-2508.jpg)
Welcome to our class blog everybody! For your first post - and as a lead-in to our conversation next week about truth, authenticity and evidence in documentary-making - please watch The Imposter on Instant Netflix. I encourage you to write whatever you'd like in your response, but please specifically 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 Tuesday morning - and have fun putting your response together. I really look forward to reading what you write!
WOW! What a compelling story. I honestly thought the story was going to end differently than it did. I thought the story was headed down a different path but the director certainly did a great job in telling quite an interesting story.
ReplyDeleteI thought that his use of interviews, old footage, recreated “footage”, new b roll – the way he used all of these together was a fascinating way to tell the story that didn’t bother me at all. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it seamless, but it was very well done and very well pieced together. I also liked how the director would use the audio and visual filters on Boudin’s character for certain parts relaying the story. His cinematic way of recreating some scenes was really brilliant and very well done. I did enjoy that the whole movie was not in chronological order, which was very well done and kept me drawn in the entire time.
What I felt, towards the end of the film, was that his older brother, Jason, had killed Nicholas and that his mother knew something about what had happened to him. To me, there were various hints that had been dropped about what had really happened to Nicholas with Jason saying “good luck” to Boudin once he had been welcomed into the home as Nicholas, along with the mother having failed the polygraph test when questioned about what had happened when Nicholas disappeared, the new occupant in the house whose dog seemed to dig up some plastic bag, then how the sister still accepted Boudin as her brother even after she had been told that he couldn’t be. These all pointed to Nicholas having been murdered by his older brother, that the entire family knew it, and that he was actually buried in the back yard.
Regardless of what really happened, I applaud the filmmakers for making a piece that kept me entertained and drawn in the whole time. This was great filmmaking. Period. I honestly cannot tell if it is a true documentary or just a film made to feel like a documentary. Very well done indeed.
The Imposter was one of those films that keeps you thinking you know the truth the whole time but in the end, you’re still left guessing. The use of the interviews being held in seemingly homey places, not interview rooms, really let you connect with the interviewee. The family and friends being interviewed also were always in the moment being told and not giving away the end event which is sometimes hard especially when the end was so not in their favor like it was in this situation. I think these two things kept the audience engaged with the characters.
ReplyDeleteEven in this all-telling crime doc, I think there is still more to be uncovered. Yes it’s possible Carey just wanted him to be her brother so bad she made herself ignore the obvious, but even after she was told there was no possible way he could be her brother? I think she was trying to cover something up. The filmmakers obviously want to skew our opinions into thinking the family may have been apart of Nicolas’ disappearance by pointing out such discrepancies by the family.
One of the major things this film has going for it is the switching back and forth between the interviews and the recreated flashbacks. Frédéric Bourdin is a compelling story teller and when his interviews morphed into him in a police car or him at his first day of school, it was compelling and actually quite cool. On the other hand, I didn't quite like the couple real footage shots of detectives picking up phones, etc. I thought it was distracting from the real story being told and a bit confusing.
“The truth” is the big question left at the end of this film; we want to know the truth about Nicolas Barkley and his disappearance. Personally the film might be more interesting this way. I think we saw the true story in the film, whether it was through the interviews or through the flashbacks, I don't know. The two mediums of telling the story blended so well that I didn't mind it wasn't always “real footage.”
I believe the flashbacks were just as authentic as the interviews were in this film. This might be the case in all films, but I think the filmmakers captured the story in a way that just the interviews or just the flashbacks could not have.
That Doc was not at all what I expected. And it was certainly exceptional. What I found most intriguing was the use of both real interviews and footage versus acted retellings of events. Real pictures, real video, it all just made the traumatic disappearance all the more eerie. Then, when told that their son was indeed alive, the footage of them greeting who they thought was Nicholas at the airport made the audience all the more sympathetic. The Doc’s viewers forced to ponder the question, “What would I have done?”. We’d like to think we could spot the impostor, but, would we not too believe what we wanted so badly to be true? The Doc does a great job of putting the audience through the mystery, making it hard for anyone to draw conclusion of what really happened to Nicholas. Switching so often between truth and actor-renditions, it is hard to get to the bottom of anything. From the actor Bourdin to the real, the audience wonders how the mad man made it. Why wasn’t being interviewed from prison? And why was he was laughing? If anything, the transfer back and forth between made the Doc all the more entrancing. Wondering all the more what conclusion this story could possibly have.
ReplyDeleteChoppy and sometimes hard to follow, the Doc captured the “truth”. No one can say with certainty what happened to Nick, just as it is both easy and difficult to blame the family for not realizing the impostor. The details were sticky. But whether that was because of emotional blindness or a coverup of a darker hidden story, well, we just don’t know.
Recreated events are only as true as we believe them to be. We don’t know if the adaptations dramatized to be more theatrical. Moreover, we don’t know if those who lived it are now merely speaking with hindsight. Telling in a way to put their own self into the best light, but how do we know what is true? Authentic or not however, these are the stories we have, and since we have to draw conclusions off of it, it becomes the truth. And for this reason, the real conclusion of this Doc remains a mystery.
