Finders Keepers

There seems to be a lot of documentaries made these days, and even some movies look like doccos. The premise of Finders Keepers is odd, but the tagline/blurb of this film tells little about what it is: a weird human interest/recovery story from NC/SC. Unlike a lot of documentaries based around simple folk, the makers really draw you into responding emotionally to the characters in this one, whether it be annoyance, revulsion or admiration.

Finders Keepers has the right mix of humour, TV/news footage and one on one face camera/narrative dialogue to tell an engaging story of the media, greed, missed opportunities and redemption. The documentary makers keep the necessary distance from the subjects to allow the story to unfold naturally.

It is worth watching and talking about afterwards, especially if you are interested in embalmed feet.

Fascinating documentary about a small time entrepreneur/hustler buying a grill at an unclaimed property storage unit auction and finding an amateurishly mummified human foot inside. Things get complicated when the owner of the foot, a drug addict, rich kid, perennial screw up, wants his foot back. Shannon Whisnant, the new owner of the foot, wants to parlay the foot into fame and fortune, and has no interest in returning the foot. John Wood, the man to whom the foot belongs, just wants his foot back. What unfolds is a crazy journey for both men that is impossible to predict what directions it goes and where it ultimately ends up. On the surface, this is a terrifically entertaining tale of two colorful sad sacks, but the film is more than that. The severed limb that serves as the McGuffin of the film becomes a symbol of sorts to both men as the key to unlocking their dreams. In the end, the foot has nothing to do with where the two end up and it's up to the individuals what they do wit their lives.

I can't fault this really stunning documentary.

When the director stumbled across the numerous eccentric characters who made up this film, I'm sure he couldn't have believed his luck.

However instead of ridiculing the characters, he sensitively lets them tell their own stories in their own way.

Make no mistake - the end result will make you laugh out loud, which is why you should watch it in a crowd. However much of the humour comes from the editing rather than cheap shots at the characters' expense, and you will find yourself respecting both them and the director.

You'll also spend much of the movie thinking you are watching a mockumentary, since most of the stars are outstandingly telegenic, and the story - well it's too bizarre to be fiction.

The soundtrack is superb, as are the editing, the direction, the way the clips are woven into a story with a history and an ending, the attention to detail, and even the camera work.

Happy to give up a couple of hours of my time to this movie, and anything else by the same director.

Shannon Whisnant purchased a grill at an auction. Inside the grill was an amputated leg. What follows is a story centered on the enterprising Whisnant and John Wood, the man whose leg wound up in the grill due to an odd chain of events.

This story, by itself, is quite interesting because of the events and people involved. Shannon Whisnant is clearly crazy, with delusions of grandeur. He does not seem stupid, but clearly feels he has been slighted by the world and should be someone important. John Wood, on the other hand, is generally portrayed as the victim, but he has his own problems and from what we see in the film, he seems to have more or less thrown away a golden ticket.

A little bit deeper, there are two issues I would love to have seen more of: one, why did the doctors let Wood keep his leg? I feel like there are some biohazard issues with letting people keep rotting flesh, and the film never really got into that.

And two, I wish the issue would have gone through actual legal channels. There are some excellent legal questions involved: does the leg belong to the person who found it, just as money in a mattress would? Or is it clearly something different because it is human remains -- can you actually own part of another man? This could have been fascinating to see argued in court, but that never happens.

It's not the idea, but the execution. While the subject matter is silly and ridiculous, Carberry and Tweel are able to extract and distill such a human story. The dichotomy makes it that much more enjoyable.