- 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 midnight on Tuesday - and have fun putting your response together. I really look forward to reading what you write!
brandon gassel
ReplyDeletei loved the visual and aural techniques of this film. 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.
I liked this doc. 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. 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, which i loved. Although the jumps from media to media and obvious, they are seamless. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of “real” and recreated images. 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.
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 do this to me I like them all the more for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe techniques Layton utilizes that draws the audience in the most is the reenactments of Frédéric Bourdin and his story of becoming Nicholas Barklay. I thought the use of voice over worked very well, especially when there was continuity between Frédéric’s interview and his young self, posing as Nicholas. Some would say that is cheesy, but I actually really liked it. I think that because I knew Nicholas was American and did not have an accent, it seemed more realistic hearing Frédéric’s voice over some of those reenacted clips. What I cannot understand is how the family truly believed he actually developed that accent from the short amount of time he was in Spain. But…that’s a whole other thing that I could talk about. From a visual standpoint, I thought the cinematography was beautiful. It’s very dark and dreary; totally fits the mood of the film. The use of the color blue in this film creates a symbol for sympathy. I specifically loved the decisions in lighting for the interviews. Only half of the subjects’ faces are lit, which indicates the different or opposite impressions the film makers were trying to make out of the characters. For example, with Frédéric, you sort of feel quite sympathetic towards him at first, considering his claims about not having the greatest childhood. After a bit more unveiling, however, you start to realize that this guy is probably more fucked up than he seemed at first. (What’s the deal with this 20-something dude trying to pose as 13-16 year olds anyway? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just…I don’t know…trying to impersonate someone who’s closer to you in age?) All in all, the filmmaker’s make it really easy to get drawn into this film and start creating these judgements of the characters right off the bat. When the mood starts off weird in the beginning, it makes me feel weird the whole time. This film made me feel weird; In the best, possible way. Nice visuals + nice sound = Magic.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I was like, damn, this is so messed up! What? Is he seriously trying to take someone’s identity like that? Wow. I felt very frustrated when Nicholas’s sister came to bring her “brother” home. I thought it was super unbelievable that she genuinely thought that was her brother. I think you would remember that your brother had blue eyes, not brown. Also, tattoos take a while to heal, there’s no way they could have looked like he had them for years if he just got the tattoo the day she came. At this point, I knew the filmmakers were trying to manipulate the viewer. There are just too many questionable things going on the entire time. At one point, I was like, the family totally killed him. It makes so much sense that they would try and cover it up with something like this. That’s why I think Carey recognized him as Nicholas after they told her it wasn’t him. I don’t know, that mother also looked spooky and suspicious too…These are all really great ways to draw people into watching stories like this though. They made me want to know the truth about all of the characters. It pissed me off…which is awesome. They did a good job, not going to lie.
I think that’s all part of storytelling, you know. Being able to get your subject or interviewee to gain so much trust from you, that it allows them to go into deep emotional detail while telling a story. Knowing how to get a subject at their lowest point but for a purpose. I think that’s extremely important. Frédéric has an incredible brain. He’s nuts and you know it, that’s why I believe he can give so much detail. It really gives Layton so much freedom to create visually. I do think that it seemed a bit too modern. Like, it definitely didn't feel like the nineties. Sometimes Nicholas looked like some cis, teenage, white boy that lived a privileged suburban lifestyle. Cinematically, I think they could have maybe chosen a different medium for the young Nicholas scenes, such as maybe shooting on actual film. It made sense for the interviews to be shot on an HD camera like that, considering the technology the year the film was made (2012). I thought it was seamless because I felt that this type of story would require reenactment, so it kind of just flowed for me.
ReplyDeleteThe juxtaposing images definitely were compelling. A story wouldn’t be possible without something like that. Sure, I would have changed some things, but it worked overall. I feel like I sort of touched on some flaws throughout all my questions, like the accent, the eye color, the tattoos, and other little things about suspicion in character. I definitely think that the aesthetics of his craft want to challenge the viewer. I think the film makers have a dark side. You can tell with the overall look and feel of the film. You could totally re-make this film and limit the detail presented to only hear one perspective. Then, you would essentially never have any contradiction from viewers. But, could that make them think harder to come up with another perspective? Oh, the importance of decision in filmmaking! So manipulative.
Ahhhh, I don’t know, I guess it depends. In this case I really don’t think so. This is because you can never really know the actual truth of a situation. Without enough evidence, something like this could never be solved. Frédéric is crazy and you definitely know it, due to all of the people listed that he claimed to have stolen identities from. But the family still could have killed Nicholas. They seemed crazy enough to do so. Just because they dug up one hole in the backyard of where he lived, doesn’t mean they didn’t murder him. Anyways, it really depends on the story, I think. Think about it, if I made a documentary about how much I love my plants and told all kinds of stories about all the plants i’ve ever owned, and some of those plants were dead, you could easily just buy me a new plant that’s identical to it. You could then have me reenact taking care of it and the viewer would never know that plant isn’t alive anymore. Stories like that are believable and not contradictory. “The Imposter” is quite different.
Trina Mulligan
ReplyDeleteBart Layton used techniques such as bringing in home footage and creating realistically and stylistically beautiful recreations of the story to capture the audience’s attention. Layton also chose to use the real Frédéric Bourdin for the recreations which made the documentary feel more authentic. At first, the film appeared overly-realistic which made it seem a bit fake due to the cinematic shots, but ultimately the shots created a beautiful recreation that fit well with the story. Because it was such an incredible and almost unreal story, the incredible and unreal shots worked well with the film.
