Stone Reader (2002) User Reviews

Enjoy it for what it is.

[tony-mastrogiorgio · 8/10 · 19 April 2004]

It seems those few critics and IMDB (and Amazon) reviewers who criticized it--occasionally while still giving it a favorable mark--are intent on complaining about what the movie ISN'T rather than what it is. Sure, the fictionalized shots of guys getting the book in the mail, etc., violate The Great Ethics of Documentary Films brought down from Sinai by Moses. (You know, Thou Shalt Not Recreate). And, yes, he does meander a bit and delay the pay off, but...so what?

This is more a conversation about books than a movie in any conventional sense. Complaints that some many interviews don't move him towards the goal of finding Dow Mossman miss the point that the interviews are themselves interesting conversations about the love of good books. Visiting Sealy (the NY Times reviewer who inspired him to read the book) doesn't solve anything--but who wouldn't want to hang around with him a couple of days discussing great reads? Of course, when he finds Dow, what do they do? They immediately talk about books! Love of books permeates everything here, most poignantly and surprisingly in the clearly emotional response the agent Carl Brandt has to being reminded of what he considers a great book and reflecting on a missed career.

Let's put it this way: if you love books, if you love talking about novels, if you get a thrill of excitement when you over hear a conversation about a book you love, then you will enjoy The Stone Reader. It is not conventionally well made, but thank heavens for that. It could be "better", but I doubt it could be more enjoyable.

A great documentary about what it means to be a bibliophile

[SterlingNJ · 9/10 · 15 February 2003]

Mark Moskowitz is a bibliophile who became obsessed with a book called _The Stones of Summer_. I've become obsessed with books myself, from time to time, maybe you have, too, but Mark took it to another level--he began an investigation into the novel and its elusive author, Dow Mossman, and filmed the whole insane quest. As a life strategy it's questionable, but as a documentary it really works.

Mossman wrote a book that was heralded by one New York Times reviewer, circa 1972, as the great book of that generation. Despite this excellent review, the book was a flop, and Mossman descended into obscurity, never to write another novel. The film isn't entirely about Mark's obsession with Mossman's novel, though it makes humorous references to it, rather it takes a long look at what it means to be a reader, a writer, a critic and a publishing industry apparatchik. In his search for Mossman, Mark also comes to seek the answer to a fundamental question: what makes a great writer publish one novel and then stop?

If you love books, you should definitely try to see this film.

(Also, interestingly, in one scene he identifies Frederick Exley's _A Fan's Notes_ as one of the ten great novels of the century, by his estimation. I've always thought that, too--never realized anyone else did.)

Excellent documentary!

[PeterRoeder · 8/10 · 1 May 2005]

Brilliant documentary on the dignity and rewards of reading and composing literature. The director traces "one-book" authors, like J.D. Salinger, and finds a strange man who has written a book called The stones of summer (if I remember right). With a truly American spirit of optimism and joy, the documentary searches for the meaning as to what this forgotten author had worked with and why he never wrote another book. Moreover, if he intended to write another. It also traces other books and authors which have the ability to transform readers. In this age, of hyped technology and media-megadeath, this is a truly astonishing testament to the dignity of the human spirit set forth in books!

A Brilliant, Enthralling, Unique Film Evening

[lawprof · 10/10 · 12 February 2004]

An e-mail today alerted me to a showing tonight at the Jacob Burns Film Center in Pleasantville, NY of Mark Moskowitz's intellectually seductive documentary, "Stone Reader." My decision to go turned out to be the best choice I've made in a long time where film is involved.

Decades ago, during the Vietnam War, a native of Iowa, Dal Mossman, went to college in his state and then endured, probably the right word, America's Parris Island for aspiring novelists, Iowa University's Writer's Studio. Toughness from mentors and an absence of sympathy, much less coddling, characterized the learning process.

Finishing that training, Mossman produced for publication a manuscript he had clearly been working on for a very long time, a dense, atmospheric, brilliant novel, "The Stones of Summer." Bobbs-Merrill published it, several reviews were very favorable and then after scant sales - despite New York Times Book Review section praise - the novel disappeared as did the author.

