Secrets of the City

This is the single best piece of local writing I’ve read this year. And it’s just a bunch of people sitting around talking.

Yeah. This is really pretty cool.

Damn. That was fine.

To tie this into another thread going on regarding the nature/desired nature of journalism, I hope that this article affords a (perhaps unique) opportunity–one in which people can read a directed discussion and subsequently engage in even more discussion. This isn’t a matter of mere preference (e.g. I like pastrami, you like corned beef)–this is about ownership on a much larger level. BUT, with ownership comes responsibility. The people, including myself, that engaged in that discussion do not hold the deed to film landscape –that is, or at least should be, in the hands of the cities’ citizens. BUT, some of those people, not including myself, do hold the deed(s) to the film venues. And that gives them the power to do whatever they see fit with those venues. And in my humble opinion, some of them are doing a piss poor job at this particular moment.

So here’s a case in which people need to raise their voices, in which they need to help write the story, if you will–this is no longer a “news” story about who screwed what up, or what happened in the past, or how we got here (though I’d now happily talk to anyone who wants to listen about that over cocktails). It’s a story about where Twin Cities film culture can go from here. It’s about what we’re all willing to invest…what we’re willing to do about it. If we’re only willing to engage in cursory chatter, we leave it in the hands of a very few and surrender it to their will. I, for one, would hate to see that happen.

(Emily Condon, former Program Director, Minnesota Film Arts)

How does the general public ‘write the story’? I would personally like to be a part of this story, but don’t know how. Although I can understand Emily’s frustration, I still haven’t heard any solutions being trotted out, either here, on the Save Oak Street site, the BOD, the press… other than patronizing the Oak Street (but not donating–I’ve heard again and again that we must wait until the board appoints a director, etc.). Do we raise our voices to the Board (done that), write articles (done that), or complain in general (done lots of that)?

Although I thought the CP piece was fine, it didn’t seem to go anywhere: when is there going to be a meeting where something actually gets done (as opposed to just conversation)?

My own opinion: despite what Mr. Milgrom says, I believe the Oak Street had outstanding programming under Cowgill and, from what I understand, its bills were paid. Furthermore, I do believe people read War & Peace if it’s marketed correctly (to focus on the specific, a recent translation of Anna Karenina was very popular, even before Oprah got her mitts on it). Back in the Cowgill days, I recall John Wayne film-festivals with ads at every bus stop, and the fest itself was timed to go with the release of a fairly popular bio. Where’s the screening of the two “Kongs” to go with the newest remake? Or the original “Fun With Dick & Jane”? Or a slew of Michael Haneke films to coincide with “Cache”? Dovetailing whatever is current seems like a good start…

And quite frankly, I’m a guy who is happy to see both an obscure foreign film like “Little Otik” and, say, “Singin’ in the Rain” (you can keep “Casablanca”). And I’ve had great success personally in getting a group of friends together to check out “Rain” perhaps for the first time, at the very least the first time on the big screen, which wowed them. Less success with “Otik”. “Rain” was packed; “Otik” not so much. Do I think “Otik” ought to be shown. Absolutely–in fact, I believe it’s essential. But it has to be interspersed with the crowd pleasers or there’s no money for the small stuff.

Has anyone thought to have a conversation with the owners of the Heights and Riverview? I actually spoke with Tom, the owner of the Heights (for an article that did not pan out) and he seemed acutely aware of his audience and what he needed to show. He was a businessman who also managed to show, at times, what he truly loved. Sometimes he had to endure “March of the Penguins” to do it, however. But it would seem to me that a guy who has such a beautiful, one-screen theater, who shows repertory film on occasion and actually makes money might be included in the dialogue.

That’s the not-so-little screed of a frustrated (and worried) filmgoer.

If nothing else, this may be the only Rob Nelson “article” that didn’t make me want to stop watching movies.

He may be a shitty look-at-me-look-at-me-look-at-me-look-at-me movie critic, but he’s turned out to be a pretty decent stenographer.

Tim Grady’s plan to “improve emails” has certainly not taken hold yet. I just received the latest from MN film arts and it’s a confusing mess. I’ve always been one of the “18%” who opens, but I won’t continue to if they look like this.

And I’m still waiting for a calendar. . . . . . .

Oh, man. I’d forgotten about Little Otik. Another great movie I’d have never seen if not for Oak Street.

Fix it, please. Split it back off of MFA and let Bob Cowgill run it. Or something. Just don’t let it suffocate in a mess of egos and competing visions.

One thing that was hit on in the conversation was acting like a winner. Currently, the Oak Street and MFA has the stench of failure hanging over it. I’m reluctant to support such and organization. They need to make a bold move to reassure supporters like me that they will still be around in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years…

P.S.: Minneapolis will miss Adam Sekular, he’s a great guy. I used to be his neighbor when we both lived in the Como college slums! Anyone know where he’s off to?

Adam is now the program director at the NW Film Forum in Seattle – which Jamie Hook founded. He left today…

Yes, Adam is da bomb. Great community builder, nice guy, and great programmer.

I’ve looked over the MFA tax returns (non-profit returns are public, and available on the web) and what Al Milgrom said is completely unfounded: “Bob [Cowgill]’s mission was a very conservative mission based on redefining or rediscovering the past. And we all know that didn’t work–at least if you want to look at it in terms of box office.”

When Bob Cowgill went back to teaching at Augsburg after the 2002 MFA merger, he had built the Oak St Cinema into an organization that owned the theater building and had over $200,000 in the bank. Most anyone would agree that Cowgill’s mission worked very well indeed. It still can.

