Reply to comment

       I really understand how disjointed and almost non-narrative parts of the film were but at the same time that engaged me a lot more than "A Thin Blue Line" did, where I felt like the narrative weight was imposed onto the story line, a story line that really could never reach a final conclusion. There was no conclusive element or evidence to work with but at the same time, the film really was trying to make a specific argument. 

On the other hand "Tarnation" really just seems to me like an exploration, a search for an answer or maybe just a search for the right questions to ask. I don't think it that the film always works. I think Tarnation could have made use of some outside information. Some doctors talking about shock treatments perhaps. The sustained vision of Caouette is brilliant but at the same time as exhausting to the audience as it must have been to the filmmaker himself.  

A lot can be done with editing (at governor's school the creative writing teacher used to show this video to remind us what we could do to our stories if we had enough re-vision) but I buy this story a lot more than I bought "F is for Fake" or "War of the Worlds" or even "A Thin Blue Line". For me, the personal stories, the ones told by the authors who have experienced the events they are relating are more interesting--and I trust them more than I trust generalities. When we know a story is "real", when we know everything--all the answers...what is left? I'm not sure if we can ever be 'sure' of the details--I think things like crime documentaries have made us expect answers. But, at the same time we know that the justice system can't figure it out. Why are we so sure that investigative journalism is any more sure? (No matter how earnest the director is, I'd rather have Orson investigating my trial) 

two points!

Caouette's most recent work was an musical documentary: http://ourtrueintent.com/

as far as I could discover his mother is still alive