- Filter by:
- All
High: 29° / Low: 13° — Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
A new blog has sprung up around the Oak Street Cinema debacle: SaveTheOakStreet.com. Among the interesting comments is the appearance of Jaime Hook. Meanwhile, four online accounts -- from The Bug, New Patriot, The Movie Maven, and SaveTheOakStreet.com -- describe the scene of Saturday night's staff and member meeting. Update #1: the document handed out by staff, and stories from the Strib & PiPress. Update #2: MNstories has excellent video from the meeting.
thanks for the link, rex.
i've blogged a little about the oak street.
video will be on mnstories.com monday...
Thanks SavetheOakStree.com for creating the blog and posting Jaime's letter. It's always good to read/hear both sides out. I wish Oak Street and MFA the best. I will be contacting the Mayor's office and other reps and media to assist your efforts. This is such an unfortunate drama.
Hmmm...Jaime in charge of a new organization? One word: how.
Jamie Hook's comment on savetheoakstreet.com stated "I am now the director of development at a $1 Million NYC art center, where the board raises over $100K per year, directly and through alliances."
I don't believe his current position involves the same set of responsibilities that he had as MFA executive director. I'm really not in a position to pass judgement, but I think the director of development role could be a better fit for Jamie, he's passionate in fighting for the causes he believes in.
Jamie makes the point that fundraising is an integral part of a board's responsibilities. At the meeting, Tim Grady made it clear that he was putting a great deal of his own money into MFA, or at least the MSPIFF festival. Does any one know, is this a contribution with no strings attached, or some sort of loan secured by MFA assets?
As much as I appreciate his generosity, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a nonprofit organization like MFA relying so heavily on contributions from a single person. I always felt that the Oak St Cinema was intended to be a community building organization, shouldn't it be seeking funds and direction from foundations, audiences and dues paying members?
Dear Concerned,
Whatever Jaime's role is at the organization in NYC, I hope it works out better than his last.
There are a lot of fingers pointing in all directions but all in all, I hope the final result will be that all these forces unite and work towards the same mission.
Oak St. and MFA have always been able to make it by a combination of ticket sales, membership contributions and grants from funders like McKnight, State Arts Board and alike. Another thing was it had been a tight operation with a small staff. On the last ED's watch they did not go after any grants- at least not the big money ones that Oak St. MFA always counted on year after year. The board should have stepped in after the first grant deadline was missed to end hook's tenure. That and poor programing and lack of a decent calendar that has helped put MFA in this spot. There is no leadership- period. I really don't know if an organization could have a worse board of directors. The staff is not really motivated and they need leadership to do their jobs well. As far as a board member putting money into the organization, if it is anything other than a donation I would worry about a conflict of interest. I do know that small non profits have relied on board members to float the operation money until which time it could be paid back without interest. This question of how the money is being given to MFA by a board member needs to be answered though- publicly. Seems that regardless of how unfit someone is as a board member if you give an organization money they can't get rid of you.
>>> That and poor programing and lack of a decent calendar that has helped put MFA in this spot. <<<
I wouldn't put the blame on the programming. The whole point of the Bell/Oak Street being a non-profit is that they show films that are going to be more challenging and less commercial.
Of course I realize they show more challenging and less commercial product. I just do not think that their programming has been as strong as years past.
Do you have any specific examples? I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm honestly interested in hearing your opinions.
I think, for example, Oak Street's screenings of "Twin Peaks" was a neat idea.
Also, here's the PiPress version of Saturday's events. (I, for one, would like to know what Emily had to say about "Cape of Good Hope.")
If the Strib covered the meeting, I can't find the story on the website.
No one looks very good in any of those accounts.
I'll let Emily say what she wants about Cape of Good Hope, but I think it's important to point out that the film received no advertising & wasn't featured in a MFA calendar (as they don't have one right now).
So when Tim Grady pointed out the film's poor performance, maybe he should have also pointed out that the board refused to print a calendar or to advertise the films being shown.
I am sure I will get nailed for this, but why do we want to save the Oak Street? The international film festival is always a unique event with cool films I would see nowhere else. It also actually makes money. The Bell shows wacky out of the way documentary films that rarely bring a full house but thats okay since they have a sweet deal with the theater space that allows them to run a profit (or at least not at a loss).
