While examining the film I’m Still Here (Affleck 2010), which was marketed and promoted as a documentary featuring actor Joaquin Phoenix and his questionable career change and simultaneous downfall, I will explore the mock documentary (also referred to as the “mockumentary”). This strategic and arguably successful marketing strategy created the necessary attention and hype leading up to the film’s release. By employing the notion that the events in the film are non-fictional, and that the bearded man behind the sunglasses is the actor we used to know and love, the creators successfully raised eyebrows and received the desired attention from the public. During my examination, I will analyze the various responses and reactions to the film in relation to its intentional blurring of fiction and reality. This film is significant in the discussion of representations of the real as it forces viewers to think critically and engage with the film throughout, questioning whether it is a raw and invasive look into the life of a celebrity, or if it is a complex fabrication as a means to comment on celebrity culture, or as an elaborate acting performance used to enhance a dwindling career. The true brilliance of this film is that it successfully works on several levels simultaneously. However, many critics seem less open-minded as they incessantly try to deduce from this thought-provoking work only one of these explanations, rather than see it for all of its layers of genius. Moviegoers and critics alike seem to be offended that they had been “fooled”, and as the debate escalated, the term “hoax” was thrown into the mix. The mockumentary is not a new phenomenon, nor are films that neglect to confirm what is in fact real and what is artifice. I will embark on this process of analysis by first studying the mock documentary in general. Next, I will look at articles pertaining to the film in question specifically. I will investigate the discourse surrounding the film, examining how it was discussed in the media, and ultimately ask why the debate was framed in the way that it was.To begin, the mock documentary or mockumentary is a form of filmmaking that utilizes documentary filmmaking techniques to insinuate that the content being presented is real, truthful, non-fiction, when in actuality, the content being presented on-screen is artifice, or perhaps a combination of fact and fiction. Alexandra Juhasz and Jesse Lerner, writing in 2006, set out to unravel current notions of the “mockumentary” or “mock documentary” while they use the term “fake documentary” in so far as that these films make use of the recognizable documentary film style while presenting fiction, therefore creating fake documentary. Juhasz and Lerner assert, “a fake documentary engages disingenuousness, humor, and other formal devices to create critical or comic distance between itself and documentary’s sobriety, truth, and rationality” (1-2). Juhasz provides a well-rounded definition, “fake documentaries are fiction films that make use of (copy, mock, mimic, gimmick) documentary style and therefore acquire its associated content (the moral and social) and associated feelings (belief, trust, authenticity) to create a documentary experience defined by their antithesis, self-conscious distance” (7). Gary Rhodes and John Springer, also writing in 2006, examine the relationship between fiction and documentary, and differentiate between the “mockumentary” (documentary form and fictional content) and the “docudrama” (fictional form and documentary content) (4). I’m Still Here is a mockumentary, as it “utilize[s] the devices of documentary (voiceover narrations, on-camera interviews, reenactments) to lend the appearance of documentary authenticity to events that are actually staged and scripted in ways that barely conceal the marketing and programming concerns that motivate their production” (Rhodes and Springer 5). This type of film relies on the assumption that the audience will recognize that the “standard conventions of documentary film are being placed in the service of a satirical or ironic examination of a fictional subject” (Rhodes and Springer 5). Jane Roscoe and Craigh Hight approach the genre in a more generalized sense, defining the mock documentary as, “film and television texts which retain elements of documentary aesthetics but do not fit comfortably into most existing definitions of documentary” (viii); “Mock-documentary looks to ‘mock’ central tenets of classic documentary” (8). Roscoe and Hight also discuss the significance of the audience’s changing relationship with factual discourse that the mock documentary exploits. Aftab Kaleem announces, “the fun of mockumentaries lies in their attempt to convince us that what we are watching is the truth” (para 6).
Casey Affleck’s film I’m Still Here was widely discussed in the media leading up to its release. Columnist for The Independent, Aftab Kaleem, proclaims, “The jury's still out on Joaquin Phoenix. Did the Walk the Line [sic] star quit acting to try his hand at becoming a hip-hop musician as a ruse to help his brother-in-law Casey Affleck make a much-hyped documentary about celebrity, friendship, media intrusion and the cost of fame?” Later on in his article it becomes clear that Kaleem is praising Affleck for “keeping the audience guessing”, and that “speculating on what is and what isn’t real is part of the fun”.