Documentarian Mark Moskowitz is a true lover of both books and reading, the two not being necessarily linked. He discovered Mossman's novel and began searching, mostly on the internet, for every available copy (there weren't many but he certainly cornered the market). Earning a substantial living largely by producing political campaign spots for TV, Moskowitz decided to do a film about both "The Stones of Summer" and the author and he set out to discover where Mossman had been for some thirty or so years. Probably he felt confident that with his resources he would soon discover the author's whereabouts or learn of his demise.

Moskowitz entered onto a peripatetic and clue-directed journey in which his quest for Mossman took him by car and plane to seek out any former instructors or friends who could shed light on his post-novel fate. Interestingly and frustratingly, virtually all who might have had contact with Mossman didn't remember him at all. The few who did hadn't followed his life after the novel's publication. His Manhattan former agent remembered his one-shot client but only after being shown a copy of the novel which he then recalled as brilliant but the victim of poor marketing by a second-tier publisher.

As Moskowitz searched for traces of Mossman, his vision and curiosity expanded and while the central goal stayed in focus the filmmaker became increasingly fascinated with the fate of "one novel" authors. The sequences become a study in the nature of literature and the personas of authors whose disappearances after one success turn out to be more common than one might have guessed. Several of the interviewees, highly regarded authors, recount their own bouts with depression and at least transient failure.

Smiling an awful lot, Moskowitz nonetheless is unmistakably an ambush documentarian and he gets some of his interviewees to speak very revealingly, in a few instances foolishly. This is not a guy to underestimate. (Several of his negative campaign shorts were shown after the film and they were effective, two brutally so.)

Eventually Moskowitz locates Mossman, still living in Iowa and now working at night bundling newspapers after a career as a welder. Mossman is remarkably open and forthcoming and his deep intelligence immediately impresses. So the film has its hoped for conclusion but the tale doesn't.

Moskowitz initially screened this film in small art houses including, over a year ago, the Jacob Burns Film Center. He brought Mossman out of his shell for that it was and the two became a dog-and-pony show with Moskowitz determined to bring "The Stones of Summer" back into print. And he succeeded. Where the original release may have enjoyed about 4000 sales, the new hardcover edition underwritten by Barnes & Noble has sold over 46,000 copies and a paperback edition comes out next week. B&N's CEO read "The Stones of Summer" and became an instant apostle for its reappearance.

But the truly extraordinary part of the evening was a long dialogue between New York Times film critic Janet Maslin with both Moskowitz and Mossman interspersed with audience questions. Mossman has clearly emerged from virtually hermit-like obscurity (he refers to himself in the film as an "introvert in residence") and is clever, funny AND very penetratingly smart. He has a firm friendship with the filmmaker but what in the end of the documentary is largely a Moskowitz-fashioned relationship has reached a plateau of respectful equality.

And the two are now committed to a project to bring "Lost Books" back into print. Bravo.

I've attended myriad post-film discussions but for interest and depth tonight's is in the top echelon.

In the lobby following the showing and discussion were DVDs for sale, one just of the documentary, the other a special three-disc set with much added material. I bought the latter which I'll explore this weekend.

"Stone Reader" is first a film for booklovers and committed readers but it's also a rare, perhaps unprecedented, filmic exploration of the pain and tribulations of fiction authorship in America. It deserves the widest circulation.

10/10.

enjoyable, but flawed

[gordon_02140 · 24 July 2004]

I enjoyed this movie but the search was too contrived -- in an hour's worth of phone calling, just to the people listed on the book jacket, Dow's location would have been nailed down. Obviously, that wouldn't have made much of a movie, but it is exasperating to watch Mark Moskowitz go through this painstaking, globe-trotting search for someone who wasn't that hard to find.

However, the story of a well-written, well-reviewed book disappearing without a trace, the author's story, and the interesting web of people connected to him make this a satisfying and unique movie.

number one documentary for 2003

[hpsprngsetrnl03 · 10/10 · 13 July 2004]

I found the DVD by accident while looking for Bowling for Columbine(June 2004). The jacket just struck a sensitive cord down my spine. Books are my weakness, good books and great reads. The film itself is worth every penny spent and it is such a shame that I have never heard of it nor seen it on screen last year(2003). Today, I watch it almost once or twice a week for so many reasons. To remind me that passion really motivates one to strive harder than the mediocre effort to achieve what is in ones heart and mind. It keeps me leveled and humbled all the time and it constantly tells me on how the searcher and the searcher found each other and the story never ended there...it gets even better. Of course great books that were long forgotten are worth reading(some even before i was born) and if done with, go and read them again. Because nothing is richer than a life well spent of reading and digesting all these amazing and mind blowing well of words than revisiting the pages again just because...