Then there is the Oak Street. Always dingy and super fuckin' cold and uncomfortable. Showing earth-shattering films like Citizen Kane and yet another Kurosawa retrospective. Don't get me wrong there has been tons of cool stuff at the Oak but these problems scream "untenable situation" to me. If there is a demand for an Oak Street style cinema to open again in the twin cities I would like to see it in a slightly modern theater with quality projection and decent heating. Maybe I am just being a boorish capitalist pig, but even a non-profit has to be economically tenable. The end of the Oak Street will also NOT end the life of independent cinema in this town. There are many unique options arising on a regular basis that actually might gain traction in the absence of the oppressive MFA clique.
Okay, nail away.
"It also actually makes money. "
No, it doesn't. My understanding is that 2005 lost money & that it was the best attended fest so far.
"If there is a demand for an Oak Street style cinema"
I think the 300 people at last night's meeting indicate that there is a demand for this kind of theater. Does it need to be in the Oak? No. But the interest for the films is there.
If you know of an available theater that isn't "fuckin' cold and uncomfortable," then I'd love to hear about it. Anyone who wants to start a single screen theater basically has to move into an existing building. Construction costs on a new space are too high. And there aren't that many suitable buildings in the Twin Cities area.
The Oak Street did close once before, in the early 1990s. I don't remember the precise details, but the theater was used during that time by some kind of "Tony & Tina's Wedding"-type play. And despite xbryanx's suggestion that there are "many unique options" just waiting to flourish if only the Oak Street were gone, I can tell you this: Nothing rose to take its place, until Bob Cowgill came back and reopened the place as Oak Street Cinema again. The Twin Cities were less interesting for its loss.
Maybe the programming does need to be less focused on the well-known classics, though I have to say I feel like one of the great things about Oak Street is that you're not going to be able to see "The Seven Samurai" on a big screen, as God and Kurosawa intended, anywhere else. But that's an area for constructive suggestion: What would you like to see instead?
I'm sure that Bob Cowgill could speak to this more eloquently than I, but I think that a big part of the original conception of Oak Street was that it wasn't (primarily) supposed to be ground breaking. It was (primarily) supposed to show classic movies in the environment they were supposed to be shown, and to share the experience with a bunch of other people.
My favorite moments at the Oak Street were nights when they showed stuff like Rear Window, a movie that I had seen on videa probably a half dozen times, but never in a theater, and never with another hundred people (most of whom I'm sure were also not watching the movie for the first time) on the edge of their seats.
I think the theater started to flounder when Hook and some of the staff felt like they needed to be more adventurous in their programming. It's fine to show difficult material, but don't be surprised when the masses aren't beating your doors down.
The Strib has an article on the meeting now:
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/185099.html
I was disappointed how the meeting turned out. I did not like the belligerents in the audience shouting down the board members who were trying to speak. Let them answer the questions, damn it! A forum like this is completely unworkable, and it soon broke down.
There were some decent suggestions from the audience, and more than a few half-baked ideas. The guy next to me proposed that the Oak Street should be an oasis from capitalism and asked why there isn't an endowment. It's kind of hard to have an endowment, when you're $130,000 in the whole.
I agree to a certain extent that MN Film Arts should be buffered from the marketplace. But at a fundamental level, if money in is not greater than money out, there will be major consequences. The Oak can't show movies that only bring in $700/week.
There seems to be two big problems that need to be solved for the Oak Street Cinema to survive. First, MN Film Arts needs to get out of debt. Jamie Hook screwed them pretty bad by missing grants, but it seems the organization has been in trouble for some time. Second, the Oak Street needs to start playing movies that people will actually go see.
The first part is tricky. I would be happy to give MN Film Arts some money, but I want to be assured that it will go to good use. I need proof that the organization will still be around, and run by competent people. The organization could use a dedicated development director, but with no money it's tough to hire. They are in a major Catch-22. Tim Grady pledged to put $75,000 of his own money into MN Film Arts. I thought a lot of people in the audience were really unfair to Tim. It's a credit to him that he maintained his composure.
On the second point, most of us are guilty. I have a lot of great memories of the Oak, and the idea of it closing boggles me, but I couldn't name the last film I've seen there. Movie attendance is down nation-wide. People are watching DVDs or playing video games instead.
