Page Two
How do we define Austin?
By Louis Black, Fri., May 12, 2000
The reality is that not only has Austin changed, but it is also still changing. The issue, without being too cute, is: how do we define Austin? The richness of Clark-Madison's piece is his imaginative generosity in shaping an answer. This isn't a kneejerk "What happened to The Stallion, Taco Flats, Liberty Lunch, and the Armadillo World Headquarters?" rant. Instead, Clark-Madison tries to arrive at the idea of Austin rather than give us an itemization of its accoutrements. The story is about how the community and the high-tech industry can find ways to work together to make this a better place for all of us. There are many glib answers to that question. Clark-Madison offers an appreciation of the concerns that will probably affect us as we move into the new century.
The punchline of Clark-Madison's piece is that these are the questions much of the community is asking. The many elements of Austin are coming together in an effort to impact the future. In an age of cynicism, in a period of moral despair about public institutions, there is an extraordinary effort going on in this community to create a dialogue about solving the problems facing all of us.
There is, of course, the school of thought that this all sucks and let's go home to the Armadillo. I even heard Linda Curtis use the term "Slow Growth" during a discussion on KUT-FM. The reality, given the U.S. Constitution, is that there are only certain ways to control growth. Austin has pursued these strategies more aggressively than many communities, and look what has gone on in the surrounding Hill Country as well as in Austin. The argument about growth has been bypassed by growth itself. The conversation must now center on preserving the environment, bridging the economic gap, and maintaining the integrity of Austin, not the geographic arrangement but the city that lives in our heads.
This is a great issue! (I'm sorry -- I feel most of the issues are good, otherwise why do them?) Sniffing and tasting this one as it winds its way to a finish, I've been delighted at every turn. Raoul Hernandez's wonderful story on Gary Floyd reminded me of how the Dicks once threatened to hurt me because of a bad review. But that's a story for a different time.
"Douglas Sirk's films mess your mind up!" as Rainer Werner Fassbinder once said. The Austin Film Society is presenting a series of new prints of the best Sirk films at the Paramount, and this is not to be missed. Sirk, one of Hollywood's most successful directors during the Fifties, was the master of the melodrama (see Marge Baumgarten's piece on Douglas Sirk in this issue -- see, I told you it was great!). I suspect the audience will be split over these films. Some will laugh hysterically at them, because they are outrageous, larger-than-life dramas that make TV soap operas seem subdued. Others will be delighted by Sirk's almost vicious, subversive artistry. He not only knows these films are outrageous, but he also pushes them ever further. Sirk's lighting is by any definition avant garde, distorting the set and exaggerating the actors. This is some of the finest color cinema ever produced. As the series continues, I'm going to write a lot more about Sirk. The series starts with Magnificent Obsession on May 16, at the Paramount, at 9:30pm. There are seven films in the series but if you can only make one, well, make two -- Written on the Wind (June 6) and All That Heaven Allows (June 13). The opportunity to see new prints of these brilliant works on the big screen at the Paramount is very exciting. 
