Well towards the end of the docu, the interviewer seems to take a slightly antagonistic stance and basically "question" him for the first time, rather than lead him onto his pet subjects or favourite topics.
He reacts very differently to how he reacts in the previous 60 minutes or so, to the point he seems angry that he's been questioned or asked to explain himself, rather than some sort of theory he's expounding.
The film maker may have done this intentionally or it may have been how he edited the film. You may have noticed towards the last 1/4 or so he starts to show the subject as losing control of him emotions and the steely "factual" façade seems to crack a few times, particularly where he gets upset or angry.
I must admit after about 60 minutes I was starting to lose my patience a little, so maybe the film maker also did and decided to provoke him, then showed him to apparently be living on his own (no friends or family that he talked so enthusiastically about earlier) and no jobs or means to support himself (it also looked like his garden didn't have the vegetables growing in it that he was talking about either) and treading water. He looked like he was on the verge of some sort of breakdown.
He also talked a lot about survival and living off the land etc but his house looked like it was on an estate?
I wonder how things are, nearly four years on?
reply
share