In the end, there were more questions than answers. I'm anxious to see what happens.
The Hey City folks had it for a while, and were showing "Beehive."
Ah, yes. Thanks for the reminder, hipmn.
I have posted a copy of the Staff Statement distributed last night, if anyone who wasn't there wants to read it.
A theater that can't get any business.
Managed so poorly it can't even break even.
Some romantic idea that it serves a segment of the "community".
Sounds like an idea that should die a quick death and save us taxpayers some money.
I wonder about an online fundraiser.
when a writer lost her home to hurricane katrina last year, an online auction was put together and an unbelievable amount of money was raised.
MunsingW summed up my thoughts on this as well. I fell in love with the Oak Street as a place to view classic cinema with like-minded persons in a theater environment. The occasional screening of a first-run indie was fine, but that has gradually become more and more of a priority. As a result, I've attended less and less.
Cape of Good Hope should not have screened for a week. There simply isn't an audience to support that length. The limited appeal of the film might have brought in a good audience for two nights, but the same audience became distributed throughout the week. The lack of marketing, of course, killed any chance the film had for attendance.
And what the hell was up with using the screen for videogame nights? Seriously. Did they make any money off of that? Because it was really sad to see one of my favorite places being used so desperately.
This whole situation is pretty tragic. It's hard to believe that a large urban center filled to the BRIM with so many pretentious art fucks and wanna-be art fucks can't nurture something like the Oak Street. Of course, that may be the problem in unto itself.
Sure, there's romanticism about a run-down joint where you can see "Rear Window" and "Citizen Kane." But in a stifled culture like this where most people who like those kinds of moldy oldies can rent them thru Netflix or whatever, management of these theatres need to STEP IT UP! Get creative! You can maintain the romanticism without selling your ass. Show your great moldy oldies and your Kurosawas, but not for a week straight. I can't believe NO ONE involved with that theatre isn't more perceptive about the world. Keep the old stuff, and start running fun stuff (now I didn't necessarily say 'good' stuff - I said 'fun' stuff - stuff that people will PAY to attend) like showing an all-John Hughes retrospective/marathon with an 80's DJ during intermissions. Or, how about getting permission to show TV shows - a 2 or 3 night series of all "Sex in the City" or "6 Feet Under" or some really cool old shows that are out on DVD now like "Northern Exposure" or 60's original "Star Trek"? Show these things, set up series and short runs, with fun stuff accompanying like music, food and crazy contests. How about a REALLY BAD science fiction series? (Not 'ironic' bad - not 'Plan 9' but truly bad!) How about a series of low-budget 'Viking' or 'Beastmaster' films, serving up turkey legs at concessions? How about a decent blaxploitation series, with some local black filmmakers' shorts and old-skool funk DJ's in between, and a soul food snacks out front. What's WRONG with using the screen for gaming a few nights a month? Big deal! I think it's awesome! It's what's happening now, and other nights can be used for grand old films. What about more music films OUTSIDE of Sound Unseen?
My point is the Oak Street needs to get some GAME, period. I see a bunch of REALLY BORING, middle-class, middle-aged white people running the place, who are all too nice to each other to allow any real leadership, and it SHOWS. They need a rock solid marketing consultant to shape up their image, they need a seasoned local with a DEGREE in nonprofit management to fix their administrative mess, and they need to turn it into a co-operative community project that runs on ideas generated BY people who will pay to come there and support it. Utopian? Don't think so. Realistic is more like it. People will NOT come there, pay for parking, and pay to get in for a SNOOZEFEST. That's what it's been - and what it is now, and they need to TURN IT AROUND. FAST.
Oh, and a beer/wine license, better climate control and a deep cleaning would help too. Those are things money can be raised for, and I'm willing to chip in.
In general, I don't disagree wtih Bx, and with the exception of some of the shenanigans, hijinx, et. al. that he's proposing as part of the marketing push, it's pretty close to what I remember the Oak Street programming in the early days.
They did a great job of mixing up the high brow with the low brow, and in general every time the calendar came out, there was stuff on there to which I'd immediately respond, "I've always wanted to see that," or "This sounds like an excellent way to spend a Friday evening." Or whatever. Clever double features, great movies, fun series; these are all things that have been in scarce supply in recent years.