Who wrote that?

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 4 March 2004]

The quest to find the author of a well reviewed but now long forgotten and long out of print novel is the crux of this documentary. This is a do it yourself affair as director Mark Moskowitz chronicles his personal quest to find the author of The Stones of Summer, a book he read 30 years after buying it.

This is a film that any avid or compulsive reader can relate to, especially if one has ever fallen in love with an author and sought to find out everything about the person who has just touched their lives. I'm just not certain that many o us would go to the lengths that Moskowitz goes to to get his man.

For me there are two problems with the film, first is the fact that for a good portion at the beginning of the film we don't really know what is driving the quest. Yes, its a good book, but why that book? Repeatedly we're told that no one has read it and as things unfold we aren't even given a synopsis of "the grail", we're just told that its a great book as we see Moskowitz buy and hand out copies of the book to his friends. There is a lot of talk about books other than Stones of Summer, which would be fine, but they are better defined than the book at the center of our tale.

The second problem is that Moskowitz, while he seems to be a nice guy didn't seem like some one I'd want to hang out with. Granted the film is about his obsession, but thats all it seems to be about at times and I never really warmed to him as a person, which hurts since the movie, ultimately is about him.

My recommendation is to find a library and borrow it. You may like it, you may not. If you aren't a book person I'd stay away since the "fan" aspect seems more rooted in things literary than in universal themes.

Obsessive quest can be fun

[donaldavis · 8/10 · 25 April 2003]

Stone Reader is a quest film and like all quest films, it tells us as much, if not more, about the person on the quest as it does about the thing of desire. Mark Moskowitz is a filmmaker whose bread and butter is political advertisements. But he reads a book, The Stones of Summer, that changes his life. He first picked it up as a teenager, but couldn't get into it. A few years ago, he picked it back up and realized it was one of the best books he had ever read. This documentary shows us his quest to find the author, Dow Mossman, who wrote this one book and then disappeared, not just from the literary scene, but apparently from life. Moskowitz and everyone he encounters on his quest are astonished at the quality of the book and somewhat amazed that Mossman never wrote again. This documentary is a series of interviews and a voice over by Moskowitz. It is a wonderful just to listen to-- it would make a great radio play. But Moskowitz and his two cinematographers shot wonderful images of people being interviewed and the landscape of this quest; in the same way that I could just listen to the movie, I think I could also watch it without sound. What the movie gives the viewer is a sense of the obsessiveness of Moskowitz and his quest. It shows his elation about reading and his dispair at every turn that leads to a dead-end finding the author. The film is funny, but at the same time the viewer is sad with Moskowitz at his dispair and there is a dread that we will find out that the author, Mossman, came to a bad end--drugs, suicide, or something. The other thing that Moskowitz is obsessive about is books and his love of reading. This is a movie for ANYONE who enjoys books and reading. He delves into the mental state of reading and the magic of words on a page and how that translates into imagination in the mind. The end credits come with his personal reading list; a FANTASTIC list of novels that would keep any reader in bliss for years. Personally, this list is a starting place for me.

Good for a shoestring indie documentary

[=G= · 6/10 · 20 February 2004]

"Stonereader" is a shoestring indie documentary about a guy (Moskowitz) who reads a book which has been out of print for 30 years and then goes in search of the author. Part docu film-maker, part private investigator, and part literature freak, Moskowitz spends considerable time and effort in his quest to locate the author of "Stones of Summer" though his motives are questionable. Regardless, the result is a worthy film, given it's indieness and meager premise, and a good watch for those into literature, the creative process, or just documentaries about Americana and/or novels. It is also a good commercial advertisment for the book which the film alleges was reprinted after the film was released. (B)

This Is a Great Story.

