l_rawjalaurence In 1989 Jack Rebney made a series of videos promoting Winnebago products. The shoot was not a happy one, taking place in Iowa during midsummer, and Rebney became highly frustrated with his efforts. Unbeknownst to him the camera crew edited many of the outtakes together and released them on VHS; they showed Rebney cursing everything and everyone in the basest terms.Due in no small part to the ease of copying tapes, the video became something of a cult with Rebney cast as "The Angriest Man in the World." With the advent of the internet its popularity soared - so much so, in fact, that filmmaker Ben Steinbauer was persuaded to search for Rebney's whereabouts and find out what he had been doing since the videos were made.WINNEBAGO MAN follows a familiar thematic path with Steinbauer at first finding difficulties in his quest, then discovering Rebney; trying to establish a relationship with Rebney; and at the end persuading the reluctant ex-salesperson to appear at a fan convention in San Francisco dedicated to the original video. Steinbauer manufactures a happy ending in which the fans congratulate Rebney, and the old man returns home apparently touched by their affection for him.But that is not how the documentary pans out. Throughout the action there remains the distasteful suspicion that Rebney's sensibilities are being willfully exploited by the filmmaker. Now in his mid-seventies with a glaucoma rendering him almost blind, Rebney uses aggression to compensate for his shortcomings, and by doing so conforms precisely to that sobriquet that has stuck to him ever since 1989. At one point he tries to act calm, but eventually admits that this was nothing more than a form of pretense.In truth it's not Rebney who pretends, but Steinbauer himself. Saddled with the responsibility of making an "hilarious" film for the fans, he willfully allows Rebney to give vent to his anger. The fact that he is now a frail old person seems irrelevant. When the two of them end up in San Francisco, the sight is grotesque: I was reminded of the most notorious sequences in Tod Browning's FREAKS (1932) in which the disadvantaged were presented for our entertainment.The film reveals one of the seamier aspects of fan studies: whereas people of all classes, ages and ethnicities might be devoted to a particular text, their addiction can destroy as well as enhance. This is precisely what happens to Rebney. For all the director's attempts to manufacture a happy ending, the old man's melancholy expression (revealed in close-up at the end), denotes his true state of mind.

c131a Well if you are reading this, I am assuming that you already know what the documentary is about, so I will not cliff the storyline for you here.......... It's a great setup for a documentary, angry old guy, internet sensation, has a sort of cult following etc but the filmmakers let it all go to waste. After getting lucky and be actually able to find and reach this guy, they simply do not let him talk. It seems like all they wanted him to do was do the same thing he did on those infamous tapes, what's the point of that?....... You do not get to know the man through this documentary at all, not sure why this film is praised so much, certainly tricked me into watching it that's for sure.At one point the filmmakers wanted him to talk about his childhood and life and such and he informs them that he would rather talk about his political beliefs and why this country is going to hell and such and they simply stop the interview. Yes you read that right; they simply stop the interview and end it right then and there. Are you kidding me? Think of all the gems of wisdom we missed, all his wacky political theories, maybe some conspiracy theories, all lost in time now, never to be found again. By doing that the filmmakers simply gave us an extended "where are they now" sort of update. Hey say your catchphrase again for the audience; hey announce our radio station in a 2 second sound bite sort of thing. You do not need a documentary for that.The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this wasted opportunity and lapse of judgment and turning this into a childish hehehehe session. What a letdown.

angry127 This film petered off about 30 minutes into it. That isn't the worst thing about the movie. That would have to be the Director of the movie. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.This film begins like most documentaries, by giving some context. We are given a short history of Viral Videos and a little info about the Director's experience's watching the Winnebago Man in his youth. This was all very interesting and put together in a not glorious, but sustainable fashion. The Director spends some time looking into how to get in touch with the Winnebago Man, and is unsuccessful at first. We do get to meet the crew which was around during the shoot, which is probably the best part of the movie. Later we see the Winnebago Man and he gives a dishonest view of his opinion of his fame.Its at this point the film heads south. We are treated to another hour of psycho babble (and drama) about the Winnebago Man by the Director. The worst part is the way it is so transparent the Director is trying to use his subject to help out the film instead of trying to document the Winnebago Man as he is. Its kind of funny that he mentions that he taught a class in Austin (which would explain the lack of good films from there).The climax of the film is the Winnebago Man speaking at some "hip" SF show, which shows viral videos. I'm guessing nobody told any of these hipsters about Youtube, as they watch reruns from "America's Funniest Home Videos." At this point the Winnebago Man and his gay counterpart (a character I willfully forgot to mention), go and get some wine from some chic bar and the film shortly ends afterward.This film isn't terrible, its just not very good. The way the Director forces himself into scenes and acts dishonestly towards the audience leaves one with a sense of discomfort. It would have helped if the Director looked at more accomplished film makers like Werner Herzog and tried to make the film in that same vein. Instead we are treated with 90 minutes which gives little more satisfaction than watching a 1 minute viral video.

Skullbussa This documentary is worth watching due to the vigor and articulate nature of the subject, Jack Rebney. My recommendation for viewing comes despite the clumsy efforts of the filmmaker, not because of them.Director Steinbauer's exploitation of his subject crosses the line in such vulgar ways that it reminds me of Tod Browning's "Freaks". Mr. Rebney clearly is lonely, despite his solitary endeavors, and wants to share his mind with others. While Jack's opinions may or may not fit in with whatever narrative Steinbauer's trying to construct, to filter them out of the film is disgraceful and disrespectful to Mr. Rebney.The director is an amateur. He has absolutely no idea how to harness Mr. Rebney's energy nor how to let the man tell his story without ham-fisted direct questioning in front of a camera. I firmly believe that the vast majority of the accolades put upon this film are born out of good-will towards Mr. Rebney and not because of the artistic merit of this documentary.