We can quibble about screening TV shows, bad movies, etc. But I think that the Oak Street should return to its more populist roots.
I agree w/Bx, too. And MunsingW. Whether or not the, uh, "shenanigans" Bx mentioned are themselves viable options, they are examples of the kind of creativity that has been lacking in the Oak Street calendar. They don't need a steady diet of events like that, just enough to increase awareness of the place.
A disproportionate amount the public is afraid of subtitles or (gasp!) black and white movies. A combination of spectacle and nostalgia could bring these people in the door. Double features, as MunsingW suggested, or even pairing appropriate trailers with main features could demystify foreign/independent/arthouse/classic cinema for these people, and create a larger returning audience. Make people coming for A Christmas Story sit through a preview for the 400 Blows. With a little awareness and an increased comfort level, they might come back for the less mainstream/commercial stuff.
I'll just add that I think the videogame program -- which might have been viewed as "mixed success" as far as turnout -- was something I thought of as a brilliant way to bring in a new audience. Getting more of the university population to be aware of Oak St. (which seems to be one of the side-effects of that kind of innovative programming) seems to be one of the ways they're thinking about expanding.
On the other hand, it's an interesting question: should the programming be more or less experimental? My personal take is that there are ways to be populist while still being experimental -- and that kind of alternative programming is just one of the ways to get a new audience aware of the place, similar to how the Varsity is doing all kinds of wacky stuff.
I remember really being excited about each new calendar. There always seemed to be one longer series (like John Wayne movies) surrounded by tons of great imaginative double features. My favorite was probably seeing Bonnie & Clyde coupled with Badlands.
Recent calenders have just weighed so heavily toward foreign films and important but unpopular directors. Not that these don't have a place, but it needn't be the focus, especially since those films aren't the reason the Oak Street built its reputation. It's like some really idealistic aspiring filmmakers got hold of programming and chopped off anything they deemed unworthy of screening.
Or. . . the recent programming has been affected by lack of enough money to pay for anything decent.
That being said, I've been many times in recent months and seen some wonderful stuff- for example, the Bad Boys series was interesting AND "bad movie" fun; Once Upon a Time in the West was fantastic, and
I am thrilled I got to see it on the big screen.
Everyone's got an opinion on programming, but board's incompetence is the root of the problem. How can you run a nonprofit without someone who is accountable for the finances? There is no development person, there is no managing director, there is no executive director. Expecting a programmer to work under those conditions is ludicrous.
What I don't understand here is what exactly the former staff was trying to achieve with this meeting. Everything I've read from them to this point has been kind of vague or accusatory. If they were guarding their opinions in order to unleash with the full story at the meeting, it appears from the accounts that they did not succeed.
Popular sentiment seems to be that the staff are underdogs against the big bad (and out of touch) board, which I can totally accept, but what then are the staff trying to achieve? Did they not all resign recently? Is that part of why there is no staff? Who was responsible for the programming and lack of advertising that has apparently been so ineffective lately and what would the staff have done differently?
The whole thing just seems very unclear and with all the accusations being thrown around, what is an outsider (like myself) to make of all this? On first glance, I was upset about the Oak Street Cinema's (potential) demise, and still am. The staff were positioning themselves as those who truly care about the fate of the Oak St. As time goes on, though, it just seems to be a combination of a pissing match and/or irresponsibility which makes me wonder whether there is any hope for the theater.
Perhaps a staff and/or board member could enlighten us or clear up some of the ambiguity.
Confuzed - I was at the meeting Saturday night and can say that it often seemed like little more that a public airing of grievances (and a couple of accusations). The one positive thing that came out of it, though, was an increased awareness of the public that the financial situation is troubling.
As a member of MFA, I was most dismayed at never having previously gotten any communication from the board about the problems. Made it seem like an intentional effort to hide the turmoil from members. Anyway, I am glad this is coming out into the open. Hopefully it isn't too late. I believe the board is meeting tonight so we'll see if anything gets resolved.
Confuzed,
I'm not an Oak St staff or MFA board member, but I know that the motivation behind the staff's call for the meeting was to bring the community into the discourse.