[Geff · 10/10 · 13 July 2004]

I think the story is a great one, the content is very important to writers and book lovers, and don't let the disjointed and irrelevant and sometimes boring, sometimes hard-to-hear commentary and conversations throw you. This is a gem of a story. Too bad Mossman couldn't have written the script himself. I had a dilemma when I first heard of and immediately bought the DVD and the book itself. Which should I read or view first? I chose the book. I read the first 20 pages and realized I was reading a literary work of genius. Then I just HAD to see the documentary; it couldn't wait. It is hard to follow; there are no subtitles for the hearing impaired, which would have helped to decipher some of the dialogue. There are moments that seem irrelevant, but it really gets moving after the first hour. It could've started right there after a five minute intro as to what it was all about and why. Then I would have liked to have seen another hour with Dow Mossman. He is fascinating. I would love to read some short stories written by him based on his last 30 years. Don't expect to be entertained by the documentary, but expect to be enlightened. Now I HAVE to get back to his book!!!!!!!

"Stone" admirer

[FeverDog · 7/10 · 11 July 2003]

I never got around to posting my opinion about STONE READER when I saw it in May. I rated it a 7/10 here, but before long I forgot most of my thoughts.

The movie's still opening around the country, I'm pleased to see. It's in Chicago now, where Roger Ebert gives it ***½, asserting "It is the kind of movie that makes you want to leave the theater and go directly to a book store."

So true. When I got home from the screening I immediately went to eBay to see if any copies of "The Stones of Summer" were floating around. There were, for something like $400. Good thing it's being reissued soon. I did however renew my library card and retrieved from my closet some old paperbacks I haven't read in years.

Ebert's review makes me feel more warmly about STONE READER than I did when I saw it. There were a few problems at the screening which affected my enjoyment, namely cramped seats, muddled sound and an improperly-framed projection (everyone's chins were cut off). I now look forward to seeing it again.

Perfect Film About Books - The Stone Reader

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 3 September 2021]

There are two kinds of people in the world; those who love reading and those who don't. Sadly, we are becoming a world of lookers (as in YouTube Facebook and other social media), instead of readers. Pictures and videos (and especially games) have replaced reading as pleasurable pastimes. Maybe this is a natural evolution, or maybe it is just the dumbing down of humanity. A third possibility is that it is somewhere in between. Regardless, this is a masterful film, and one that inspires the watcher to read. Now, I will be in pursuit of two books that impressed me in the film; Call it Sleep and The Stones of Summer. It is very common to read a book and look forward to its transition to the big screen, but it is as rare as hen's teeth to see the opposite occur. Enjoy it.

Director undermines own work

[MikeHonorama · 5/10 · 23 January 2005]

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.

a movie for people who love books

[ding57 · 23 April 2003]

I saw The Stone Reader at an advanced screening and thought it was wonderful. Finally, a movie made by someone who understands the magic of books. Moskowitz (sp?) talks a lot about the indication of a good book being that you feel like the author is just sitting there talking to you. It's so true, and what Moskowitz may not realize is that he accomplishes the same thing through his film. It drags in places and the camera work is a bit jumpy, but the content more than makes up for it. Thoroughly enjoyable, I'd recommend it to anyone who's ever loved a book.

A little self-absorbed

[brandon-112 · 5/10 · 9 November 2004]

Perhaps I should watch it again, but as a lover of documentary films I was disappointed in this. The self-reflexive nature was interesting, but the director spent so much time sharing every minute detail of his film-making process, the subject matter became obscured and confused. Also, I've got no problems with breaking the rules through recreation for the sake of film-making, but if you're going to stage a scene in a "verite" documentary, at least try and make it look real. And the long, meandering discussions of literature got a little tedious. The film could have been a nice, tight 45 minute/hour-long doc, but as it is you could fast forward through most of it and get the point with out really missing anything particularly interesting or enlightening.

That said, kudos for the attempt. Gotta respect his enthusiasm, and making a film isn't easy. I didn't enjoy it, but obviously many others did. Then again, I'm not much of a reader.