Layton definitely succeeded in turning the audience’s perception of the truth upside down with Frédéric being identified as a compulsive liar toward the end of the film after the audience trusted his point of view. I believe Nicholas Barkley was killed by his brother Jason because of how he reacted to the news of his brother being “found” and the history of violence associated with him. I think the family has a bit of an inkling of what happened, but hopes that Nicholas is still missing. For example, the professional accounts were very different than the family accounts. When the mother of Nicholas took the lie detector test and failed it the third time, the professional was certain that she possessed information about the whereabouts of Nicholas, yet the mother explained that she missed one question that had nothing to do with Nicholas. Layton made a strong choice to use two different viewpoints because the audience now has multiple truths to choose to believe. I think Carey recognized Frédéric Bourdin as her brother and chose to believe that he was her brother because of the amount of grief and loss she underwent. Sometimes when people go through something traumatic, they want to believe that something is true even though they know certainly well that it isn’t.
Layton intertwined the interviews with Frédéric with the fictionalized b roll to create a bridge between the past and the present. It works well to establish Frédéric as an “imposter” and someone who is capable of creating multiple stories and realities when he is able to skip from the interview b roll to the fictionalized b roll. The use of actual photos and home videos pushes the reality and authenticity of the film and story.
The juxtaposition of “real” and recreated images was very compelling to me and once I was able to pick up on the “pattern” and style of the film, it was super enjoyable and interesting to watch. It was always in the back of my mind that the director is the one who chooses what the audience sees and sometimes I became wary with the multiple accounts and whether or not Frédéric was stealing identities out of a good motive or not. I believe it was genius that Layton chose to use Frédéric in the recreations because it really established Frédéric as someone who was in control of the story and was able to manipulate it.
I believe that something that’s been recreated can still be authentic and sometimes is even more authentic because it means the story was important enough to deserve a recreation. Most of the time, especially with scary or more horror documentaries, the recreations are almost “too real” for me to comprehend and I have to remind myself that it was recreated and might not represent the whole truth.
Ultimately, I found this documentary extremely compelling because I continued to think about it during the days that followed my initial viewing. It ended with a large cliffhanger as to whether or not Nicholas Barclay was buried in the brother’s back yard or not and the shot used was a pan up from the investigator digging which left the audience up in the air about the truth.
My initial thoughts while watching were trying to figure out, not only what the hell is going on, but also trying to find out the way in which things get weird. Knowing nothing about the film at all, I still felt unnerved at the beginning. I had originally thought that maybe that dude was Nicholas and had some mental disorder, like DID or something, until I understood that that guy was actually just too old.
ReplyDeleteThe director used the voiceover of the Frederic when he was talking about a specific story point and placed it over the mouth of the portrayal actors, which I thought was really cool. I think it helped to give some inside info to help the audience understand when he was pretending to be someone else.
It’s hard to say whether or not the family killed Nicholas, because there really isn’t enough information to determine that. Though if I were to speculate, I would say that there was definitely some shady shit going on with his disappearance, but I feel as if only one of the family members knows the actual truth.
I thought the use of old footage fit very nicely into the film, and gave it that creepy vibe that I also got when I watched the Jonestown doc. It definitely drew attention to itself, but not in a bad way, it was in a way that helped to cement the events as reality. Strangely enough, the only person in the film I actually believed every word of was Frederic, which is interesting considering, you know, everything.
Lexi Austin
ReplyDeleteThe way the film used sound, in phone calls and other instances when it was overlaid with narration, as well as its use of recreated footage, added new dimension to the story. I liked how they made it look more cinematic- most documentaries don’t put so much into the look of the film, and they typically appear more raw. This story works better with the cinematic look, because it felt like a piece of fiction. They used suspenseful music well, like when they narrate leading up to Frederic and Carrey’s meeting in Spain, or other moments of tension. While they are driving around San Antonio, they play rock songs, and it makes those parts feel nostalgic, as if they actually have Nicholas back. One thing that stood out for me was when Boudin was describing his work as a con artist, and we saw him dressed as the kid in the background and then the focus shifted to the officer in the foreground and it was still him. That scene made it more playful and engaging.
The way the film juxtaposed real and archival footage made the story come to life. If the film was just the family and Bourdin’s recounts with some images and videos scattered in from the past, it would have felt dry. By adding the recreated scenes, it felt like I was witnessing the story firsthand. I didn’t even realize the scenes had an actor; I thought it was actually Frederic Bourdin. It felt very real, and it made me feel more attached and engaged in the film. The way the filmmakers showed both sides of the story, mixing archival footage and reenacted scenes, made the truth seem vague and up to the viewer to decide what had happened. I am still left unsure what had happened to Nicholas Barclay, but I feel as though the family was involved in his disappearance somehow. However, I believe the sister simply kept believing it was her brother because she wanted him to be alive; perhaps she wasn’t involved in his disappearance. I think something recreated can be authentic, because it’s never going to be an exact copy, it will have its own unique attributes and be separate from the original in its own way. If it was an exact copy, then it would be inauthentic, but as long as it has its own qualities, the thing can be authentic.
