 |
HOME |  |
SCHEDULE | |
PROGRAMS | |
KIDS & FAMILY | |
LOCAL | |
SUPPORT KCET | |
ABOUT US | |
SHOP KCET |  |
| About Us | Contact Us | |
 |
|
 |
          |
|
|
 |
 |
||
|
|
Life & Times Transcript
07/13/06 Val Zavala>> Tonight on Life and Times -- There's a change in the air along Venice boardwalk. Will character give way to commerce? Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> The bottom line is, they want to turn Venice Beach into Manhattan Beach. They want to turn it into Third Street Promenade. Linda Lucks>> It was out of control. Everyone agreed that it was out of control. Val Zavala>> And then, this week's films trip on Substance D, hang out with Dupree, and visit Moscow. Will our critics go along for the ride? It's all straight ahead on tonight's Life and Times. Announcer>> Life and Times is made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Val Zavala>> The fun and funky characters we've come to expect along Venice Beach are under pressure to conform. There's a feud brewing between unregulated vendors and more conventional businesses. But what is this feud about and does it spell an end to the wacky Venice Beach we all enjoy? Hena Cuevas takes a closer look at this culture clash. Hena Cuevas>> It's Los Angeles's second most popular tourist attraction after Disneyland: Venice Beach. [Film Clip] Hena Cuevas>> Every year, thousands of people visit its famous boardwalk filled with funky performers and unusual wares. Even these unconventional canals built more than a hundred years ago gave Venice its name and its reputation for the unusual. But the carnival-like atmosphere that made it so famous around the world is slowly changing and performers like Dave Elliott, or "Zuma Dogg" as he prefers to be called, don't like it. Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> They want to turn Venice Beach into Manhattan Beach. They want to turn it into Third Street Promenade. They want to raise the property values and that's all well and good, but there's that little thorn in their side called the First Amendment. Hena Cuevas>> For years, Venice has tried to regulate the large numbers of vendors and performers on the boardwalk with mixed results. Residents who wanted more control were frustrated. Linda Lucks>> This is a beach. This is a public park. It has to be fine for all the people. Hena Cuevas>> Linda Lucks is a member of the Venice Neighborhood Council. She's lived in the area for more than thirty years. She says attempts to limit what was sold and performed were challenged in court. Many past ordinances were struck down as unconstitutional. Linda Lucks>> As of last summer, there were no regulations and the police just threw up their hands and said, you know, we don't have any operating instructions, so it pretty much was a catch-all and it was out of control. Everyone agreed that it was out of control. Hena Cuevas>> Too many vendors were pouring in. Linda Lucks>> There were people coming from all over the city selling things on the beach side of the boardwalk, which is public park. They were buying things downtown and selling them here. They were selling clothing. They were selling furniture, I mean, everything. There was no order whatsoever and no one was happy with that. Hena Cuevas>> Especially merchants like Steve Heumann who runs Sidewalk Enterprises. He says the businesses he manages were having a difficult time competing with the growing numbers of street vendors. Steve Heumann>> There are certainly people who want to be able to sell what they want to sell out there and they want to be able to have a store on public property, pay no rent, compete with people across the way on private property. Hena Cuevas>> Also, there were so many vendors that artists were pushed out of the available spaces. So on March 25, a new ordinance went into effect. It basically limits sales to just art. Anything handmade is acceptable. Anything commercially or mass-produced is banned. Steve Heumann>> They have largely gotten rid of the unfair competition, the people that go buy products and come out here and try to sell them. Yeah, it's drastically reduced and, from my perspective, a hundred percent better. Hena Cuevas>> But along the way, it has also limited what some performers can sell. For example, rapper "Zuma Dogg" can't sell his trademark t-shirts anymore. Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> To try to appease the stores on the other side who are paying the taxes, which is perfectly understandable, they're trying to get all the commercial merchandise off the beach. Now unfortunately, that sweeps up a whole bunch of people protected under the Constitution of the First Amendment under the rug along with it. Hena Cuevas>> So he's taken the cause to City Hall. >> "Our next speaker is "Zuma Dogg". Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> "I'm Zuma Dogg. We're going to break it down. Everybody pay attention right here. I got an important announcement. First of all, if you want to find out the problems happening at Venice Beach with illegal, unconstitutional police activity, tune in to Comcast. . ." Hena Cuevas>> He's a performer and treats City Hall like a stage. His crazy rants even got the Los Angeles Times to cover the story and he knows his antics are a way to bring attention to the problem. Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> If you go to the City Council and you talk into the microphone with a bunch of boring legalese in a monotone quiet voice, nobody's going to pay attention. They're going to continue to sip on their coffee and look on their computers and not pay attention until your two minutes are up. But when Zuma Dogg comes up with the heat -- [Film Clip] >> "Thank you. Time is up, Mr. Dogg." Hena Cuevas>> How much of an impact he's having is still to be seen, but Lucks says Zuma Dogg is in the minority and most support the new law. Linda Lucks>> I think this is the best we've done so far. I've seen less opposition. More vocal, but many fewer people are complaining than have in the past. Hena Cuevas>> A lot of the complaints, however, are coming from another area and has to do with how spaces along the boardwalk are allotted. [Film Clip] Hena Cuevas>> Every Tuesday at 8:30 in the morning, vendors wait to hear their names called and find out what space they'll have for the week. [Film Clip] Hena Cuevas>> Victor Jauregui works for Los Angeles Parks and Recreation. He says the lottery was established a year and a half ago as a form of control. Victor Jauregui>> There was some infighting among each other as well and then you had other individuals that would take large portions of the boardwalk and just kind of hog them up and not want to share with one another. So there's a lot of problems out there. Hena Cuevas>> Enforcement is up to the LAPD. Hayden>> And when I set up, I just keep everything inside the line because you can be ticketed for that too. Hena Cuevas>> Hayden, who didn't want to use his last name, is an acrylic painter. He says the police make doing business a lot tougher. Hayden>> There's been a lot of police harassment of artists, ticketing for really, really minor things, things that they could just give a warning to and people would comply. Like I was here like 8:30 in the morning. My car was completely packed up and they still gave me a ticket. Hena Cuevas>> For what? Hayden>> For being in the space before nine o'clock. Hena Cuevas>> And the performers are also aware of the consequences of going outside their limits. [Film Clip] Victor Jauregui>> Our budget has gone up obviously almost double from what we normally would do on a daily basis due to the lottery. We have to keep individuals, personnel, on work duty until six or seven in the evening to ensure that people out on the boardwalk are following the rules. Hena Cuevas>> So is this a case of Venice Beach tightening its rules so much that it may lose some of its traditional flavor? Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> It does take a lot of the luster off. You know, you don't have the bands, you don't have the music. They're enforcing the sound ordinances way too strictly. You know, you don't have the nice artistic displays that people used to make. It has lost a lot of the funky flavor. It really has. Linda Lucks>> No one has any intention of stifling creativity, stifling the performers, stopping any of what makes Venice, Venice. It's a question of monitoring and being able to regulate per the Constitution time, manner and location. Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> "Here's Zuma Dogg, y'all. Welcome to Venice Beach. We got a free concert right now. . ." Hena Cuevas>> Why not go somewhere else to sell your stuff? Dave "Zuma Dogg" Elliott>> This is the place, that's why. I mean, tell me where else I can go where there's half a million people coming by on the weekends where you can just set up on the sidewalk because the federal government says you're allowed to. Where else is that? I'll be the first one to go there, y'all. Hena Cuevas>> It's precisely this anything-goes quality that has made Venice Beach so popular. Now merchants, residents and artists alike are trying to save that spirit each in their own way. [Film Clip] Hena Cuevas>> I'm Hena Cuevas for Life and Times. Announcer>> Kcet.org is the place to look for the very latest on Life and Times. You'll find previews of upcoming stories, plus transcripts and audio of past episodes and links to some of our most interesting features. Just go to kcet.org, scroll down the page and click on "Life and Times". Val Zavala>> Whether it's Daryl Hannah in a tree or Brad Pitt in Africa, celebrities have been taking on causes for years, but do they do it out of compassion or to bolster their egos and images? For a fiery conversation on this topic, we brought three people together in the Los Feliz home of David Lehrer, President of CommUnity Advocates and our moderator. Joining him are Julie Bergman Sender of The Cause which links actors to issues, and Lionel Chetwynd, an outspoken Hollywood producer who's critical of some actors' political activism. David Lehrer>> Celebrities kind of dumb down issues. They bring the cameras, but may over-simplify and our fascination is with celebrity and not the issue? Lionel Chetwynd>> In general, I think celebrities need to be civic-minded rather than issue-minded. I think in that part of Hollywood that's dominated by the left, it's very important to have an issue because, if you don't have an issue, then you don't really qualify. I'd also separate