Big City Dick: Richard Peterson's First Movie

A fascinating story of how a real-life Shrek ends up playing with the Stone Temple Pilots, and that's not all. This movie is not the usual Hollywood vanilla pudding -- what, no Nicole Kidman or Julia Roberts? No, just an ugly, rude, unpleasant man with a speech impediment. I have lived most of my life in Seattle and saw Richard several times on the streets here. I was actually behind him once in the checkout line at Safeway, his cart filled with Nestle's Quick and Ball Park franks. I stared at him because he is so terribly unusual looking. There is a message in this movie. Richard Peterson has succeeded because of his dogged unwavering belief in himself and the great kindness of his friends.

I saw this at the Seattle International Film Festival (with 3 of the filmmakers, the star and several "personalities" in attendence) because I've seen Mr. Peterson walking the streets of Seattle on a few occasions and was curious about him. To see him in person is to know that there's a story to the man. The reviews and anticipation were pretty high in the city for this locally made film and the theater was a full house.

Then the film. Although I can't agree with many of the sentiments about Peterson expressed by the previous reviewer, I do agree that the filmmakers provided a documentary that was either far too long for their subject, or far too superficial to justify 130 mins.

I would have expected the film to begin by directing our attention to his odd character (autism, obsession with "Sea Hunt" and golden-age tv shows, musicianship, hugging 'personalities', etc.) and then slowly reveal the real man, his past, his inner thoughts, etc.). We did get some of that; however, it's efforts were ingenuine, almost as if what was received was secondary to his goofy present.

I sensed that I was not alone; that many of those in the theater grew kind of bored with Peterson, that he wasn't that interesting, wasn't that funny, wasn't that talented that we would want to spend over 2 hours watching this film. But I'm not sure that he wasn't.

I feel like the filmmakers could've made a better and more revealing portrait of the man. Things were hinted at (abusive upbringing, inability to relate to his father, etc.) but never explored at length. Instead, our time was spent on his hugging and horn-blowing.

After the film, when the stage was filled with the makers of the film, it's interesting that questions were few to nil. I think that tells you of the level of emotional involvement we the audience had in the movie. Anyway, I give the movie a 3/10.

This movie was complex, in that the subject is autistic, and in many ways wants his story told. The subjects that were touched upon and not delved into too deeply (father, abuse) were obviously not cut deeply due to the fragile nature of autism. There was enough story there to know what happened to Richard as a boy, details not needed, and would have been harmful to Richard to probe and announce that which is obviously still painful for him. I thought the film-makers did a good job of covering Richard's life, history, his obsessions with certain famous people/music, and the struggles of his daily life (diabetes, self-care, finances). The movie was touching, beautiful, and showed the complexities of this special man. Clearly, I disagree with the person who thought this was too long, and not enough depth into the story.

The better movies I have seen in my 63 years stay with you, reflecting off your personal experiences and rattling around in your head, taking you to new places of understanding about what it is to be a human being. This is what "BIG CITY DICK: Richard Peterson's First Movie" did for me, after seeing it at the Somerville Theater as part of the International Film Festival of Boston. I have heard Richard's dialogue, seen his pain and his joy, and hummed his inimitable music for days now in a wonderful stream of conciousness hangover from seeing the movie. Richard is still with me, making me laugh, and making me realize how easy life can be for some of us.

Far from traditional, staid, documentary form, the filmmakers were able to take a most challenging subject and reveal it to me in layers. "Capturing the Friedmans" came close, but I found this movie superior in every way, "Dick" is far more of an epic. Most of all, I was impressed with the time it took to produce, to paint a complete portrait of a most unusual man. And finally, the filmmakers managed to do it all without turning this Rain-Man like character into an object of derision, nor over-expressed sentimentality.

Three cheers for the three directors. They've got a winner, and best of luck getting distribution!

Sheldon Levine, (Retired Acquisitions Exec.)

Having read the snot-nosed, feeble opinions of "littlesiddie," I have no choice but to defend RP and this film. I have worked with Richard for years, most notably as a contributor to his most recent CD release "The William Loose Songbook." Richard is a true original; he and his music are unlike anything you will have encountered before, and this film captures his essence and spirit perfectly. It is no mere coincidence that so many music icons (Michael Stipe, Scott McCaughey, etc.) are fascinated with this man. It's true that Richard can be something of a narcissist, even a prima donna, at times, but his music and his contribution to the civic character of Seattle are immensely valuable. I suppose that for someone who lives in a cultural backwater like Cambridge, MA, the only tenable reaction to Richard's at-times-intimidating screen presence is to declare it "boring." But RP, his music, his performances, and this film will all stand the test of time.