Nanook of the North is
credited as being one of the first feature length documentaries. Made in 1922
by Robert J. Flaherty, it shows the lives of the Inuit people of Quebec,
Canada, from fishing and hunting to eating with family. The hypocrisy of this
film is that many parts were reconstructed in order to add to the romanticism
of the narrative; the ‘family’ at the centre of the film were cast and paid
Inuit; the famous walrus scene was re-enacted with spears that were no longer
the primary hunting tool, and the clothes worn were nostalgic costume, not the
western clothes they had come to appropriate (Duncan 1999: 1). It has been
argued that these elements of dramatizing information are still appropriate for
the factual discourse of documentary (Ward 2005: 32), however I believe that Nanook
of the North falls under the umbrella category of docufiction, and
more specifically, docudrama – a text with documentary content, but presented
in a fictional form (Springer, Rhodes 2006: 4). In this essay, I argue that the
mock-documentary is a more reliable source than the documentary due to the
underhand production and actualisation of the documentary form, in comparison
to the upfront nature of the mock-documentary, shown through parody and satire.
The reason I am using the term ‘mock-documentary’ rather than mockumentary,
pseudo-documentary or any other term, is succinctly explained by Jane Roscoe
and Craig Hight “mock-documentary suggests its origins in copying a
pre-existing form, in an effort to construct… a screen from with which the
audience is assumed to be familiar” (2001: 1). By comparing mock-documentaries
to documentaries, as well as using my own film, Looking for George as
a source, I hope to show how mock-documentaries should be taken as a more valid
source of opinion through parodying the often covert agenda’s of documentaries.
Initially, this will be addressed through comparing the current Reggie Yate’s documentaries, Extreme Russia with sketches from the political mock-documentary TRWBT. Subsequent to this, I will explore the techniques that are employed to convey the information about characters in documentaries, mock-documentaries and hoaxes, looking specifically at the cast/crew dynamic of Troll-Hunter, the presenter characters of Dale Mailey from TRWBT and Benjamin Crawley in Looking for George. I will question the authenticity of the documentary presenter and their authority to educate the public. Finally, I will discuss the ethical nature of the mock-documentary, which involves a critique of whether the satirical form trivialises the information or opinion it attempts to convey. I will conclude this essay with an informed opinion of why mock-documentaries are to be taken as a more valuable source of opinion in comparison with documentaries, based on the commentary they make about politics, the media or the documentary form itself.
Initially, this will be addressed through comparing the current Reggie Yate’s documentaries, Extreme Russia with sketches from the political mock-documentary TRWBT. Subsequent to this, I will explore the techniques that are employed to convey the information about characters in documentaries, mock-documentaries and hoaxes, looking specifically at the cast/crew dynamic of Troll-Hunter, the presenter characters of Dale Mailey from TRWBT and Benjamin Crawley in Looking for George. I will question the authenticity of the documentary presenter and their authority to educate the public. Finally, I will discuss the ethical nature of the mock-documentary, which involves a critique of whether the satirical form trivialises the information or opinion it attempts to convey. I will conclude this essay with an informed opinion of why mock-documentaries are to be taken as a more valuable source of opinion in comparison with documentaries, based on the commentary they make about politics, the media or the documentary form itself.
A brief history of the Documentary, and
the form of the Mockumentary
According to John Parris Springer and Gary
D. Rhodes, Kino Pravda of early 20th Century
Russia was the beginning of documentary filmmaking, pioneered by Dziga Vertov
with non-fictional films that attempted to record the facts of unscripted life
in the newly formed Soviet Union, rejecting any fictional or narrative elements
(2006: 1). In 1960’s France, Jean Rouch began to develop his own style of
documentary film making, helping to popularise the conventions of cinéma
vérité by using hand-held camerawork and synchronous sound. At the
same time, ‘direct cinema’ was being developed through the documentaries of
Richard Leacock, D.A Pennebaker and the brothers David and Albert Maysles, who
worked on observational documentaries. They believed in letting the narrative
come together in the editing suite, whilst allowing the filming to remain
strictly non-interventionist, unlike Rouch who had a more provocative and
interactive approach towards his subjects (Hight 2010: 110). I believe that the
problem with the documentary form is the façade of truth, which is undercut by
the agenda of the presenter and crew as well as the post-production
manipulation of interviews and action, making it seem as though a narrative has
developed organically when in fact it has been constructed. A reaction to the
documentary format was the mock-documentary and hoax, which parody and satire
the tired techniques in order to expose how inauthentic the presentation of
information is. These texts often questioned the role of the crew and the
presenters, who are edited to seem as though they are invisible to the
interviewee, as well as having no agenda other than to film the action
truthfully.
