I loved this movie, for all its ability to disgust and humor and make me think. I was struck not only by the way it shows the camera crew's inability to remain objective recorders of their subject, but more generally by the way the movie shows the recorder/recorded relationship to be absolutely permeable/reflexive. The crew operating costs are paid by the killer's robbery/murder-begotten money, right? Also, the scene in which the killer plays back a fouled up attempt at strangling a postman is intriguing. We' re first shown the playback on full screen, so it seems to be the product of the crew--the Author of the documentary--then the camera pulls back to show us that in fact we were watching the killer's "version" of his own botched work, slowed down for analysis purposes. Who's the "author" here, not only of the movie, but of the crimes as well? All the bits in which the killer sings "Cinema, cinema; je suis le cinema" suggest that cinema IS violence. This is a homologism which I've heard batted around often in discussions of violent film, but never have I seen it so well (and so sarcastically) depicted as in this film. I wonder if the playback scene is in conscious reference to a similar scene in Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer? In which case Man Bites Dog's self-reflexive references to itself as violent cinema/cinematic violence goes one mirror deeper. Susan Crutchfield