-2508.jpg)
For this week's post - and as a follow-up to our conversation in class about truth, authenticity and evidence - please watch The Imposter on Instant Netflix. I encourage you to write whatever you'd like in your response, but please address the following questions in the body of your comments:
- What visual and aural techniques does the director Bart Layton utilize to draw the audience into the story he's telling? Explain what those techniques are, and let us know whether or not you thought they were effective and why.
- Some of the most compelling films we watch, be they fiction or non-fiction, allow us to form our own impressions of the truth of actual events. That said, tell us what you think happened to that missing boy Nicholas Barkley. And why do you think his sister Carey recognized Frédéric Bourdin as her brother and continued to do so even after she was told he wasn't?
- How did the director combine fictionalized elements and recreate interviews with "real" interviews and actual footage that was recorded over thirty years ago? Was it seamless or did the interplay draw attention to itself? Please explain.
- Furthermore, was the juxtaposition of "real" and recreated images compelling to you? Were there any flaws in the approach that took you out of the story? Or, considering this film is largely about lying and deception, was the director just letting "form follow function" by using the aesthetics of his craft to challenge the viewer to always think about the variety of ways we as filmmakers try to capture "the truth"?
- Finally, can something that's been recreated still be "authentic"? If so, how? If not, why not?
Remember to write your response in a separate document and then cut and paste it into the comments section of this post. Sometimes longer comments get cut off here, in which case you might have to post your thoughts in two parts. Be sure your post shows up here no later than 9 am on Wednesday morning - and have fun putting your response together! I really look forward to reading what you write!
I think the fact the creator didn’t tell the story in chronological order draws the audience into the film, because it creates questions and then answers them. Also the different footage that gets mixed in keeps the doc interesting, as well as the drama aspect that makes it feel almost like fiction.
ReplyDeleteI believe similarly to how the mother believed Nikolas disappeared: someone picked him up when he was walking home from basketball and was eventually killed. Even when the sister is told that the man isn’t Nikolas she believes he is, because she has to. I think she has to because she doesn’t want to face the truth that the real Nikolas is gone and maybe even dead and that she was fooled.
When the director integrated different interviews and real footage draws special attention to each item, in a good way. I especially appreciated the real footage. The silent clips of just his smiling face were very disturbing, particularly shown right after the family is upset and even crying.
Because the film is about lying and deception I think the creator skillfully used this part to his advantage. Some of the interviews or clips I was wondering if it was real or staged with actors.
I’m not sure if something that’s staged can still be authentic. People act differently after time has passed, and they have more time to think about things/what they want to say. I think some of the emotion is still there, but people will try to make themselves look better, which could change their testimony. However, a lot of what is being said is not opinion, it’s just a retelling of what happened.
As I started the film, I had a rough time sympathizing with any of the interviewees. Bourdin interviewed with this sinister smile and carelessness that made it extremely difficult to connect to his story of not being loved and searching for a family. I myself am adopted, so one would imagine that his story would tug at a few heartstrings, but I found myself numb to his tale. I wanted to empathize with the family, but it was hard to show empathy toward people that would let their 13 year old son have three tattoos...what? This and the fact that the mother would send the SISTER to go pick Nicholas up from Spain made me feel weird about the Barkleys. The director did an amazing job of walking the line and not tipping the sides to slant the audience's opinions.
ReplyDeleteVisually, I loved the film. Since last week's discussion, I have started to pay more and more attention to the effect that a dramatization can have on true events. It was interesting to see the interviewees take the place of their former selves within the reenactments. It keeps the viewer in the moment and connected to a sense of intimacy within the story.
It's not too far-fetched to believe that the brother murdered Nicholas. It sounds like the kid ran away after a feud with the family and tried to reconnect with his brother two months later when he was murdered. Again, the fact that a thirteen year old has three tattoos cues the viewer in that this is not a normal family.
