IF Larry had failed to "synopsize" Boyd Rice nice and neatly for any audience beforehand, as this Village Voice article suggests, at least the article makes up for it now by doing so in its own tepid way.
I think filmmaker Larry Wessel did the best thing: he let the subject speak for itself.
I'm not keen on these types of articles that attempt to offer their suggestions to the artist in the form of constructive criticism -- mostly because the criticism is so wrong.
The worst criticism is that Larry has "disinvited" people to grind their axes on the subject of Boyd Rice, as if there should be a fair and balanced clause, as if when you're doing a subject like -- let's say Barrack Obama for a random example -- you should spend at least half your time interviewing people who don't like him -- let's say George W. Bush, the GOP, the KKK and the Tea Party.
And, apparently, Larry's documentary wasn't "investigative" enough and he should have picked a fight with Boyd at a certain point on camera to prove he was up to Nick Pinkerton's standards of manly fortitude or have a gotchya' moment: "You're no Satanist, sir! Your red card was revoked!"
Maybe all publicity is good publicity; these criticisms in the article are terse, but snarky and wrong. There, I said it.
Iconoclast stands on its own. That film is going to be in my collection of greats and repeat-viewings for a long time. This Village Voice article, on the other hand, disinvited me to give a better viewpoint to help synopsize and investigate the subject. ;)