nate Archibald, who was seated beside Blair at the small restaurant table … Blair Waldorf reached under the tablecloth and squeezed Nate’s knee. The candlelight was making her horny. If only Daddy knew what we’re planning to do after this, she thought giddily. She clinked glasses with her father and took a giant gulp of champagne.

     

    What does it say about girl culture today that young women are shunning the long-popular Nancy Drew and pushing sales of books like Gossip Girls through the roof?

     

    Julie Schumacher has cracked the bindings on her teenaged daughters’ books and, given the choice, would prefer them to read fiction with “unsexualized” characters like Nancy Drew. A creative writing professor at the University of Minnesota and the author of three young adult novels, Schumacher believes that pop culture is feeding a particularly insidious message to girls: “‘I can act like an idiot, I can dress like a slut, but I can still have self-worth and be an admirable person,’” as she sums it up. “It’s a recipe that doesn’t sit well with me.”

    Andrew Fleming agrees—which is, in large part, why the screenwriter and director’s latest movie is a new adaptation of a Nancy Drew tale (in theaters June 15). “I’m troubled by the princess culture I see among girls,” he says. “There’s this idea that if you put on a provocative outfit then you’re entitled to act like a diva. There’s a lack of politeness, kindness, and consideration. I don’t think girls are given credit for being smart, brave, and strong. Nancy Drew was all of these.”

    When Fleming criticizes the way girls behave in 2007, he is also criticizing himself. In the early ’90s, he wrote and directed The Craft, a film about four teen social outcasts who realize their innate feminine power through the practice of witchcraft. While using both magic and sexuality to manipulate their schoolmates and drive boys insane with desire, they also transform their wardrobes, from Catholic school uniforms to miniskirts, thigh-highs, and see-through blouses.

    For Fleming, those characters were a way to liberate girls who, at the time, he says “were being kept in a cultural box and told, ‘This is the way you’re supposed to behave.’” Eleven years after The Craft, Fleming sees some of the worst aspects of his characters playing out in the mainstream, and he’s resurrected Nancy Drew to confront them. Rather than reinvent the young sleuth for twenty-first-century moviegoers, Fleming opted to pluck the original version out of the 1930s and plunk her down in modern-day Los Angeles.

    “What if Nancy Drew existed in the present? How would she fit in? Because she dresses demurely, and she’s organized, polite, and an achiever, she would seem like a freak. I think it’s time to reconsider how girls—and boys, really—have no rules anymore. Ultimately, there’s such a focus on style, how you roll, and what you wear—Nancy doesn’t really care about that stuff. She’s focused on helping people and getting to the bottom of the mystery,” Fleming said.

     


    Andrew Fleming describes Nancy Drew

     

    Once I started reading Nancy Drew to my son I began noticing her everywhere: a new computer game on the shelves at Target; Nancy Drew websites; collectors posting on eBay for rare editions of the books; a trailer for the new movie on the internet. Somehow, for an archaic character, she remains very popular. But having read more than a handful of Nancy Drew mysteries, something in the trailer disturbed me about the way she was portrayed by actress Emma Roberts: This Nancy Drew seemed uncertain, unintelligent, and boy-crazy—qualities opposite to those the original Nancy Drew possessed.

    According to Fleming, the trailer for his movie is deceiving. If Nancy appeared ditzy and boy-crazy, he said, it was due to clever editing by the studio’s marketing department. Fleming said he met with “every girl in Hollywood” and chose Emma Roberts (Julia Roberts’s niece), because she “is very intelligent, and Nancy is very intelligent, and you can’t fake that.” Even so, Fleming’s studio bosses felt that girls would be more attracted to a movie with a stupid, sexualized Nancy Drew than a smart, modest one.

  • On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

    The best news the fans of James Bond books could have heard last year was that Paul Haggis was working on the screenplay for Casino Royale, and that this movie would stick closely to Ian Fleming’s book. Haggis, the writer of Crash and Flags of Our Fathers, teamed up with writers of the last few Bond-taculars to restore some intelligence to what had become a franchise sustained only by a spectacular chase, followed by a fight, followed by an explosion, followed by sex. Repeat as necessary.