To touch upon juxtaposition and authenticity, I found myself asking "Man, why hasn't anyone made a film of this yet?" And then I realized I was watching it. I think we are right to assume that the line between documentary and fiction can be blurred to create something truly special. The director did an amazing job of presenting the facts in a flat way that really didn't make a black and white case for emotions and taking sides. This allowed for the insanity of this story to shine through without feeling sorry for Bourdin or the Barkleys.
This film was a really attention grabber from the get go. It uses different styles combining them together to make an interesting film. The use of interview and the mixture of reenactment definitely gave it its own style. Aside from the content of the movie it was visually appealing and shot pretty well. The content of the movie was a like a drama-thrilller, not something you normally get from a documentary. I think authenticity is a subjective term, the movie could go either way its use reenactments make it for a realistic touch. I think this film was a great combination of documentary and a narrative film to make a great movie that made it feel real and authentic.
ReplyDeleteNick Albaracin Sept. 17, 2013
ReplyDeleteThis is by far the best documentary I have ever seen, thank you so much for showing it to me. I loved how cinematic it was, like it was an actual film but also a documentary. The combination wasn't jarring at all, I loved it, it drew me in more and more. The director used reenactments, cross cutting, fictional film photography, and audio filters to draw the audience into the film. I thought they were very effective because it was different. Different is always good when it comes to docs, because we've all seen talking heads before. This one thinks outside the box in terms of editing the voices of the real people in the reenactments, using the real people as actors, and the actors directly addressing the cameras. It is effective because it enhances the story by stylizing it, making the audience crave more like it did me.
I think something terrible happened to that kid, I think his family was involved in it somehow and Bourdin was a probable solution to it. But we will never know. As for the sister believing it was Nicholas, people in times of tragedy will often believe what they want to. If they weren't involved with his disappearance then it could be that they wanted him back so badly that they were looking past anything.
The director utilized everything he could with found footage, reenactments, and using the real people to put together something unique that structured the story from all angles. I don't think it drew attention to itself. It showed two different story lines and how they would intersect later.
I thought the juxtaposition was very compelling because we are so use to cinematic fiction films, I think the director wanted a big connection between the audience and the film, so he decided to make a doc and a fiction film, something that hasn't quite been done before that will get the people talking.
Finally, nothing really in film is authentic, there are always decisions being made on what to say, what not to say, and what to leave in the film. So even this film is not authentic.
Michael Fischer The Impostor
ReplyDeleteThis film really is an eye opener to me. The ability to use hardly any archival footage from the time to tell a story like this is spectacular; however, as magnificent as it is, how authentic could it be with most of it being a reenactment?
Bart Layton was no fool when he made this film, and reading a piece titled, “Mastering the Trick of Walking a Tightrope,” by Tom Roston, I discovered that the director definitely wanted us to sympathize with Frédéric Bourdin. The very fact that we are introduced to Frédéric’s story first thing demonstrates the idea that he is the victim in the story. Bart Layton was sure to add in the parts about the torture, which were fabricated for the Nicholas story, but true in Frédéric’s own life, or so the medical examiners say.
The techniques of using reenactments to show perhaps a slightly less disturbed Frédéric are effective, and leave us asking questions that aren’t answered straight away. When we are finally led to the idea (even though there are many hints as to where we are headed) Layton uses high pitched sounds, and a slow zoom to close up on the family’s faces, giving the appearance of evil. Funny thing is as I was watching I related this shot technique to Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, “The Shining.” Should a documentary filmmaker be using these tactics in a non-fictitious piece? I think so. It offers a style that is so rarely used, and intriguing to a large audience; Bart Layton definitely wants a lot of people to watch, and know about this.
Layton definitely plays to our weakness of wanting to be a detective. Drilled in our mind from an early age with crime dramas, we always suspect the worst, and always plan to solve the case. I really do believe Nicholas Barkley was killed by the family. Whether it be the brother who died of an overdose alone, or in conjunction with the mother (who also was abusing drugs). It’s hard to tell how much the sister knows, but it is pretty revealing in the fact that she still played along with Frédéric, even though from the very beginning it was clear it wasn’t truly him. Is the family truly that stupid to call attention to themselves in such a manner? Or did they think the case would resurface if they denied Frédéric outright? Either way the family didn’t appear to be too bright.