Meanwhile, Scott Wampler, columnist for examiner.com, weighs whether this film is a mockumentary or not, since a mockumentary is supposed to be comedic. He offers statements from potential buyers after having seen the film, which suggest that they too were unclear what it was that they had just watched. Whether it is performance art, mockumentary, or real, they were intrigued; they had never seen anything like this. Wampler continues to provide statements from other reputable sources and potential distributors who were mystified after screening the film, discussing its commercial prospects. Wampler’s article is one-sided and lacks any progressive response to the Phoenix discussion. He does not offer any new insight, apart from a few quotes from industry members, and he spends his time making bold statements that raise issues regarding his credibility and knowledge in the subject matter (i.e. mockumentary is strictly comedy). This source embodies the overall negative attitude toward the film and its uncertainties, exemplifying the frustration some feel toward this uncertainty bound with the mockumentary genre, and I’m Still Here in particular.
Richard Corliss, writing for Time immediately after the film’s premier, describes the film as a “long, fascinating display of artistic ego (or humorous hubris)”. Corliss decides that, “I'm Still Here is a sad-amusing portrait of an actor between gigs”, and that “the ‘truth’ is that back in 2008, when Phoenix said he was turning to hip-hop, his acting career was not exactly blooming”.
These negative approaches to the film largely reflect the public’s thinking in regard to the entire ordeal. Did the media discussion, which for the most part aims to dismantle I’m Still Here and the individuals behind the film influence the rest of the public’s perception of the film? Or was the disapproving discussion already in motion, and the media simply presented it to the masses for further investigation? Is the general public capable of or even given the opportunity to make their own assessment of events covered by the media? Or are they merely presented with the information and the possible interpretive positions they may choose to take on the subject? The various media responsible for covering such ordeals reaches the source, frames the story, and delivers it to the masses. For many, the media coverage of the Joaquin Phoenix “hoax” would have been the first contact they had made with the topic. The public is never offered an opportunity to partake in the debate. It is simply a matter of opposing sides being presented in the media, framed to persuade, while the public simply consumes the media representations of “reality”, allowing individuals to believe that they have formed their own opinion. It is the media who perpetuate the notion that their news is balanced and fair, so as long as they offer a glimpse of the opposition, the public will believe they have received all angles of the story, and that they have ultimately formed their own interpretation of the material, when in actuality, they have merely sided with the position the media has more strongly put forward. Rather than allow the public to experience this film as it were meant to be experienced, that is, without the preconceived condemnations disseminated by the pervasive media, the audience must take into account all of the discussion surrounding the film which was provided by the media, and which of course outweighs the persuasive powers of the mockumentary since the media outlets had already discredited its worth. While Affleck’s film seeks to engage an active audience and question various institutions intelligently, the public is unknowingly veered off course by the manipulative media, allowing the all-powerful media institutions to maintain their impenetrable stature.
Many skeptical onlookers began to make connections with other films that had a similar intrigue of uncertainty regarding the level of factuality upon release including Catfish (Joost 2010), This is Spinal Tap (Reiner 1984), and Exit Through the Gift Shop (Banksy 2010). Writing two weeks prior to the release of I’m Still Here, Kaleem Aftab explores the mockumentary in his article “The Fine Art of the Mockumentary”. He, like many others, relates Affleck’s film to other comparable films, making a compelling argument asserting that the uncertainty of whether or not these films are fiction or representations of reality is what is so intriguing about the mockumentary genre. The Phoenix gossip and the rumours suggesting the film is a hoax is what drove so many people to see the film and engage with it. The audience is divided into those who buy into it and those who think it is a joke, and all along, the viewers speculate what they think is real and what is not. The notion of uncertainty is part of the film, part of the marketing, and most definitely part of the overall reception. Rather than condemning Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix for fooling everyone, Aftab recognizes the purpose of this kind of film, and welcomes it enthusiastically. His brief analyses of other comparable films help contextualize the film and situate it within the genre. The difference between a film like Catfish and I’m Still Here is that the latter film deals with celebrities, and its creators will therefore be cornered until the rabid suspicions of trickery are confirmed. Meanwhile, Catfish is more successful in maintaining the intriguing uncertainty associated with mockumentary. The audience is never told whether or not the content of the film is factual during the film, and the invasive media are not nearly as concerned with revealing the “truth” about the film, as they are with a film like I’m Still Here.