I don’t know what happened to Nicholas Barkley, and after watching this Doc that’s a question still haunting me. I do not think the family killed him. I think a grieving family believed what they wanted to believe because a good actor pushed them to it.
Overall I think that Bart Layton did a fantastic job of keeping The Imposter objective. He also made it feel like a narrative film while staying to true to the documentary form by reminding us that it is a true story. I appreciate the way he opens the film with the home videos of Nicholas and the powerful interview segments of our main characters. The careful selection of these particular moments and music that accompanies it gives us a sense of the relationship between Nicholas and his sister Carey, as well as Frederic’s introduction.
ReplyDeleteAs far as visual tools go, the different shots used in the interviews intrigued me. When interviewing the Barclay/Gibson/Dollarhide family members Layton uses all medium shots, never getting too close, whereas when interviewing Frederic Bourdin the shot is relatively close. This gives Frederic an advantage, making it seem more like his story, which I think it is. Frederic has no backdrop and is very close to us, making eye contact, as opposed to Nicholas’s family, who are generally looking off screen, except for Carey, the sister. We can see the family’s homes behind them, they rarely talk about themselves, and they are retelling a story they have told before. Frederic brings us in because he is telling us the narrative, often being a direct part of the more cinematic (fictional) parts. And for the aural effect, if you have the subtitles on Netflix the music actually states the feeling. It opens with “solemn music” and towards the middle (when they board the plane) its “suspenseful music” and so on.
In the early parts of the interviews none of the family members use Nicholas’ name, which I thought was rather strange for a grieving family. The mom says she believes he would have gotten in a car with a stranger. I was suspicious because, yes, the whole time I was thinking how could they not know? But I gave them the benefit of the doubt and said “they just want it to be him so badly of course they are not going to question him”. They didn’t call the FBI when he got home, which could still be excusable, until Nancy (the Federal agent) claims to have blatantly told Carey “this man cannot be your brother”. Around the 37 minute mark Frederic is being questioned before they can document him as an American citizen. He says “I wouldn’t have been able to do anything if Carey didn’t show me those pictures” and I immediately argued with myself about her motivation to not only show him pictures, but to give so many details. As convinced as I am by the private investigator and the federal agent (Nancy?), I can’t help but think we’ve all been duped by Frederic, he is after all a master of deceit.
The fictionalized elements include the reenactments which serve as a cinematic portal of the story. Layton’s choice to create the scenes in a cinematic form add to the enjoyment, because it is very much a thriller and suspense narrative. I like the combination of recreated and old footage because it remind us, the audience, that it is a real story, that these are real people, and that we are all capable of being deceived by others and ourselves. The home videos show empathy for the family, which balances out Frederic’s strong presence. The recreated interviews work to connect the two, it helped that I knew the interviews were taking place after Frederic had been discovered. They didn’t feel forced or prompted, it was just a family telling their side of a very strange story.
During the reenactments the actor who plays Frederic, Adam O’Brian, looks at the camera and breaks the fourth wall, but keeps Frederick’s voice and switches back to his interview mid-sentence. This was a great moment for me. I think details like this are what make this film so seamless. The phone calls, especially the scene where he calls police all over the United States, is very cinematic and adds a bit of humor. I loved the way Layton put the “real” and fictionalized footage together, it is not always appealing to me but he did it in a very creative way which also lends to his authenticity.
Bart Layton's the Imposter was very enjoyable to watch because of its visual and aural stylization, but it was hard to take away as cold hard facts, which is what I expect a documentary to be. It was dark and suspenseful, like an investigative film, where the filmmaker and, in turn, the audience, are the detectives. We follow along as the crew presents the evidence to us and try to piece our own opinions of the truth together. The film was shot and edited much like a dark thriller fiction, save for the actual footage from the 90's. The use of shadows especially added to the theme of mystery; who is this person? What happened? Another technique that they used was the differing shots of the interview. With everyone else, the family, the investigators, the witnesses, they were presented to the audience in the same way other interviews are usually conducted. The camera remained still and the frame never changed on them. But with Bourdin, they payed attention to him. They centered him and focused on different aspects of his physical representation; his mischievous eyes, his furrowed brow, his impish smile, even providing time to show off his facial ticks. It made him seem like the story weaver, the antihero, not an antagonist that committed a crime.
ReplyDeleteWith sound, Layton matched the reenactments with Bourdin's interview by overlapping them, and having the fake Bourdin mouth whatever the real Bourdin was saying. They even filtered Bourdin's voice a few times to make it sound like he was tape recorded and to add to the stylishness of the film. I thought that that was a very cool way of connecting the two, and to emphasize Bourdin's character as a very clever manipulator. Another aspect of sound that I feel Layton gave a lot of thought to was the music. One scene in particular was after the family picks up Carey and "Nick" from the airport, and they are driving back to their home. They played "Listen to the Music" by the Doobie Brothers to try to match the mood that the interviewees were saying, and to ease "Nick's" nervousness, but it did the opposite. Because the music felt so out of place in such a dark film, it felt kind of like a cheap, obvious way to hide the tension, and heightened the uneasiness of both the subjects and the audience.