I thoroughly enjoyed the storytelling through use of real, and recreated images. Being that there is no “final truth” on the matter at hand, it is clear that the director wants to get his point across, and does well through this dramatic storytelling style. It is not all that convincing in the end, and appears the family has more cards to play; but as far as the mental state of the sister and mother, I feel like we get a pretty good glimpse of the truth. Along with this belief, I feel that the director did indeed have a “form follow function” mindset which enabled us to see how far fetched the story really was. Did I end up feeling sympathy for Frédéric? No, I believe he got less than he deserved, however, it calls up the mentality of the family. The style really plays with the psychology of those involved, who really is more crazy than the other?
I absolutely believe something that has been reenacted can be authentic. Although footage from the time period displays all known truths about the “surface world” (for example Senna), it is hard to view what truly goes on in the mind of the character, or the battle between good and evil. By showing the people in a dramatic reenacted environment it is easier to piece together the puzzle, and formulate our own opinions on the nature of the mind.
Toni.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the visual and aural techniques of this film there were a few I really liked. This is relatively small but I loved how they put an audio filter on Bourdin when he is talking on the phone pretending to be a traveler who found a boy with cross cutting during his interview. Sometimes I’m not a fan of reenactments but I thought these ones were done well. They push the story along and kept my attention. I also believed them. Some reenactments and so cheese but I liked these. They actually reminded me of a TV show called “Locked Up Abroad.” Turns out Bart Layton produced 27 of them.
I appreciate films that try their best not to choose a side. That being said I liked this doc and I can’t decide either! A part of me thinks they killed Nicolas. I don’t understand why she would pretend like he was her brother if that wasn’t true. Then again maybe in a weird way that’s just how they were trying to cope. It’s all bizarre to me, the family’s bizarre, Bourdin’s bizarre, the whole thing is bizarre therefore making me a fan of this documentary.
The director intertwined found footages, with interviews, and reenactments to make a fictional/ non-fictional film. I would still consider this a documentary but at times it feels very cinematic. Although the jumps from media to media and obvious, they are seamless. They seemed natural and didn’t distract me at all. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of “real” and recreated images. They never threw me out of the story, the roped me in even more. It would be interesting if the director chose to do this on purpose just to make a point of the different ways filmmakers “lie” to tell “the truth,” if that makes sense, even more so because this film is largely about lying… or is it?!?
Absolutely something can be authentic but recreated. To me this goes back to the whole discussion in class about having a higher truth. I think if the recreation is striving to say something truthful about the “real” story then it is authentic.
I’d like to add that I appreciate the ending of this film. I love when filmmakers leave you guessing. The credits started to roll and I literally threw my hands in the air and said “WHAT?!” First I was mad with no answers, but then again for some reason when films to do to me I like them all the more for it.
The first technique I noticed was Layton’s organization of events. Bourdin got my sympathy personally, throughout the film. Why? Probably because his story was shared first. Early on, he says he just wanted a home and a family. It is clear that this was his big chance. Layton’s mixture of footage also hints at certain things. One particular scene was when Carey mentions the gap in his teeth when he smiled. The clip that follows that up is Bourdin smiling with a gap in his teeth. At that point, Layton hints at the idea that maybe they did get fooled. Later on, we get a more eerie feeling. This is because of not only the audio choice, but the use of lighting. Nicholas’ mother has only half of her face lit in the end of the film. This really stood out to me and made me think about whether she was hiding something or not.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don’t have a formal opinion on what happened to the real Nicholas. Your guess is as good as mine. I do believe it was one of two options, though. Either his family did kill him, or he was killed by someone else.