The MFA staff had an obligation to obey the orders from their board (with no executive or managing director, the board assumes those responsibilities) and the board did not wish for them to go public with a call for help. When the meeting was announced, the board requested that it be canceled. But after seeing commercial developers being walked through the Oak St Cinema, the staff decided that they could no longer afford to remain silent.
On Saturday night we saw the MFA staff, Al Milgrom, Adam Sekuler and Emily Condon, speak only of their love for the Oak St Cinema and their dedication to it's survival. I saw no criticism of the board from the staff, or from Oak St's founder Bob Cowgill, only a call to save the venture that they worked so hard for.
To be honest, I miss the good ol' days of the Bell--when you could wander in, slap down $4, and enjoy contemporary foreign, or older foreign, or anything nonfiction, really. This is a great space for watching any genre, so 100 percent nonfiction is just overkill. I also think our thriving music scene probably cuts into attendance, at least among twenty-somethings.
Great video Chuck. This is an interesting discussion. Sorry I'm not adding to it.
The meeting was sloppy, to be sure, but I don't think we should come down too hard on the staff. They're just a bunch of passionate film geeks and moles-in-holes: hardly the type to engage in a 'pissing match'. In fact, almost all the hostile comments came from audience members and beloved oak street cranks, not the staff. This is Minnesota, for god's sake! If you aren't in constant expectation of passive-aggressive assault, move to a state with less Scandanavians.
In my view, the board has a lot of nerve complaining about being 'blindsided' or 'left in the dark'. They knew for several days about the meeting. What did they think was going to happen when they showed up? That members were going to shower them with flowers and praises? They should have anticipated tough questions. They have been operating under a cloak of secrecy for months and during that time have brought this wonderful organization to its knees through incompetence and disrespect for its core mission. And they were not up front with members or staff about the budget shortfall or other difficulties. Had there been more openness from the moment they knew of the funding debacle, I think members and staff would be more trusting of their motives and more forgiving of their failures.
The Oak Street has been last priority ever since its merger with U Film several years ago. To those who love the Oak Street and its mission, board member Tim Grady's reference to the theater as an "asset" sickens and dismays. It is not an asset. It is a treasure to be protected from the pirates of cultural mediocrity. Notice his claim that the festival and the Bell are fully funded, but not the Oak Street. The MFA is ostensibly a unified organization- Oak Street and its mission were surely useful when it came time to secure grants and donations- how can the entire debt be apportioned to only one part of the organization? The Board's attitude demonstrates their disdain for the great unwashed rep cinema. Why would they want to serve on a board whose primary constituency consists of people they don't respect who are passionate about an art form they don't care for? Vanity and brie, apparently. I suspect that board members would be more than happy to sell the theater, dissolve the Oak Street portion of the organization and use the revenue to liquidate debt and fund film festival cheese-trays into perpetuity. In the battle of cashmere-scarf Lagoonies vs. disheveled cine-geeks, I know which side I'm on.
I have been involved with the Oak St. Cinema since it's opening in 1995 as both a volunteer and staff member, prior to that I was a volunteer and staff member at the Bell beginning in 1992. I was at the Saturday night meeting and glad to see a full house of concerned filmgoers on only a days notice. It was lucky that the meeting happened at all as the Board requested the meeting be canceled as "there is nothing to discuss" with the members and community. The board members who did show up did only at Bob Cowgill's personal request. I wish more time had been available Saturday night as the surface was only scratched regarding the Board's negligence and ineptitude. There is no doubt that Jamie Hook was a disaster but the board is responsible for the oversight and the direction of the organization, they have failed their responsibilities just as miserably. After missing grant deadlines and producing a film festival which lost $40,000 you would wonder why it would take the board another 6 months to fire him and then only at a staff members pleading. When he was finally fired in September, Board members Tim Grady & Susan Smoluchowski addressed the staff pledging their committment to the theatre and keeping it open. They have not done anything since then to lead me to believe they have kept their promise. At least Tim Grady who has been on the board for 8 months, during which time MFA's condition has snowballed, has a track record of failure having been a board member for Film in the Cities when it closed down, so I shouldn't be too surprised. I believe as Board Treasurer Tim Grady's dubious financial floating of the organization raises serious ethical and legal questions. I can only assume he expects to get his money back(he loves to talk about all his money and will bring up the subject at every opportunity) with his intended sale of the property. This would be good news for burrito