    Casino Royale, the first of Fleming’s books, is the purest distillation of Bond. There is a mission. There is a card game. Bond is tortured. He gets the girl, sort of. There is only one audible gun shot, and it’s not even fired by Bond. News that the screenplay was going to stick to the basic plot, and would contain at least some of the nuance of the book, was welcome indeed. (Those who go to Bond movies for the action need not worry, though. The mission setup, which was handled in the book by a conversation in M’s office, features in the film the best Bond chase ever, a couple of explosions, and lots of gunfire. Oh yeah, there’s a woman, too. But once the movie’s financiers have been satisfied, you get some actual Fleming-brand Bond.)

    The Bond literary phenomenon was characterized early on as a mere combination of “sex, sadism, and snobbery.” Those elements are all there, to be sure, but reducing them to the three-“S” formula grossly underestimates Fleming. In 1953, the year Casino Royale appeared, Elizabeth II was crowned monarch of a country that was little better than a vassal state of the United States and an irrelevant player in the battle between its liege and the Soviet Union. Neither power paid much attention to the country that had put on such a poor show in Europe and Asia during World War II, had lost its empire, and had sunk into economic despair.

    But Fleming, a former intelligence officer, knew that intelligence was where Britain actually had made a difference in the war. The Brits were the master German code breakers, after all. Where could a badly needed hero emerge? How could relevance be restored? Only one man for the job, really. Bond. James Bond.

    The plot of Casino Royale is simple, plausible and eschews the grandiose evil schemes that pepper the later books. Le Chiffre is the banker for the Russian spy operation in Western Europe. He’s been embezzling from his employers, and has set himself up at a high stakes Baccarat game in order to replenish the payroll account before the ruthless Russians find out. Somehow the Brits have learned about this before the Russians; they send Bond, the best card player in the service, to bust him at the table. Bond’s not quite as good as all that, however (and Baccarat is a much more difficult game than the Texas Hold ’em of the movie,) and he’s the one who is busted instead. The CIA, which also seems to be way ahead of the Russians, steps in and bankrolls Bond and the poor British, and Bond eventually triumphs on the second go round. (The film version makes a point of rubbing in the Brits’ poverty when Bond asks Felix Leiter, his CIA counterpart, where to send the winnings; the reply: “Do we look like we need it?”)

    Eventually, Bond is tortured by Le Chiffre for the money and, ironically, it is the Russians, who’ve finally realized what MI-6 and the CIA have known for quite a while, who rescue him. After his recovery from the torture, Bond suffers the further indignity of being double-crossed yet again—which adds a subtlety to the plot (thankfully preserved in the movie) that appears far too rarely in subsequent books, and almost never in the films.

    To give away the twist would spoil the movie … and the book. In the book, the twist is the end, and Bond’s discovery of it leads him to the realization that the real game was always being played at one level above his pay grade. It seems that that ending didn’t sit well with test audiences of the film, however, and so we’re made to suffer an unnecessary coda which leaves us with Bond thinking he can actually do something meaningful … and, by the way, sets up the next movie.

    The Fleming books are infinitely darker than the movie franchise. The best of the books build on Bond’s despondence first seen at the end of Casino Royale. In the books there is none of the quipping made famous by Sean Connery or Roger Moore (but plenty of the anomie of Timothy Dalton—the best film Bond.) We do get the occasional gourmet meal featuring caviar and champagne, but far more often, Bond satisfies himself with, believe it or not, scrambled eggs. These are often washed down not with a shaken martini or a bottle of Bollinger ’53, but with the better part of a bottle of bourbon and too many cigarettes. Bond is, in reality, a drunk. The infrequent feasts and frequent hangovers are his reward for what he knows is a lousy life—a life in which he gets many more brutal beatings from his enemies than lusty scenes with his leading ladies.

    The Bond of Fleming’s books can be as brutish as his enemies. When he meets Vesper Lynd, his beautiful fellow agent in Casino Royale, she gazes at him “with a touch of ironical disinterest which, to his annoyance, he found he would like to shatter, roughly.” When they finally do make love, Bond knew “that the conquest of her body, because of the central privacy in her, would each time have the sweet tang of rape.” When it comes to the women of the Secret Service, we’re treated to the contents of their personnel files, including bust, waist, and hip measurements. They all seem to be built like Marilyn Monroe. It’s not surprising that President Kennedy was a fan of the books. Today, we can’t help but wonder if M’s personnel file would contain Judy Dench’s vital statistics.

