Rating: 
Summary: Where's the beef?
Review: Stone Reader (Mark Moskowitz, 2002)It seems like a documentary that would be tailor-made for a bibliophile. Mark Moskowitz, book lover, pulls out a book he tried to read years ago and didn't like. This time around, he finds it brilliant, and decides to buy everything else the author wrote. He can't find any other books by the author, and thus becomes obsessed with finding him. Along the way, he talks to teachers, scholars, other bibliophiles, and the like. It's all about the books. All of which is great, in theory. In practice, well, the end result is boredom. Moskowitz himself is not much of a charismatic individual, and much of his delivery is stilted. Once he gets to talking books, he loosens up, but those he's talking with range from the presentable-at-best to the should-never-be-on-camera. The conversations themselves are sometimes intriguing, but are usually made frustrating by a subpar sound mix in places and a lack of subtitles (which, given the abominable sound quality to be found on most DVDs and videos as a seemingly inescapable consequence of the mixing process, are necessary for any film that goes from big screen to DVD/video). By three-quarters of the way through the film, you find yourself not caring whether he finds his author or not. Much of the film's problems could have been eliminated, or at least mitigated, if the twenty or so minutes of shots of nothing had been eliminated. (One gets the feeling they are filler to draw the length of the film out to two hours.) Long, immobile takes of Moskowitz cleaning his pond. Moskowitz driving. Moskowitz on a ferris wheel. No narrative. Just that guitar line, which gets really annoying after two hours. In more capable hands (one thinks, fondly, of Amy Kofman's wisdom in calling Kirby Dick in to do some professional work on her documentary on Jacques Derrida; Dick's intervention saved the film, and made it watchable), Stone Reader could have been something great. As it stands now, it's rather like reading the diary of a twelve-year-old book lover. **
Rating: 
Summary: A movie for people that would rather read
Review: I don't know why so many people are down on this film. Mark Moskowitz' documentary about his search for the long-forgotten author of a book that he loved succeeds at something that I've never seen another movie even attempt. It revels in the joys of reading and makes devoted readers seem like members of an extended family. I enjoyed the meandering style of the film. Finding Dow Mossman, while being an important part of the film, was never the entire point of it. The conversations about books and authors and the long, lingering shots of shelves full of books is not the filler that some people felt it to be; it goes right to the heart of what this film is about--the love of books. There are some interesting characters in this movie, too. I liked Mark Moskowitz' style, enthusiastic but kind of goofy. I can't remember the name of the old man who was in close contact with Mossman during the writing of the book (Frank Conroy?), but he was delightful, full of good humor and the love of reading. Mossman himself was a pleasant surprise, not at all the disheveled, disturbed recluse that I had been fearing to see. This film isn't for everyone and I suppose it could have been a bit shorter, but it's a real winner. It made me want to reach for a book right away.
Rating: 
Summary: Please hire an editor!
Review: I rented this after seeing a preview in the theater...
I would recommend watching the preview, and then maybe the last 10 minutes of the movie instead.
Really. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
It just seemed so incredibly self-important it was sickening after a while. After an hour and 45 minutes of really really poor detective work we finally get to meet Mr. Mossman and find out that he is a rather sad figure with obvious mental and emotional sickness. He was sympathetic and interesting, but he's unfortunately only in the last half hour... and did we really need to follow him around his house looking through boxes? During the fruitless first hour of the movie found myself wondering if Mr. Moskowitz owns a phone? It would have saved him and us quite a lot of time. Before driving 4 hours, it might be good to call ahead and ask a few questions. And did we really need the Michael Moore-ish tactics in the library? I was cracking up watching the students working in the library glancing at each other, saying with their eyes, "What's with this moron?" as he came in with cameras running, trying to catch them off guard in their failure to know who Dow Mossman is. Did we really need the shots of his poor son going to an amusement park? Cleaning a pool... leaf raking.
Did we really need the shots of Mr. Moskowitz trying to name drop books and authors to anyone he can find to talk to, in some desperate attempt to show the world how well read he is?
(I'm trying to imagine some guy filming himself showing up at Yo-Yo Ma's studio and handing him a stack of favorite records.)
It's just absurd. And to top it off, when we finally meet the reclusive author, for some odd reason the camera man keeps giving us shots of the poor disheveled man's crotch. The story itself was a good idea, but this movie just kills it. In the end, it is this sort of self-important elitist trash that winds up making most Americans distrust academia and intellectualism, which then sticks us with leaders like George W. Bush.
Rating:
Summary: Film Is Called "Stone READER" For a Reason
Review: I found this film fascinating - I had never read "The Stones of Summer" before, nor even heard of it, or the movie. But anyone who complains that the film focusses too much on the filmmaker hasn't noticed the title of the film -- "Stone READER" -- it is a film about the journey of the young boy who first read Mossman's book and is now searching for him. It is not a film about Mossman or even so much about writers - it is a film about readers of books, and especially this one reader. The movie explores many themes, including the quest to find out more about an author you love and why some books and authors catch on and others do not. The very aspects of the film that others seem to find annoying, I found fascinating -- as we watch this filmmaker search and head down blind alleys, and yet keep searching. If you enjoy a good quest, if you have ever wanted to write to or go visit a favorite author, or if you just like a good story, I would highly recommend this film.