Insightful

[gnarly48-5 · 12 May 2003]

The Stone Reader is a documentary film based on a man's quest to find a book writer which whom he is absolutely amazed by. This book writer, Dow, wrote a single book, `The Stones of Summer,' and then disappeared and never wrote again. This man is search of Dow is confused why Dow would write this book which received excellent reviews would just stop writing after only producing one book. This documentary is different from most documentaries a person would normally watch. Most documentaries teach an audience about a certain event or person. This film elaborates on a person, but it's really not about the person per say. The film focuses on the quest or dream of a man to find this amazing writer and the process of which he does it, but most of the time the audience is actually learning about the writer and how he was unknown to the world even though he accomplished something great. What I mean by this is that the camera is following the man on the quest, but the whole time everyone, including himself, is talking about Dow. The thing that is interesting about this film is the way that everything filtered together. Being a documentary, the producer can't predict how the thing is going to end or how other things will come together. During this time of searching for Dow, this man travels everywhere talking to people who reviewed the book, people that went to college with Dow, and even individuals that helped put the book into production, but none of these people knew who Dow was and many of them never read or even heard of his book. So this man was running into a bunch of dead ends. Finally, he gets a hold of Dow's writing professor just to talk, not even mentioning Dow's name. So the two are talking about his students, this is all taking place in Iowa I might add and that Dow was a student here at the university, but the professor describes on of his students who he sent to get psychiatric help and it happened to be Dow who was still living in Iowa. If only the man would have started his search from where Dow started, his quest could have been accomplished with less hassle, but then the documentary would have been a lot shorter and less interesting.

Not quite a doc, not quite a fiction, not quite enjoyable.

[albino-3 · 2/10 · 2 May 2003]

I saw this film last week at Roger Ebert's Overlooked film festival.

Many people have tried to define exactly what Stone Reader is to people who have not seen it. This task is impossible. Stone Reader is that much different than every other film out there. Perhaps if you look at it loosely as a series of actualities featuring a man obsessed with finding out whatever happened to an author he has recently come to love -- you'll start to get the idea.

Mark Moskowitz, the director, said at Ebertfest that he made exactly the film he wanted to make. Curious, especially because he had no script when shooting and the film seems to follow no type of story arc or definite theme. It's just a random assemblage of scenes covering the almost two year period where Moskowitz did nothing but try to track down Dow Mossman, the author of The Stones of Summer. Mostly, the visits he has with agents, editors, publishers and other book lovers end without revealing anything about Mossman. And after the location and the man himself are revealed, Moskowitz keeps cutting back in time to conversations with people who aren't scripted enough to make much sense and not natural enough to really feel like a documentary.

When all is said and done, we still know nothing about the book (except that it deals with some type of coming-to-grips after Vietnam), not a whole lot about the life of Mossman (who hasn't written any other books) or Moskowitz (except that he has a lot of free time on his hands) and nothing at all about what we have gained by sitting through this experience.

There is some subtle humor here and there, maybe and interesting insight into "books." But it's nothing that hasn't either been said before or worked out in the average reader's mind already.

It's really impossible to recommend this film to anybody, except perhaps those who are interested in novelty, or those who have read The Stones of Summer (a book the director claims as essentially impossible to find). It's not that the film is bad, it just doesn't know what it wants to be and it certainly isn't enriching or insightful along the way.

I am curiously reminded of Gene Siskel, who used to ask, "Is this film better than a documentary of the same actors talking while having lunch?" For Stone Reader we *are* treated to the people having lunch, and the experience isn't terribly impressive.

by, about, and (for the most part) for book-lovers

[Bobbyh-2 · 13 March 2003]

This movie will probably be seen by too few people, and those who do see it will be stone bibliophiles, like Mark Moskowitz. I found it absorbing, mostly delightful, and more than a little depressing. It's sad to realize that an obviously gifted artist like Dow Mossman, the author of The Stones of Summer, can be virtually unknown, either in his day or since. Obviously, to devote the kind of energy and commitment to the writing of a serious novel had better be enough of a reward in itself; the high likelihood is that the writer will reap very few more concrete benefits. At least Mossman was fortunate enough to have attracted the attention of a highly-motivated, bibliophilic filmmaker who was able to mark his achievement with this movie. Not least among the pleasures of the film was the chance to sit in on conversations among a literate and personable bunch of people who share Moskowitz's passion for literature. Having never had the opportunity to read the Mossman book, I wish it were more readily available; given the economics and realities of publishing--even bleaker today, I think, than thirty years ago--I am afraid that I may never get the chance to do so. I suspect a lot of movie-lovers might find this less than involving. I'm glad Moskowitz made it, and hope that it gains the recognition it deserves, even though I am afraid that its fate, like that of the novel it celebrates, will be that of a tree falling in a forest with maybe two or three people around to hear the sound.