fans as Chipotle would likely have a nice parking lot on the former theatre site. I have read everyone's comments here and alot of them are in regards to programming. I do think the programming lost direction with Bob Cowgill's exit and would benefit from being a more cooperative effort as it had been during his tenure. Emily has worked tirelessly and passionately as the programmer and I don't think should be blamed. I think she did her best given the lack of leadership and guidance she would have gotten from a qualified director and board. Another item I don't think that has been mentioned was Bob Cowgill's offer,after hearing of the board's vote in December to close the theatre, to volunteer his time to produce a new schedule and a revitalization program for the theatre. The board declined to support him. Bob Cowgill founded the theatre and headed it through 10 successful years, I think it would be a shame for his and so many others hard work to be thrown out. I believe given a real chance that the Oak St. can be succesfull again, there are many out there who want to help. I believe that is a chance the current board of directors is unwilling and unable to offer. They have proven their lack of commitment to the organization's mission at the Oak St. and utter contempt and disregard for the staff, MFA members and funders. It has been difficult working here the last few months wondering day to day if the theatre would even be open, so I hope this letter is not taken as being just a lot of finger pointing and negativity. I hope the theatre can re-emerge soon with new leadership and everyones ideas and comments can be heard and offers of help can be used effectively with the confidence they will not be squandered. I hope everyone who reads this keeps the theatre on their minds and makes the effort to attend further meetings.
I don't think the staff supporters are well served by the conspiracy theories.
I think people interested in knowing what the issues are should read "subcommandante oakstreet", "oakstvolunteer" and Andy's post to understand that this is not a matter of programming. It all comes down to a board that has not been working consistently with the mission statement of the organization. What "confuzed" asks about the staffs' intention of the meeting is a good question but seems to blame the staff for a loose meeting. They called the meeting to address issues that the board was not bringing to the public. Some may call this an attack on the board but a board needs to face both the members of their organization and the community who utilizes their programs, instead of hiding the discussions and just blaming programming and staff. "Confuzed" also questions staff resignations if they are so interested in saving the organization. Staff have resigned because they oppose the new direction the board wants to take; they would perhaps stay to save the old organization if the board was willing to do so. Oak street staff labor tirelessly to get people in the seats. This has been difficult of late with first a poorly performing E.D. and then with no director at all. Not only was there no one to lead the organization but there was no money to program or advertise with. Where was the board during this time? Were they fundraising or implementing a plan for the upcoming calendar and festival or were they just pointing fingers? While I support the staff I am not writing this to demonize the board. I just don't believe that they worked to support the mission that previous grants and funding have been based on. They may want to increase the popularity and income of the festival but this is not the sole goal of the organization. They need to work on all aspects of MFA instead of sweeping the Oak Street to the side. In any nonprofit the board exists to ensure that the mission of the organization is succeeding. Once they have done that then they can focus on new directions but first all involved need to work to meet the statements that they proposed to both funders and paying members.
Since the inception of MFA, I have shelled out the annual fee for a Director's Club membership. I did so primarily to support the Oak Street. Supporting the Bell and the film festival were bonuses. So for me it's simple. If the Oak Street closes, I have no interest in continuing to be part of MFA. I'd rather give my money to MN Public Radio.
Thanks to all for the explanations. Some of the info helped to clarify a bit.
Also, a post over at SaveTheOakStreet.org was helpful in explaining the role of a board in a non-profit organization. (Here's the link: http://iwhitney.hopto.org:85/~inky/saveoakwp/?p=10#comments) Under those definitions, I can see why many of the staff/members of MFA feel the board is failing in its duties.
Unfortunately, this has required extensive digging just to determine what the core issues are. If I may be so bold as to offer a bit of constructive criticism, I would recommend that the staff and board try to remove a large part of the "drama" and really focus on presenting an organized statement to the interested public about what the problem is, what can be done to rectify the problem and what is requested from the supporting community.
Expounding on Bx's ideas, the Oak Street should have nights where they encourage audience members to dress in the era of the film being shown. For example, if Taxi Driver (1976) is being shown, the theater should give free popcorn to everyone wearing 70's garb and free movie passes to the person wearing the grooviest 70's garb. This shtick would boost student attendance.