What is the agenda of the text to be
communicated to its audience?
The agenda of the mock-documentary is
often made clear through the commentary or critique they are making. This is
often not the case in documentaries that are presented as sources of quotable
information, created with no intent other than to inform. In my opinion, this
is not the case in Reggie Yate’s documentary series, Extreme Russia.
The episode to be discussed is called Far Right and Proud. Both the
title of the series and that of the episode create a bias towards a fervent
nationalism that is supported by the narration over the introduction that
includes insightful snippets such as “growing up in the 80’s, Russia was
painted as this weird, big baddie”, images of Russian policemen out in force
and marches with Putin’s face on the flags. Reggie Yates, a former children’s
television presenter and BBC radio 1 host, was chosen to investigate why far
right groups, which are well known racist strongholds, were rising in numbers.
It seemed as though Yates’ race was used to provoke responses from the
small-minded racists interviewed, with comments describing mixed-race children
as “freaks”. Yates talked to Dmitry Demushkin, a former neo-nazi, who now led a
far-right group and agreed to speak with Yates; however, Demushkin’s agenda
outweighed the importance of Yates’ interview about the group’s beliefs. It
became apparent that Demushkin was using his interaction with a black man to
eliminate previous racist accusations by posting pictures on social media.
Yates agreed to attend a self-defence class run by Demushkin, in which he met a
man who invited him to a traditional Russian sauna. The nudity obviously made
Yates uncomfortable as he made allusions to the apparent homosexuality of being
naked in a sauna with another man, belittling the tradition and implying that
the tough Russian man was a repressed homosexual. Yates’ agenda here is clear,
despite the unbiased pretence of reporting on the support of political parties
in Russia. The documentary demonizes the views of the entire group by showing
clips that portray them as racist, homophobic and infers the self-defence
classes run by Demushkin are the cause of racist attacks on immigrants with no
clear evidential link. The agenda of the program The Revolution
Will Be Televised (TRWBT) is made clear from the opening title
sequence that reads, “Our world is full of hypocrisy, corruption and greed.
Someone has to fight back. Shame it had to be these guys”. The idea is that the
series exposes the hypocrisy of the media, the corruption of the government and
the greed of multi-national corporations. The series is a mock-documentary
because it uses factual information but presents it satirically. Like all
mock-documentaries, TRWBT relies on audience media literacy to
recognise the documentary format of its sketches, and therefore understand the
satire. In the first series, one of the sketches used continuously presents
mock-documentary style coverage of two lesser-known MP’s, a Conservative named
James Tottingham-Burbage, and a Lib-Dem called Barnaby Plankton. In episode
three, the two characters wander around an estate, talking presumably to those
with lower incomes, about the cuts to their benefits. They ask them how they
would feel about moving out of their council houses and into a cardboard box.
The agenda is clear: to show how ludicrous the welfare cuts are; to satirize
the relationship between politicians and the public, and to poke fun at the
documentary technique of the infallibility of the presenters by portraying them
as silly and ridiculous. When brainstorming the plot for Looking
for George, we took inspiration from TRWBT in the
form of political critique. Our agenda was to criticise the political far right
parties in the UK for hijacking the patron saint, Saint George, and using him
as a figurehead in the Protection of English National Identity Party, or PENIP.
