Mockumentary: The Genre of False Documentary
A mock documentary is successful when it is able to combine both the appearance of historically accurate elements and present believable situations through a false lens, leading the audience to question the reality of what they are seeing. The genre of false documentary aims to present a convincing story through the use of credible documentary tactics to portray a "fictional documentary." Every mock documentary depends on its viewers believing its premise. The illusion of believability is most often either confirmed or destroyed by the credits. Frequently the audience first learns the people on the screen were actors, and that they have fallen prey to the thick veil of believability that documentary films are so able to portray. To capture the audiences trust directors of mock documentary films apply many of the tactics and conventions Mock documentaries serve to leave the audience questioning the reality and believability of what they view in the theatre and at home. The mock documentary can be both real and fake, both shocking and humorous, both projected and actual.
The origin of the mockumentary ranges back to the very beginning of film. The mock documentary as a genre owes a great deal to both fiction and nonfiction films. But, since a mockumentary adopts the formal behavior of a documentary it asserts a sense of believability. In the late twentieth century documentary films used an element of fakery to add to the plausibility of the footage. War scenes were also depicted by cardboard cutouts of boats and often staged in backyard lagoons. In Robert Flaherty's 1922 film, Nanook of the North, Eskimo life was supposed to be shown as it existed without influence....
... middle of paper ...
...ist, though the larger world that encompasses that specific world does exist and can be studied through the lens of the smaller, more specific world. By making assertions about its projected world a mock documentary, like a traditional documentary, can refer to the actual world.
Bibliography:
Nichols, B. (1994). Blurred Boundaries. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Barnouw, E. (1993). Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eitzen, D. (1995). "When Is a Documentary? Documentary as a Mode of Reception." Cinema Journal. v.35, n.1, p.92-94.
This Is Spinal Tap. Dir. Rob Reiner, 1984, US.
Man Bites Dog. Dir. Benoit Poelvoorde, Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, 1991, BEL.
Waiting For Guffman. Dir. Christopher Guest, 1996, US.
The Blair Witch Project. Dir. Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sanchez, 1999, US.
Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, Fifth Edition. New York: Oxford UP, 1999.
...lly has a critic. To strengthen the arguments and persuade viewers to their side of the debate, film makers tend to present only one side of the story. Specific placement of an object, the choice of words and the selection of scenes are possible elements that could be woven into documentaries to shape viewers’ perspectives on certain issues. Fat Head is a great case in point, which is likely to convert some public opinion about the ideology of healthy eating. Documentaries may contain biases that mislead the viewers; presenting ‘facts’ but perhaps not revealing the entire picture. Therefore, in a sense, documentaries can be truthful, but also fallacious. It is imperative to evaluate the techniques used in documentaries, in order to distinguish readily from what is fantasy. It could be concluded that Fat Head and Super Size Me are two version of the same reality.
As documentary by its very nature introduces itself as factual, concerns exist as to where the boundary between the truth of subject and the fiction produced by its creator emerges. As anything that has been edited has by definition removed certain aspects and enhanced others, there must be at best an innocent naturally occurring bias formed from individual perception, and at worst purposefully manipulated misinformation. Through researching various sources, I intend to discover the difference (if any) between these two methods making factually based programmes, to determine any variables that lie in the ‘grey area’ between the two extremes, and to ascertain the diverse forms of conduct in which truth (and in turn documentary) can be presented to an audience, and to what effect?
Petrie, Dennis and Boggs, Joseph. The Art of Watching Films. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012.
Nichols, John. ""Counbtering Censorship: Edgar Dale and the Film appreciation movement (critical essay)."." Cinema Jouranl. Fall 2006.
Stanley, Robert H. The Movie Idiom: Film as a Popular Art Form. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. 2011. Print
Do you or any of your friends play video games on a console? If you ask gamers the question, “gaming console you like the most?” they will probably say Xbox One or PlayStation 4. Xbox and PlayStation are known as the most popular gaming consoles of all the time. These two consoles have been competing for a very long time for the throne of the best game console since 2001 until now. In this article, we are going to find out which console has the best advertisement, We are going to determine this not by the console’s hardware, not by its cool features, and not by what exclusive games they have. It is because to grade the games and features are good or bad is kind of difficult because everyone can has different games
The first thing to think about when choosing to buy a console is the type of hardware is used for that console. Both the Xbox One and PlayStation4 both have some similarities in their hardware like their HDD, Audio/Visual output, and Wi-Fi. The differences in hardware of the Xbox One and PlayStation4 are the GPU and CPU. The PlayStation4’s GPU has 1.84 TFLOPS, AMD Radeion Graphics Core Next Engine which is better than the Xbox One, the PlayStation4’s CPU is a Low Power x86-64 AM “Jaguar” , 8 Cores which is slightly better than
Introduction," from Braudy, Leo and Cohen, Marshall, eds. Film Theory and Criticism 5th. ed. (New York : Oxford University Press,1999)
Boggs, J. & Petrie, J. (2008). The Art of Watching Films. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Jacobs, Lewis. “Refinements in Technique.” The Rise of the American Film. New York: Teachers College Press, 1974. 433-452. Print.
Realism in film is significance in actual and present things, and how things actually come out. now, it is afar the capacity of this part to converse the extent of realism, we support are description upon things such as sanity, experiences, believes, manner and extra communal things such as olden times, political affairs, and finances. No matter how we identify authenticity, realism in film can be judged by administrating what we observe in own world and the world of others. Realism is also a way of conducting subject matter that follows everyday life. Practical characters are anticipated to do things that are conventional to our prospect of real people.
Phillips, W. (2002). Thinking about film . In Film an introduction (pp. 403-438). Boston : Bedford/St.Martin's .
2. Nichols, Bill. ‘Documentary Modes of Representation (The Observational Mode).’ Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington & Indianapolis; Indiana University Press. 1991. 38-44
Rossell, Deac. Living Pictures; The Origins of the Movies. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.