Reading that discussion leaves one with the impression that rep cinema is dead weight. I call bullshit. Prior to the merger with MFA, the Oak Street was doing fine. Between box office and grants, it had more than enough revenue to survive, as any look at the financial disclosures attached to the merger agreement will tell you. Had its box office dipped, it could easily have engaged in more aggressive fundraising to continue its mission. Repeat after me:

REP CINEMA CAN SUCCEED WITHOUT GIMMICKS OR COMPROMISE

The Oak’s pre-merger programming was successful. Its marketing worked: everyone I knew had the calendar pinned to their fridge. On receiving the calendar, they’d scope out the movies they wanted to see Back in those ancient days (five years ago), the Oak Street thrived without having to calibrate its email ‘open’ percentage or bus in students from South High. Sure, some nights there were five people in the theater, some nights there were fifty: it was inconsistent. Still, the Oak Street cleared its financial hurdles and kept on rolling. This was only five years ago. I think we had DVD’s back then, didn’t we? The whole idea that the cultural landscape has changed is just an excuse for leadership failure on the part of the board.

Now, Grady, Smoluchowski, Milgrom, et. al., want you to believe that no one will go see rep unless it’s being introduced by Morgana the Kissing Bandit and the theater distributes free lollipops to everybody (not that I’m against either of those ideas). Smoluchowski glibly claims that over the last year there were only two or three people in the theater each night. I wish Rob Nelson had asked her to describe the last three times she’s seen a rep movie at the theater, because I doubt she’s been there once in the last three years.

It’s true attendance was down. I attribute that to the booking of shitty ‘International’ films that bored their tiny audiences to tears until people gave up and stopped coming. No offense to Al Milgrom, but no one gives a fuck about ‘Illusive Tracks’. I haven’t seen a quote from him in the last two months where he hasn’t plugged that turd. At the Oak Street community meeting, he tried to fire up the crowd by guaranteeing a run of “Illusive Tracks”. Everyone just sat quietly, embarassed for Al and how out of touch he was. As a popcornvolunteer, I can offer plenty of anecdotal evidence about the draw of “The Oyster Farmer” and “Cronicas” as opposed to Bresson or any other rep piece. The idea that rep is dead, but these mediocre foreign movies will generate revenue, is ridiculous and fallacious.

And can we put to rest this crap about the financial success of the Bell and the MNSPIFF? First, the Bell Theater is provided to MFA free of charge by the U. Those screenings are empty. I know, because I go to see the films. Attendance might be up a little, since they started showing all docs and foisted their international rejects on the Oak, but I can’t be sure. In any case, the Bell generates little revenue, but it also operates with almost zero overhead.

Second, the IFF loses money every year, which is one reason why the MFA is in such bad shape. The IFF lost as much money over three weeks last year as the Oak did over six months. So comments by Grady and Smoluchowski that rep is not ‘practical’ or not a moneymaker are false and misleading. The smugness with which they make those comments shows either their bad faith or their utter failure to comprehend the reality of the situation.

The reason they make such comments, I fear, is that they care little for rep cinema. It’s not fashionable, glitzy or hip. They see it as dusty, sniffling, disheveled, outmoded and outdated (which it is, of course, but it’s also luminescent and glorious). Their real passion is the film festival. It allows them to peacock around once a year and play the part of the cineaste. Unfortunately for The Oak Street, it is the only asset available that can save the festival and their asses. Expect it to be sold.

My prediction for the coming months: The MFA board offers assurances that they’ll keep the Oak Street open. They book a variety of mediocre international films and one or two old rep chestnuts to prove their authenticity. Most of the board honestly believes the plan is to keep the Oak Street open after the festival. Meanwhile, Grady, Smoluchowski and one or two others ‘discuss the situation’ over drinks and come to the ’sad but inevitable’ conclusion that the Oak Street must be sold in order to save MFA. They don’t tell anyone outright, but whenever they discuss the theater, they make sure to emphasize that it isn’t successful or that it’s an ‘impractical’ operation. Knowing that they need to keep the theater open through the festival, since it’s way too late to find another venue for the festival and they need the goodwill of volunteers to make the festival happen, they keep their plan to themselves. They string along Cowgill and company with a lot of vague but reassuring promises. After the festival, the theater goes dark while the board takes a short hiatus from programming to ‘reevaluate its position’. Soon after the IFF, the board meets. They discuss how once again the festival has failed to perform to expectations. The financial situation of MFA is precarious, they say. What can be done? One of the Grady conspirators (but not Grady or Smoluchowski) suggests that the board must finally face the inevitable and sell the Oak street to save next year’s festival. “It saddens me to say it, but I think I agree with you” says Grady. “Well, shall we vote on it then?” asks Smoluchowski. The board votes, the axe falls. Two weeks later, Grady calls Cowgill: “I’m sorry Bob, the plan we discussed just isn’t going to work; we had to sell the theater.” No more rep cinema. Al Milgrom writes a letter to the City Pages, expressing regret, but also excitedly announcing that film fans can find consolation in knowing that “Illusive Tracks 2″ will be playing at the 2008 IFF.

Luckily, Bob Cowgill and the SOS warriors will likely find a way to create a new rep venue in town. Thank god we’ve got them on our side.

Rex, can you help me get in touch with Hugh Wronski? I can’t get an answer from his email address anymore, and I owe him a little money. I’m out in Utah, and don’t know how to track him down, but I’d love to pay him, and I’m sure he’d love to be paid!! : )

If anyone sees this and knows Hugh, tell him to email me!!

harpy

Harpy, try HughW@landmarktheatres.com or call the Lagoon at 612 825 6045 and ask for him.