In my opinion, one of the reasons why the combination of the reenactments with the interviews and real footage worked was because the actor of Frederic Bourdin, Adam O’Brian, looked so much like him. A lot of the reenactments in other documentaries are passed off as just that, but with the presence of the actor who looks eerily like the subject make it easier to believe. But one negative aspect of the reenactments, in my opinion, was that it didn’t try much at all to match the timeline of the events. It seems like Layton prioritized mood over truth in that way, and it did emphasize his desire to focus on “form follows function.”
As to "what I believe," I have no idea. Was Nicholas Barclay kidnapped? Did he run away? Did his family kill him? In the documentary, the focus is never really on the missing child; the spotlight is shone on Frederic Bourdin and the stealing of identities. The only thing I believe and have a right to believe is that Nick Barclay is still missing.
DeleteWhy did Carey, Nick’s sister, continue to think that Bourdin was Nick? Out of all the family that was interviewed, she seemed the most distraught about his disappearance. Nick’s mother was very hard to sympathize with, while Carey’s interview showed that she carried most of the burden. She was the one that went to Spain to get Nick, she was the one that jumped the gun and wholeheartedly held on to the hope that he was alive. Even after she was told that Nick was not Nick, even as she recalled the events from 1997, she kept referring to Frederic Bourdin as “Nick.” In contrast, her husband seems very standoffish about the whole event and wary about “Nick.” You would think, after so much trauma has happened to her, that she would be bitter about it, and change her story to better fit her current emotions. But she does not even reveal that until the very end, when she exclaims “fuck you.”
All the accounts in this film was so very objective, not at all like I expect from documentaries. A lot of the “truth” was withheld, manipulated and presented to the audience at the will of both the director and the subject.
No one in this film deserves the benefit of the doubt, even the investigators. Who are we allowed to trust, if the main narrator is a pathological liar, and the other characters fell for his stories?
From the documentary, "The Imposter," the director Bart Layton used effective techniques in developing the true story about the kidnapping of 13-year-old Nicholas Barkley. What I think was the most effective technique was the recordings of childhood videos of Nicholas, which captured the main colors of black, grey, and white. Bart intentionally gained the interest of the audience with family photographs to show that Nicholas was a normal kid in a happy family before the traumatizing event. From the beginning of "The Imposter," what added a thought of wonder was the innocent voice of Nicholas as a kid. Nicholas was narrating inside of a welcoming family home while his family smiled at the sighting of the camera. More colors were used when the camera showed his family, but it took place in a dark setting.
ReplyDeleteOften, the scenes would switch to a black screen with white letterings giving facts about the event. I thought the black screen is a powerful image when giving facts because it showed the seriousness of what is to be mentioned. When Nicholas was found in Linares, Spain, a concerned police officer can be heard speaking to one of the tourists. By capturing the sound of the police officer, it added realism to the scene. In the scene, Nicholas was depressingly sitting in a phone-booth while it rained, and he spoke to nobody. I enjoyed the scene because after three years of being away from his Texan family, he feels rejected, and not like himself. Every time the characters of Nicholas' family was recorded, they spoke slow as if though he is still lost and possibly dead. Overall, I think the techniques that Barkley used were effective because he directed the darkness of Nicholas' story with disheartening scenes, eventually showing a happy ending.
ReplyDeleteThe director grabbed as much footage as possible to bring "The Imposter" to its form of honest realism. Bart Layton used actual family videos and photographs, which was taken before Nicholas' kidnapping. For the purpose of an exact representation from the experience, Bart did multiple interviews with Nicholas' family. Some of the characters involved in "The Imposter" are actual family members expressing their sides of the story. When the family discovered that Nicholas was alive, they held on to hope. As time went on, confusion built on rather he was their relative. Nicholas' eyes changed from blue to brown, his ears were in a different shape, and he had a different accent. I think it was an instinct for Nicholas' sister (Carey Gibson) to not lose hope in finding him.
"The Imposter" is a compelling movie because it shows how easily anyone can believe a lie. The kidnapper of Nicholas, Frederick Bourdin caused trauma to the family. It was argued by the family that the news did not want to listen to their story. The grandma made conclusion that someone offered Nicholas a ride, thus, he was tricked into getting in the car. After the grandma passed the lie detector twice, she failed all of the questions the third time. Thus, Jason and his grandma was then accused of killing Nicholas. In actuality, Nicholas' grandma failed the test because she lied about stealing. "The Imposter" teaches people not to believe anything people tell you because there are multiple sides to every story.
ReplyDeleteA flaw that took my attention away from "The Imposter" was the constant repetition of the characters repeating knowledge about Nicholas. I already knew that Nicholas felt rejected and had second thoughts about heading back to Texas. He then attempted to disguise himself before meeting up with his sister, Carey. The repetition about how Nicholas' family thought he was dead slightly lost my attention. I felt like by decreasing the time duration of the movie, I would not had slightly lost interest. Unless the family members had a separate thought to express, the movie should not involve character repeating the same knowledge.