    But, as Bond goes about making it with a series of women, the reader realizes the only ones that he is able to form any sort of emotional attachment with are somehow terribly damaged, or are out to damage him. There are no happy endings to the books, none of the typical culminating scenes in the movies, where Bond and the girl float away in a tropical island embrace. When there is sex, it’s brutal and impersonal. When there is love, it always turns out badly, more so for the women than Bond. And while one trademark of the movies is their highly suggestive scenes, there are no prurient interludes in the Fleming books. It’s almost as if he were denying his readers the same genuine satisfaction he was denying Bond.

    The best intercourse of the Fleming books is that between Bond and his adversaries. The Baccarat match with Le Chiffre in Casino Royale, the bridge game with Hugo Drax in Moonraker, and the golf with Auric Goldfinger are all more visceral than any feminine interplay. His victories in these encounters are far more satisfying to Bond than his eventual destruction of their evil plots or the bedding of the converted vixen.

    In the last novel Fleming finished before his death, You Only Live Twice, Bond is called “a blunt instrument of policy,” words repeated by M in the film of Casino Royale. By You Only Live Twice, Bond is nothing more than that blunt instrument, and an unrepentant guzzler of sake besides. He’s sent by M to Japan as an expendable commodity offered to the Japanese secret service in return for Russian intelligence that they’d been previously providing only to the CIA, and which the CIA would not share with the British. In addition to the personal service he’s to provide, he also has to listen to a lecture from the head of the Japanese service about why the British are irrelevant.

    The Japanese send him to assassinate a prominent botanist, who has constructed an elaborate poison garden to lure the suicide-prone Japanese to their deaths. Unknown to the Japanese, the British, and Americans, this botanist turns out to be none other than Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the villain of Thunderball and the murderer of Bond’s only true love in On His Majesty’s Secret Service. But by now, like Bond, who no longer gives a damn about Queen and Country, Blofeld also no longer cares about SPECTRE’s avowed purposes: terrorism, revenge, and extortion. Blofeld’s designed his death garden for the pleasure of watching the Japanese annihilate themselves one at a time. It’s a metaphorical mirror held up to Bond’s entire world.

    Bond kills Blofeld in You Only Live Twice, but, in the process, loses his identity and his memory—he even forgets how to make love to a woman. Only at that point does this genuinely unlikable “blunt instrument” finally become a sympathetic character.

    At the end of an earlier book, Diamonds are Forever, Bond muses about trying to write his own epitaph. He comes up with “It reads better than it lives.” That’s exactly what Fleming was trying to tell us all along.

  • A Prairie Home Production Assistant

    Jon Steinhorst was on break from Columbia College’s film program, and he was looking to make a few bucks. Back when he was in design school, Jon spent his summers painting houses, so repairing stucco on his mother-in-law’s home wasn’t out of the question. But stucco proved to be an insurmountable challenge. So Jon whipped up a résumé that described his quartet of short films and his design background. After printing a dozen copies, he headed to the Prairie Home Companion set in search of a yet nameless assistant director. The other day, Jon spilled the beans about his experience. (You can hear him for yourself at www.firstcrackpodcast.com, podcast number 54.)


    Lingering outside the Fitzgerald Theater, he met the grips. They provided the assistant director’s name and pointed Jon to the production office. Once there, his spiel—“student … here to help … just five minutes of his time”— was met with a flat “He’s not in.” Undeterred, Jon offered each of the three secretaries a copy of his résumé and a “Please pass it along.” Halfway to his car, a voice mail came through from the assistant director: “Come back, come back. We want to meet you.” Two more résumés, for the first assistant director and the second assistant director. These were met with semi-encouraging words: “It’ll be a great experience … no money … call us tomorrow.”

    The next morning, knowing shooting began at 11 a.m., Jon called repeatedly. When he finally got through, he was told to report to work. As a result, he became one of five production assistants, and was issue a headset and a walkie-talkie. Three days later, Jon had grown accustomed to the constant radio chatter and understood the lingo enough to use the walkie-talkie like a pro. (He offered two helpful walkie-talkie hints: “Talk when the light is green. And ‘10-1’ means Using the bathroom. No, nothing else is coded in a number.”)