The English Defence League use the Saint George flag at marches and often sing
the song “With Saint George in my heart, keep me English” at rallies. Through
research we discovered that Saint George was historically born in Palestine,
fought for the Roman army, and was born to Greek and Palestinian parents. In
addition, he is the patron saint for at least four other countries. We tried to
make our agenda clear through the blatant parody of the BNP 2014 banned party
political broadcast, available on Youtube, in which an animated English Bulldog
trots through different parts of Great Britain, criticising the effect of
immigration and ‘Islamification’ of the UK. We directly satirised the final
part of the video in which a politician says “Just listen to ordinary people
like you”, followed by the opinions of apparently ‘ordinary’ people who ask for
“British jobs for British people” and the restoration of capital punishment. We
began our propaganda video with Saint George drinking a beer, a reflection of
the many pictures of Nigel Farage drinking, apparently to make him a more
likeable and relatable candidate. We then went on to have opinions from
‘ordinary’ people that reflected the anti-immigration feelings of parties
like the BNP and UKIP. We wanted to highlight not only how Saint George had has
his identity hijacked in the name of political propaganda, but also how
politicians themselves become a product of their campaign rather than retaining
their individuality. Our film was released on the same day as the British
general election 2015, an election that was dubbed by the BBC as the ‘social
media election’ (Wendling 2015: 1). The candidates had become caricatures of
their parties, and I feel this was captured in Saint George’s character in the
apparent control during the propaganda video, contrasted with the drunken
antics towards the end of the film. Whilst our film requires the audience to
have an understanding of the policies of UKIP, the use of Saint George by the
EDL, and potentially the BNP political broadcast, it is not essential in order
for them to grasp the parody of far right policies. Paul Ward’s description of
the mock-documentary is apt to what we attempt to achieve with the PENIP party
broadcast, “The sober discourse of an informational documentary mode is
juxtaposed with ludicrous statistics and outright lies, so that the original
conventions appear ludicrous too” (2005: 74). Our agenda is to mock the
political broadcast, but its feature in our mock-documentary is made clear from
the captions, highlighting the documentary technique that we are
satirising. Whilst the agenda of the documentary is supposedly clear from
the offset, as shown in Reggie Yates’ narrative introduction, there are often hidden
motives that are revealed after a closer reading. On the other hand, the
mock-documentary is more open with its intentions, providing they have a level
of media literacy and are aware of its fictional nature, and the tropes it is
parodying. In this way, the agenda is communicated in a more transparent manner
to the audience, despite the biased opinions.
What techniques are employed to convey
information about characters and their roles? The introductory
narration is one of the tell-tale signs of a documentary program, often spoken
in an over-enthusiastic and disjointed voice. The narration is often used
throughout, especially when the presenter is on screen travelling, walking or
thinking. Alternatively, the presenter will directly address the camera,
breaking the fourth wall and connecting with us, the ‘audience at home’. As
aforementioned, captions indicating where footage has come from are another
documentary technique, but captions are also used to demonstrate who
interviewees are. In most documentaries, the crew are invisible, never being
caught on camera or spoken to directly. The effect of this is to create a sense
of verisimilitude that implies the action has organically occurred with no
directions from the producer or cameraman, often achieved in the editing suite
during post-production. The issue I have with this is the pretence of reality,
the idea that the action would have happened regardless of whether the camera
were there or not. By parodying the documentary techniques, the
mock-documentary highlights the hypocrisy of the documentary. This is achieved
in Man Bites Dog, where Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît
Poelvoorde write, produce and direct the film, as well as editing, filming and
acting in it. As seen in fig. 3, the men are often in shot interacting with the
main character, with the reflexivity taking a dark turn as they end up
participating and facilitating the murders, rapes and cover-ups of the serial
killer they originally intended to document.
Another film where the cast/crew are
involved in the action of the documentary they are shooting is Troll-Hunter,
a Norwegian hand-held horror/hoax about a group of students who, whilst filming
about bear killings, accidently become involved with a troll-hunter and uncover
a government level cover-up. The self-reflexive nature of involving the crew as
cast in this film is purely fictional, as the cast in the film are actually
actors. However, this film also satirises another documentary trope; the found
footage declaration at the beginning of the film. Troll-Hunter begins
with a statement that declares the footage was delivered to the production
company as hard disks of rushes, and they have released the film as unedited
clips, in chronological order, with no image manipulation. It then goes on to
claim that a “team of investigators” had concluded this footage was real. These
statements encourage the audience to extend their belief to the idea of reality
within the footage. This is one of the reasons hoaxes are not as valid a source
of information as mock-documentaries, as they attempt to con the audience into
believing the films they watch are factually correct. The presenter is
often portrayed as being a source of knowledge and authority in the documentary
form, shown through their point of view being constantly consulted in relation
to the topic they are investigating. Brian Cox is a physicist and a professor
of physics at the University of Manchester, a respected academic in his field,
and therefore fully entitled to present documentaries on space. However, when
Stacey Dooley, a BBC3 television personality, presents documentaries on
marijuana production in South Africa in her recent series Stacey Dooley
Investigates, it is difficult to see what her authoritative status is. When
Dooley shadows the airport drug enforcement, and comes across a package that
was labelled with an address in E16, she gives the valuable insight “The
hipsters won’t have any weed to smoke”, and during a three minute action
sequence in which she rides with the police, she helpfully points out where she
is and what she’s doing, in case we hadn’t been paying attention, “I’m not
looking to push my luck, this is Johannesburg, and we’re door stepping drug
dealers”. We try and parody the presenter of documentaries like Dooley
with the beginning of Looking for George, having a slow-zoom in to
Benjamin Crawley standing in a museum, saying “I’m Benjamin Crawley, part-time
historian, full-time Englishman, and today I’m in a museum”. By pointing out
the generic spot he’s in, we highlight the absurdity of presenter’s narrative.