Something that is fictional can still be authentic work. When actors reenact the scenes of the actual people influencing the movie, it is a representation of authentic work. Logical evidence is needed in order to prove the authenticity as well as the exact portrayal of the real-life people. When involving the creation of a documentary, the actors actions, beliefs, and more, can be used for a realistic effect. A conclusion to a documentary is most effective after interviewing the people necessary enough to know every explanation.
The element that struck me the most about The Imposter was how aesthetics and film technique are used to manipulate an audience's perception of reality and trust.
ReplyDeleteThere were times at which the film closely resembled a fictional narrative, which made me initially question both to what degree the film itself deviated from “the truth” (Was it all reenacted? Were the interview subjects actors? To what degree was the story fictionalized?), and what cinematic elements lead a viewer to differentiate between fictional and nonfiction drama.
Much of this reaction is to the style of the interviews and their juxtaposition with reenactments. We don't see these characters in the traditional “head and shoulders on two-thirds of the screen” position. The shots are stylized with shadows covering half of everyone's face and little to no eye-light. And the atmosphere of their surroundings is shadowy-- almost sickly. Beyond the visuals, it's initially difficult to believe that Frederick-- an international criminal who masterminded such a complex and “unbelievable” crime-- could look so normal, be so close, and tell his story with such cool reflection. Paralleled with dramatic reenactment scenes, it was easy to question whether Frederick's interview was, too, a reenactment. To me, the film's biggest reveal was that we were, in fact, hearing this story from the man who experienced it.
I don't know who's story to believe. Unlike many crime features, The Imposter's objective is not to reveal the truth, but rather to dismantle the trust we automatically place in the characters whose word we believe to be true since they appear in a documentary. Ultimately, it is Frederick's story that seems to hold the most honesty. In his mind, he needs to be a child so that he can experience the youth that he never had. He needs to believe in the fiction that he invents so that his desires can become reality. I think the film's honesty and challenge in its stylized version of real events is to both provoke the question of deceived truth, as well as to reflect Frederick's (and possibly the family's) skewed or inverted perceptions of reality.
The Imposter was a compelling piece of work because, to me, it explored morality and perspective. Viewing this as a documentarian it was interesting to consider, how much recreated footage is too much? Is there a line to draw? The conclusion I came to was that if you're staying true to the story and using the recreated footage as a tool to help visually send the audience the message, then by all means do so. Layton used Frederic as the narrator, for the most part, which did two things 1. made you feel for Frederic, you understood HIS perspective, what he did and why he did it. (surely if the story was told solely from the mom or the sisters perspective you would have different thoughts on him) 2. The audience felt like they knew something everyone else didn't. You felt like you were watching a huge secret, therefor you got (or at least I did) a "root for the underdog" mentality and you wanted Frederic to "win" and be happy, even though you knew he was manipulating the emotions of so many people.
ReplyDeleteI think Nicholas was tragically kidnapped, probably brainwashed, tortured, sexually abused and murdered. To be blunt. Imagine if you had accepted the death of someone so close to you, you KNEW for a fact that you would never see them again in this lifetime. Then completely out of the blue a "miracle" arises and you have hope again. If people in high ranked government positions in Spain and in the US were saying "this is your brother, he's not dead, we know for a fact this is him", why wouldn't you believe it? Frederic filled a hole in Careys life that was missing for so long. Knowing the lengths he went to, to escape the life he was living and knowing that he felt loved and accepted for the first time and you feel like you have another brother, another person to care for again....at that point it makes sense that Carey would love him just the same.
I thought the recreated footage was very well done and it wasn't cheesy like most crime movies. It didn't bring me out of the story at all, I think it did help me to understand what Frederic went through, even if it was dramatized, it still helped.
I think reenacted footage can't be called authentic because it's clearly not, but it can be used to help explain the truth. It can be truthful.
I think this documentary, despite the recreated film is truthful. It's the story through Frederic's eye's and this story is his truth, it's his perspective on the truth. And I believe that the new footage was a visual story telling aid.
I love the look of the film. Particularly the exposures of the Texas residential area interior and exterior shots I am pleased with the most. The look has a modern sharpness with an out-of-date feel. For me, the family has moved on with the tragedy but they will never forget this terrible past and it’s the past that shows the most. The look of the film represents what the family is experiencing. An imposter living among them that they treat as their long lost son and the accept him, despite the signs that this person is a fraud. The director makes the choice to have the interviews and reenactments have the same look. I think this is effective because as a viewer it hooks me into the characters world. The line between reality and fiction is blurred. As a viewer it’s up to me to decide what is real and what is fake.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what happened to Nicholas. It’s easy to blame his mother’s boyfriend or stepfather whoever he is in relationship to the boy because he is no longer alive. With there being such a lack of evidence maybe a major piece of evidence pointing to the truth of Nicholas’ death is buried with that man. I think the sister Carey was so easily tricked into Nicholas being alive is simple. She was waiting for three long years for an answer about Nicholas and she finally got it hopped on a plane and decided for herself. A person with her tragic background of losing a beloved family member she shouldn’t be so hard on herself for being fooled. Even after she was told about the imposter, it’s so hard to believe that a person is sick enough to do something so messed up.