    Jon had five official assignments on the set of A Prairie Home Companion. No. 1: When the assistant directors yell “Rolling,” sound the bell and turn on the light that signals Quiet on the set! Upon “Cut!” ring the bell twice and flip the switch off. No. 2: When rolling, switch off the Fitzgerald Theater’s six air conditioning units to keep the rumble off the sound recording. Summarizing his work on this task, Jon said, “I got a lot of reading done.” No. 3: Quietly herd between one hundred and one thousand extras through the theater to their seats without disturbing gear or rehearsing actors. Now do it outside with fifty extras to your right, twenty-five extras to your left, and six cars, while coordinating with four other production assistants and Tommy Lee Jones’ director. Now, with the camera just on the other side of the curtain, cue Kevin Kline, four stagehands, and seven musicians. No. 4: Keep Robert Altman’s bucket filled with ice and bottled water. No. 5: Write out seven cue cards containing the lyrics of a musical number. This fifth assignment was Jon’s most rewarding. The first two takes of the song weren’t right, and cue cards were requested. After Action! was called again, Jon plainly saw Lindsay Lohan’s eyes glance to his cards for a key word. Lindsay delivered perfectly. At the song’s end, the audience of five hundred extras went wild. Unscripted, the entire cast returned to the stage for an encore. That kind of magic might not have happened without Jon’s seven clearly written cue cards.

    Though he wasn’t paid, Jon was still able to make a little money. “There’s a game on movie sets called Dollar Days,” he said. “A production assistant duct-tapes a shoe box closed, cuts a hole in the top. Then each member of the cast and crew pulls a dollar bill from their wallet, signs it, and stuffs it in the shoebox. At the end of the day, one bill is pulled from the box, and whoever’s signature is on the bill, they win the entire box.”

    On the set of A Prairie Home Companion, with a crew and cast of about a hundred, they played a higher-stakes version of the game, Five Dollars Days. Jon entered. “It was my only five-dollar bill, then I was flat broke.” At the end of the day, a five labeled “Jon S.” was pulled from the shoebox. The hundred bills were his. “I’ve already spent quite a few, actually—paid part of my credit card bill,” he said. “You go home and you can’t help but count the money again. You start thinking, Maybe I can sell this five-dollar bill for twenty-five dollars on eBay because it has Lily Tomlin’s name on it. And then you spend it anyway. I’m saving a couple. I’m saving the winner. And I’m saving Bob Altman’s, because he actually had me write his name on the five-dollar bill.”—Garrick Van Buren

  • Old Man Movie

    Let’s begin by getting one fact clear: Al Milgrom, the Twin Cities’ most famous fool for cinema, is an old man. His driver’s license makes the bold claim that he was born in 1922—a claim belied by both his appearance, for he doesn’t look a day over sixty-five, and his behavior, for he acts like a teenager. But even without the state’s corroboration, Al is old by anyone’s reckoning.

    Yet, someday, even Mel Gibson will get old. What is important with respect to Al’s age—what he and no doubt a bunch of other people are concerned with—is his legacy. I don’t mean legacy in any grand sense of the word. Al is not a war hero or a great political leader. But he single-handedly has run the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Film Festival throughout most of its twenty-three-year history, and founded the U Film Society, likely before you were born. He may make legitimate claims to a meaningful legacy in the city he has called home for the better part of his eighty-three years, inasmuch as it would be a different place were it not for his obsessions, which, as obsessions should, have infected the civic body, mostly for the good. “Al is the godfather of the alternative film movement—people have heard of him everywhere,” said one veteran of the art-film scene recently in Berlin, where I accompanied Al just months after reporting for duty as his underling.

    Of course, no legacy is complete without blots, smears, and plenty of broken eggs. A film festival is a big omelette, and the fish tales of Al’s, shall we say, unbridled passions are as bountiful as spring rain. Al has yelled at, pissed off, and obliquely threatened a good half of this city. But such behavior always comes in the service of his attempts to pry this place open, to peel away its provinciality like the skin from a tangerine. One myth-become-legend has it that he called Bill Kling, president of Minnesota Public Radio, at his home one Sunday at midnight (Al is quite the night owl) to berate him about the lack of radio coverage for a foreign film he’d deemed both excellent and exceedingly important. I don’t know how true the tale is—Al does possess an uncanny ability to ferret out rare phone numbers—but a cursory glance at the logos on festival catalogs from years past evidences an abrupt absence of MPR sponsorship beginning in 2001. At any rate, as in the movies, we should take the tale as a character-defining scene. You may envision Al Milgrom as John Wayne, if it helps.

    Al has been compared to all manner of saints and sinners in his half-century at the wheel of his cinematic jalopy. Those who love him—and they do, honestly, speak of love—see him as a beacon on the vast prairie. They recall how he once drove a confused Jean-Luc Godard around this most un-continental of cities, introducing him to the important film folk of Minneapolis, who, by Al’s calculus, included a local Iranian coffee vendor and the projectionist at the U Film Society. Those who are less than fond call Al “a little Nazi”—pointed criticism, considering that he is Jewish.