them out. I think there are people like Gary Sinise, with "Operation Iraqi Children" who does all of that in the darkness. He's spent tens of millions of dollars on school supplies in the Iraqi schools and changed the lives of millions of Iraqi kids. No one knows about it. Sandra Bullock, who gives a million dollars to Katrina and other places doesn't speak about it. I think they're remarkable. David Lehrer>> Can't you argue that, if you have celebrity and you care about an issue, you could bring public focus on an issue that otherwise would go by -- Lionel Chetwynd>> -- but you made a leap there. If you have celebrity and you care about an issue, you should do something as a citizen and not as a celebrity, but as a citizen. Here is what goes on. I am a celebrity. Now I must find an issue because that's an important career credential, and that goes on. Julie Bergman Sender>> But I would argue that people know the difference between a celebrity who has integrity and knows something about what they're doing, and a celebrity who's doing what you say, of which there are some on both sides, who feel the need -- Lionel Chetwynd>> -- well, we don't have any celebrities on our side (laughter). Julie Bergman Sender>> Let's not go there. David Lehrer>> Let's say the governor of the state of California. Lionel Chetwynd>> But he's not a celebrity. He's someone who left the world of celebrity to become politically active. Julie Bergman Sender>> Yeah, but for many years before he did that, he ran the Special Olympics and he was very involved in what one would call things that draw celebrities. Lionel Chetwynd>> But he wasn't doing things like going to flood-ravaged New Orleans with two photographers and a shotgun like Sean Penn who did nothing to ease the problems. All he did was bring attention to himself. Julie Bergman Sender>> Well, that's one example. David Lehrer>> Let's put the narcissists to the side. Lionel Chetwynd>> Okay. Who are we left with? I mean, that's the issue. David Lehrer>> Well, look at -- Lionel Chetwynd>> - a few dozen maybe. David Lehrer>> Robert Redford, Paul Newman. Paul Newman doesn't go for a whole lot of credit and he gives all his profits from his dressings. Lionel Chetwynd>> But that's not who brings us to this table. What brings us to the table are the drive-by celebrities. You mentioned the L.A. Forum, Daryl Hannah in a tree. That's what I think is more of a drive-by celebrity, someone who suddenly emerges in the middle of an issue and makes it their issue. Sean Penn is a drive-by celebrity. David Lehrer>> Is Daryl Hannah a drive-by celebrity? Lionel Chetwynd>> He's a drive-by celebrity with Katrina. He's almost a Jesse Jackson of Hollywood celebrity. Julie Bergman Sender>> Well, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with your characterization of both Daryl Hannah and Sean Penn. I don't know what his activities were in New Orleans because I didn't pay attention to it. I do know of his consistent, thoughtful writing and appearances on issues that matter to him greatly. And I do know that Daryl Hannah happens to have been an environmental advocate on a whole host of issues having to do with the environment for many, many, many years. Therefore, when she sees something going on, whether we agree or we don't agree that she should have been there or she shouldn't have been there, she saw an issue that fit in with the things that she's passionate about and she decided to become an advocate for it. I would only add one more thing to the Sean Penn piece that you mentioned. He wanted to know more about what's going on in Iraq and he went in as a reporter for the Mercury News. He didn't tell any cameras he was going and he didn't care whether anybody found out -- Lionel Chetwynd>> -- that is so untrue. Julie Bergman Sender>> No, it's true. Lionel Chetwynd>> He went all over the place. Julie Bergman Sender>> It's not true. The minute the cameras found him, he left and came back to America. Lionel Chetwynd>> With respect, the claim that Sean Penn went into Iraq with anything other than a huge caravan and trumpets blaring is hard for me to credit. Everyone knew about it. Everyone knew that he was going. He's about as much a journalist as I am a ballet dancer. It's ridiculous. That was just staged. Julie Bergman Sender>> I don't think he was claiming to be a journalist. He was claiming to write editorials for the Mercury News and he wanted to go there himself in order to be able to do that. As a person, he was interested. Now a non-celebrity could make the same decision. David Lehrer>> You counsel them and help get them up to snuff? Julie Bergman Sender>> Well, I mean, sometimes I do. You know, often when I do the work that I do in the media where I do sometimes use celebrity, I try and find celebrities that I feel already have integrity and authenticity on those issues because it makes it a whole lot easier. Redford is a really great example. You know, global warming is now at a tipping point. On the other hand, he's been doing this war for thirty years. So if he wants to now suddenly be in the limelight a little bit more in order to shed light on things that are going on that he thinks will make a difference in peoples' lives about how to wrap their brains around global warming, what's