Sean Fahey
ReplyDeleteLayton's prime technique of this film, which has been written about many many time, is that the films main character looks straight into the lens whilst all the other people interviewed are shown to be looking off lens. In film history, famous antagonists have a tendency that filmmakers will have them look directly at us to make us, the audience, uneasy and uncertain. This makes the film so effective in that it feels we are interviewing Frederic and believing everything he says to us. The reactions of the family are very perplexing. I'm reminded of a quote from Thomas Pynchon on how people make up stories in order to keep the ones they love alive. Are the people of this family being ignorant to trick themselves, or are they trying to save their own skins? The film opens up and shows us the manipulation it is subjecting us to minute by minute. I think the weird form the film has is supposed to draw this attention to itself so make us as an audience more and more uneasy about the events we see. The question of authenticity is a very difficult one. It is authentic of humans to draw conclusions, this film dosen't exactly do that and just says what were all thinking straight up, The family killed him. Films like this gently push the envelope to advance film form and sometimes it works and sometimes it dosen't, but it worked for me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHailey Davenport
ReplyDeleteSome of the visual techniques used in the film are also techniques used in fiction film making. The film used bright colors to make us feel like we were in an altered sense of reality. The bright colors intrigue the brain, and keep your focus. Also, the film used creative cinematography to make you feel like you were watching a dramatic movie play out instead of a typical documentary.
The story told in the documentary was told with twists and turns, instead of laying it all out in the beginning of the film. Until the near end of the film, the audience is still kept guessing what the story is and how it pans out. Not only that, but the theory about the death of the boy was dropped like a bomb into the story, destroying the sense of sympathy you were building for the grieving family.
Personally, i believe that the family does know what happened to Nicholas. I think that the family may not have murdered him (though entirely possible) but they do know what happened to him. The family was acting too suspicious to not have something they were hiding. They were using this fake Nicholas to cover up what they know actually happened to the boy.
I feel that the director seamlessly intertwined the fictionalized reenactments and the original footage. Using reenactments to fill in gaps of where no pictures or original video could be put gave the overall story a sense of completeness.
Something can still be authentic if the recreation follows the same story, movements, and actors as the original story. It is similar to asking a subject to brush their teeth for film the same way they always do. The subject brushes his or her teeth that way everyday so asking him or her to do it for film would still be considered authentic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Monica Altmayer)
ReplyDeletePart of me loved this film for having me say “what the fuck?” subsequently for an hour and thirty nine minutes, but the other part of me knows that isn’t enough.
I say this because this story is an absolute gold mine. Despite the actual events, it threw me off. I kept detaching, not seeing it as a documentation of reality because of the recreations. I am not at all opposed to reenactment in documentary, but I do believe in this film that the portrayal is too fictionalized, with actors whose faces we see. I reference this because reenactment is done extremely well in The Jinx, a documentary about Robert Durst in three different time periods. When they go about reenactments, there are actors playing out what is being said in voiceover, but the viewer never sees a face; it is always obstructed or shot from behind. This leaves the audience’s imagination to go, not muddling an image of a specific individual they are slowly beginning to understand. Any small sidenote to leave the viewer astray is dangerous. I saw a lot of this interplay as jarring, pulling me out of the moment temporarily.
What I did enjoy is the way Frederic Bourdin is depicted in uncomfortably centered, stuffy close-ups. He speaks directly to the viewer, unforgivingly retelling the tale of what he has done. In juxtaposition, the family is in comfortable seated positions, off to the side, making eye contact with the filmmakers.
In an auditory sense, the score was so overwhelmingly theatrical. I kept having to remind myself that the drama of the filmmaking was just the filmmaking, not an embellished fictionalized story. I appreciated the effect that the dramatic music had on my experience of the insanity within the story, but I did not like how it, once again, fictionalized things for me.
What I do find so profound is that despite its thrill ride, ‘holy shit who is this guy’ quality, it is an investigation of human nature. Of course the sister saw him as her brother. Of course they were able to dismiss his bizarre changes. It makes complete sense because they were grieving!!! To lose a family member at such a young age in such a gut wrenching, confusing way could do serious damage to anyone’s judgment and psyche.
Overall, the high rating on imdb is justified. I am just a snooty critic. I think that the filmmakers worked within their means and I can see why they have done a lot of what they’ve done, especially considering they had to fill in these blanks with something.
Carly Perkins
ReplyDeleteThe visual and aural techniques used were like nothing I’ve seen in a documentary before. When they cleared up the audio of the original 911 call and it was Frederic’s voice I literally screamed. While there’s so much that went into the reenactments, which I’ll talk about later, they also did the interviews very well. The color in the interviews was similar to lots of horror movie aesthetics. It made me think of Saw. Also, I found it interesting that they filmed Frederic’s interview very close up on his face and he spoke directly into the camera most of the time. It went well with the story and his personality.
It’s very probable that Nicholas Barkley’s disappearance was a very typical kidnapping, but since I hop on conspiracy theories so easily, his family definitely killed him. Also, come on… even if I hadn’t seen my brother for years I would so be able to tell if someone was pretending to be him. Compared to all the other wild events that happened in this story, it’s not a stretch to think that his family took the opportunity to cover up his murder.
I believe the fictionalized elements worked really well. This couldn’t have been made a documentary without it. Nobody wants to watch a feature length documentary that’s just looking at talking heads with a couple of home video clips. In my opinion, if they didn’t do it the way they did, the only other way this story could be told is by actually turning it into a fictional film and just saying it is “based on true events”.
The juxtaposition really worked for me. Although the film was about lying and deception, it was very clear that the reenactments weren’t real. It wasn’t like the director was lying to us. He was just crafting the story in a way we could see clearly. Plus, everything that was reenacted was completely backed up by what the people being interviewed were saying. There were times where, by the use of music and getting closer to the people being interviewed, you could tell the director was building up intensity. I didn’t have a problem with this because it followed the flow of the real story.
Something reenacted can totally be authentic. They changed nothing about the original stories as we can tell from the interviews. The message in the reenactments is still the same as the truth. As long as a filmmaker and everyone evolved is telling you the truth, reenactments or direct cinema or cinema verite can all be authentic.