    Clearly, Al is someone who inspires more opinion than understanding. Plenty of people know that what he does either floats their boats or punches big holes in the bottoms of them. What fewer know—and perhaps, ultimately, it is unknowable—is why Al has persisted for so long in his voyage on less-than-smooth seas in what may only be described as a leaky craft. (The U Film Society, which in 2002 merged with Oak Street Arts to become Minnesota Film Arts, is no Walker Art Center.) Perhaps the only way to know such things is to view Al in his natural habitat.

    It was February and I was in Potsdamer Platz, at the heart of a reborn Berlin, drinking beer with Al at midnight during that city’s esteemed film festival. Everyone seemed to have come down to this strange new center of town, a glass and aluminum gleam built on Japanese capital in the irrational, heady days of a newly reunified country. This year’s Berlin International Film Festival, which has become Potsdamer Platz’ most visible and anticipated event, was a monster: more than three hundred films unspooling in a mere ten days on some forty screens within several hundred yards of each other. An earth-sized disco ball hung over the cobblestone plaza in the middle of it all, sending shards of light far into the pedestrian side streets, where they stabbed the eyes of passersby exiting the murk of the cinema.

    The bar was packed with smoking, drinking Berliners, and it was loud like an airplane. Al and I were lodging with one Achmet Tas, a thirty-five-year-old Turk who smokes nonstop, and exhales opinions with each breath. Al met Achmet a few years ago at another bar in Berlin, and now sleeps on his couch in exchange for supplying him with an official “Advisor to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Film Festival” credit, which loosens the doors for Achmet at various festival parties and screenings. Al, perennially late in organizing his own industry credentials, was ironically attending as a correspondent for the Pulse.

    One thing became immediately clear in the few days that I spent with Al in Berlin, and that was that I was seeing his idealized self, the man he aspires to be. Not that he fancies himself European, or is a heavy drinker and smoker. It was more a matter of Al’s easy comfort with the essential randomness of a film festival. Film festivals are about people meeting for intense bursts of opinion broken up by hours and hours spent alone in the dark. And this is the world in which Al thrives. Myopic by nature, Al has the uncanny ability to be completely ignorant of what is going on around him, provided there is a film to talk about. His body language has been honed by forty years of such behavior: his elegantly long fingers are frozen in an eternal jab, his head leans forever slightly forward to engage in argument, and a wide-brimmed hat serves as shield from whatever irrelevant chaos might be erupting around him. In cinematic terms, one can easily see Al debating the merits of some new European film as, in the background, Hollywood-style, one car careens off the hood of another, twisting into the air and crashing in an exploding heap behind Al just as he wraps up his critique with his favorite phrase, “It didn’t work for me.”

    Al in Europe, then, is Al at home, even when he is staying on someone’s couch—it was a nicely made-up couch, too, with sheets washed in that headily scented German detergent. Achmet played a better host than one might have expected (the only items in his fridge were candy). Everyone stayed up long past midnight most nights, when we all bumped into each other in the smoke-filled CinemaxX Lounge after a solid twelve hours of film-watching. The odd-couple companionship of Al and Achmet was arresting, as Al’s subdued but dogged arguments were for once overwhelmed, by Achmet’s manic pontifications. As he grew frustrated with Achmet’s bellicosity, Al began to insert a telltale phrase, “Lookit,” at the start of every opinion. “Lookit, the main character is drawn sketchy, there’s no motivation to her! I just thought it was weak.” To which Achmet, more impassioned still, responded, “Al, you are not right in this one, and I will tell you why…”

    Back in Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Film Festival (now affectionately dubbed M-SPIFF) was beginning to shake to life. The days were lengthening, everyone on staff was getting sick, and Al was nowhere to be found. He’d left his bag on Achmet’s floor—a bag that contained all his festival contact information and film selections—and was chasing it by telephone through U.S. customs in Mobile, Alabama. We were only a few days from our deadline for bookings, and there was a score of titles that Al insisted he had secured, which we were dubiously trying to corral. (Al Milgrom’s “yes” is equal to anyone else’s “maybe.”) But no matter. Over the next few days, the festival would grow by leaps and bounds, extracting a pound of flesh for every title secured.