wrong with that? Lionel Chetwynd>> Well, for every Robert Redford -- and I just give you obviously Sean Penn, but I can find others -- for every Robert Redford, there are dozens of other minor celebrities who get themselves implicated in these causes about which they know very little. But it's part of their persona and they want to be out there and it's part of the limelight disease for too many of them. That's not true of certainly Newman and certainly not of Redford who have spent their lives doing this. Who comes closer to my model is Sinise. Nobody knows what he's done. Nobody knows -- Julie Bergman Sender>> -- well, I know what he's done. I've known Gary Sinise for many years, but I know what he's done in that regard because I've seen it in People Magazine and I've seen him on CNN. We can agree, you and I, even though we come from different political beds, you know, Bono and others who have great integrity in what they're doing even if you and I don't necessarily agree on everything. David Lehrer>> And I think, on that note, the fact that you're both coming from different sides of the spectrum, the fact is, the genuineness and authenticity is perceptible and that the narcissist and phony everybody could see transparently. Lionel Chetwynd>> I don't think anyone really gives a damn what Hollywood people think. My theory has always been that I don't care. If some guy is going to vote Democrat or Republican because Susan Sarandon suggested he do that, you know, I don't want to -- Julie Bergman Sender>> -- you know what? That's a cop-out because no one finds out. Lionel Chetwynd>> I don't think anyone really listens to the celebrities. I don't think an hour on Larry King will have any impact on the outcome of the farm. I think it's something we do here for one another. It's a little part of the great, you know, Kabuki dance we do to impress one another. Julie Bergman Sender>> But I think you have to look beyond it. In other words, by the time Daryl Hannah appeared on Larry King, the issue was larger. The issue was no longer the farm. The issue was about how do we talk about the issue of greening in urban blight? How do we talk about creating green space for children and families who otherwise will not have it? It became a larger issue about the social good and that's where it's important. Lionel Chetwynd>> And the way you press that issue is at this mayor we have, Villaraigosa. Not at a guy who bought the land from the city. You got the wrong victim. David Lehrer>> On that note of a political pathway, we thank you both for having this frank and, I think, vigorous discussion about a very interesting issue. Thank you, Julie, and thank you, Lionel. Julie Bergman Sender>> You're welcome. Announcer>> To send a comment or a question to our program, you can reach us by mail at this address: Life and Times 4401 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90027 You can also call our viewer comment line (323) 953-5555) or contact us the fast way by e-mail at kcet.org. Larry Mantle>> Welcome to FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC. Our first film this week is the comedy, "You, Me and Dupree", starring Matt Dillon, Owen Wilson and Kate Hudson. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> I'm joined this week by critics Peter Rainer of the Christian Science Monitor and Scott Foundas of the L.A. Weekly. Scott, what did you think of "You, Me and Dupree"? Scott Foundas>> I didn't care for it very much. It's sort of the latest variation on that tried and true Hollywood premise about the house guest from hell who never should have been let in in the first place. In this case, it's an old friend of the Matt Dillon character. It's a movie, actually, about a couple of newlyweds, Matt Dillon and Kate Hudson, and Matt Dillon's old buddy played by Owen Wilson shows up, he doesn't have a place to stay, he's lost his car, a whole sob story. So they let him crash on the couch and pretty soon he's making the place his own, walking around naked, backing up the toilet, all those kind of comic setups you can see coming a mile away. You know, the movie kind of plods along very uninspired for an hour or so and then it sort of goes from just bland to actively unpleasant because it starts to try to build this Owen Wilson character into this kind of mystic, this kind of slacker Sufi, if you will, who somehow knows all the keys to life that have evaded those of us who have nine to five jobs in a kind of buttoned up domestic existence. Larry Mantle>> Peter, what did you think? Peter Rainer>> I really didn't like this movie. It goes from bad to worse. It also is sort of a template for what seems to be a very popular genre now, the big baby movie where all these guys sort of turn out to be these lay-abouts who turn their homes - or other peoples' homes in this case - into glorified frat lounges. But behind it all is this strange wisdom that Owen Wilson possesses, that he gets these people together again, this couple somehow, and you're supposed to think that in the end he's a fixer and not a destroyer. But it really is an unpleasant movie because it doesn't have anything to offer except for a lot of dumb high jinks. Larry Mantle>> The latest film from director Richard Linklater who directed "The