I have just finished watching a very well made, controversial, British make-believe documentary called "Death of a President" (2006) directed by Gabriel Range. Set in 2008, a year after the assassination of President George W. Bush, it explores the "rush to judgment" and the political effects on the nation. I liked the way they realistically integrated archival footage with their shot footage. They discuss it in the special features.
This film reminded me of all the "mockumentaries" (although many do not mock at all) that I have seen and some that I have meant to see. I've been thing about the earliest of this format. Of course we all remember October 30, 1938. (well maybe not exactly remember, I was born in 1947). It was on that Halloween Eve that Orson Welles scared the country with his radio adaptation of War of the Worlds. What made it particularly frightening was the simulation of real newscasts interrupting regular music programming. Real hysteria followed with people actually bringing guns outside to attack the invaders.
At Mock-Documentary: Subversion of Factuality there is a filmography listing many psuedo documentaries. Not listed is Haxan, Witchcraft through the Ages (1922), a Danish silent, "a documentary about the history of witchcraft, told in a variety of styles, from illustrated slide shows to dramatized events of alleged real-life events." (IMDB) (Blair Witch's production company is names Haxan)
Some highlights from the list:
Best in Show (2000)- mock docu-soap of competitors in a dog show (feature film)
The Blair Witch Project (1999)- horrific footage left by three vanished student filmmakers
Bob Roberts (1992)- satiric profile of an American right-wing politician
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) - a Kazakh documentary filmmaker attempts to understand American culture
Cannibal Holocaust (1979) - discovery of horrific footage captured by a film crew searching for cannibals (one of Blair Witch inspirations)
David Holzman's Diary (1967) - a young filmmaker tries to capture the reality of his life on film
Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999) - behind the scenes look at a teenage beauty pageant
The Falls (1980) - exhaustive presentation of evidence of an apparent 'violent unexplained event' (One of Peter Greenaway"s first works)
Forgotten Silver (1995) - the claimed discovery of a long-lost New Zealand filmmaker (Peter Jackson)
The History of White People in America (1985) - examination of white, middle-class Americans
How to Irritate People (1968) - John Cleese offers instruction on how to irritate friends, family and workmates
The Last Polka: The Schmenges (1984) -Great satire of retiring musicians by John Candy. Eugene Levy, Dave Thomas, Rick Moranis, and Catherine O'Hara.
Medusa: Dare to be Truthful (1992) - parody of Madonna rockumentary
The Office (2001-2002) - mock docu-soap focusing on the relationships between British workmates (Successfully repeated in a US version)
Real Life (1979) - a Hollywood filmmaker tries to capture a year in the life of a typical American family. This early American mock-documentary takes its cue from the prototypical docu-soap television series An American Family (1973), in which a documentary crew followed the lives of a 'typical' American family. Here Albert Brooks plays himself, as the driving force behind a film which attempts to 'document' a year in the life of the Yeager family of Phoenix, Arizona.
The Rutles - All You Need is Cash (1978) - parody of the Beatles
Series 7: The Contenders (2001) - a reality gameshow where contestants hunt each other
Special Bulletin (1983) - television news coverage of a nuclear terrorist event
Take the Money and Run (1969) - the career of a failed criminal
Tanner '88 (1988) - the campaign of an American presidential candidate
This Is Spinal Tap (1984) - classic mock-documentary about the career of a British band
Waiting For Guffman (1996) - mock docu-soap about the production of a small-town musical
Zelig (1983) - the biography of a famous figure from 1920s America ( Great Woody Allen)
Also consider:
Peter Watkins is a great Pseudo Documentary Director including Privilege, The War Game, The Peace Game, Punishment Park etc.
Threads (1984) "Documentary style account of a nuclear holocaust and it's effect on the working class city of Sheffield, England; and the eventual long run affects of nuclear war on civilization." A riveting nightmare of a bleak future with Nuclear Weapons in the future.
Oil Storm (2005) Documentary-style footage reveals the aftermath of disastrous events that disrupt the flow of oil to the United States. Scary pre-Katrina mocumentary about the effect a Katrina style Hurricane and a series of terrorist attacks have on the price of oil. This was better ae showing our dependence on oil than films such as Syriana.
This is not the end but a beginning of an interesting discussion of fake reality films. Some satirically funny, others brutally real designed to open our eyes to "real" possibilities.
How do you feel about "real" documentary films that manufacture scenes to illustrate the "truth" that they are telling? What about skillful editing that changes footage? Are some Government and educational films dangerously close to being mockumentary? Have you seen Wag The Dog?
Just questions.
I love the bumper sticker "Question Reality"
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Interesting comments on the rating system
NC-17: Fatally Flawed
By Mark Harris When a film as violent as ''Hostel: Part II'' can get an R -- that is, it's deemed okay for kids to see with an adult -- it's obvious the ratings system is in serious need of reform
Jack Valenti has gone to that great screening room in the sky, but his legacy persists — for better and for worse — in the form of the movie ratings system. Back in 1968, Valenti's ratings replaced a capricious code of self-censorship with labels designed to help parents make choices. That's still a worthy idea — at least, it would be if it were applied with anything resembling sanity.
Last weekend, Eli Roth's Hostel: Part II opened. According to the raters, it contains ''sadistic scenes of torture and bloody violence, terror, nudity, sexual content, language, and some drug content.'' Kids should stop reading now, because they could have added: ''Bound man's penis and testicles visibly severed with shears and fed to dog'' and ''Nude woman suspended, bound and gagged, throat slashed as another nude woman below bathes orgasmically in her blood.'' (Oh, uh, spoiler alert, I guess.) Hostel: Part II is rated R, which means it's perfectly okay to take a 5-year-old to see it if you can't get a sitter.
The ratings system is supposed to serve the interests of parents. Help me out, moms and dads: How'd they do this time?
Having seen Hostel: Part II, I'll spare you my feelings about why can you top this? horror comedies about torture are not my idea of a fun night out (although contrary to rumor, Roth is neither untalented nor the Antichrist). I'd rather expend my indignation on the people who gave the movie a rating that, in practical terms, is no different from a G. All that an R rating mandates is that a child doesn't walk into Hostel: Part II alone, as if the presence of a grown-up ''guardian'' magically renders a movie more appropriate for grade-schoolers. Of course, the raters could have given it an NC-17, which would have kept all children out. But they looked at that nude, tortured woman and genital mutilation, and decided it didn't cross the line. For that — and in the spirit of Roth's movie — I say off with their heads.
The hypocrisies of the ratings system are familiar: Indies have it harder than studio films, naked men are naughtier than naked women, and almost any sex is worse than almost all violence. But the problem runs deeper. The MPAA has never decided whether its job is guidance or rule making. As a result, four ratings — G, PG, PG-13, and R — are merely advisory: The raters tell parents what's in a movie and let them decide whether to take their kids. But the fifth rating — NC-17 — carries the force of law: It's the only stage at which raters decide their judgment should overrule yours. It's a sharp distinction, and Hostel II's R rating proves that they're manifestly incompetent to make it.
Cultural conservatives in both parties are itching to step in; they're whipping up invective about that convenient demon ''Hollywood,'' and the FCC is making a pandering attempt to start overregulating TV content. But congressional intervention is, aside from being a First Amendment violation, a waste of time. I'd rather have lawmakers work harder to stop actual torture than huff and puff about the fictional kind. Besides, as conservatives are so fond of saying when it comes to issues like welfare: If you have kids, don't expect the government to raise 'em for you.
So reform is up to the industry. Some have suggested that the U.S. adopt the tiered system of age cutoffs at, say, 8, 12, and 17 that some European countries use. But that's unfeasible in an era of understaffed multiplexes and Internet ticket purchases. There's also an argument for putting more teeth in the NC-17, taking a harder line about what's unsuitable for children. But I'd give that about five minutes before every interest group in America presents its own petition of topics they want to be automatic NC-17s, and we're back to a prudish laundry list of do's and don'ts that was abandoned decades ago. (The current campaign to make cigarette use in movies an automatic R illustrates how even people with an intention as decent as curbing teen smoking can be grievously misguided in attempting to use the ratings system to legislate content.)
That leaves one solution that's both radical and sensible: Dump the NC-17 completely. Provide maximum information about movie content, create a website with plot specifics and exact age recommendations, and leave it at that. The X rating was invented at a time when hardcore-porn movie houses were springing up across America. But those theaters are gone, and kids who want access to porn are only a Google away. Today, the NC-17 protects nobody and preserves the illusion that R-rated movies like Hostel: Part II are okay for kids because if they weren't, somebody would have rated them NC-17. If Hollywood places the decision about what children should see in the hands of their parents, where it belongs, many parents will, of course, make those decisions irresponsibly. But overall, could they possibly do a worse job than the people who are now paid to do their thinking for them? On the evidence of Hostel: Part II, I doubt it.
Posted Jun 15, 2007 | Published in issue #940 Jun 22, 2007 |
Sunday, June 17, 2007
How did we get here? and more importantly Where are we?
An upcoming exhibition at the at the Hirshhorn Museum in the Smithsonian
The Cinema Effect: Illusion, Reality, and the Moving Image
"the very boundaries between “real life” and make-believe are often indistinct—sometimes to the point of being indecipherable"
"blurring of definitions of fact and fiction"
"reality verses illusion that is inherent to film"
My goal in this blog is to explore the history of motion pictures through links, clips and ideas. From Lumière and Edison to topics such as "CINEMA: THE AUDIENCES OF TOMORROW"
from this years Cannes film festival.
I am obsessed with film and have been absorbing the image for almost sixty years. For more than twenty years I have worked at one of the best video stores in the world. I am a student of film and will use this blog to further my (and hopefully your) education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)