    The legacy of a man obsessed with foreign film—Al is old-school, and has little fondness for the Sundance phenomenon—M-SPIFF is a curious cultural creature. For one, it is not a slick operation by any stretch of the imagination. Where other U.S. festivals revel in artifice and manufactured glamour, Al’s monologue has, for the better part of its twenty-three years, taken the opposite approach. For example, Al’s gift-of-choice to last year’s guest of honor, Swedish filmmaker Jan Troell, was a mallard decoy. One gets the sense that he is as blind to the glamour of film as he is to anything that is not bouncing off the silver screen.

    This is a great blessing. Film people, frankly, are among the worst on the planet. Shallow and self-aggrandizing, they exist for the most part in a marshmallow world, where no interaction is devoid of some perfume being blown up your bum, no matter who you are. Titles, prestige, and the patina of importance are the currency of the film festival industry, and it is a currency that increasingly attracts a vulgar element. As the perception of merit spills off the screen onto irrelevant things like parties, tote bags bearing logos, and Roger Ebert’s banal omnipresence, the essential goodness of the film program itself is perforce lost.

    Al’s incredible myopia—his inability to be motivated by anything more or less complex than whether or not a film “worked for me”—is, then, at the heart of his persistence. For there is always something out there that does, in fact, work for him, and even as an old man, he is dogged in seeking it out. That these films are often found on continents where drinking too much coffee and coming to work late are perfectly acceptable behaviors is, of course, a perk, but the driving force is what is and what might be on screen.

    Yet, for all the strength of its program, M-SPIFF as a civic event can, will, and must change. The world demands as much. It must grow up, and play the games that adults play. It is a bittersweet proposition. No one relishes practicing the machinations of festival power: attempting to sabotage the Tribeca Film Festival with secret premieres, or tricking some Polish film outfit into sending a filmmaker without telling them how far from Chicago Minneapolis truly is. But the festival world is increasingly driven by money, just like everything else, and money breeds distraction. It is sad to witness: the barnacles of industry are slowly encrusting all festivals, and whether for good or for bad, M-SPIFF is destined to join the fray, just like everyone else.

    Al seems resigned to the changing times, to these new processes. Curiously, the great tantrums that I had been promised when I came to Minnesota Film Arts have not materialized. On the contrary, Al seems quite relaxed and amused these days—even humble. Of course, arguments about films erupt daily, and happily, voices rise and tempers flare. “There is no way we are playing that film!” leads to, “Lookit, it’s a good film! You didn’t like it, but it’s won major awards, it has a name talent—if we can get it into the Latvian press, get it out to the Latvian restaurants, it will do well!” and so on. Al still manages to listen to nobody about anything that is not an opinion on film; everything he says, in turn, is filtered through a rather fantastical lens, part optimism, part outright deception. But at the end of the day, the films still come, discovered by Al during some sixteen-hour viewing session in the Czech Republic’s Karlovy Vary, or another far corner of the world.

    I once asked Al how he got into this line of work. Many years ago, he had been a journalist, a stringer for the Washington Post, and the Berlin-based editor of—believe it or not—Stars & Stripes, the U.S. military newspaper. “I was going to grad school at the U for a Ph.D.,” he explained, “and I just sort of started showing movies. I think the first film was a Buñuel title.” I asked him about that abandoned Ph.D., and he shrugged it off. “I was going to do sociology, because it seemed easy. But you see, I always thought I would just do the film stuff for a while, but it sort of took over. It was a lot of fun, really.” When asked why he keeps going, he insisted it’s merely because he needs a job. “I only have about fifteen hundred dollars saved up, you know,” he said. “I have to keep busy.” But there’s more to it than that. Over the years, he’s been offered retirement packages in return for giving up control of the festival. Yet he refuses. Even when he did, once, temporarily retire, Al couldn’t stand it. He broke into his locked office with a crowbar.

    Maybe the question is, why wouldn’t he want to keep going, flitting around the globe, discussing the one thing he cares about most? The solace of selecting, watching, and then sharing good films is what he lives for. When I pressed Al a little harder on the matter of retirement, he looked at me quizzically, as though I was the understudy waiting for him to fall down the stairs, à la Showgirls. Then he turned back to the phone to argue with a Dutch distributor about a fantastic Indonesian documentary, The Shape of the Moon, which he caught at Rotterdam, turned me on to, and which will play in Minneapolis as part of this year’s film festival.