With the Neo-Luddites and Lead Pencil Society--two of the more prominent anti-technology groups--adding members at a phenomenal rate (and who amongst us hasn't felt the siren call of the Luddites when stuck in the ninth circle of phone tree hell?), is it any wonder that...okay, we're off the cover now--so let's talk about John Water's Pecker. Poor John: At first the M.P.A.A. fought with him over the title, which refers to the main character's bird-like eating habits (the Waters camp countered with its own list of titles such as Shaft, Free Willy, In & Out and Octopussy), then the critics called Pecker "soft-core," "soft on shocks" and, hitting below the belt, "mercifully brief."I actually half-liked Pecker, or more specifically second-half-liked it. Set in Water's beloved and definitely wacky Baltimore, a place where people brake for homemade stands selling pit-beef or get "teabagged" in male dance bars, Pecker follows the meteoric rise of a sandwich-shop-employee-cum-amateur-shutterbug (played perfectly by Edward Furlong) from the weird blue-collar streets of Baltimore to the weirder New York art world.Using an old second-hand 35mm camera, the good-natured, non-judgmental Pecker snaps off shots of family, friends, neighbors, strippers and copulating rats with equal interest and flair. When a visiting New York art gallery dealer (Lili Taylor) sees Pecker's pictures on display at the sandwich shop, she arranges a showing in New York, which attracts kudos from the critics, rocketing Pecker to the top of the (art) charts.Maybe I was just trying to wring some meaning out of an otherwise intermittently interesting film (who can resist checking out a cameo by Patty Hearst?), but I did find the second half of Pecker oddly endearing. I can't imagine anyone seriously accusing John Waters of instilling family values, or--God help us--crafting a cautionary tale, but if you look beyond the tiresome nuclear family yuks (such as a running gag on the little sister's maniacal sugar addiction), Pecker's family is actually a pretty close-knit bunch. When success comes calling (at the doorbell, on the telephone, by FedEx), their world is not just essentially turned upside-down, the family unit itself is threatened by Pecker's newfound fame.Not for every taste--heck, probably not even for most tastes--Pecker is a strong, optional purchase. Aud: P.The Canadian brothers David and Mark Montizambert use a slightly better camera than Pecker uses, but their subjects can be just as wacky (such as a still life with sewing implements) and their approach is decidedly low-tech. Homemade Photography: Expert Results with Simple Materials finds the Brothers Montizambert's plans for an outdoor shoot thwarted by rain. Resourceful guys, the brothers quickly grab a broom, chair, bedsheet, lamp, aluminum foil and other common household items and voila! they are ready to embark on three photographic projects shot inside: a flower arrangement (which look as if it's outside), the aforementioned sewing implements tableau and a nicely lit portrait of David's wife, Sylvianne.Although the approach is decidedly down home, the instruction is anything but: a Twilight Zone-inspired narrator named Chris rattles off a relatively rapid, more or less technical blow-by-blow description of what the Montizamberts are doing. Still, for those already familiar with f-stops, color correction filters, and aperture settings--in particular, school and community photography clubs--the video does celebrate and encourage a creative can-do approach to picture-taking. A strong, optional purchase where appropriate. Aud: J, H, C, P. (R. Pitman)
Homemade Photography: Expert Results with Simple Materials; Pecker
(1996) 40 min. $60 (teacher's guide included). Clearvue/eav. PPR. Closed captioned. Vol. 14, Issue 2
Homemade Photography: Expert Results with Simple Materials; Pecker
Star Ratings
As of March 2022, Video Librarian has changed from a four-star rating system to a five-star one. This change allows our reviewers to have a wider range of critical viewpoints, as well as to synchronize with Google’s rating structure. This change affects all reviews from March 2022 onwards. All reviews from before this period will still retain their original rating. Future film submissions will be considered our new 1-5 star criteria.