Le campeur inconnu

I was living in Naples, Florida when the news was first reported that a man had been found deceased inside a tent in the woods of the nearby Big Cypress reserve area. And I remember that the angle of the story was one of mystery as to just how the man had died and that his identity remained undetermined. The case was in the news for a few days, then it essentially vanished and we, the public, moved onto other things.

So I was genuinely a bit surprised to learn that the search to find out just who the person was and how he died had become such a massive undertaking by those people on the Internet who style themselves as amateur sleuths.

This documentary is an interesting look at how those Internet communities, along with law enforcement and the assistance of a sophisticated DNA lab, were finally able to determine who the deceased man, known by his trail hiking name as "Mostly Harmless," actually was, and just what his backstory consisted of.

And the final reveal definitely included some real surprises, once the actual truth is discovered.

Like all of these kind of modern documentaries that look at the world of amateur sleuths who immerse themselves in true crime and other similar unsolved mysteries, there is good and bad and even some extremely ugly aspects to what people will allow themselves to devolve into so far as their emotional investment in a case is concerned.

Worth a watch if you enjoy this particular genre.

As "They Called Him Mostly Harmless" (2024 release; 89 min.) opens, it is "July 23, 2018", and someone calls 911 to report they found a dead body on a trail in southwest Florida. No name, no credit card, no photo ID. Who is this person? In a parallel story, we are introduced to Christie, who loves to do some internet sleuthing in these types of missing John or Jane Doe cases... At this point we are 10 minutes into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this is the latest from documentarian Patricia Gillespie ("The Fire That Took Her"). Here she reassesses the strange case that is the disappearance of someone nicknamed "Mostly Harmless" on the Appalachian Trail. But in fact, the documentary is just as much about the digital sleuthing communities that are out there to "help" solve unsolved cases like this one. Let me just say that it ain't a pretty picture: petty infighting, name calling, (in)competence, you name, they have it. A reporter from Wired Magazine also gets involved, and the contrast between the reporter and the sleuthing communities couldn't be starker. At just an hour and a half, this documentary clips by in no time.

"They Called Him Mostly Harmless" premiered on HBO several weeks ago, and is also streaming on Max, where I caught it the other night. If you are a fan of true crime documentaries, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

Max seems to play on Netflix's documentary style in this sad tale. There's even a slim, hyper man who keeps reminding us "I'm a journalist," but he isn't nearly as kooky as Netflix's self-described "aviation journalist." (As a kooky, semi-successful writer, I can relate.)

The story follows the tale of a John Doe found dead in a tent. Along the way, we learn about Appalachian trail culture, internet sleuths (and trolls), and, finally, the rather disappointing ending. When the previously mentioned journalist hyped about "a bad, bad man" in the trailer, I was expecting a serial killer or something to emerge. The truth is much sadder.

One wonders if Max isn't a bit condescending to its interviewees. Why show us the saddest geriatric square dance ever performed? Why linger on petty squabbles amongst internet sleuths? What was the point of a camera shot of a ceiling fan and then a Mr. Coffee machine? I still love Max, but I might choose a documentary about something historical next time.

I cannot with these internet sleuths, they are ridiculous, sitting at their computers, harassing real people and only thinly doing good things. Then they try to lay claim to discoveries that they are loosely connected to uncovering. Centering a documentary around these people gives them notoriety that they simply do not deserve. The story itself is interesting if you're willing to weed through the self-centered commentary by the sleuths and focus on the mystery. The ending is pretty good, but mostly goes to show how off kilter many of the tangents the "facebook group" took were, just doing too much.

The internet sleuthing dimension got in the way of a really compelling story imo. I don't mind that they talked about the search and the communities cultivated online (emphasis on "cult"). But I wish the producers didn't focus so much on those elements. A nice tight one-hour doc about a man whose isolation led him permanently into the wilderness- and whose identity was only discovered through new technology, crowdfunding and the will of strangers- would have been solid. Instead, too much time was spent on the strangers. The more "serious" it got the more I laughed, and the film lost its punch in the process.

I still think it's worth watching, tho. I won't jump on the hate bandwagon lol. For one, I had never heard anything about his story before and it left me with plenty of food for thought. While this man did something very few (if any) of us would ever do, his life was still surprisingly relatable. How much of that has to do with what you know about him, and how much of it has to do with what you don't?

I thought the quote the producers found from Adams' book was a gem, and really captured the central theme of the project: "Let the past hold on to itself and let the present move forward into the future." Such a pointed reminder for everyone involved: be it those of us watching at home; characters who participated *from home; and maybe most notably "Mr. Harmless" himself, who could never find his way home at all.