Mockumentary Mockumentary: Questioning Reality and the Tenets of Documentary Film Itself 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. However, this film which was supposed to depict how Eskimos really lived was heavily shaped by Flaherty, and wound up being a documentary of how Eskimos lived when a camera was in their midst. These instances of falsity are the predecessors of the mockumentary genre, though they serve very different purposes. The false images in the early films were used to provide authenticity; fake scenes were used to include the action and events that the camera was unable to capture to add to the credibility of their footage. When the camera was unable to physically be there and obtain the actual footage, or when the film didn’t turn out the way the documentarians wanted they would simply use false footage to make up for what was lost.
The premise was if the audience was able to see even a re-enactment, they would be more apt to believe that it actually occurred. The goal of the mockumentary is not to enhance credibility but to explicitly question the believability of what the audience is viewing. While many of these early documentary films used fakery to add to the realism the directors were trying to portray, mock documentaries are set up to look as realistic as possible both to trick the audience, and also to challenge them to question what they accept as matter-of-fact. For as long as documentaries have existed they have embellished the truth and taken liberties with the documentary form to make the truth seem more believable. In the beginning of documentary film the audience was not ready to question what was real and what had been staged, film was new and people were not questioning the actuality of the events they were accepting as real.
Erik Barnouw, author of Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film, states that directors of mock documentaries start with a fictional event or person, and embellish the fiction to make it seem more believable or convincing. Often times the aim of mockumentaries is to satirize the documentary form. Still today, over a decade since the advent of film the relationship between images and truth remains blurred. As sited in Bill Nichols, Blurred Boundaries, reality television, programs like Cops and The Real World, today serve as further illustrations of biased documentary work. These reality television programs skew the perspective of the audience and manipulate the lens to blur reality.
In Dirk Eitzen’s When Is a Documentary? Documentary as a Mode of Perception, he concludes; All documentaries-whether they are deemed, in the end, to be reliable or not-revolve around the question of trust (92). Mock documentaries test the viewer’s abilities to distinguish between truth and fiction by presenting them with a text that makes it difficult to decipher between the two. Directors of mockumentaries are questioning: Do you believe your eyes, or do you believe what I am telling you to believe? The audience is given the opportunity to decide whether they will accept what they are shown. If they fail to pick up on the satire (though mockumentaries are often riddled with hints) then they, too become an object of satire. Perhaps the most perfect example of this is Christopher Guest and Rob Reiner’s, This Is Spinal Tap, a false ethnography of a mediocre Heavy Metal band in the early 1980’s long considered a cult classic.
Reiner’s directorial debut was shot without a working script and largely improvised. Spinal Tap traces the steady demise of an aging English Heavy Metal band desperate to make a comeback. When the actor’s names are revealed in the ending credits Spinal Tap acknowledges the falsity of the band. However, many do not pick up on that blatant hint and continue to believe that Spinal Tap really exists and is just another decent Heavy Metal band. Another Christopher Guest film, Waiting For Guffman, chronicles the production of an amateur play in the fictitious town of Blaine, Missouri celebrating the sesquicentennial. Blaine happens to be the foot stool capital of the United States and was visited by a UFO long before Rockwell.
A prime example of Guest’s attention to realism is in the hilarious audition scenes. All the auditions were improvised, you’re seeing the auditions you see in Guffman; those are the first time I ever saw them, Guest admitted in an interview. There was no screenplay for Guffman; Guest used a loose outline to allow for flexibility. In order to produce a final product that can be understood as believable Guest expresses his meticulous attention to detail, it took quite a long time to delineate all the characters and show how they would all interact in this town. Guest set out to …