Looks like Oak Street has survived another week! The schedule now lists a double bill of The Last Waltz and Don't Look Back 01/19 - 01/26.
Let's look at some facts:
1. The University of Minnesota has become a cultural wasteland. It is a stop-off on a barren freeway of one-way exits and parking ramps. This is KILLING the Oak Street Cinema and Bell Auditorium. PARKING is an issue, assh*le...
2. The cinema must become a more highly curated cultural experience. Just a list of oddball and off beat films you cannot see in suburban multiplex and mini-art house-plexes, is not enough to drawn people out from behing their Netflex fed wide-screen, in home cinemas. Classical repetorie houses around the country are dying due to changes in technology, viewing habits, and cheap availability of DVD versions of films. The STAFF and the BOARD of MFA must look to examples around the country of success and failure and transform the Oak Street and Bell cinema experience into something you cannot obtain from Netflix and Amazon movie purchases.
3. A lot of time is being wasted pointing fingers at Jamie Hook and it is misdirected and diffuse in its purpose. The future viability of the organization rests with the BOARD -- it is the entire purpose of a board to take over-arching responsibility for both the fianncial and the programmatic scope of the organization. That is their legal, fudicuary and moral reponsibility. The most disturbing moment in Saturday's meeting was when the Treasurer stood up and tried to deflect responsibility and point blame -- that was totally lame. Legally and in every other sense, the complete responsiblity rests with the board. They hire and fire staff; they set the vision; they move the organization forward... it is all bullshit to blame an individual like was done on Saturday night.
And some idiot, I think, called Ray said "shut down Oak Street and save the taxpayer money..." yeah right bonehead. First, there is no taxpayer money being spent at Oak Street and secondly, if you want to save the taxpayer money than stop throwing million upon millions of dollars at Northwest Airlines, the Minnesota Vikings and Twins, Timberwolves, Minnesota Wild and all the big sucking corporate machines that are raiding your pocket RAY...
The thing that made me laugh at the Saturday meeting was the suggestion board. On the top was written -- use email -- and I thought, you have got to be kidding. No wonder this organization and its members are in serious trouble. If they think they will solve these every serious financial problems by using email (nobody reads email since SPAM has swamped it) to fix it than nothing will be solved (Besides Adam sends email messages all the time).
MUCH BIGGER ISSUE: PARKING near the University of Minnesota!
MUCH BIGGER ISSUE: Value added above-and-beyond what Netflix provides
MUCH BIGGER ISSUE: Getting beyond the wildly romantic idea that the staff and board will set an agenda for the public viewing of film
MUCH BIGGER ISSUE: Improvng the cinema experience at Oak Street (AND Bell)
MUCH BIGGEER ISSUE: Advertising and marketing of film program
MUCH BIGGER ISSUE: Appealing to the members to grow their numbers, set managable and obtainable goals for a campaign to save MFA
MUCH BIGGER ISSUE: Seed and cultivate new revenue streams
MUCH BIGGER ISSUE: Have a plan for the future of MFA
email... come on, get real...
Ray, you are like so many other meatheads - stating your opinions with little knowledge or facts to back them up. "save the taxpayers money by closing the oak" - if you had maybe asked intelligent questions before spouting stupid thoughts, you would know the Oak Street pays quite a bit of property tax, not to mention payroll taxes, concessions taxes....keep your nose in the pasture that it belongs, not in our beloved ultural scene.
veggie said meat ugh ugh ugh
Al Milgrom weighs in with this post at savetheoakstreet.com, looks like he's got a grudge or two:
Dear Fans,
Nice to get all your feedback. Havent perused ALL info on site, but from what Ive read,Oak St. is sum of all its parts. Dont forget there was a U Film Society BEFORE there was an Oak St!! The merger failed to properly absorb a 40-yr.historyand the rest is history as they say.
(To comment properly(sic!)and I was therewould involve hiring a lawyer)..Before we are all history,let it be known that THE OAK ST. IS OPEN!, expects to remain open thru the intl fest(Apr.14-29) and thereafter, will do some rep house type programming,some foreign, some indep.whatever a minimal crazy fool staff can put together, and we also expect both our fairand foulweather friends to show upthe loyal bloggers(?)
