Talk:Mockumentary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Michael Moore

Shouldn't just about any film by Michael Moore be on here? With his tendency to edit footage, splice pieces together in ways that don't follow their original intent, and habit of ignoring anything that goes against whatever view he's attempting to portray, his documentaries certainly seem to fit the criteria. Nezu Chiza

Agit-prop has a long standing in documentary history, from Dziga Vertov contemporaneous with Flaherty, through Riefenstahl, through today. Don't imagine Moore is any different simply because you dislike his politics. Koyaanis Qatsi 02:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What an assumption you make. There's a difference between disliking politics and believing that lies and distortions don't have a place in what's billed as a documentary. I'm amazed you can read something like a bias against someone due to politics into the reasons I gave for the mockumentary classification for the works of Michael Moore. It's one thing to use Agit-prop(which I didn't even mention, by the way, and don't quite see how you interpret edits which distort facts, focusing only on one side of things, and even outright lies as having anything at ALL to do with agit-prop), and quite another to do much of what Moore does in his films to twist visuals to his own ends. Unless, perhaps, you're suggesting agit-prop and lying are the same? Nezu Chiza 09:22, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that you don't know much about documentary history. Agit-prop is always biased and zealous, what you're complaining about here, and aims to convince the viewer of its arguments, and isn't often confused with something careful in its assertions and scientific in its approach. In other words, what I said the first time around. Koyaanis Qatsi 12:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I'll grant you that, under those guidelines, Moore's works are more agit-prop than mockumentary. However, my suggestion was not based on disliking his political views, but on my interpretation of what he was doing in his works. I still believe that they can be viewed and listed under the criteria for a mockumentary as well, but am willing to concede the point.

Nezu Chiza 22:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Michael Moore misrepresents his movies as documentaries. Since they are based more on fiction than fact. I am not against "his' politics, I am for the most part antipolitical. I have seen some of his movies. I was disappointed to find out that the premise that he was portraying as facts were false. I love watching real documentaries that are used to inform the viewer of facts rather than fiction. I found my way here because I was looking for an appropriate genre for Michael Moore's films as Documentaries they are not.--Macindan 13:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why the Academy of Motion Picture Sciences awarded Moore an award for his work since it is not part of the genere. I agree Koyaanis personal agendas led to the above arguments.

The Office

I'm amused to see how many people don't seem to grasp what "a fake documentary" actually means, and keep removing The Office. How on earth would that not be a mockumentary? The characters give interviews throughout the episodes, mention that they are being filmed, look at the filmcrew, get asked questions by them, look straight into the camera, etc etc.

A mockumentary is a film or program that pretends clearly to be a documentary, but is not. That doesn't include real documentaries, "realistic" movies, movies that include people playing themselves or anything else.

Sheesh.

Bardus 22:57, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

I'm confused why the Office is down as "an American remake of the British show. (USA, 2005)". How come the American remake is regarded as a mockumentary but the original British version isn't?

RichPXA 15:00 2007-03-11 (UTC)

The Office is definitely a mockumentary. The characters are all interviewed to-camera and there are instances where radio-mics are used as props, for example. There is a finely-judged awareness of the documentary crew throughout the series on the part of the cast. The issue here is whether one wishes to restrict the definition of mockumentary to spoofs of a narrow sub-genre of documentary that uses formal interviews, lower-third captions and a patronising voice-over illustrated with short pieces of observational shooting. Documentary has developed many different styles and story-telling techniques over the years, including ob-doc, docu-soap and docu-drama and all of these can be subverted for comedic purposes. "Mockumentary" should include all of this I think.

On the other hand, "The Thick Of It" does not fall within this definition. It uses vérité shooting to add a documentary dynamic to the narrative, but there is no suggestion that the subjects are aware they are being filmed. So I've removed this from the list.

Claire c4 10:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Purely Dramatic Films

In my opinion purely dramatic films don't belong here (Blair Witch, Special Bulletin). They may in fact be mock documentaries, but the term mockumentary to my knowledge has not been applied outside the comedic/satirical realm.

Also A Hard Days' Night is clearly not a Mockumentary in any sense, as there is no attempt at simulating a documentary.

I plan to make these changes soon, please discuss here if you disagree. Jgm 18:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Series 7

I was disappointed to see "Series 7" removed, but I can somewhat understand since it is fairly hard to define. Is it a mockumentary or just a false document? I included it because it uses many of the same techniques such as the b-roll, archival footage, talking heads, and dramatizations. It was also written and directed by someone who worked on television series like "Cops" and "America's Most Wanted" and reveals many of the manipulative means that such shows use to keep an audience, like cliffhanger commerical breaks, man-on-the-street interviews, editing to turn one of the contestants into the show's villian, and schmaltzy emotional moments like reunions. YoungFreud

David Holzman's Diary

Probably one of the best example of this genre that still fool most people is David Holzman's Diary (1967). I'm too wiki-challenged to edit the front page though.

You're right. It's an amazing film. I just added it to the article for you. --Jeremy Butler 16:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Docu-comedy

The lead claimed that mockumentary was equivalent to docu-comedy; this is false. Docu-comedy has been used to describe documentaries with a humorous slant, with examples such as Super Size Me and Trekkies. This is clearly different from a mockumentary. Jgm 21:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parody/Mockumentaries

I don't think any discussion of "mockumentaries" would be complete without at least some reference to the litereary antecedent of the genre, parody. (See [1]) Two "mockumentary" books which first come to mind from the canon of English lit are Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels", a mockumentary of 17thC and 18thC travelogues, and Geoffrey Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales", a 14thC collection of stories from England.

