I guess I fall into the "art school gimmicks" camp regarding this film. I went into it intrigued with the idea of watching a 13 year tale of a mother and son. Such was hardly the case. I have to admit somewhat brutally, that this movie seemed somewhat exploitative. Given how much of the film was about Caouette growing up as a gay male, I fail to see how his mother's condition actually had a hand in it. Honestly she seemed to merely be a device (an unwilling one at that) to extend Caouette's angst well into adulthood where he otherwise seemed pretty settled and happy.
The structure of the movie was: shock the viewer with my mother's condition, now talk about my horrible angst ridden teen years, now bring mother back to keep the emotion going.
I was not at all impressed with the experimental/disjointed editing style. I've been to a fair amount of film festivals and, if anything, that sort of manipulation disappeared with the advent of affordable editing software. In short, they don't even do that in film school anymore.
One more disappointment: quite late in the film, we have an opportunity to hear about Caouette's mom from two people in Caouette's family. In one instance, the opportunity is totally wasted; nothing comes of his on-camera time. In the other (with his grandfather), Caouette's manner of questioning badgering and accusatory; he doesn't let the old man get a decent thought out.