The ending was really powerful too. It implied that there’s still more to the story and it kept the viewer wanting more (in a good way).
ReplyDeleteThis is probably one of the utmost wtf documentaries I have ever seen. I sat throughout the whole thing trying to decipher what was real and what was fiction. Hot damn.
One of the techniques that I noticed was the constant, fast-paced motion between cuts; back and forth between each interview to really build up this apprehensive feeling throughout the film. He also used these rad cinematography shots that I was not expecting to be in a doc. You feel? For example, that shot when he was getting on the school bus or when he first entered into the house made me feel like it was a drama. Actually, to be honest, I felt like I was watching Criminal Minds the entire time.
BRO!!!!! I legit think he ran out of that house. If I were around a small town and a house with a dad like that, man I would hitch the road without thinking twice. He’s honestly probably chillin somewhere in Cali or at one of his broseph’s houses. I think Carey recognized Frédéric Bourdin as her bro because she wanted to feel closure, and when someone is put through that much trauma for such a long time, it kind of makes them believe what they want to be true. It’s a -give me truth and I’ll give you understanding- type of situation in my opinion.
So he did this thing where these episodes from the past were recreated through acting because clearly, they weren’t actually there when they found Frédéric Bourdin, else we wouldn’t even need this movie dude. Like the way he used that and b-roll from past events made everything seem eerily truthful that it made the whole movie quite uncanny. It for sure got my attention more though because, at least for me, it made the viewer think of conclusions as to who is lying and who is telling the truth.
I thought the film maker dude was just trying to make us see that we can are just as flummoxed as the people trying to solve the case. Like his recreated images were rad, but it did not make it anymore compelling for me personally. It just helped me understand what was going through Frédéric Bourdin’s head at the time and what he saw. I do feel like his approach with recreating images was a solid thought, but it just made the film seem totally bogus.
I think there is a way that it can be authentic. Like you knowin ghost shows, they always show recreating scenes, and those seem authentic to the people viewing the show. I really think it has to do with the person who is watching it and how much of a skeptic they are man.
I'm not very knowledgeable on techniques and such, but I noticed a lot of reenactments were used as well as audio overlay. I find reenacting things tends to bring audiences more into the story being told because, even though we know it's fake, it's a visual aid for our imaginations. I liked the way they had the audio looped into the reenactments so it felt like I had traveled back to the past to witness it myself. I also thought it was smart, and helpful to have real footage be spliced in at times to show the events as they actually occurred.
ReplyDeleteWithin the documentary, I believe they mentioned something about the dad or step dad being a drug user and how they suspected at a time the mom became a user as well. I think that is an important piece of knowledge that can lead any audience to believe they did something to Nicholas. If that's the case, maybe the mom just thought she had a terrible trip and forgot about it, or was so high that she wasn't actually aware of whatever events really transpired. I don't think the real Nicholas is alive.
As someone who is adopted and has searched for biological parents, I can relate on a different level to Carey. I know what it's like to see someone that could possibly be the person you've been searching for and waiting for. The hope becomes all consuming and would make her want to believe more than anything that this man is her brother. It's farfetched for some, but in my eyes, somewhat understandable.
I talked about it before how the recreation of interviews and such were used with audio overlay. I don't think any of it was done seamlessly, per say, but it was done well enough to draw the audience in.
I'm not a big documentary lover, so for me, regardless of the pull of the story, it was a bit of a struggle to get through. I watched it in pieces, partly because of my personal schedule and timing. I think the film had a flow to it that was compelling, truthful, and heartbreaking.
I think the authenticity of the film is evident. The story is real, the family is real, and the horror of what they went through, both when Nicholas disappeared and when Bourdin appeared is real. Recreation is only used to add to the authenticity of the story, not alter it in any way. At least it didn't appear to in this case, but it can in others.
I'm having technical difficulties and it's not showing my name...
DeleteI loved the way the story was told by constantly moving forward with the story in chronological order. The sister was telling the same story as Frédéric and that drew me in to see how both stories were similar but then knowing that truth to see how he was able to deceive her. I liked the dark settings in the reenactment as well as it helped to hold the dark mood of mystery and deception.
ReplyDeleteIt's tough to form an opinion about Nicholas without hearing every side. With his brother dead they aren't able to know his side, so he could be anywhere. I believe that the mind will do incredible things to try and hold on to something they know is wrong, Carrey recognizing him, in my opinion, was complete denial.
The way the old footage was used helped put the events on a timeline for me. Seeing when it took place mixed with their description of what had happen helps the reenactment feel a little more authentic by acting the same as the old footage. I thought that it had a good flow because it wasn't just B-roll and talking heads.
I found that with enough inspiration from what had actually happened, the recreation with actors was able to feel authentic because we understood who they were and how they acted from the interviews and the old footage.
It posted this with unknown but this comment should have my name.
DeleteBrice Pardo -
ReplyDeleteThe film Imposter was a wonderfully put together documentary film about a multitude of things. The director was very keen on having a certain style that would keep any audience interested in his story. This documentary unlike many I have seen before displays a very cinematic feel to it. The Documentary is shot like a narrative film, and almost makes it feel staged at some points. The way the film looked made me want to watch more, having certain scenes plated out in front of you by the actual people was compelling. The order in which the story was told also drew me into the film. I was not sure exactly what was going on and I wanted to find out more about the actually missing boy. These techniques really worked in my opinion, they made me want to watch more and snagged my attention. There really was not a dull point in this film where I wanted to take a break.