Layton did a great job at mixing the old footage with the new. Editing played a huge role and so did costume/cast. He made it very abrupt when he was using real footage because he would make it intentionally glitchy to build conflict further. The outfits of Bourdin’s actual footage and staged footage were pretty much identical.
I think the approach taken to make this documentary was great. It seems like Layton went about it in the most honest way he could. He shows both the good and dark sides of all of the characters.
I would still consider it authentic. The story happened, there are actual pieces of the story used in the recreated work, and the findings were real. Like we said in class, everyone has a different opinion of what authentic means. To me, it shows a series of true events from some kind of bias. We all have our own bias, which is part of authenticity.
Casey Colyer
ReplyDeleteThe visual techniques that the director uses are those of flashbacks and darkness, sort of like a dark feel to it, as if something bad is about to happen. I thought both were very effective because it drew my attention in.
I think that Nicholas just got kidnapped and killed, simple as that, its hard to think about things happening like that, but its truly what I believed happened to him. I think that Carey still recognized him as her brother even after she was told he was not her actual brother, is because she has had a void in her life for so long and she wants to have that little brother that disappeared.
I think that the director edited the old footage and the reenactments together greatly. I think that they did not try to draw attention to themselves, I think that the clips a put together very well.
I found they way that they reenacted the scenes was every well done, and very compelling. He does this very well and gets to us, the viewers, works to the directors advantage because the film is all about deception and lying.
I think something that is reenacted can be authentic because in order to tell a story of something that that happened so long ago you need the reenactments.
Juan
ReplyDeleteThis Doc/Film was extremely gripping and i think the director did a great job making this happen. it got me hooked when the story
began to be told and then the whole thing rewinds and starts with a back and forth with the impostor and the family. this was a good
technique used because i didn't want to just figure out what happens, i wanted to find out the details in between the story itself.
at first i was a bit lost weather or not the family and impostor were the actual people but soon it made sense. i think for not having the actual people there
this came together really well. it was effective, had me watching till the entire film ended.
i think Nicholas was killed, its sad to think that he went missing and nothing was ever found about him. although in doc he seriously
almost had me convinced that the family did kill him. and sadly i think the sister had just been so happy that something close to her brother
was back in her life that she didn't want to believe it.
The director used a lot of reenactment and found footage and it merged together well and the reenactment was really crucial to me because
it showed me the in between of the whole story and this kept me connected and not losing interest due to just interviews. the fictional re-enacting
added that extra connection to the story and help me empathize for the family and federico.
i would consider this Doc authentic because it told the facts of the story and the reenactment added the extra level of interesting and distinguished
it from another episode of those crime TV Shows. the Doc was gripping,interesting and even changes your feeling about the impostor throughout
the film and even fools the viewer at some point.
The Impostor
ReplyDeleteBoyd Chambliss
First, I'm a big fan of how the story was not told in chronological order. This always makes me focus more and get more into the film. Another aspect of the style I liked was the cinematography. It was portrayed almost like a real Hollywood film. Finally, the dramatic parts of the film were some of my favorites.
I want to believe what the mother believes about what happened to Nicholas Barkley but I don't think she's right. I think something non violent or tragic happened. I think possibly he just ran away. When it comes to the sister, I think she recognized Frédéric Bourdin as her brother because she wanted him to be her brother. When terrible things happen people believe what they want to make themselves feel better.
The fake elements of the film were alright. It made the film borderline doc and normal film. I'm not sure what I would call it. It was a little jumpy but it worked. The film wasn't seamless but it wasn't bad either.
It was interesting how the director made this film. It kept the attention of the audience by making it a fictional film as well as a doc. I think more films made in this style would do very well. People would enjoy seeing more of these.
I do think that something that has been reenacted can be authentic. As long as it wasn't changed. For example, if I was supposed to be filmed walking out of a restaurant but the crew didn't capture it in a good angle, they could make me walk back out of the restaurant. I still did in the past. As long as I didn't change the way I walked out.
