This movie is a labor of love from Mark Moskowitz and while I gave the movie a score of '5', when this movie is good, it's really really good. The search for Dow Mossman motivates the movie and is also a convenient pretext for a discussion of books and a love of literature.
Whatever Moskowitz's flaws as a detective, most of his interview subjects are interesting. For the most part, any digressions caused by his subjects are forgiven.
What can't be forgiven is the slack film-making. I'm not sure what exactly Moskowitz was trying to achieve with his explanations of where he was in the film-making process while watching him do yardwork or something even less compelling then that. Furthermore, although in some of his interviews he shows keen insight, that does not mean everything that comes out of his mouth is interesting. Yet Moskowitz apparently operates under that mistaken belief.
The second half, for the most part, is better than the first, as he comes closer to achieving his goal. Still, he nearly undermines this with some silly decisions that disrupt the flow. (Spoiler time!) In particular, after he finally corrals Mossman, he cuts to some prior interviews -- in a couple cases, they tie in to a point he's making, though sometimes these bits go on too long. Even worse, he decides to cut to a bit where he has the reels of film, explaining that he's going on vacation but needs to have his film secured while his family is away. This is quite pointless.
Finally, what is particularly frustrating, is that once he starts talking to Mossman, he fails to recognize perhaps an even greater story in his midst. Although the fact that Mossman spent some time in the IL' 'nervous hospital' is mentioned, Moskowitz doesn't dig. Moreover, Mossman later notes how when he wrote, he just kept working on it and working on it, editing and changing and editing and changing, and he couldn't stop. This, combined with some other qualities that show some unusual obsessive behavior, may have made for an even better film (in some respects, in league with Crumb), with the quest for Mossman reduced, and then a study of Mossman taking up the bulk of the feature. Of course, this would require a filmmaker more focused on his subject than how his subject relates to the filmmaker.
Whatever Moskowitz's flaws as a detective, most of his interview subjects are interesting. For the most part, any digressions caused by his subjects are forgiven.
What can't be forgiven is the slack film-making. I'm not sure what exactly Moskowitz was trying to achieve with his explanations of where he was in the film-making process while watching him do yardwork or something even less compelling then that. Furthermore, although in some of his interviews he shows keen insight, that does not mean everything that comes out of his mouth is interesting. Yet Moskowitz apparently operates under that mistaken belief.
The second half, for the most part, is better than the first, as he comes closer to achieving his goal. Still, he nearly undermines this with some silly decisions that disrupt the flow. (Spoiler time!) In particular, after he finally corrals Mossman, he cuts to some prior interviews -- in a couple cases, they tie in to a point he's making, though sometimes these bits go on too long. Even worse, he decides to cut to a bit where he has the reels of film, explaining that he's going on vacation but needs to have his film secured while his family is away. This is quite pointless.
Finally, what is particularly frustrating, is that once he starts talking to Mossman, he fails to recognize perhaps an even greater story in his midst. Although the fact that Mossman spent some time in the IL' 'nervous hospital' is mentioned, Moskowitz doesn't dig. Moreover, Mossman later notes how when he wrote, he just kept working on it and working on it, editing and changing and editing and changing, and he couldn't stop. This, combined with some other qualities that show some unusual obsessive behavior, may have made for an even better film (in some respects, in league with Crumb), with the quest for Mossman reduced, and then a study of Mossman taking up the bulk of the feature. Of course, this would require a filmmaker more focused on his subject than how his subject relates to the filmmaker.