I love this movie

[David711 · 13 December 2004]

This movie is basically an audio-book in DVD format. Basically with this movie the writer/director has written a non-fiction novel, added pictures, added narration, and allowed us to view his work.

The movie is about the search for a man who wrote one novel which affected the director so much that he felt the need to find out more about the author. A reviewer was uncertain of the director's motive for wanting to do this movie. His motivation, as I saw it, was simple curiosity along with wanting to find a way to not have the book end. In that way the movie is much like a good book in that it takes its time developing but it also kept me wanting more and more and I hated when this movie ended.

made me curious about the book...and that's all

[ryanmcalary · 5 April 2004]

i'll keep this short. this movie was not good. the whole movie built up to the moment when Mozkowitz would finally get to meet and speak with Dow Mossman. when the moment arrived, mozkowitz goes into mossman's house. then it cuts away and goes back to interviewing somebody else for a while. it got me all hard and then just let me down. when the time comes to interview mossman i wasn't even sure that it was mossman that mozkowitz was talking to for the first minute. this movie was edited horribly and the music was mind-numbing. i think the only reason that it made me curious about the book is because the movie reveals almost nothing about the book. sloppy movie.

For a love of a book.

[cmyklefty · 6 April 2003]

I am not avid reader, but I enjoy watching the film. Mark Moskowitz is actor, director, producer, and screenwriter of the film Stone Reader. Moskowitz talks about various books through his youth in the film, that he remembers reading, but one book he wonders. What happen to the author after writing one book (The Stones of Summer by Dow Mossman)? Moskowitz searches for Mossman through the film and asks why stop after writing one book. An journey of a forgotten book that you never forget.

Stone Reader has a lot to say...

[compozr · 6 January 2003]

Stone Reader is unlike any other documentary I've seen. It is funny, passionate, engaging, and challenging. Part home movie and part detective story, Stone Reader follows Mark Moskowitz on his search for the author of a favorite book. Along the way we have the opportunity to look inside the world of literature from the perspective of authors, publishers, agents, and book-lovers. I can't think of another film that explores the world of literature with such unflinching honesty. The interviews with industry pros are riveting. But this film is about more than books--it's about the way books mark our journey through life--the way they shape our thinking and force us to reevaluate ourselves. And for those who write, it's about the rigors and challenges of the creative process: the desire to achieve something great and lasting versus the grim realities of the commercial publishing business.

If you love books (even a little) you must see Stone Reader. You'll learn a lot--I promise. But Stone Reader is a really good _film_, so even if you're not a "big reader" you'll find this film thoroughly entertaining. It's a window into a world that we haven't seen before...definitely worth a look.

Literature can be a cruel mistress, destroying her lovers capriciously.

[mklein-4 · 6 May 2003]

This documentary is far more dramatic than it at first appears. Markowitz, a documentary film maker, has discovered a copy of The Stones of Summer, read it, finds it to be brilliant, and looks for more by the author. When he finds no further works, and that no one has apparently read or heard of the novel or its author, he sets off in search of the author by chasing down and interviewing everyone associated with the book: the NY Times book reviewer, the editor, agent, cover artist, etc. He learns that the author, Dow Mossman, attended the Iowa Writer's Workshop with several well received writers, and he interviews the professors and classmates. At the University of Iowa archives he finds Mossman's drafts and notes, and begins to realize that Mossman was obsessed with the book, struggling through many hand written rewrites, resisting the editor, and surrendering the novel for publication under great duress. A retired professor lets on that he feels responsible for pushing Mossman over the edge into an insane asylum. Markowitz finally meets Mossman, living alone in the decrepit and disheveled house he grew up in. We focus on the moth holes in his sweater and his disintegrating shoes, and we understand that publication of his novel was the apogee of his existence, that ever since his life has been a failure. He works for the local newspaper, not as a journalist, but as a truck loader. The interviews with Mossman are painful to watch.

The movie builds steam, and by the end you are aware that you have experienced two characters' arc, Mossman's and Markowitz'. The film is handicapped by poor and uneven photography (even by cinema verite standards), owing perhaps to the volunteer crew and absence of a focus puller. But this isn't really about cinematography, it's about the agony of the artist and the price he pays. Literature can be a cruel mistress, destroying her lovers capriciously.