I think the family knew what happened to the Nicholas. There is no way they did not know, these people would have to be a special kind of stupid to actually believe he was their son. Maybe if they had not seen him in 20 years that could be believable, but no way. The had to accept him into their home most likely out of fear that the missing persons investigation might open back up. Weather the family killed Nicholas, or something else, they were too scared to have this open back up. I think Carey might have psychiatric issues, letting herself believe things she knows aren't true. There are some really crazy people out there who will lie till they die.
I think the way all the styles and footage were intertwined worked in a very original and smooth manor. I think it drew attention to itself but in a way that kept the audience entertained. The average person might have a hard time watching a bunch of talking heads and photographs for an hour or so. However this film really did a great job or creating a cinematic film and documentary side by side. Seeing the actual story play out in high production really helps bring the imagination down, and lets the audience focus on the story.
I think the story was changed by the style of the director for sure. The story really went back and fourth the entire film. I really hated the Imposter for half the film, then I liked him a little more. I never fully liked the imposter because of what he had done, but the lighting on him and some of the cut aways really made him creepy and menacing. The lighting on the sister made her seem sad and lonely in that living room. As time went on, the shot choices changed, and the pacing too. This made me dislike the family as the story went into how they might have killed Nicholas. I see nothing wrong with the directors choices, he left a lot of things ambiguous, but led the audience to ponder on these people.
I think things wont ever be 100% authentic. Someone will always have a bias or lie about what happened to further an agenda. Thats my own personal opinion most because I have a hard time trusting people.
Sarah Roston :)
ReplyDeleteLayton’s visual and aural techniques that he used were so unique and eccentric from other documentary films that I’ve encountered. It didn’t essentially feel like I was watching an actual documentary at first because of how to story unraveled from beginning to end. Also I like the way that he incorporated reenactments into the film because that helped viewers understand the story.
To me, I feel that his family had something to do with his disappearance. Plain and simple. There was definitely this feeling that I got that Carey was apart of the families plan to cover up their murder of Nicholas perhaps.
Layton combined fictionalized elements and recreated the interviews with “real” ones and it allowed me to connect with the story on a deeper level. The throwback of old footage or just reenactments in general gave it a creepier vibe.
I thought that the juxtaposition played a vital role in this film. I think it really stands out in the director’s aesthetic to how he wanted to tell the story.
I do think that something recreated can still be authentic only if the underlying message is true to the original one.
Sean McGann
ReplyDeleteThe Imposter was captivating. The use of interviews with the real victims and recreated footage felt seamless to me, and at times, I couldn't tell the difference. The director, Barry Layton, uses the method of recreating the events of the documentary to help give a better image of what it was like for the cast of colorful characters. I've seen this method done before with Man on Wire, but this is more profound.
I think that someone, likely Jason Williams, murdered Nicholas Barclay and buried him somewhere in the San Antonio area. I think that Carey Gibson kept telling herself that Frederic was Nicholas was due to how shocking and fucked up impersonating her brother would be, and she was still grieving her loss. Also, Frederic is unbelievably charming; I was even rooting for him by the end of the film, even though I knew he was despicable.
I think the reenactments and interviews work seamlessly together. The story is the most compelling part of this film, and the two elements complement each other. So you just accept the unconventional way of documentary filmmaking because it helps the story to progress and even elevates it.
I think something can be "authentic" even when it's recreated. If you find enough research and factual information to craft a realistic reenactment, you can make reenactments blend well with your film to the point where it goes on docudrama to Documentary.
10/10
-Aaron Legg-
ReplyDeleteBeing that the story of the documentary had already taken place more than 20 years ago, this doc relied heavily on both interviews and "recreations" since there was barely any actual footage available of the events unfolding at that time. The director and DP definitely took the creative liberty to set a defined mood and tone for the film with the recreations they shot that were really no different from what you would find in a narrative suspense/thriller film. For example, they easily swayed me as an audience member to think of Frederic as a dark, mysterious and perhaps malicious person in the way they introduced him sitting hunched over in a telephone booth during a rainy night with harsh lighting. Was this how it really happened? Probably not, but sometimes you must show things that aren't necessarily real in order to get across something that is true, and that's what I thought the filmmakers did well throughout the doc. I thought that the crosscutting between Frederic's interview and the creations helped merge the two and assured that Frederic approved of and was ok with how he was being portrayed-- that we could trust it as being accurate. I also thought that the recreation footage was simply well done in that it effectively used filmmaking conventions like framing, color, moevement, etc. to help us feel what the people in the story were feeling. For example, having the last shot of the film end on such a warm tone gave me a very hopeful feel that this case was not over and that there was more truth to be revealed, and that was totally the filmmakers choice to leave us with that feeling.
I think that the disappearance of Nicholas Barclay is truly a mystery and I really have no theory on what happened to him besides the fact that he was simply abducted or ran away. I thought it was unfair to accuse the family for killing their son because, as the sister explained, they didn't have a shred of evidence to think so and they were solely working off of the claims made by Frederic who is clearly infamous for lying and causing mischief. I think that the case of a missing child returning after 4 years of being apparently tortured is truly one of a kind, and some very unique psychological experiences happened to Carey and her family that we really haven't heard much about. I believe their longing for their son was so painful that once they received hope and received someone who could be their son, they were fully accepting of it and latched onto it as it has now filled such a huge void in their life. The idea of this now being ripped away again would be unbearable to undergo, which is why they were in such denial that Frederic wasn't their son. It would be like losing their son all over again. (continued…)
-Aaron Legg-
ReplyDeleteI thought that the combination of fictional and non-fictional elements in the documentary were effective, if not a little TOO effective. I feel that the use of reenactments gave the filmmakers the ability to truly create a bias for what they thought about Frederic, and if anything, it may have been a little too overdramatic. Maybe I'm not used to seeing such a high production value in a recreation for a documentary as I have here, but I feel like you could string together that footage to make a really compelling short film by itself. I would've loved to see a lot more actual footage of the family and Frederic at the time of the story if more was available. His mannerism and dancing at the end of the film spoke more about his character than any of the reenactments ever could. The character study on him was the most fascinating to me-- that someone who comes off as very happy and charismatic could be so manipulative and dangerous. I would've loved to learn more about his actual background, which I believe DID involve many of the abuse situations that he described, and I feel that there could be a whole separate documentary about him and his TRUE story about what led him down this path of multiple identities. The way he kept mentioning how he really just wanted love makes me curious and empathetic as to what happened to him.