Rating:
Summary: "The Stone Reader" is an Utter Ego Trip for the Filmmaker
Review: Mark Moskowitz has to be kidding. His documentary has little to do with "The Stones of Summer" or the author Dow Mossman, and everything to do with himself. What possesses some documentarians to make meandering, mindless films about their "search" for their alleged topic? Moskowitz is arrogant and thoroughly unlikeable in this two-hour ego trip. I read the reviews and really wanted to like the film, but Moskowitz made that impossible. The best parts turned out to be his interviews with various professors about writing in general, but these moments were few and far between, and ultimately had little if anything to do with Mossman. The rest was Moskowitz dragging the viewer around the country on a whim, revealing very little about the book and author, and everything about what a pushy, feckless, self-centered opportunist Moscowitz is. I bought the two-DVD set and wish I'd saved my money. And now there's a three-DVD set? Exactly how much material (and money) does Moscowitz think he can mine from this hack job? Dow Mossman was grossly ill-served by this filmmaker, and that was the last thing he needed.
Rating:
Summary: A Major Disappointment
Review: I read "The Stones of Summer" on a recommmendation from a friend, fell in love with the book, and looked forward, upon concluding it, to watching "Stone Reader" and seeing some of the places and faces described in the book for myself, including the elusive Mr. Mossman, with whom I've been fascinated since beginning "Stones."
Instead of "Stone Reader" serving as the payoff I believed I deserved after slogging through the heaviness of "Stones," I was, unfortunately, subjected to spending close to two hours as an intimate of Moscowitz, whom I found to be one of the more irritating people I've encountered recently.
Perhaps it was due to his habit of interrupting the subjects of his interviews midsentence after inexplicably foisting stacks of obscure paperbacks in front of them that bothered me to such an extent. Maybe it was the way he ran around Mossman's house as if he owned the place. Regardless, I was completely incapable of developing any manner of fellowship with Moscowitz in his 'quest' to find Mossman. Perhaps it's a leap, but his on-screen persona leads me to believe Moscowitz is the type of guy who'd rather show you the list of books he's read without actually ever taking the time to develop the capacity to say anything substantive about any of them. This deficit is all to apparent throughout "Stone Reader," and is, in a literary sense, completely incongruous with what one who has read this great book would expect from a documentary about it.
A worthwhile project, poorly executed.
Rating: 
Summary: a writer's view
Review: This is the kind of film to make every writer's heart go pit-a-pat. An overlooked writer finally recognized. A forgotten book rediscovered. This is the dream of every writer who turns up his nose at mere readers and writes the kind of book his teachers and the critics say is a great book.
The unstated assumption (or "subtext" if you want to sound hip) of this documentary is that it was the greatness of the book that caused it to be finally discovered and promoted, and the lack of taste of readers and absence of promotion from the publisher that caused it to fail in the first place.
But was it? In spite of a lengthy documentary and hours of talk by "literary" figures, we still do not learn much about this book. The fundamental message is that the disappearance of this book from public view was a mistake. Is this true? That is the crucial question. If the book does not give us, the readers, much of anything, then the publishing-promotion system is functioning the way we want it to function: ridding the shelves of dead wood. If the book IS rewarding, then the system is not serving us, the readers, whomever else it might be serving. We already know that the book publication-promotion system frequently shoves in our faces books that give us little or nothing. To show that omitting this book is really the crime against humanity that the filmmaker wants us to believe it is, he needs to show us that the book does give us something. And this, he is less than successful in doing.
So, what did cause the book not to sell? What did cause the filmmaker to like this book so much? Causal assertions are easy to make but difficult to back up. The book couldn't possibly have failed, could it, because the book was tedious, boring, insipid, with characters that you wouldn't even want to share a brief subway ride with. No, that couldn't be the cause. And the factor that caused this one reader to like it so much? It couldn't be something in his own personal life that this book dealt with? Or that the book exemplified the criteria that the filmmaker was taught define a good book? Or that he and the author happened to come from the same social background, so the book rings true? No, impossible!
We'll never know until it's too late--until we've bought the bloody book and found out the hard way. Probably a few people will like it. Certainly, many people will praise it because now everybody else and the critics are praising it, and they always like such books because they have good taste. But some of us will wonder: if the book was all that great, why didn't he make a movie of it, like "Possession," instead of a documentary about finding the author? Or did he try and couldn't get anyone to put up the money?
