Much of Jesse Moss' documentary is spot on. There is lot of detective work, effort and good journalism put into the creation of Con Man.
Our protagonist, to some maybe antagonist, James Hogue has an extraordinary personality that is, doubtlessly, worthy of a well researched documentary. There are extensive interviews with many of the people whose pahths crossed the one of James Hogue.
However... hard work and great work don't necessarily coincide and, unfortunately, this is such an occasion. Despite the, apparent, effort put into research - Con Man totally misses the golden opportunity to deliver answers to most of the questions it is, or at least should be, asking. The feeling is that you got a great and complex product but they forgot to enclose the manual.
For starters the title, Con Man, is "off". Maybe if followed by a question mark - it would have been slightly indicative as to what this documentary sets out to cover. As it stands, if you are expecting your run of the mill conman... well James Hogue is definitely not that. Without properly addressing the issue, Moss certainly touches the question "Is Hogue a conman at all?" but he never elaborates further.
The main reason for Con Man being a missed opportunity lies in Moss's interviewing skills - or rather lack there of. Throughout the film it appears obvious that most the people being interviewed want to elaborate on their thoughts with regard to Houge. In these situations a fly-on-the-wall, or more correctly put - microphone on a table, approach doesn't deliver.
One who seems really keen to elaborate on his rationale, his reasoning and behaviour, is the main character; James Hogue. Moss makes a successful attempt, at creating suspense by not revealing if there ever is going to be an interview with Hogue. So expectations are high when, towards the end, one actually appears. This is the great opportunity to "get inside" and get a glimpse of the ongoings inside Hogue's mind. It is an opportunity that was, well and truly botched. Hogue, showing great willingness to philosophise about his actions, is left hanging - more or less snubbed off. And so... the crescendo never comes - not due to lack of opportunity, due entirely to poor interviewing technique.
The end sensation is; that would be a great topic for a documentary, rather than just having watched one - and that's a great shame.
Our protagonist, to some maybe antagonist, James Hogue has an extraordinary personality that is, doubtlessly, worthy of a well researched documentary. There are extensive interviews with many of the people whose pahths crossed the one of James Hogue.
However... hard work and great work don't necessarily coincide and, unfortunately, this is such an occasion. Despite the, apparent, effort put into research - Con Man totally misses the golden opportunity to deliver answers to most of the questions it is, or at least should be, asking. The feeling is that you got a great and complex product but they forgot to enclose the manual.
For starters the title, Con Man, is "off". Maybe if followed by a question mark - it would have been slightly indicative as to what this documentary sets out to cover. As it stands, if you are expecting your run of the mill conman... well James Hogue is definitely not that. Without properly addressing the issue, Moss certainly touches the question "Is Hogue a conman at all?" but he never elaborates further.
The main reason for Con Man being a missed opportunity lies in Moss's interviewing skills - or rather lack there of. Throughout the film it appears obvious that most the people being interviewed want to elaborate on their thoughts with regard to Houge. In these situations a fly-on-the-wall, or more correctly put - microphone on a table, approach doesn't deliver.
One who seems really keen to elaborate on his rationale, his reasoning and behaviour, is the main character; James Hogue. Moss makes a successful attempt, at creating suspense by not revealing if there ever is going to be an interview with Hogue. So expectations are high when, towards the end, one actually appears. This is the great opportunity to "get inside" and get a glimpse of the ongoings inside Hogue's mind. It is an opportunity that was, well and truly botched. Hogue, showing great willingness to philosophise about his actions, is left hanging - more or less snubbed off. And so... the crescendo never comes - not due to lack of opportunity, due entirely to poor interviewing technique.
The end sensation is; that would be a great topic for a documentary, rather than just having watched one - and that's a great shame.