Unfortunately, I wasn't as excited about this film as the pro-mo's and reviews made me think I'd be. I think I was bothered by the film wanting to have it two ways: 1) no "real" representation of Gould but for his recordings--no photographs, films, drawings of the real guy--so no real VISUAL representation; 2) a very verisimilar choice to have only one performer portray the man for the whole film (but for the childhood scenes, of course). I wanted a variety of men playing the guy, alongside some "real" footage, and any other kinds of representation the filmmakers could get their hands and cameras on. If the idea is to show many different people's impressions of the man, then wouldn't they all, in some way, "see" a different man? I'm also intrigued with how Gould's political ideas about recording interact with the representational tension I outlined above: Gould wanted everyone to "hear the same thing"--no sitting in the back of the hall, no poorly tuned piano in one hall and a well-tuned one in another, etc. Of course, as is probably clear from what I said above, I don't think everyone CAN ever hear (or see) the same thing. (I put "hear the same thing" in quotes-- it's not a Gould quote, just one of my interpretations of how his recording policy might play itself out.) As for other "experimental" documentaries, how about the Noam Chompsky film? Bye, [log in to unmask]