One scene from I’m Still Here in particular must be discussed in regard to the fact fiction divide: the Letterman segment. The inclusion of a real media event inserted into the highly manufactured film impacts viewers while they try to discern whether or not the content of the film is real. The second notable impact the Letterman segment is that the original, televised broadcast was seen by the public prior to the film’s release. This is what really got the widespread attention of the public, which was necessary for the film to succeed. The Letterman segment quickly became viral, spreading throughout the world of online media, reaching millions. Joaquin Phoenix’s awkward appearance on the popular talk show rapidly fueled the discussion, and it practically served as a trailer for the upcoming release of the film.
Once Affleck and Phoenix finally confirmed that the film was fictional, and that the man we had been watching crumble tragically before our eyes, was really a preconceived, fully fictitious character, the subsequent discussion ensued. While some critics understood and attempted to vouch for the mockumentary and its clever approach to critiquing the celebrity culture, Hollywood, media reception, and representations of reality, others were quick to dismiss this illuminating artifact as a meaningless hoax, or a pathetic cry for attention. Why did the discussion perpetuate the notion that only one conclusive explanation would suffice? Why were curious onlookers disappointed with the final result? Upset that they had been “fooled”? Sure, it was exciting and gave people something to talk about as the star randomly opted to trade in a successful acting career to pursue a career in the hip-hop industry, but as soon as the “truth” came out regarding the film’s artifice, people became upset, bitter, and unappreciative, dropping the discussion immediately as if ashamed to have been “duped”. It was at this time that those who had actually gone to see the film concluded that the film was not a worthwhile creation, and those that had not yet seen the film, decided that it was now a fruitless endeavor, as there was no truth to its content.
Lipkin, Paget, and Roscoe list the functions of the mock documentary, stating that they are “more clearly intertextual and more directly subversive” than the functions of the docudrama. The first function stipulates that mockumentaries work to “appropriate documentary aesthetics to create a fictional world thereby severing the direct relationship between the image and the referent” (Rhodes and Springer 13). While using the documentary form, the filmmakers are able to construct the fictional content for the camera to “objectively” capture. Secondly, they “take as their object of parody both documentary as a screen form, documentary practitioners, and cultural, social and political icons”. Next, “they seek to develop a relationship with a knowing audience who through being in on the joke can appreciate both the humor and the inherent critical reflexivity of the form”. Finally, they “provoke questions about form- specifically about the permissibility, usefulness and even danger of mixing the functions of documentary and drama” (Rhodes and Springer 13). So, I’m Still Here offers images of a distraught celebrity figure, which make up the content of the film, while the audience experiences the content through the accepted documentary form. The specific image of Joaquin Phoenix is not as important as what his image represents. The image of Phoenix is a referent of the celebrity. By pairing the ironic distanciation embedded with the mockumentary form with the very real and serious representation of a drowning celebrity figure being swallowed whole by cruel media and unsympathetic spectators, the message is successfully conveyed, offering an insightful critique of celebrity culture and media representation. However, the audience must be aware of the film form at work, the mockumentary, in order to understand the various levels of commentary the film tackles. The creators of a mockumentary assume that the audience will acknowledge the critical reflexivity of the form, and ultimately take away the intended, encoded meaning.
Roscoe and Hight explain the relationship between the mockumentary and its honest counterpart, the documentary. They put forth the notion that the mockumentary operates through three degrees of distance from documentary proper: parody, critique and deconstruction (Rhodes and Springer 16). I’m Still Here is an example of the “critique” mockumentary, as it engages “more critically in the form’s inherent reflexivity towards factual discourse, and raise[s] questions about both the documentary form and wider factual media practices” (Rhodes and Springer 16). Affleck’s film presents fictional content in the form of documentary to provide a critique of the form and all that it promises, which is primarily “truth”. Not only is the film questioning the truth telling abilities of the documentary, it also poses critical questions toward all media that aim to provide absolute and definitive truths in an objective manner. It is necessary to look at all media critically, and engage actively in order to discern truth from fiction, as all media is inherently subjective. Similarly, Gerd Bayer’s essay examines mockumentary films “that provide a commentary, through their parody, on the state and role of visual media” (qtd in Rhodes and Springer 164). I’m Still Here directly confronts the documentary and all of its persuasive powers, and in doing so it questions factual media practices on a wider scale.
