The codes of a Sitcom change with the style it is shot in and my sitcom being a mock-documentary is no different I have been reading Faking it: mock-documentary and the sub verse of faculty this has a definition of mock-documentary:
“our definition of mock-documentary is specifically limited to to fictinal texts; those which make a partial or concentrated effort to appropriate documentary codes and conventions in order to represent a fictional subject” (Roscoe and Hight 2001:02)
Also in the book faking it there is a table of degrees of mock-documentary. There are three degrees:
Degree 1: Parody
Degree 2: critique
Degree 3: Deconstruction
The Term Mockumentary didn’t really hit pop culture until This is Spinal Tap but over the years there has been many fictionalized documentaries and fake news reels
Some Mock-documentary examples that I can think of our:
TV:
The Office
The Office U.S.A
Reno 911
FILM:
This is Spinal Tap
The Blair Witch
Man Bites Dog
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
The Wrestler
I’m going to be critiquing a few of these films and trying to take inspiration from all of them in style and conventions.
This is Spinal Tap: (1984)
This film is often cited to be the best example of a mock-documentary. The film is basically showing the inemptitude of a rock band and its members but the thing I took from it was the opening scene where Rob Reiner (as Marti DiBergi) addresses the audience with the back story to the film this is in my opinion this is a technique that was needed because I think audiences of the 80s wouldn’t have understood what was going on, whereas now, because of Spinal Tap as an audience we understand the conventions and we know when they are being sub-verted. The way the film is made believable is the opening and the introduction of the band, the way in which it is cut between interviews with fans and shots of the band arriving at the gigs. These are all shots we have come to expect from a documentary about a rock band. The characters in the film is where I feel the film lets itself slip they are so cartoon, stupid that they become un believable. saying this though I think this is very considered and that if these characters werent like they are im not sure the film would have been funny.
This is a film I hadn’t heard of until looking into mock-documentary, and the book “faking it”, I read about how it breaks down the outsider looking in and becoming an insider, this intrigued me. The film revolves around a documentary crew who are following a serial killer and his exploits, by the end of the film the crew are participating in the killings. The thing I like about the film is the way they have conveyed the ultra realistic styles and conventions of a documentary, with the really long shots of action, the imperfect camera shots and the way in which Benoit addresses the audience and shares his knowledg on how to dispose of victimsand his reasoning for killing people. Jane Roscoe and Craig Hight writers of “Faking it” observe that the death of the crew members represent the death of the ethics of the film. The other things I enjoyed about the film is the characters, its the thing I struggled with the most, I didnt know wheteher to over characterise the student image or keep it more subtle and true to life, in the end I think my characters are lost inbetween. This is where Man Bites Dog works though the characters seem really real in an unreal situation the script flows really well and even though Benoit in a serial killer the audience can still relate to him and even like him.
The Office changed the way I looked at television when I first watched it, I didnt know whethere to believe it and take it as real but I quickly understood the concept and thought it was very clevely written and shot. Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant the writers we very careful in their construction to make sure the documentary style came across to the audience. This is another great example of well written characters and well acted. David Brent is a huge influence on my main character his delusion of self is fantastic and I think we can all relate in some ways.
The Wrestler uses documentary techniques but is a fictional film. I liked the way in which the camera worked as hard as randy the ram in the ring the shot is never still and has a hand held quality that makes the action seem more believable. The highlight is the long shot following randy though the back of the store preparing for his first shift on the deli counter the use of crowd noise is a stroke of genius and the whole shot feels like a homage to cinema verite and the scene in Crisis: behind a Presidential commitment where Kennedy takes the long walk to the podium. The film also uses zoom and its done really well seeing as it is seen as a no no in the industry, its a technique I want to use for my piece so it seems that if its done right it can work, which makes me want to do it right!
Elephant is a film I watched a few years ago and ’ consider it as a great film but watching it again recently I was blown away. The way in which it is not done chronologically and has 1 scene from 3 different perspectives. The thing I think I will take from it is that the where it shows something that has happened before isn’t really obvious but is just a given. I also really like the way the violence is dealt with, the way it isn’t glamorised and isn’t shown in a way that other “hollywood” films would be like. For me Gus Van Sant has been influencial on my work, I recentley watched “Milk” Gus Van Sant’s latest film I like how he has adapted his style to gain a wider audience but still stayed true to his practices.
Reno 911 is not something I have been aware of for very long there has been a film adaptation since but it was based on the t.v series that is American and follows (in a Mocumentary style) the Reno police force and their lack of any police skills. The show is your standard moc-documentary but what is different about it and is something that I was affraid of is ad-lib. In Reno there is a very loose script with just what has to happen in the scene then the actors can go with it. This wasnt something I considered when writing the script but it makes sence when your trying to convey conversation that would be natural then why not let the actors take over a little. Justin (Will) was good at thid and had obviously got some ideas in mind before shooting and when reading the script you can see the places where he has added his mark on the character. If the situation was different and I was making something like a drama I think I would have been a little more hesitent to let the actors take the scene but in this situation it worked.
