Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

93/100

[If you know nothing about this film, I urge you to keep it that way. Don't read on, and the next time it turns up on YouTube, just watch it, without looking anything up first.]

Third viewing, last seen 2000 (on a VHS tape sent to me by John Pierson, after I met him at a press screening and the film came up in conversation, with me lamenting my inability to revisit it; he took my address and promptly sent me a copy). What really matters, however, is my initial viewing, which was ideal: Two days before Dadetown opened in NYC, I attended a sneak preview (most likely one of those deals where someone hands you a flyer on the street), going in with zero foreknowledge beyond "documentary" and a tagline that was something along the lines of "The small town with a big secret." I vividly recall, as the closing credits began to roll, thinking that it was among the finest docs I'd ever seen, but also still wondering what the big secret was supposed to be. 

What happened next remains one of the most memorable and exhilarating cinematic experiences of my life. After the main credits—everyone from director Russ Hexter, who was already dead at that point (of an aortic aneurysm at age 27; this was his only film), to the DP, editor and production designer—we suddenly get an additional talking-head interview. This is hard to describe without prematurely getting into Dadetown's subject, but the person in question casually says something that nobody would ever utter with a camera rolling—words so shocking that they elicited audible gasps from the audience. (Basically, it's a PR flack suggesting that his company may soon hire mercenaries to take out Dadetown's troublemakers.) And then, before we'd had time to process that insanity, the credits resumed...with a full cast list. 


People who watch Dadetown nowadays, generally knowing in advance that it's a mock-doc, often state that it's obviously fake and assert that they wouldn't have been fooled for a second. Having actually seen the film with an unwitting audience, I call bullshit. We had not even an inkling. I know that because the entire house exploded at the sight of the cast list, and then gave the movie a standing ovation—possibly the only time I've ever seen that happen in a non-festival context, with nobody who worked on the film present. Watching it again a few days ago, I looked hard for indications of acting and scripting, came up almost entirely empty. There's one point at which three women are asked what they think API (the name of a tech company) might stand for, and they come up with somewhat clever responses—Associated Prevaricators, Inc.; Alien Persons Invade—more quickly than is perhaps plausible. That's about it, though. Hexter and his co-screenwriter, John Housley (who has no other IMDb credits), expertly build the narrative in a way that keeps escalating tension and adding startling developments without ever seeming manufactured, and the performances, which I assume were largely improvised (working from an outline or some such), are to me indistinguishable from what you see in a zillion real documentaries. (In particular, Hexter populates Dadetown with completely ordinary faces—only the PR guy, appropriately, looks like he might be a professional actor*. Uncannily resembles Greg Kinnear, actually.) Most crucially, Dadetown replicates the rhythm and tenor of a legit doc. It doesn't go for jokes (apart from the single minor instance noted above), nor does it push too hard for dramatic intensity or thematic relevance. Can't imagine a better simulacrum. 

Here's the thing, though. At any movie, some people bolt the theater as soon as the credits start. (MoMA is notorious for patrons who get up and leave the moment they sense that the plot has been resolved, as if they were attending a football game and the score was 42-3 midway through the fourth quarter. They were strictly there to find out what happens; time to beat the rush!) I saw people do that at Dadetown, and for all I know, they still think, to this day, that they saw a real documentary. Short of an emergency or my dad insisting, I'm in my seat until the screen goes totally blank...but had I made an early exit and missed the revelation, this film would still almost certainly have found a place on that year's top 10 list (albeit probably lower than #3). The dynamic that Hexter and Housley invented, with an upstate New York town split between the longtime factory (which had once made airplane fuselages, now produces staples and paper clips) and a "gentrifying" tech company seeking a tax shelter, was credibly fraught at the time and only seems more so from today's perspective. One complaint I recall some people making in ’96 was that API's employees come across as cartoonishly awful, with their smugly patronizing attitudes and their proudly conspicuous consumption; now, they look positively restrained compared to just about everyone on Instagram. "Any similarity to actual small towns across America is completely intentional," states the credit "disclaimer," and at most this seems exaggerated by 5-10%, mostly by speeding up the timeline a bit—and even then, the film makes a point of noting that API had been present in Dadetown for some 2½ years before the film crew even shows up. 