A visual technique that Bart Layton uses to draw the audience is his use of light or lack of light. Most of the film is shot in dark atmospheres, which I think he purposely did to give the sense of a realistic thriller vibe to the audience. This technique works quite effectively because the audience instantly doesn’t have some “happy-go-lucky” feel of this rescue story.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I believe the real Nicholas Barkley is more than likely deceased and I believe that there is some foul play amongst the family. After watching the film and observing the family as a whole something doesn’t seem right about them. A thirteen year old that has ran away before, has multiple feuds with the family, and who has three tattoos at this age isn’t your typical American family. I believe the sister knows more than what she portrays and could possibly claimed the imposter as her brother to cover the foul play amongst the family and in particular her other brother who Nicholas reached out to months after running away initially.
The director’s approach in creating a documentary and fiction film I believe is quite effective. His use of technique gives this documentary a very cinematic feel, which I think audiences may appreciate. Yes I do believe the director purposely made a film like such to raise the bar or to develop a genre of film that works.
Absolutely something authentic can re recreated. Television shows like “Snapped” on OXYGEN and “Betrayal” on OWN use this technique all the time when recreating these scenarios of real life stories and situations. Tied along with interviews of the real people’s truth and experiences.
Serena Fath (Sorry, I have been having trouble posting this comment. It was uploaded to moodle on time. So hopefully it won't be counted as late).
ReplyDeleteLayton uses Errol Morris’s reenactment techniques in a way that the viewer is constantly conscious that they are, in fact, a reenactment of someone’s words rather than a narrative of their own… Or any kind of “Truth” other than that. Layton’s choice to use the actual subject as the actor in the reenactments was engaging and even more so when the original interview put words in the mouth of the actor during the reenactment. It was all incredibly staged, but that was the point. Interviews of this nature are a completely biased, completely subjective retelling of an event. I also liked how it was obvious that this film was made 15 years in retrospect of these happenings because of how much the imposter has aged. It seemed ridiculous that this man could pass for a sixteen year old Aryan Texan at any age, even 22. But at one point, maybe it didn’t seem ridiculous. At least during the story.
Also, the order in which information was shared was spot on. The first story introduced was how he came about to pretend to be Nickolas. No time was wasted from any other perspective, wondering the ethos of this character. He exposed himself and his motives right away.
During the course of this film, I had many different opinions and they changed constantly. After watching the entire thing and thinking on it for a couple of days, I think that Nick’s mom and sister knew that their son was killed by someone they knew but they really really didn’t want to believe it. They were prepared to let Frédéric live with them for the rest of his life as Nick, or some kind of sick replacement of Nick. They weren’t trying to cover up the truth of Nick’s murder for any other reason than they didn’t want to live with that truth.
Yes, I think in this case the reenactments are authentic. They were authentic to what they were reenacting. They were biased and subjective and changed. Just like the biased, subjective, changed stories they were reenacting.
The director uses lighting in an alluring manner, literally. The shots are mostly low key and the compositions are ambiguous. I thought that it was an effective way to draw he viewers in.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that some of the most compelling films leave the “why” unanswered but this why, in terms of what happened to Nicholas is as compelling for me. As far as his sister and the most of Nicholas’ family accepting Bourdin as their blond hair blue-eyed relative was to fill a void. For a lot of individuals that hope for so long, it becomes hard to be realistic and come to terms with a tragic situation but this opportunity was their hope being realized essentially.
I don’t think the transition between the fictionalized elements and actual footage was a seamless one. As the viewer, I wanted a change, I wanted to know what the boy looked like, what home videos looked like, I wanted something else on screen other than tight shot of Bourdin’s face and it was obvious but the change was something I craved.
It was as compelling as an investigation discovery special. The only difference was after 30min it didn’t go off so I don’t understand how this doc received so much praise when investigational discovery show the same thing.
