I seem to have a unique take on the new Pee-Wee Herman documentary on HBO/MAX.
It just confirmed my preconceptions. He was a not-super-deep guy who scratched his way to the top with classic LA showbiz monomania, milking an annoying character for every drop of fame and fortune—but also, to his great credit, applying boundless workmanship and imagination to the task. Underneath? The sort of nowheresville dude who'd jerk off in porn theaters. Idunno, that was pretty much my take going in, and the film didn't change anything.
I'm told I was supposed to sob uncontrollably at his phoned-in deathbed statement, but I saw that it was his method of commandeering the movie to his control and terms, after all. He knew, given the timing, that it would be played unedited and unframed. That chunk ("I'm not a pedophile", which, fwiw, I believe) was the entire point of the whole project for him, and he set it like a jeweler. But the director was too wishy-washy (and showbiz monomaniacal) to clock the nuance.
I'm not disgusted by ambition, but neither do I find it heart-warming. Good on him for his work ethic, and I know lots of people loved the character. Other than that, he had career ups and downs, like everybody.
To digress, sex-offense laws are crazily over-reaching, because, politically, there is no pushback. Nobody would ever dare argue the other way. Politicians trip over each other to propose ever more draconian measures. See David Feige's film "Untouchable". I'm not sure, however, that "I should be allowed to collect anything I want to!" was his best possible statement to the public under the circumstances.
In fact, I'll go a step further. I think the reason he kept his cancer a tight secret for six years was to heighten the shock and impact of his death to ensure maximal impact from the dramatic deathbed voicemail. It sounds unimaginably contrived and manipulative, but his life was nothing but unflagging contrivance and manipulation invested in the storylines he created. This was just more of that.
It would have been great if the documentary director had the sophistication to notice, and to weave this recursion into the film, which then might have been great rather than a sordid true Hollywood tale. But I suppose he was chosen for his lack of sophistication, ensuring he'd deliver Reuben's package cleanly and without nuance.
I will stop short of suggesting that Reubens slept on an asbestos pillow to give himself the cancer to set up the opportunity to ensure the impact for the carefully selected and pre-tenderized director to deliver the package.
But only just barely.
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi, Jim. I haven't seen the documentary yet, so I can't assess your take on it. I do have quite a lot of respect for Paul Reubens, at least the one I know (I'm not qualified to write his bio or anything). So I'm just here to opine that your use of "not-super-deep" and "nowheresville" are vague, arguable, and end up getting in the way--at least for me--of your review. I'm a new fan of your site, so I hope that this sort of feedback is useful or at least not annoying.
Hi, Brett. I was reviewing the documentary, not the guy. So if you do have a chance to see it, and feel that I drew the wrong impressions, let me know.
Also, I can’t help but wonder if you read all the way down. “Not super deep” is nothing close to where my post concludes. But you appear not to have done a super deep read.
Wow. That was fast! I did read all the way down. I'm not sure whether it was a super deep, though. I have certainly been guilty of missing important aspects of things I thought I had read carefully.
That you were reviewing the documentary was, I thought, actually important to my point. That is, the adjectives applied to Reubens didn't contribute to the point about the documentary. After I watch it (tonight, by damn!), maybe I'll think very differently, though. At any rate, thanks for responding, and please keep writing the blog.
Post a Comment