Part of what makes Dadetown so convincing is that it declines to paint its very lightly satirical portrait in heavy-handed black and white. To a large extent, what happens with the factory echoes the events of any labor struggle you can think of, and the layoffs we see likely would have happened eventually whether API were there or not. It's arguably too neat a symmetry that American Peripheral Imaging involves the enhancement of paperless communication, but the pending decline of paper in business (and concomitant decline in paper clip and stapler demand), along with the effect of competition from pools of egregiously cheap labor overseas, was already identifiable in the mid-'90s, and there's no direct cause-effect relationship shown during the course of the movie. It's nonetheless entirely believable that laid-off factory workers would perceive API as the enemy (especially given that they'd already balked at various tony changes being made, catering to their new, much wealthier neighbors), resulting in an angry town-hall meeting that for my money is no less impressive than the one in Mungiu's R.M.N. (We even get a brief instance of racial resentment, though the town is extremely white.) At the same time, those who benefit financially from API's presence, like the construction foreman who's building their ritzy houses, whistle an entirely different tune. The situation is so gratifyingly and persuasively complex that I never initially questioned it when an API honcho talks about the company's "tactical isolated relocation" (i.e. let's consolidate the business in some inexpensive burg), or when one of the townspeople, amused by the unaccustomed sight of men wearing suits, gets off a mildly funny one-liner ("Nothin'll spook a deer faster"). Hexter even tweaks the viewer by opening with someone who's revealed to be reading lines from a strategically placed cue card—the mock-doc equivalent of having a mystery's killer be the first and most obvious suspect. Because Hexter died before the film was even released, we'll never know whether Dadetown was a crafty one-off or the beginning of a remarkable career. And I'll never know whether I'd consider it a masterpiece had I not been blindsided by its true nature. That collective burst of giddy astonishment will stay with me as long as I live. 

* One of the actors, Edith Meeks, went on to star in two of Dan Sallitt's films. And I'd previously seen her in Poison and Safe, apparently, but didn't remember her; they're presumably small roles. (Safe credits her as Patient No. 1.)

Files

Comments

Anonymous

I think this is the last potential 90+ that hadn’t been rated! End of an era.

Anonymous

I was maybe eleven, certainly no older than thirteen, when I first read your DADETOWN review - precocious enough to already be reading film critics and watching the kinds of movies that might win Oscars, but not ready for anything, you know, *complicated* - and it absolutely blew my mind that such a movie could be made. Later, I read Roger Ebert's pan, and my mind was blown again---that two people could disagree about something as fundamental as whether something was believably nonfiction. (Look, I was eleven. And I'm Canadian. Canadians don't disagree about much.) I still haven't had the chance to actually see DADETOWN, but your initial take on it was really a formative moment in my understanding of both art and criticism. So thank you.

Anonymous

I remember tracking this down years ago and being blown away by the reveal. I knew there was a "twist," but didn't know what that could possibly mean in a documentary. Afterwards, I read Roger Ebert's contemporaneous review. And he claimed to have called "bullshit" on this at the time.

gemko

With all due respect to Ebert, I don’t believe his claim to have seen the film without any foreknowledge. And I’d have loved to see him provide examples of the obvious acting that supposedly leapt to his sophisticated eye. (Again, I was actively looking for those this time.)

Anonymous

To folks who haven't yet watched, it is on Internet Archive at the moment.

Anonymous

I re-read the review. Ebert doesn't provide any examples. But the review suggests that he found the whole tenor of the performances just...off.

gemko

It’s not, though. Almost the entire cast is non-pros basically extemporizing as lightly fictionalized versions of themselves. They sound no different than they would were it a real documentary. Which I why I strongly suspect that Ebert in fact knew the deal in advance (it makes him sound smarter to claim that he figured it out immediately; few of us are immune to that temptation) and experienced some confirmation bias. “I believe that no actor is good enough to deliver fictional dialogue as if it is real and get away with it for very long”—not the words of someone open to this approach.

Anonymous

I don't know the life of a professional film critic at all, so I'm curious - would it even have been realistically possible for the likes of Roger Ebert circa 1996 to go into a movie completely cold, without knowing *anything* about what he was going to see, including "hey, there's something about this movie that makes it best seen cold?"

Anonymous

Only 87 people have logged Dadetown on Letterboxd, but seven of them were added over the past day. Looks like this very review has prompted at least seven people to watch it!

Anonymous

I would've commented earlier, but damn is this the hardest time I've ever had finding a movie. Does the whole Tom Dooley character not strike you as a deliberate joke? (The guy who wanders around re-painting random things in the town.) Besides the general absurdity, the way everyone casually uses his name only for the mayor to ultimately throw in, "We've just always called him Tom Dooley. I don't think his own family even knows what his real name is," felt to me like a bit Christopher Guest might have conceived.

gemko

It sounds mildly funny in summary, but it doesn’t really play funny onscreen imo. Certainly not enough to cause suspicion in context. Bear in mind that Christopher Guest movies didn’t exist at the time—<i>Waiting for Guffman</i> premiered months after I first saw this (and didn’t open commercially until 1997). There was <i>Spinal Tap</i>, of course, but that doesn’t have quite the same flavor.

Anonymous

Good point. That might not have occurred to me unless I'd had decades being trained by Guest's movies and stuff like the British Office and its descendants that use a similar filming and editing style for comedy. Though even with mockumentaries being so common now, I could see people watching this for the first time having their suspicions confounded by how it generally doesn't go for jokes. Kind of like how The Blair Witch Project doesn't break its verimilitude (for the most part) in the way that almost all subsequent found footage horror movies would.