This continues with our travelling shots of Crawley walking along streets in
Hebden Bridge or around Manchester Piccadilly Gardens. The humour is
accentuated in the wardrobe choice of the Crawley, satirising Richard Clay, a
BBC history presenter. The long coat, the flyaway hair and the tucked in shirt
are all parodies of the documentary presenter attire. This is just one of the
ways we parody the documentary techniques employed to build the characters
role. We use typical documentary shots such as the presenter walking towards
the camera and then walking past, but we mocked them by having ridiculous
narrative. TRWBT also parodies the presenter with the
character ‘Dale Maily’, a reference to the sensationalist newspaper and online
gossip site, The Daily Mail. In series one, episode three, Dale
Maily introduces his story with the tagline “I’m Dale Maily, the fearless
hetero journalist” and finishes with “Telling you the right way to think”. The
small section of ‘news’ involves him reporting on an English boating race,
pretending to hold similar beliefs to those he is interviewing in order to get
a response from them. He asks a young man about the Falklands, calling the
Argentinians ‘Argies’ and questioning whether or not they should be “beaten
down”. The young man responds by saying, “We should let the Argies take the
Falklands, and then we kick the shit out of them, and take the Falklands back!”
to which Maily and the young man guffaw. The coverage of the boat race
highlights the lack of ethnic or religious diversity, and attempts to poke fun
at the opinions of the upper class. The Dale Maily sketch uses news tropes such
as location shooting, hand-held camera and natural lighting that increase the
verisimilitude of the piece; however, because the content is sardonic, the
effect is to highlight the ridiculousness of the situation.
What are the ethical concerns
behind the mock-documentary?
While TRWBT uses factual
information, Looking For George uses information that is false
and potentially misleading. This could be viewed negatively, as with the first
on air hoax by Orson Welles in War of the Worlds in 1938,
where a story of alien invasion was broadcast as a news item resulting in a panicked
public and policemen storming the studio. The program caused a local mayor to
call the studio and announce there were mobs on the streets of a Midwestern
town. However, in Looking For George, as Roscoe and Hight say of
mock-documentaries, we attempted to “engage directly with a factual discourse,
and effectively to encourage viewers to develop critical awareness of the
partial, constructed nature of documentary” (2001: 160). We did this through
questioning the authenticity of the presenter through using Benjamin Crawley to
ridicule the seriousness of documentary presenters. Our film is a hybrid of
what Roscoe and Hight would refer to as “parody” and “critique”; parody because
we appropriate documentary aesthetics to emphasize humour; and critique because
we engage critically in the reflexivity towards factual discourse, raising
questions about unethical interviewing practice in the apparent spontaneity of
our doorstep interview with Saint George. A lot of mock-documentaries,
particularly low budget shorts use non-professional actors. The positive aspect
of this is that a platform is created for previously unknown artists. However,
the use of a working script and non-professionals means that the quality
control is low, and the actors may not have a say in the final cut of the film,
as the story is mainly created in the editing suite. This means they may not
agree with how they or their character is portrayed, for example, in Looking
for George, the actor Mritunjay Sharma was originally cast as Saint George,
however his acting was not to a high enough standard that the crew collectively
agreed was necessary for one of the main characters of the film. We had to
regroup and change our working script, deciding to change the story line in
order to work with one of the actors who had more skill in improvisation. We
still wanted to use Sharma, however we created a different role for him, which
would allow us to use more documentary tropes. We had a ‘victim confession’,
which is often used in documentaries, and blurred out Sharma’s face, dubbing
over his voice with another actors, and distorting it to an almost humorous
level of unrecognizability. The ethical problem with this is that we didn’t
consult Sharma before we changed his character, as ultimately, the creative
control lies with the crew, not the actors. This meant although he had
auditioned for the role of Saint George, he ended up being an anonymous
character, with another actor speaking his lines. This could be viewed as
unfair, however with the time constraints and limited filming time, we made the
executive decision that the harm would be minor and would be a fair judgement
for the benefit for the film. With conclusions like these being made without
the actor’s agreement, it could be argued that the mock-documentary practice of
creating the story in the editorial suite draws actors in with a false sense of
trust, as they are never exactly sure of how their character will turn
out. The documentary form and style is described by Springer and Rhodes as
including “historically specific devices such as the authoritative voiceover
narration… the use of on-camera interviews; forms of evidence such as archival
photographs, diagrams, maps and charts; and such visual characteristics as
handheld camera” (2006: 4). The mock-documentary borrows these documentary
elements, as Looking for George did with Crawley’s insightful
narration, the interview with Johanna Eccles, the historical images of Saint
George and the shaky hand-held footage. Instead of claiming to be filming real
people in a “segment of the real world” (ibid), it bases its content on
self-referential irony through acknowledgement of the crews presence, satirical
narrative and fictional content. The “real world” of the mock-documentary us
irrelevant, because what is important is the critique the director/cast are
trying to highlight. To be read correctly, Looking for George relies
on the audiences knowledge of the documentary format, a basic knowledge of the
political parties of Great Britain, and the typical presenter characteristics.