I don’t think the different footage being interplayed towards the end of the film draw attention to itself. Seeing Mr. Boudin’s smug smile cause no interference between the 1998 footage and his interview for this film. Him dancing around while in jail describes him perfectly that he doesn’t care about the feelings he has hurt and he enjoys deceiving people.
Like the actual story that happened in 1997 that is so bizarre it’s hard to believe it’s true. This documentary explores using reenactments to pass as true events that took place. The director made the choice to do this reenactments and they are effective. I think the decision drew attention to itself because how far the director went with the reenactments. The one that stood out the most was the reenactment of Mr. Bourdin in the telephone booth.
I think the director does an outstanding job of creating deception within the film. A recreated event that stood out to me was when Carey first meets her “brother” at the airport. He is heavily clothed and it’s hard to see his face. You see an unknown being passing as somebody and Carey accepts this imposter as her long lost brother. The interview of Mr. Bourdin gives seems a believable description of what’s visually being shown.
I’m still digesting the magnitude of how skewed Frédéric Bourdin perception of reality was, and that the fact that he now has three children. I thought the first initial minute of the film was extremely effective, so effective that I wanted to turn it off. The voice of a child should be innocent, but Bart Layton’s use of Nicholas Barkely’s voice over shaky home footage was distorted and alarming. The feeling of distortion set a tone for the rest of the film, an emotion that was portrayed through Bourdin. Layton used a few techniques which I thought helped reveal the true psyche of Bourdin. One reoccurring technique was using a voice over of Bourdin reaccounting lies he has told, but having interview footage of him smiling as b-roll. I thought this was effective because it showed his character without having to say how deceitful. This was the directors way to make us feel a certain way about him, but I thought the feelings portrayed were an accurate account for the type of person he was, manipulative and deceitful. The director also used a similar technique when he would have a shot of Bourdin looking down as Nicholas, and then cutting the images together so when Bourdin would look up in the interview footage they matched. This showed his double identity.
ReplyDeleteI came to a conclusion before the film even started hinting about it that there was a possibility that the family killed the real Nicholas. I think the director did a good job at not letting things piece together fully, but leaving a lot of open questions. It just seemed so strange that the family was accepting this man as their son, when it was clear they didn’t look similar in any regard. The dynamic of the family slowly began to unravel which let me an a viewer begin to draw my own conclusions. I think that was extremely effective because the director didn’t “tell me” he just led me to believe something on my own. Whether the Barkley family had killed Nicholas or not isn’t really a conclusion I can draw, but based upon how the evidence was presented to me, I would say yes they did. I think the sister just wanted a brother in the worst way to compensate for all the pain she had been through that she didn’t think it could not be him. Even if she didn’t think it was him, maybe she felt a sense of a family unit had returned and she longed for something to fill that absence, and she didn’t care if Nicholas was real of not. Who knows what weird psychological traumas she had both before and after her brothers disappearance, I think there is a clear amount of mental instability in the family to begin with that the fact that she thought it was him isn’t the most alarming part of this story.
The recreation footage was just that. There wasn’t much to it, not much was revealed, it just gave you more a sense of timeline. I liked that because if it’s too revealing it isn’t believable. I thought the usage of home footage was actually rather creepy and put Nicholas to life on screen when he is still lost, or dead. I liked that addition to the film. The only footage I thought that wasn’t effective at the recreation was the final scene when the investigator and family member are in the backyard digging for the body. It was clear that it was fake and was very obvious. I know they weren’t trying to portray that scene as real, but it could have seemed more “real” and less like a dramatization if they had a crew of people there digging instead of it just being the two of them. The two of them seemed rather odd. It left even more questions for me at the end of why they stopped digging, and if they came close to finding anything, and why they didn’t pursue that any further. I think there is a fine line between creating something to appear authentic. Truth can be skewed so easily because a lot of time it is based on accounts from other people and everything is perceived differently by everyone. When something is presented as authentic and it is real footage there is no question about its truth, whereas a recreation is just a story told from someones opinion on what happened and then put into action. I think we take authentic footage and events for granted.
ReplyDeleteThis was most definitely an interesting watch for me, personally. Initially, I wasn’t too fond of the idea of mixing fictional narrative within a crime/investigation style documentary. I felt it was a bit inattentive to the point of the film. For example, I enjoyed how the filmmakers made strategic use of the home video footage of Nicholas as their opening, as it instantaneously forged a personal connection between myself, as the viewer, and the subject of the investigation. Tactics such as this are a fairly simple way to develop a sense of familiarity with someone’s history/story, as well as establish tone. The somber music also aided in this effect. In addition, Layton’s use of dull, almost colorless imagery combined with the strategically framed interviews of the various members of the Barkley family emitted a sense of overwhelming desolation and seclusion that captured my curiosity almost instantaneously.