School of Rock" is "A Scanner Darkly". It's a partly animated film which stars Keanu Reeves, Woody Harrelson, Robert Downey, Jr. and Winona Ryder. [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> "A Scanner Darkly", Peter? Peter Rainer>> I think this is a terrific movie. Richard Linklater has developed a kind of cottage industry doing these intermittent Rodoscope pictures. His first was "Waking Life". This is a somewhat more sophisticated and elaborate version of the same technique which essentially is painting over frame by frame a movie that was shot in video. It's an adaptation of the 1970's novel by Philip K. Dick who's been adapted many times before. Most famously was "Blade Runner". This is a movie that's set seven years in the future with a bunch of druggies living in a home together, one of whom is played by Keanu Reeves who's also a cop who, in effect, is investigating himself. They're all on a drug called Substance D which divides your brain into two hemispheres, so you're basically a split personality looking in on your other personality. It all is very Philip K. Dickian, but it's very creepy as well. The futurism of this movie is very subtle. It's not as if all of a sudden people are flying around in space or anything. It's the kind of insidious futurism that I think works extremely well. The performances, if you can call them that in this animation framework, are terrific also with Woody Harrelson and Winona Ryder and Robert Downey, Jr. Larry Mantle>> Scott, what did you think? Scott Foundas>> I actually think the performances were great with the exception of Keanu Reeves who I think is kind of the weak link in this equation. I'm not quite sure that I ever knew exactly what the movie was trying to say, even though I think it does do a great job of capturing this kind of drug-addled state of mind that these characters are in most of the time. The trippy animation style that Linklater does only enhances that. I enjoyed watching it, but at the end, I wasn't sure what it all added up to. The other thing I would say, it's essentially quite funny at times when Downey and Harrelson and Rory Cochrane from "Dazed and Confused" are kind of all stoned out of their minds together and, you know, just sort of ripping off each other and sometimes hallucinating these wild things. It's really quite funny. Larry Mantle>> And finally this week, we have the rather odd Russian film, "4". [Film Clip] Larry Mantle>> Scott, your take on "4"? Scott Foundas>> This is a very sort of crazily ambitious first film from Russia about three strangers who meet in a bar and tell each other these sort of elaborate fabrications of what they do in life and who they are. From there, we sort of follow them all on their different paths, including this one woman who goes back to her home village where these strange women make dolls out of bread. There's sort of this long twenty-minute scene of them chewing the bread and making the dolls. It almost becomes a kind of Eisensteinian montage sequence (laughter). The whole film, on some levels, is sort of a strangely kind of Thomas Pynchon-esque tale about the rise of the industrial world and the loss of individualism and how men are like dogs and how the world might go on just fine without them. It's full of strange ideas, very abstract. Like "A Scanner Darkly", I'm not sure that I understand quite what it all means in the end, but I enjoyed watching it. Larry Mantle>> What did you think of "4", Peter? Peter Rainer>> Crazy, yes. Ambitious, yes. Good, no. I found a lot of this movie unwatchable. I think it has one very good scene in the beginning when the three characters meet in the bar and fabricate all their past histories. But long stretches of the film involve the woman going back to this village, as Scott mentioned, where we're treated to, you know, endless scenes of old crones, you know, chomping on bread, acting lascivious and scatological. At one point, they start to strip. I mean, guzzling vodka is real big in this movie and immense close-ups with rotted teeth and it's not a fun experience on any level. You could put all kinds of fancy metaphors you want on what this film is supposed to be about, but in the end, I think it's about something that's like too disgusting to really sit through for over two hours. Larry Mantle>> Well, thanks for joining us for another FilmWeek on Life and Times. I'm Larry Mantle of 89.3 KPCC joined by critics Scott Foundas of the L.A. Weekly and Peter Rainer of the Christian Science Monitor. Please join us again next week at this same time for the next FilmWeek on Life and Times. Val Zavala>> KPCC public radio broadcasts a full hour of FilmWeek Friday mornings at eleven. And that's our program. I'm Val Zavala. For everyone at Life and Times, thanks for watching. We'll see you tomorrow. Announcer>> Life and Times was made possible through the generous support of the L.K. Whittier Foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life by supporting innovative endeavors in the fields of medicine, health, science and education. And by a generous grant from Jim and Anne Rothenberg. Sponsored in part by:  | |
|
Home | Features | Arts | Health/Science | OC Edition | L&T Blog | Archives | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use |