The reenactments & voice overs are effective to tell the story but it doesn't change my mind while I'm watching it. The entire time I'm thinking: "this asshole. wtf" I can't even imagine this story being real. Without the reenactments there wouldn't be enough footage to make the movie. In that way they are effective. Authenitic? Possibly because Frederic was re performing for the audience. But he is such a liar what can you believe?
ReplyDeleteI don't know why the sister & the family would believe it was him. I've never lost a family member & "found them" years later but I don't imagine anyone could actually think that's their family if it's not. He had brown eyebrows..but died his hair blonde..wouldn't his roots come in? I have so many questions like didn't anyone notice he just got those tattoos done & he just died his hair in this process? But the small town family & the way the sister said, "Isn't that like across the country or something?" about Spain..they must've not been so bright..I guess. I think the real boy was probably taken by a creeper out there in Texas and me probably isn't living anymore.
I think Layton was referencing the lies & deception in the way he filmed the reenactments like it's really how the story played out. It seemed like Frederic was helping him show exactly how it went down. The truth is sometimes hard to find or pinpoint. I am lost watching this film. I almost felt like the whole thing was fabricated. I felt fooled & disturbed by Frederic. Just confused.
Wow, what a way to start off my morning; I absolutely loved this film.The Imposter had me drawn in from the moment I started watching it, and I would strongly credit that to Bart Layton's mixed use of reenactments and archival footage. Throughout the semester we've been discussing the controversy behind using reenactments, and I believe that this film utilized them in such a way that no other film we've watched has done. They had a much more cinematic/narrative feel to them, which I think gave it an incredibly unique style that worked in Layton's favor. This is definitely a film that could interest people who are not a fan of documentaries because the reenactments/archival footage coupled with the audio design (which also resembled that of narrative film) kept the audience interested and the film moving.
ReplyDeleteWith the above having been said, I think all of those factors had a huge impact on what each individual believes happened to Nicholas. My own opinion is that there was some type of feud within the family that resulted (perhaps even accidentally) in his death, and now they are trying to cover it up. My reasoning for this is that their stories just don't add up and I really got the sense that information was somehow being withheld. I think that Carey knows what happened, but by this point she's lied so many times about thinking Frédéric was her brother that she actually started to believe herself. Something about the whole family was just really off, and it almost felt as though they really had to think about what they were saying so that they didn't entangle themselves in their own lies.
The juxtaposition of real and recreated images was indeed very compelling to me, and I do not think that it drew attention to itself in am manner that would remove the audience from the story. I think if anything it kept me personally more interested, but at certain points in the back of my head I was trying to figure out what was real and what wasn't. The only negative effect I think the technique had (as much as I loved it), was that I think it took away from the authenticity of the film. Perhaps I just have a jarred perception of what makes a documentary authentic, but the whole cinematic feel in combination in combination with the family's uncertainty in the interviews just made me feel a little unsettled throughout the film. I loved every minute of it, but something just seemed really off to me and thus, I wouldn't consider it to be completely authentic.
The visual techniques used in the film the searches were very basic, I thought. They were just talking heads, with some reenacted footage that was served as archival, and some real TV footage. The story is just told from the people that lived it, the Barclay family, and Federic Bourdin. I thought it worked perfectly for the documentary, since it is telling the story of these people, who better to tell it then these people. (even in the reenacted footage, or the retelling of the words, it is still straight from the family.) The news footage is just to push the story along, and is only used to tell stone-hard facts. The part of the story you cannot change, because there is only one side.
ReplyDeleteI think the family was so accepting of Bourdin, because they did something to Nicholas. I wish the film would have talked about that more, but I don't think it was the point of the director to have the audience leave the film feeling swayed one way or another, he just wanted the story, and every possibility, out there.
I think the reenacted scenes can be real, because they are reenactments of the story that the real person is telling. It's not a reenactment of, someone that heard the story from some one who heard the story. The scenes are there to give you a visual story, and to keep you entertained, and not just watching talking heads. As long as the footage is not made up with no backing, or sketchy backing, it can be real, or used as reality.
I really want to know if that family killed the son though.