ReplyDeleteIt was at about this point in the film when attention shifted to Bourdin’s story, which to me, was rather distracting. My thoughts were, “ok, you’ve got a perfectly solid plotline as is, I’m already emotionally invested in this kid’s case as well as the family’s history, so why are we digressing our focus to this overly charismatic misfit who probably has nothing to do with Nicholas’ disappearance?” The fictionalized narrative approach only served to further my distraction, as I felt I was being falsely set up to invest my energy into one story that was advertised as something entirely different. And in a sense, that is exactly what this film was. I will say that after watching it in its entirety, I can appreciate Layton’s style for what it is, as I now understand that this wasn’t a story about a young boy’s murder and a grieving family’s loss, but about duplicity, and more importantly, self-deception.
As I continued to watch, Bourdin’s story was unraveling into something quite intriguing in its own right. And with the deeply stylized cinematography, dramatic use of color, and an almost seamless interweaving of fairly subtle fictional re-enactments and non-fictional footage, I couldn’t help but just go with it, and accept this unconventional and somewhat morally ambiguous revelation for what it was. Truth be told, there were moments where it was difficult for me to distinguish fact from fiction, or as an over-extension of the truth because the story of Bourdin and the Barkley family seemed to be corresponding with one another so theatrically that it almost forged an entirely new chronicle for the audience to dissect. This wasn’t a matter of moral responsiveness in the face of loss. This was a matter of who’s got the bigger secret, and why. It is almost as if the ambiguity within Layton’s various subjects parallels the ambiguity in the film’s sense of authenticity as a whole. Perhaps that’s the message. Much like Nicholas’ unsolved disappearance, it is never really made clear who was theoretically in the right or in the wrong in the aftermath that ensued for these two parties in search of a misguided sense of closure from one another. The only thing that remains clear is that no one is perfectly untainted.
When I started this documentary I was initially put off by the recreated footage used as an aid, but as the film progressed, I realized that it was the perfect addition to help tell the story of Frederic Bourdin and Nicholas Barclay. As with any film, at least in my opinion, it is important to show action as to not lose the interest of the viewer, and the stylized scenes were exactly what this doc needed. We were shown very little footage of Nicholas Barclay during his childhood, and without the added scenes, the rest of film would have just been the sit down interviews, which probably would have felt like watching a special on Oprah. I am of course not an expert on documentary films, but the most captivating ones I have seen have interesting supplemental footage that aids in the storytelling.
ReplyDeleteThinking back, if I was shown the film without the stylized scenes, I could listen to their accounts and say “I guess how I can see how thats possible”, but when you show me the action of what is being recounted, in addition to the dialogue, I can now see and (partially) believe how it was possible for Bourdin to assume the identity of a missing child, and I can also see how gullible the family could be, and how at fault the systems were that allowed an imposter to be placed with a family that was still grieving yet hopeful that their missing son Nicholas would return.
The visual techniques used by director Bart Layton resembled a film that was more based in fiction with it’s carefully thought out shots and aesthetically pleasing reanactments. Throughout the entire film, almost every shot is filled with a sense of dread or regretfulness. Most of the filler shots, that seem to only exist for continuity and possibly the expression of all of the unwanted emotions that can be seen on the faces of each person being interviewed, depicts rural Texas with overcast conditions that seem to give no inclination that the events being documented will every get better. I believe the use of an overcast sky and the choice to show cars passing by and people walking the streets kind of makes me think that these shots are purposefully shown to support the idea that the only people who really cared about Nicholas Barclay’s disappearance consisted mainly of his immediate family until Nicholas supposedly returns home, then everyone seems to take notice, mainly the media.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Nicholas Barclay was probably abducted by someone who wasn’t apart of the immediate family, but that necessarily doesn’t mean that the family didn’t know who actually took him. Thats kind of why I think that after Bourdin was discovered to be a definite fraud Nicholas’s sister and mother continued to believe that the impostor was truly Nicholas because they may or may not of had information on Nicholas’s disappearance, and this was possibly their way of burying it in the past so they could move on with their lives without question. The mixture of fiction and nonfiction elements drew attention to itself in my opinion because more often than not the interviews conducted strictly for the film intertwine with the more seemingly fictional reenactments. However, this is conducted in a way that if you're not truly looking for it, it then appears to be fairly seamless and actually flows quite well between interviews and reenactments.
The juxtaposition from “real” events to more fictional events is almost impossible to differentiate between because the main narrator is known for being a really effective con-artist, which in my opinion makes him kind of an unreliable narrator. Thus, its really hard to tell when he is actually recounting the truth and isn't just trying to make himself look better by victimizing these people, and then once he is discovered for who he truly is, for the second time, he again tried to turn the media on the family by accusing them of murdering Nicholas. This does not seem like it is entirely false, but who really knows besides the Barclay family. There were also moments in the film where someone was being interviewed and as they begin to go into detail about the information they're bringing to the table the audio of their voice begins to fade out without them finishing their point. I found this very troublesome, because it made some sequences seem like they were incomplete, without fully getting the interviewee’s point across. This is one of the reasons why editing is so important because if it isn't executed properly it ultimately effects the project as a whole. Also I believe recreated photos can truly be “authentic” if the events are portrayed in an accurate manner, but there is always an underlying tone of inauthenticity because when it comes down to it these sequences are still being reenacted by actors who aren't playing themselves. Although, with this film in particular all of the reenactments are touched up with a sense of authenticity because most of the reenactments simply enhance the certain feelings that come up while the “real” events are being discussed. It would seem a lot more less authentic if there was an attempt to fully recreate all of the events that occurred instead of just enhancing the conveyed emotions through thoughtful imagery.