"Gulliver's Travels" narrates a series of four tales purporting to four different journeys of an early 18th traveller to the furthest, most exotic corners of the Earth. The travelogue was the National Geographic TV Special of the day.

"Canterbury Tales" are a collection of stories purportedly told by a group of pilgrims travelling from Southwark in South London to the shrine of St. Thomas à Becket at Canterbury. Chaucer is (arguably) parodying the travelogues of his time -- many of them pious tales of saintly Crusaders on pilgrimage to the distant Holy Land -- through the bawdy and impious (implied) behaviour of the pilgrims themselves. He is also parodying the pious fables of the times through the tales told by his characters, many of them also impious, bawdy, violent, bigoted and poorly structured.

And I am certain you don't have to go that far back to find other parodies. The suggestion that the genre began only with film is a grave mistake. I am certain that there are other similar traditions in non-English-speaking cultures.

Goodness, it's nice to be able to use my degree occassionally.

-Uncle Bobby

I think there should be a new article on works which are the literary equivalent of mockumentaries...though we'd need to work on what goes in. (My First Days in the White House might qualify...) 74.242.72.156 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Random sitcoms

Not that I don't love "Arrested Development", but how on Earth is it a mockumentary? It doesn't resemble a documentary in any way except some of the camera angles.

--Chronodm 19:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was originally intended to be more like a mockumentary, but they toned those elements down a bit in development, and after the pilot. I do think it's worth mentioning here, but you have a point - in its mature state it's basically just a sitcom without a laugh track. (Note: see also List of television comedies without laugh tracks and its talk page.) sjorford (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the original intent was a mockumentary, since they didn't film it as one this should not be on the list. Any sitcom with a narrator should be included (Scrubs) ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maki79 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Dramatic examples need to be merged to or from Drama documentary, which is the same thing, only not humorous. Ace of Sevens 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully support getting the dramas out of this article; I'm just not sure Drama documentary is a real-world term. Jgm 14:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd never heard the term "Drama Documentary," but I Googled it and it is a real-workld term, though its use may be confined to the UK.

How can you merge Drama Documentary with Dramatic Mockumentary? Surely a Drama documentary would be true, whereas a dramatic mockumentary would not???

Docudrama is the article for dramatic examples (non-parody, non-satire) --IanOsgood 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Response" Section?

It seems like many articles on films have a section for the critical and general public response of the film itself. Should this article have a similar section on how audience and critics react to the mockumentary style? Perhaps someone can find an article on audiences/critics not realizing that a mockumentary is fake? 66.33.235.186 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is about a genre, not a specific film. None of the other genres have a section like this and it really seems too broad to work. Ace of Sevens 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The last horor movie

Does The last horor movie count as a mockumentary? Dr. B

We Interrupt This Program

• We Interrupt This Program, an extra on the 2004 Dawn of The Dead DVD, depicting a newscast covering the growing zombie epidemic.

It's a mock newscast, not a mock documentry; the snips were made for use within the film. I don't think it is a mockumentry. Feel free to merclessly replace the above chunk I ripped out. User:Dragon Dave when he can be bothered to log in, 17 Aug 06.

Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development etc.

These shows are obviously not mockumentaries, as they don't "break the fouth wall" (they don't register the cameras exist). What's going on with that list?

But Arrested Development DOES "register the cameras exist", and on several occasions.

I know. People are making the automatic assumption that hand-held camerawork is enough to qualify for this sub-genre. It is not. Similarly, referencing an 'inner fiction' does not qualify for this sub-genre. Moving Wallpaper does not use any documentary techniques. If it was a mockumentary, then so was Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I'm taking it off the list.

Similarly, referencing another factual sub-genre does not qualify an example either. Look Around You had a go at both Schools Programming of the 70s and Science magazine programmes of the 80s. But these are pastiches of those genres, and not documentary. I'm taking it off the list. Claire c4 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tons of movies which are NOT mockumentaries

This page needs to be majorly cleaned up. There is tons of films which are not mockumentaries.

A mockumentary is a PARODY, but not all parody films are mockumentaries. Also, fake documentaries (such as Wesker's Report from the Resident Evil videogame) is not a mockumentary either.

I'm going to delete several of the things from the list I noticed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.119.6.209 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Dragon Mockumentary

Does anyone know of a dragon mockumentary? I remember seeing one on tv which was presented pretty good. TeePee-20.7 07:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All you people suck! I found it myself it's called The Last Dragon. I'll add it to this article. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

thats actually a martial arts film, and a parody not a mockumentary, someone might want to remove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.172.31 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

link:mock

in the first sentence there is the word "mock" its linked, but the link only leads to a disambiguation page. Please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.31.94 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do all these films "acknowledge the cameras"?

Films and shows are added and sometimes they are in a documentary or cinema verita or whatever style, but not actually mockumentaries. Is there anyway to designate those films that aren't confirmed as actual mockumentaries so we can get some third party confirmation? Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Threads?

What about Threads? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads

The article describes a play with some documentary touches as set pieces, so most likely not - JeffJonez (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fake documentaries and mockumentaries

Should include both of this in this article. It seems only fair?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1