Overall, as I mentioned, I believe that this film often showed us things that weren't necessarily REAL but TRUE. I feel that the only way you could experience an event in the truest and most authentic form possible is to actually be there for yourself as its happening and not see it through the lens of somebody else. Once a filmmaker points the camera at something and turns it on, we are now in their bias and their point of view and it can never be truly objective. I find that docs that present a strong argument and aren't afraid of their bias are the most compelling anyway, because it usually stirs up an opinion in myself whether to argue and reason with them or to fight along with them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEmilee Brackenbury
ReplyDeleteRight in the beginning I think Layton, the director, draws in the audience visually and aurally. The real footage of Nicholas Bartley paired with the mysterious music starts the film off with an unsettling tone. I think this was effective because it sets the film off with the audience feeling uncomfortable and instantly curious as to what really happened to Nicholas.
A visual technique used throughout the film is the way Layton uses cuts. One specific example is the scene when it is revealed to the audience that Frédéric Bourdin was behind the 911 call. It shows his character to be extremely disturbing. Throughout the scene there were many cuts back and forth from the reenactment of the 911 call to the real interview footage of Frédéric Bourdin telling the story. The reenactment worked well with the real footage because it revealed to the audience how crazy Frédéric really was.
I think that the boy either ran away and was killed or was kidnapped and killed. I think that Nicholas’s sister wanted Frédéric Bourdin to be her brother so bad, that she wouldn't allow her mind to accept the truth. I felt that the accusation of the family killing Nicholas came out of left field.
The recreation of images went smoothly with the real story which to me was compelling. Throughout the entire film I wanted to know the truth and was disappointed when the film ended in a mystery of what happened to Nicholas. Even though the film was left open ended, I felt that Layton did a good job of taking the audience on a rollercoaster of emotions as the story unfolded.
I feel that if something is recreated accurately then it can be authentic.
I would say the main visual technique the director uses to draw in the audience is having the reenactments layered with the real life interviews, like how he has the actor for Frederic Bourdin mouth along with Bourdin's actual interview and several other things like the effects for the phone over when Bourdin is making calls. This kind of creates a feeling of uncertainty of how accurate and authentic this story is, and all of this just makes you really want to see this documentary until the end.
ReplyDeleteI’m not gonna act like I know what happened to Nick, but my best bet would have been that Nick was killed by his family and buried in the backyard, but just like with the case opened up on the family there is too much lack of evidence to prove it. That being said I still think his family killed him, and I hate to say it but he has been missing for about 23 years now and he just isn’t gonna come back. Ignoring that I think the family is responsible for Nick’s death and the whole conspiracy behind that. I think Carey was strung out, like she said she didn’t sleep for like 2 days, and on top of that not seeing her brother for 3 years and being jetlagged, I think it is very reasonable that she would have believed anyone that remotely looked like him at the time, and he was wearing all of his concealing clothes and sunglasses. The second time I just can’t explain besides they didn’t want to believe it, but still it gets so weird at that point, i'm not gonna even try to figure that out.
I think it was seamless enough. I’ll be honest for the first 15 min I thought the interviews were reenactments so I was very sceptical of that part, but when I realized those were the actual people and I could see that the others were actors I became pretty aware of it, and it took me out of the film at first but I moved back in pretty quickly. I think it does draw a little attention to itself but at the same time it's done well enough. I'm not sure if it was the director's intention to make the documentary feel like it was slightly deceiving, but if he did I think it works perfectly for the film overall.
I think something recreated can be very authentic, but only authentic to a certain degree it will never be 100% authentic. I would say this documentary in particular was about 80% authentic some of the recreated scenes matched very well and closely, in my opinion, to some of the original footage. But like I said before I don’t think that some things that are recreated will ever be 100% accurate. It all just really depends how much time and effort you put into the recreation.
From a color point of view, one technique that is used to build the frame of reality for the audience is the use of a consistent color grade. The desaturated tones, and sharp color contrasts between cool and warm colors (between characters and in the reenactments) stayed consistent throughout the whole film, reenactment and the interviews alike it felt like it was the same desaturated, borderline grungey world. This simple method helps imbed the narrative more within this this frame of reality. The use of shaky cam and harsh close ups make the film not only more personal but also more watchable in a cinematic sense. What I mean by that is that we’ve come to accept the cinematography choices in the film; a shaky cam represents something out of control, and when its accompanied by a tight close up the feeling of anxiety can be elicited. In just the same way, lights and their colors mixed with the camera and its movements can have their own effect on us in blockbuster films. This kind of mainstream cinematic cinematography was not traditionally used with his kind of genre based storytelling. So up to this point this creative liberty in this documentary film is about distortion of truth yet because that’s sort of the nuts and bolts of film making at its core. To do the best to capture the truest image and then manipulating it in a way that makes some one want to watch it. That’s what makes films interesting, how creative and far out you can get with bending the truth on what I would classify as a spectrum. In many documentaries, you sit there what you expect to experience the objective truths, and they only work as such if you accept them as so. So when going into this movie there was no authoritative narrator throwing facts, and figures at the other end of a screen in a somber scary voice in the expected way, on the contrary we were given what fiction critiques call an ‘unreliable narrator’ who in his own sense is entertaining character as any character arc (or atleast what they chose to show us). we had to figure out the point of view. I don’t believe any film is really ‘authentic’ unless that it is in the sense that it is a really authentic fake. Capturing reality whether on still photograph, sound byte, digital or whatever, will always be subject to point of view. The real event, story, or moment is distorted not by content but by reputation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Imposter is one of the scariest films I’ve ever seen- and it makes that list as a documentary film.