The bottom line is that, in fact, some good books ARE not promoted--and readers lose out as a result--and that some worthless books ARE hyped--and readers are snowed as a result. The problem is not whether books should be promoted or not, but who decides, who controls the means of book publication and promotion. Is there a level playing field? Does every writer have an equal opportunity? If you believe that, let me tell you about this bridge I've got for sale.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book, skip the movie
Review: One thing is certain, no one will try to track down Mark Moskowitz twenty years after seeing this ego driven exercise in self aggrandizement. Firstly, because the movie is so singularly uninspiring, but also because after this film we already know more about Moskowitz and his life than we would ever want to. Billed as a journey to discover the fate of a writer and a book that made some impact in the Seventies but then very quickly disappeared from the public's attention, the movie comes off rather like a puff piece about Moskowitz himself.
Alternating between lack luster interviews, drawn out sequences of "beauty shots", and "grind the film to a halt" observations and ruminations on his own life, the film plods along like a grotesquely elongated political ad. Scenes include: "Moskowitz shaking hands", "Moskowitz cleaning his pond and does regular guy stuff around the house", "Moskowitz driving to around town", "Moskowitz hanging out with regular people". His ham handed camera tricks and "made to look unrehearsed" set up shots remind one of the worst of Home and Garden Television (think of Bob Villa "interrupting" people hammering nails or laying tile.)
The film's bloated two-hours-plus running time could easily be cut down to ninety minutes, but that would take away from the posturing Moskowitz is so fond of. Technically, the film is weak. The camera work and editing are amateurish, and the music is repetitive and even annoying in places.
He does find the writer at the end, although not without stalling to create "a more dramatic," albeit boring, journey. The story of Dow Mossman is summed up in five minutes of screen time. He wrote a book, he went crazy, he moved in with his mother, he now lives in the home he grew up in, and he never published another word. An opportunity to investigate the role of mental stability in determining why some writers complete just one book and then quit writing??? Not in this film. Moskowitz instead uses this brief sojourn into the life of Dow Mossman to springboard the film back to his favorite subject, himself. The film then becomes a heroic struggle, of Moskowitz, to return the book to the public eye and get it republished. Not an easy task, as Mossman, the silly boob, has lost his original contract. Moskowitz's frustration is palpable as he is forced to deal with this addled writer more interested in welding helmets than in being famous. Of course this guy fell from the public eye, he are invited to think, he knows nothing of self-promotion!
I get the feeling that Moskowitz lost confidence in his subject matter somewhere in the process of making this film, and what we see here is an attempt to make "something interesting" out of a story of a crazy writer who was "one and done". It is never much fun to sit through a film that has been "salvaged" from a failed idea, especially when it wasn't the idea that failed but rather the filmmaker's imagination. The story of Dow Mossman and the price of his genius could make a great, thought provoking film. Unfortunately, that story was lost somewhere in Moskowitz' home movies.
Rating:
Summary: Moskowitz, Mossman, Marvelous Moments
Review: In short, poetic, visually stunning,intriguing, very sad,eye opening about the publishing business and the frustrating world of creative arists. My hat is off to Mark Moskowitz....Irwin
Rating:
Summary: Catching Fire With The Stone Reader
Review: I had the opportunity to view the Stone Reader earlier this month. It was a extremely well done film because Mark Moskovitz has an unpretentious, guy next door style of helping the viewer discover what the meaning of "great books" is all about.
Not only did I find Dow a humble, modest, literary genuis but what I found most interesting were the comments and epilogues shared on the second DVD. Dow's former editors, publishers, mentors and other cronies in the field of *lit* really summed up what the key to a *good book* is.
The key is what the reader holds not the writer when opening the book and turning the pages. Dow and other writers without literary pretensions but heart, soul and eclectic imagery wrote stories that opened the doors to readers from all walks of life, all ages bringing the readers together as much as the stories in the Stones of Summer come together as you read Dow's novel.
Hats off the all the academics on the DVD who pooh poohed the stereotypic notion that "great works" are only comprised of books that follow a certain "writers code" or fall under a certain genre.
How true that what matters the most is that the author writes about what matters to him and her. What's far more important is that the book breathes authenticity and that the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the big and the small are connected not divided by the work(s) of a true *W*riter. In every sense of the word.
To hear the stories about Dow's ordinary life post-authordom and about the stories of many other one time novelists who settled into the backrooms and backalleys of their everyday lives, never to be heard from again cannot help but leave the viewer of the Stone Reader asking "why?"
Moscotvitz sets out to answer that question and in turn asks many more questions and receive answers from all sorts of individuals without directly answering the question about why Dow never wrote again.
It's a film that leaves the viewer igniting in sparks with a clear validation that *the great books* create cohesion amongst readers, not divisiveness. The tiny insular overeducated academic or cliquish literary crowd is only one small tiny piece of the pie.
The pie which is devoured from start to finish when readers from all walks of life come out of the wood work to sing the praise of the Stones of Summer.
And more importantly to sing the heavenly hymns pertaining to the most important thing about reading and the work of authors: to bring people together via their shared
love of books and reading, regardless of the book per se...be it sci fi, romance, mystery, non-fiction, western, classics, new age, chick-lit, eighteenth century lit studied in PHD classes or Curious George with torn and scribbled pages...
To remember a book for what it left in your heart whether it was in 1972 or 1982 or 1992 or 2002..and how it's legacy still lives...
|