(Where were you guys this weekend? We were in the Trib Movieguide Fri. prominently, to mention one media outlet& I dont subscribe to that capitlist rag are you saying to yourself??)
How about the Bell? Also. That venue is also considered now part of the Oak did you know? (as MnFilmArts rubric, a very unhappy moniker, in my book,it doesnt sing , as we used to say in the newspaper business, but who am I.It was a Cowgill &Co.name. Too late now to change? Not a household name, in most T.C.minds, is my thought.
Yes, the Oak is open. All of you now suppport people now please show your money where your collective mouths are, as the saying goes.
I would find it inexcusable if,for example, you failed to show for Illusive Tracks or Murder on the Stockholm Express due to open Fri.Feb.3, 7:30 p.m and to run at least a week.(Only a few ,.very few hands went up at the Sat.Oak gathering a wweek ago )(One of TOP five films in the last MStFF April Film Fest here. Not on DVD!! And wont be. Would I put this film in if I were not sure it will knock you on your ass!! Of course, audience members must be able to readsubtitlesbecause the original dialog is in Swedish. (Why should you see it? Not because you are nice people. Because it will lower your blood pressure; you will laugh.Im trying to give you a reason to see films on the BIG screen, beyond coming out of guilt or pity. Yeah, Rick Hanson and myself, and Adam in his lame duck role, and our noble board, which is committed to seeing this thing through with their cashI know, there are also noble skeptics out thereand Joe and his noble crew too have some great flics coming up (see the web site after today). Only have some patience, until we can replace some key staff who quit. And if you feel so impelled, if you trust us (I know, why should you;
and if you then can say yes,why trust you by way of a rhetorical comment, please imagine what my riposte would surely be, re: the above), and we dont want your money out of kind generosity only, we are trying enlist GENUINE support for the sake of the film, not because of nostalgia alone( I cant believe you love the Oak alonenever mind the Bell at this point, if all except a few die-hard patrons, had failed to support us throughout the year. This is a hard financial fact!
As it is 5-plus A.M. and my bout of insomnia has waned, it is now and-so to bed. If you want to help with office duties ( it will abet keeping the Oak open, we need capable volunteers for postering, for answering phones,for helping with mailings, and some expertise on the computer for film fest data entry. Write Rick@mnfilmarts.org.
Your obedient servant Uncle Al Milgrom.
Captain Hook was (and is) a snarky douche; a self-serving, tactless asshole who prided himself on being a narcissistic prick at others' expense. Perhaps the photo gallery for this year's M-SPIFF will benefit from less imagery of him sucking down cocktails.
On April 10th the Oak Street Cinema's founders (Bob Cowgill, Randy Carpenter and Barry Hans) along with the former Oak St staff and volunteers, will host a free event at the Varsity Theater. There will be a classic short silent film, accompanied by Prairie Home Companion pianist Rich Dworski.
The Oak Street's founders will explain the theater's current situation and ask the public for support of their plan to take over the challenge of funding and operating the publicly owned theater, while staying true to the original vision of the Oak Street Cinema.
hello everybody
MinnPost tells of a forthcoming Minnesota Writers Hall of Fame (albiet a virtual one, as it will exist only online). We can guess that Fitzgerald and Sinclair Lewis will be on it. Garrison Keillor will undoubtedly also make the cut. Who else? Judith …
Susannah Schouweiler at MnArtists discusses recent cuts in City Pages, including laying off the A-List editor and one of the two food writers, as well as the recent announcement that Quinton Skinner's theater beat is being cut by half. With all these…
Mine would have to be Augie Garcia's lost classic "Be My Guest" about the River Road Club in Mendota, although I have also always been partial to The Replacement's "Skyway." What are your favorites?…
Afterglide locates a very odd Craigslist offer.Breaking Down says Minnesota is not a state for drivers.The Deets enjoys some fine local fried food.Overheard examines the value of Timberwolves tickets.…
According to Star Tribune columnist Pat Reusse, on Joe Soucheray's KSTP show (reported here), Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad is dead at age 93. If anyone hears any more about this, please comment. [Update: Star Tribune confirms.]…
The Strib does a story on salaries for the local arts community, and reveals that Guthrie Artistic Director Joe Dowling pulled in $682,229 in salary and benefits last year: Even discounting a one-time bonus of $100,000, his compensation surpassed tha…