ReplyDeleteI saw it for the first time about a year and a half ago, and I vividly remember holding myself in a ball with my eyes squinted in the opening scene for fear of something scary happening. I was fully aware that this was a documentary- and I was still nervous to even have the volume up too high. Perhaps I’m a whimp, but the hard cuts, jarring sounds, incredible reenactments, and chilling music almost had me in goosebumps when I watched it again. The best way this film engages the audience is with its theatricality. Such well executed techniques with the editing are a winner with that, and the great (reenactment) acting helps too.
I speculate that Nicholas Barkley was likely abducted by a random, and perhaps killed or sent to some sort of terrible sex-slave ring away from their town. It’s really juicy to think it was possible, but I still believe the hinted “familial murder” thing was a bit of a reach. Carey definitely was tired. Tired of missing her brother, tired of thinking about where he could be, and probably tired of what everybody else had to say about his disappearance. Through all the emotional turmoil she had to live through until then, I imagine her mind simply shut down and decided that an imposter brother was still better than nothing. Thus, she kept him around.
I found the cross between reenactments and interviews to be seamless. Like I said, I think it helps that the acting was so good. No awkward “Untold Stories of the ER” interview/scripted crossovers here.
The filmmaker left a lot of room for the viewer to decide the way that they think this happened. The lack of a “Voice of God” creates a sense of being alone with the subjects, which is what the filmmaker themselves had to work with. Nothing about this takes me out of the story- it makes me feel like I have to do the sleuthing myself.
Authenticity is still authenticity if it’s brought to a medium that makes it easier for others to understand. Things that are remade are still very much authentic- and an added flair of dark tones to this film does the catastrophe of Nicholas Barkley’s disappearance and impersonation justice.
I want to first say that this was a very interesting documentary, I just can’t believe he did that. I was shocked watching how Frederic Bourdin completely lied, having three brothers of my mine, I just couldn’t imagine. It was mind blowing that his sister believed him but I understood her position. At the end of the day Carey just wanted her brother back and believing in this imposter was probably easier for her than believing that she would never see her brother again or accepting the truth about what really happened to her brother. The real footage broke my heart, every time I looked at the real Nicholas. Bart Layton uses reenactments which are nicely placed. I found the reenactments very effective, I could really connect with the characters and really get a feel for the story.
ReplyDeleteBart Layton did a great job implementing the real footage into the story while recreating compelling images that never took you out of the moment. It seemed real! I like the director’s choice to narrative from multiple viewpoints and his pacing of the film. Director Burt Layton didn’t rush the story but allowed you to invest in the characters and understand each person point of view. Hearing Frederic Bourdin story of how he just wanted to be loved and how even before he was born he was already hated. He says that he was born under the wrong identity really helped me to really understand his position.
Zoey Danielson
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this film, I wasn’t expecting to like it as much as I did. It completely pulled me in. I really enjoyed how he used reenactments, which sometimes can seem cheesy or misplaced in a documentary, but in this case it was perfect. I think it was done quite seamlessly and never felt jarring or too different, the editing, in my opinion, was amazing. The casting was crazy good as well, the young man portraying Frederic Bourdin looked so similar to the real person, I questioned if it was actually him.
I really liked the use of sound and how they layered it over different images and altered it to sound like it was over the phone, it just made this already intriguing story even more intriguing. I like the use of home video in the beginning, as well as pictures, I felt it really added to the overall story and that we could actually compare and contrast the real Nicholas with the imposter was so important, just as the detective explained.
Personally, I think the Documentary pointed me in the direction that Nicholas was murdered by his brother. His mom seemed genuinely hurt that someone could accuse her of doing such a thing, but that of course beings up the question of why did they let Bourdin into their house when they knew it wasn’t him? Was it a mother’s hope or were they covering something up? I was honestly hoping at the end that they would find something in the ground, but when it panned down to the ground and there was nothing, it was slightly disappointing because I think Nicholas deserves a conclusion.
I think that something that has been recreated can be authentic. I think that if it’s being told through the person who did it, and then recreated, it’s still authentic even though it may not be completely right in every single way, but then we still have that doubt during interviews, as humans we forget and because of that stories are altered. Nothing is ever one hundred percent authentic, so why not use recreation as a method?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBart Layton is obviously well aware of classic narrative filmmaking technique and employs those techniques with rigor and vitality, an example being the elaborate reenactments that keep the story alive and interesting throughout. His use of Hollywood-level lighting and general production design, as well as attention to camerawork and score, all contribute to the emotional impact of the film. Beyond this, he employs his own gimmicks, which seem rather original, throughout the film. One that I found extremely interesting was his use of Frederic Bourdin’s interview within the reenactments. I believe this technique made the story that much creepier, as if to heighten Bourdin’s deceptive nature.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of this film’s intrigue lies, at least in part, in its ambiguity. That being said I honestly don’t know what the truth is, but I believe that Bourdin is a master con artist and that any story he spins should be taken with an ocean of salt. I read the filmmaker’s intent as ultimately painting Bourdin in this way, while also staying true to the story’s ambiguity.