Bart Layton uses the extremely apparent technique of recreating footage to tell the story visually, which is quite controversial in any documentary. I personally found it very appealing and also pretty appropriate, considering the subject matter of the film already happened. It opens up a lot of doors for a director to be able to display the story in any way he or she pleases, which also allows room for really beautiful and moving images. On the other hand, it does alter the credibility of the story a bit to cater to the director’s chosen perspective. In this film, I believe that Layton wanted to toy with the audience a bit, especially as soon as the suspicions of the family are brought up in the second half. I find it difficult to say whether or not Nicholas’s family murdered him because of Layton’s fine job at playing to both sides of the story. It seems as though he could have created that side of the story for dramatic purposes considering the family heavily denies it and there isn’t any evidence. I think they killed him, but that’s only because I selfishly think it makes the story more interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe directors style was really interesting, specifically when he overlapped interviews with actors playing the roles of the interviewees, as well as when he used old footage that seemed to tie in. I think that it was effective when it came to keeping the audience engaged, and definitely spiced up the documentary by giving it a fresh and modern flair.
Going back to what I said at the top, I think that by recreating the images, Layton was able to tell the story in a way people can connect to, and although risky, no documentary is one hundred percent true and I think most people know that by now.
1. I really liked the fact that the narration can from the subjects and when it was silent, there was no voice to fill in the “empty space”. I feel like that added a dramatic effect to the story and you could really focus on the character emotions on those parts because there was no narration to distract the audience. Also, I appreciated the reenactments because it helped me visualize the events that took place and also made the documentary more interesting. I felt like I was watching a movie at some points and that was entertaining for me. The backgrounds in which the subjects were recorded were blurred so it helped bring focus more on the subject and the matter they were talking about.
ReplyDelete2. Unfortunately, I do believe Nicholas Barkley has passed, but as to what happened to him, I have no idea. During the movie, Frederic honestly had me thinking that maybe Jason and his mother did have something to do with his disappearance. Something just wasn’t adding up and once it was said that Jason had committed suicide, I automatically thought, oh my, that’s the result of a guilty conscience. This may not be the case, but in my opinion, someone who knew Nicholas was the master of his demise. As for Carey, I sympathize with her, but only to a certain extent. At some point looking at him, you had to realize that that 23-year-old grown man with an accent and 5’oclock shadow is not your 15 or 16-year-old brother. I can understand that hearing that your missing younger brother was found leaves you speechless and then going all the way to Spain and realizing that that person is not who they say they are is heartbreaking and can, in some cases, cause you to go along with the illusion, but this illusion should not have lasted long enough for a stranger to fly on a plane with you, go to your home, and register for school. There’s just no way.
3. I thought the combination of A-roll and B-roll worked up until the end because it kind of left the audience hanging and speculating and I fell took away from the documentary. The ending was unnecessary. But I like seeing the actual footage of the real interviews in collaboration with the broadcasted interviews because it showed a comparison of Frederic that was important to the story. Seeing him then was interesting because it was like, “how could the family even believe this guy looked like Uncle Paul?” and “this man had somewhat of a conscience when he was thinking this family who suffered a great loss was just going to take him in with open arms thinking that they were their missing boy.” The fictionalized elements complimented the actual footage more so than it complicated it.
4. I liked the reenactments. As cheesy as they were, they made the story interesting. It helped me visualize exactly what each subject was talking about and gave a perspective on what happened. The only time I didn’t like the reenactment was towards the ending. It really threw me off. Here I was thinking, ok well I won’t really ever know what happened to Nicholas and then here comes this ending where I’m like, “Ok so is Nicholas in that guy’s backyard meaning that Jason and his mom killed him or what? Was he never really kidnapped?” It left me with too many questions and I just felt like watching that whole documentary was a waste of time.
5. This might sound like a generic and lazy answer, but not really. It may not be exactly like its predecessor, but it’s not of undisputed origin because the idea came from someone else’s work. It will still be that creator’s original piece, but it wouldn’t so much be authentic because in a way it was copied from someone else’s work, just added with a few tweaks.
Although I don’t know the technical terms, I loved the sound and lighting choices Fredric Bourdin chose to captivate and hold the attention of his audience. I liked the way he placed the call, disguised his voice, and gave a vivid description of the person for which he wanted to set the mood/tone for the expectations of the emergency responders.
ReplyDeleteI think the lightning choices throughout were very effective. I like how the flashes were always shown at the height of the different subplots. I think this technique was intentionally meant to be symbolic of lighting striking……which hinted to tension.