Our film serves as a metacommentary on the rise of far right parties in the UK.
Whilst non-fiction television attempts to “mediate aspects of the
socio-historical world according to varying agendas, ethics and representation
styles that typically incorporate a direct address to their assumed domestic
audiences” (Hight 2010: 102), the mock-documentary seeks to upset this through
parodying many of the techniques used by highlighting their tired effect on the
audience. The mock-documentaries are an essential element of modern day media,
critical to weed out the tired conventions that become less and less effective
with use. Humour points out the pomposity of the documentary form so it can
continue to grow in a healthy direction, and while the mock-documentary may not
tell us the correct facts about the patron saint of England, we are taught
about how documentary and political propaganda rhetoric is dangerous in
influencing the nation.
Bibliography
Duncan,
Dean, W. (1999) ‘Nanook of the North’ in The Criterion Collection.
Accessed online: http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/42-nanook-of-the-north
[11.05.2015]
Hight,
Craig (2010) Television Mockumentary: Reflexivity, satire and a call to
play. Manchester University Press: Manchester Roscoe, Jane and
Craig Hight (2001) Faking It: Mock-documentary and the Subversion of
Factuality. Manchester University Press: Manchester
Springer,
John Parris and Gary D. Rhodes (2006) Docufictions: Essays on the
Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking. McFarland & Co.
Inc: USA Ward, Paul (2005) Documentary: The Margins of Reality.
Wallflower: London
Wendling,
Mike (2015) ‘What makes a ‘social media election’? on BBC. Accessed
online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32590917 [11.05.2015]
Filmography
Banned
BNP Broadcast 2014. Accessed online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMPXhoBGa60 [15.05.2015]
Extreme Russia dir. By Chris Alcock. (UK: BBCthree, 2015)
Looking for George dir. By Amelie Eckersley, John Hemsoll, Jenny Mcintyre (UK: Unreleased, 2015)
Man Bites Dog dir. By Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde (Belgium: Les Artistes Anonymes: 1993)
Nanook of the North dir. By Robert J. Flaherty (USA: Les Frère Revillion, Pathé Exchange, 1922)
Stacey Dooley Investigates dir. By Joyce Trozzo (UK: BBCthree, 2015)
Troll-Hunter dir. By André Øvredal (Norway: Filmkameratene A/S, Film Fund FUZZ: 2011)
Extreme Russia dir. By Chris Alcock. (UK: BBCthree, 2015)
Looking for George dir. By Amelie Eckersley, John Hemsoll, Jenny Mcintyre (UK: Unreleased, 2015)
Man Bites Dog dir. By Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde (Belgium: Les Artistes Anonymes: 1993)
Nanook of the North dir. By Robert J. Flaherty (USA: Les Frère Revillion, Pathé Exchange, 1922)
Stacey Dooley Investigates dir. By Joyce Trozzo (UK: BBCthree, 2015)
Troll-Hunter dir. By André Øvredal (Norway: Filmkameratene A/S, Film Fund FUZZ: 2011)
Audio
War
of the Worlds dir. By Orson Welles (USA: Columbia Broadcasting
System, 1938)
No comments:
Post a Comment