Bayer analyzes the characteristics that the mockumentary genre has adopted, stating, “in addition to including generic clues derived from documentaries’ project of ‘representing reality’ […] mockumentaries make the production side of filming visible, thereby creating in their viewers a conscious awareness that they are indeed watching a film, that is, a constructed reality” (qtd in Rhodes and Springer 165). Throughout the film I’m Still Here, the audience is offered glimpses of director Casey Affleck, the camera is directly acknowledged (and at times, the cameraman is asked to turn off the camera by various security figures), and it is explicitly stated that Affleck is putting together a documentary about Phoenix’s career change. Bayer elaborates, “the presentational characteristics of mockumentaries include a range of stylistic features: frontal camera shots in which the objects acknowledge the presence of the camera, mirrors that disclose the actual film equipment, and, most frequently, unstable camera moves that aim to emphasize the unstaged and spontaneous filmmaking process” (165). These stylistic features are definitely emphasized in I’m Still Here for two correlating reasons: first, the film is meant to look like a documentary to suggest that its content is truthful, representing reality, and second, to self-reflexively signal to the audience that they are watching a “constructed reality”, regardless of declarations of authenticity. All visual media have selected their subject matter, framed their narrative, framed their shots, edited their footage, and so on and so forth. The creators of I’m Still Here have successfully addressed critical questions concerning supposed “representations of reality”, the language of the documentary film, and the construction of reality accepted by our naive, unaware society.
Juhasz and Lerner explain that mockumentaries “challenge three linked standards of documentary: (1) the technologies of truth telling, (2) the authority granted to or stolen by those who make and receive such truth claims, and (3) the need to speak untold and partial truths that have fallen outside the registers of these very technologies and authorities” (10-11). By using the documentary form to present fictional content, I’m Still Here challenges the truth telling abilities prescribed to the documentary genre. By declaring that their film was a documentary, audiences approached the film expecting to be fed truths, and those that did not had felt the need to devalue the project. The filmmakers challenge the authority associated with documentary filmmaking by presenting fictional content, and further challenge the documentary by subverting generic expectations and ultimately offering its audiences truths masquerading as artifice in the guise of truth.
To conclude, let us consider Juhasz and Lerner’s statement explaining that many documentaries lie to tell the truth and that the truth is relative. I’m Still Here has been bashed for “lying”, as audiences have failed to recognize that while the film is explicitly about the downfall of Joaquin Phoenix (which is fictional), it is implicitly about the destruction of the celebrity, the pitfalls of Hollywood, and the dangers of readily accepting documentary (and visual media in general) as factual, objective discourse. Keith Beattie states, “the meeting of fact and fiction results in either the subversion of documentary claims to authenticity or veracity, or, innovative and productive approaches to documentary representation” (146). Bayer thinks, “mockumentaries should be thought of as meta-documentaries that criticize the generic conventions and discursive expectations viewers bring to the question of truthfulness in visual media” (Rhodes and Springer 171). I’m Still Here is primarily concerned with stressing that any kind of truth in media is a lie, and in order to effectively convey this message, the filmmakers have lied to tell the truth.
Works Cited
Aftab, Kaleem. “The Fine Art of the Mockumentary”. The Independent: Features, Films. The Independent, 8 Sep. 2010. Web. 9 Feb. 2011.
Beattie, Keith. Documentary Screens: Nonfiction Film and Television. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print.
Corliss, Richard. “I’m Still Here: Joaquin Phoenix Takes the Rap”. Time. Time Magazine, 6 Sep. 2010. Web. 9 Feb. 2011.
I’m Still Here. Dir. Casey Affleck. Perf. Joaquin Phoenix, Antony Langdon, and Carey Perloff. They Are Going to Kill Us Productions, 2010. Film.
Juhasz, Alexandra and Jesse Lerner eds. F is for Phony: Fake Documentary and Truth’s Undoing. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2006. Print.
Rhodes, Gary and John Springer eds. Docufictions: Essays on the Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2006. Print.
Roscoe, Jane and Craigh Hight. Faking it: Mock-Documentary and the Suberversion of factuality. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Print.
Wampler, Scott. “New Mockumentary Begs the Questions: What the Hell is Wrong with Joaquin Phoenix?” National Comedy, Examiner.com. Examiner, 10 May 2010. Web. 9 Feb. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment