Mockumentary No Lies

Firstly, it is important to understand how the documentary form is best suited to illustrate the film’s theme. In order to do this, one must have an overview of the documentary style of filmmaking. Documentaries concern themselves with the “exploration of

I eventually thought, however, that I don’t think documentaries can truly show us objective reality, so that shouldn’t matter. I also thought it didn’t matter what was real footage and reconstructions because regardless the talent displayed in these segments actually happened and is impressive. Despite these conclusions, I still found myself pulled out of the movie when I couldn’t deduce if the images onscreen were archival footage or

The idea of a documentary being an artistic or even personalised expression of a director is long gone, or so it seems in recent times. In Michael Moore’s latest documentary, Bowling for Columbine, he attempts to get across to viewers his, and essentially only his point of view, on the topic of gun laws. Although what Moore is trying to say is not necessarily wrong, he is at the same time not taking into account the other side of the argument either; all he is trying to do, essentially is hypnotise viewers into thinking

A documentary is a genre of film that provides a factual report on a particular story, viewpoint, message or experience. In this essay, two documentaries, Bowling for columbine by Michael Moore and Made in Bangladesh by CBC news will be explored to show how persuasive techniques are used to make an audience feel a particular way.

The mockumentary style can be considered as a form of fiction that exists to appropriate nonfiction conventions that are normally considered to be the traits of the documentary form. The productions mentioned above had many aspects in common with respect to cinematography. They used shaky cam for most shots that included action. They would mix static shots with quick pan movements and quick zoom. They did this to make the action more interesting and so that they could focus on specific aspects in the scene. This also allowed them to have quick paced comedy and which to different aspects of the scene. Most of them also contained a defined interview shots. This would consist of the actor sitting in a mid-shot in front of the camera and appear

A documentary and a movie are two similar, yet different things. They both (re)tell a story, but have different purposes – most documentaries are made with the point to inform, and movies purely for entertainment. This means that certain parts of the movie may have

One of the most widely used documentary techniques is interviews. Interviews reflect opinions from different viewpoints creating an almost 3 dimensional story. Its helps the audience feel more engaged as it is coming from a person 's point of view who was involved in the events making it feel more realistic. The audience can be assured that the story is not made up. Interviews give a sense of realism. Man on wire is a good example of the interview style being used to reflect feelings of the time Petit was on his way to making his dream come a reality. The emotions at some point were exaggerating maybe because he is a performer. But this made us as viewers feel apart of the film being able to sympathize with the characters and storyline. Marsh uses a technique where we see the subject talking on screen but we do not hear the interviewer talking or asking questions.

I enjoyed this film because while I was watching I forgot it was a scripted film and not a documentary. At times during the film I thought

The basis of the documentary was interviews with various professors, authors, and journalists (and the like) who were considered the “experts. News clips, infographics, and documents were also used plentifully to try to build its credibility. Although the “expert” interviews help to appeal to the viewers’ logic, I thought that they didn’t help all that much to build the credibility as

There are many different definitions of the word documentary. One definition I found is, according to wisegeek.org, “a documentary film is a movie that attempts to document reality…the scenes are carefully chosen…may rely on voice-over narration to describe what is happening” which sums it up pretty well and is very clear in my mind. It was difficult

The film itself is a documentary, meaning every moment has historically happened. The film is full of facts and elements that touches the heart. A reliable christian company has produced the movie, and has won many awards making it trustworthy. Though there are some facts there are also drama and opinions. Glady the movie uses facts to prove their opinions. The design of the movie feels very organized and formal. The film is a reliable source for the movie itself is just a visual record of historical events.

Early documentaries, like those done by Robert Flaherty have similarities with the Italian neorealism films, especially by those of Vittorio De Sicca. De Sica pulled documentary filming techniques to make his films seem realistic and to almost have a documentary feel to them. Italian neorealism rejected the opulence of Hollywood and instead only wanted to portray real people and their struggles. To do that De Sica borrowed some techniques that made Flaherty’s films so successful and seemingly real; like that of the long take, close-ups, and unobtrusive editing. De Sica wasn’t the only one to borrow techniques, Flaherty also fictionalized part of his narrative in order for it to portray the life he thought was accurate. Both

When a social issue arises, many activists turn to different media outlets to voice their views and demand social change. For decades, actualities- known today as documentaries, have been used to give viewers an inside look on real life without being there to experience it firsthand. Often, directors use these films to persuade the audience into taking their side regarding various societal issues. Filmmakers help sway their targeted audience by using different codes and conventions to appeal their opinion effortlessly to the viewers. It can be seen in the films Kony 2012 by director James Russel, 2002’s

In this essay, I will explain why a documentary is always more realistic than a fiction film. I will show my thesis by exploring elements that influence how realistic a film is: film editing and format, genre, and transparency. I will use the documentary of Armadillo (2010), by Janus Pedersen, and the fiction film of The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach (1968), by Danièle Huille as examples.

A documentary film is not made up; it shows what really happens in real life; shows things as they are naturally are. This statement is not completely true. “The story a documentary tells stems from the historical world but it is still told from the filmmaker’s perspective and in the filmmaker’s voice. This is a matter of degree, not a black-and-white division.” (Nichols, 12) “In these cases the stories told speak about the actual events directly, not allegorically, and the film adheres to the known historical facts. Social actors, people, present themselves in fluid, negotiated, revealing ways.” (Nichols,12) According to Nichols documentaries are true events but the filmmaker shapes what we see into what they want us to see. We are getting the perspective of the directors. An example of movie watched in class was Nanook of the North, even though the people were real, some of the scenes seemed staged. The director wants us to see Nanook and his people behind on technology and still living in the past. There is the scene were one of them is biting a disc, it seems the director is trying to make us believe these people are way behind and primitive. Another scene that helps prove that not everything caught on camera happens naturally is when Nanook sees all the other eskimos going