Once the main characters true identities and past history were uncovered, I totally expected it to be revealed that he had actually been the one responsible for the disappearance of Nicholas Barkley. Other than that not being the case, the rest of the movie was quite predictable. There was skepticism throughout that kind of let me know that he would be proven a fraud. However, I’m surprised that there was no skepticism depicted from any of the family members of the family he intruded.
I personally think the absence of skepticism from the sister and other family members was due to this overwhelming desire to bring some sense of closure to a situation that has “ailed” them for years. It’s clear that they fought against the information of officials and their reasoning because they wanted this happy ending where the missing family member comes home after years of agony……..alive and well.
I personally think the interplays of interviews and actual footage to be brilliant. The family’s interviews didn’t hint to anything for the entire movie. Then at the very end, everyone broke down from the psychological stress accompanied by this grown man posing as the little boy they thought they’d never see again.
Then you have the police, FBI, U.S. and foreign officials, who always hinted to their different levels of skepticism, but felt their hands were tied because the guy was so convincing. In fact, one the officials said he’d either experienced the accounts he was mentioning or he was a really good actor. This means, he had gotten as far as he did only because he had taken such extreme measures, i.e. tattoos, hair coloring, false recollections, etc. to assume Nicholas Barkley’s identity.
Both the real and the recreated images held my attention leaving me wanting to know what was to come. Considering that the film is based on lies and deception, I think The Imposter weighs heavy insight into challenges accompanied with mental disorders. Although I feel like the film began to become predictable, I still feel as though the themes and messages brings more awareness and forces viewers to see mental challenges in a new light(especially when the real footage of the jailed imposter clearly shows him “off the richter” in his mental state). I know there was no actual depiction of violence, but the countless reports of violence against children really soured my stomach.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the techniques used in this film is the cutting back and forth between interviews and the reenactments of the story being told. I thought that was very effective in drawing in the audience. By doing this we can feel like we are watching the story unfold and develop. Rather than if we were just watching talking heads it’s easy to feel more passive to the story. I thought it was also effective because of the lighting and color used. He used the use of coloring the enhance the mood of the film. In the first 30 minutes when the sister is telling the story and we see her traveling to spain the coloring is bright and yellow and has a hopeful glow to it. But when Frederic Bourdin was telling the story and they were showing his reenactment it’s darker and blue, gloomy and mysterious.
ReplyDeleteI think his sister was so convinced that is was him because she wanted it to be him. I’m sure in the back of her mind she thought she would never see her brother again. But after getting the call that her brother was alive how could she go back to knowing she would might never see her brother again. It’s much easier for us to try to convince ourselves that what we want to be true is true. Especially when the alternative is to face such a horrible reality that Carey would have been faced with.
I would like to hope that the real Nicholas is alive and well somewhere. Unfortunately that probably isn’t true. I think that the family had something to do with his Nicolas’ disappearances. Frederic mentioned that when he met Jason he didn’t pretend that he was Nicholas and wished him good luck. I think he is probably responsible. I think the sister didn’t know about what had happened until the investigator called her and told her it wasn’t Nicholas. I wonder if she told the family about the call and someone told her she had to continue to pretend it was him to avoid suspicion about the disappearance.
I thought his use of combining the different types of footage worked very well. I thought it made sense for the story being told.
I didn’t think the juxtaposition was deceiving. What I thought was deceiving came entirely from the story and the people themselves. Because we still don’t know what the truth is. Also because we are listening to a large portion of the story come from someone who is a chronic liar. How do we know he is telling the truth about the things that bring the family under suspicion. But other than forcing the audience to credit a liar as a reliable source I didn’t feel the deceived by the juxtaposition.
I do think that something recreated can be authentic. I think it is really easy for recreated things to not be authentic. But if it stays true to the facts and actual events then it can be authentic.
I think visually, this film was very intriguing. The director adds people’s names, occupations and/or family ties when a new character is introduced in the film which I thought was very effective. From the very beginning of the film, you are wanting to see what truly happens; you want to watch from beginning to end. I believe Nicholas ran away from home for real this time after hearing that his mom and brother wouldn’t help him and drive him back home from playing with his friends. I believe he had enough of his family and his life and ran away to start anew. In the film, they said Nicholas was very street smart. Because of this, I believe he could actually pull off this stunt and hide from the world for as long as he wanted. In response to Nicholas’s sister, I believe the reason why she continued to believe that Frederic was her brother, even after she knew he wasn’t, was because she simply wanted her brother back; she didn’t want to lose him again, even if this man wasn’t Nicholas. I thought the director did a wonderful job with interviews and the footage shot from many years ago. I think the way the director set up the footage made it seamless. That is just my opinion, though. That being said, I was not distracted by the juxtaposition of footage in this film. I never was very distracted or taken out of the story. In response to this film being “authentic”, I don’t believe that it is. When I think of the word “authentic”, other words such as “original” and “genuine” come to mind, and this film being a recreation automatically dismisses the chance of it being “authentic.” Film makes you see only what the camera sees, and hear only what the camera hears. Saying this, I believe some facts can go untouched and therefore make this recreation of the “truth” unauthentic.
ReplyDelete