I feel that the interplay did draw attention to itself, especially considering that they kept with the 2/3.5 aspect ratio religiously during the acquired footage scenes (acquired footage being the footage taken from the family’s home video recorder). Although even as I write this I think that perhaps this aesthetic choice helped remove it from that sense of time and place, almost as if it is played as a distant memory.
It was compelling to me. Some filmmaking choices really helped not only make it seamless at points, but I think acted against the seamlessness to put its audience on edge. I believe he is letting form follow function in this regard.
Finally, in many ways I believe even narrative can be more authentic than something that adopts a more journalistic, truth-seeking agenda. In the case of this documentary, I don’t think the filmmaker is forcing any direct conclusions. I think his main objective was to tell the story in the most compelling manner he could, and from what I remember of personally researching this documentary’s “truthfulness”, I came to the conclusion that the filmmaker did not change any of the facts presented as fact, nor were any of the truths twisted unbelievably.
ReplyDeleteThese are the kinds of stories that make some of the best documentaries.
For the first third of the film I was engaged and fascinated by the visuals and the reenactment of the story. The reenactments used in this doc were simple and believable. It worked very well, ps the actor who played Frédéric Bourdin was so realistic and well casted. That's something I never really considered for a documentary, creating a film within a documentary. '
The effects and the editing of the dialogue and the film as a whole was unique and I thought it was beautifully made. However, about half way through, when the sister was "helping" Frédéric to be more like her brother I was like "yooooo there's actually a really interesting story going on." I wasn't sure what to expect when coming into this film, which I loved. I loved how the filmmakers keep us wanting more answers, especially at the end.
I don't think they killed him. I think when they got the call about Nicolas being alive they had the thought and need to never let him go. Never let anything happen to him again. So when they found out he wasn't him, they were already attached and the thought of letting him go again was too hard. The family needed to fill that gap and hole in their hearts and now had a way to do so. Frédéric was already impersonating Nic so well, why not make him more believable so that the families , at least physiologically, had him back.
I love documentaries that make you think, that take you on a journey instead of laying everything out there for you and telling the complete story. Most docs do that for me. I notice that I'm more alert and engaged when watching them rather then a fictional film.
Bart Layton’s film The Imposter was a wild ride. I think that Nicholas Barkley was killed by his brother and that some of the other family members may have known. I think his sister Carey had a hole in her heart when Nicholas went missing and when there was no information about him. When she was told that he had been found, I feel that she wanted to believe that was him no matter who it was. I think that Carrie felt better that there was somebody rather than nobody so when she was told that that person was not her brother, her mind was already made up that it was. I think Layton did an astonishing job on combining real footage and interviews with recreated conversations and other fictional elements. I felt that the combination of all of this was seemingless and flowed very well. The pacing was similar to those 48 hour murder mystery shows but did a better job in my opinion. The juxtaposition of "real" and recreated images was indeed compelling to me. The use of actual home footage was the cherry on top, it allowed me as the viewer to actually see this person pretending to be a 16 year old american. The story of this person was very unsettling. I think that yes in a way Layton used 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". As there is no clear cut answer to what happened to the real Nicholas Barkley, after watching this documentary, I definitely think the family is hiding some information. I also think that something that has been recreated can in fact be considered authentic. I think this because recreations are used to show and explain how something happened. Obviously it is not a live recording or documentation because then it would be referred to as such. Regardless recreations can still cover all of the facts and accurately tell a story.
ReplyDeleteCamryn Peterson
ReplyDeleteThe director had a very visually beautiful aesthetic throughout the film. You can definitely tell it was well thought out about the theme of this documentary, and he created that with lighting, and sort of production design. It all helps build this story he’s trying to tell and the emotions with it.
The cinematography influences the story tremendously.
Wow, I’m only 30 minutes in and i’m so fascinated about this story, how could this have even worked? And what person with any moral compass would do this to a family who had already been through so much. Also the story that Frederic tells everyone about when he went missing, it is disgusting that he would create such a story.
I can’t wrap my head around how this family could possibly believe that Frederic could even pass as Nicholas. The accent alone should be a huge sign, even a 13 year old who had been missing for three years would still resemble his old self, but more matured, not a totally different eye color and dark features.
I love all the variety of interviews with the people who were involved with this story and locations they were filmed at, it plays into their roles.
The reenactment shots really guided this entire thing along, and I favored it with the selective music and voiceovers. Also the shots were taken appealingly
Going back to the very first minutes of the doc, the old real footage of Nicholas made me intrigued about the film and I wish there was more of it throughout, so I could gain more of a connection with Nicholas because we never really got to know who he was. And then the rushed over that Nicholas was missing and how years went by but I still wanted to know more details about the last day they saw him and if the investigation had any leads.
I think that the family sort of rubbed me the wrong way. This sounds judgemental but during the interviews the background of the home caught my eye, and I was continuously finding new things in the back that built up who they were as a family. Also their hometown and neighbor affected my view as well. I can’t really say what could have happened to Nicholas, it stated that he was kind of a rebel and based on his family dynamic, maybe he ran away?
I think a reenactment can be authentic in its own way, if it is creating something then it is its own.
Came up as unknown but this is Camryn Peterson
Delete