This is a clear example of modern film documentary making. Though Bagdonovich, the nominal force behind the film, has been in the film industry for half a century, and indeed knew many of Hollywood's past luminaries, this film is geared towards a modern, abbreviated attention span. Film scenes and especially various still images are fired by at a lightning pace, without enough time to take them in, and obviously some could have been left behind. Judicious editing is preferable to just throwing everything possible onto the screen, without any time available to explain most of them. it's like a CD Extra disc with a 1000 images on a subject had to be incorporated into the actual documentary. Also, there is no effort to keep the pictures in chronological order!
Another feature that modern day docs suffer from is present here; celebrity talking heads that have little more connection to the subject matter than they'll say positive things. or comment on specific clips they seem to have been directed to. I guess to force-fit some kind of relevence to today, actors that have something to do with CGI superhero movies and TV cartoons (and clips of such) are included. Some don't seem to realize you don't use expletives in a supposedly serious work, but then again, why is that left in?
After Buster's life is gone through, all the way to his funeral, we go on back for more clips from some of his features, all already discussed. This Doc, nearly two hours long, becomes exhausing. Why break with established forms of coherent documentary-making? If I weren't familiar with Keaton, and was a young enough to find it all new, I might be entertained by the Keaton footage, but confused as well.
Review of The Great Buster
