2 docu111cntary culture"' .1 v.11wtynl f,11111•, ol wl1.1t1111).

',hl
a label encompassing ducu111c11l;11y
he termed "playfiil hybrids,"
co11ll'dy, 111ocku111cntary, and the more reflexive
strategies of engaging with the world. Mockumentary discourse is important, in
part, because it embodies a playful and less reverential approach toward nonfiction
THE MOCKUMENTARY media than was the case in the early decades of the twentieth century (certainly
in comparison with films cited as exemplars as documentary became codified into a
genre). Most cmcially, mockumentary demonstrates the ease with which nonfic-
Craig Hight tion can be faked, which offers an immediate challenge to audiences' expectations
toward these fonns, and potentially has broader implications for the extent to
which audiences remain willing to put their tmst in documentary, news, and other
nonfiction media.
As documentary aesthetics and agendas have been appropriated by more ethically
problematic hybrid fonns (such as reality TV) and the nature of indexicality itself is
questioned within a digital environment, mockumentary contributes and appeals to
more varied modes of reading which contemporary audiences must have in
encountering mediations of reality. Mockumentary is part of a broader set of trends,
serving to reshape how we as audiences view the realities appearing on our screens.
Introduction The discourse draws from and has contributed to a more complex and conflicted
set of expectations about how documentary and a host of related hybrid produc-
A mockumentary (or mock-documentary) is popularly understood to be a fictional
tions are created, focused particularly on the agendas of both producers and the
audio-visual text, such as a feature film or television program, which looks and
people who appear within the continuum of fact-fiction material.
sounds like a documentary. These texts feature fictional characters and events
Some mockumentaries, such as the Belgian black comedy C'est arrivepres de chez
which appear to have been "captured" on location and through interviews by a
vo11s(Man Bites De~'<)(R.emy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, and Benoit Poelvoorde, 1992),
documentary film crew, compiled together with other fonns of evidence familiar
about a documentary crew following a serial killer, are less playful than explicitly
to documentary productions, such as archival footage and photographic stills. The tenn
antagonistic toward the variety of assumptions and expectations associated with
"mockun1entary" itself was first widely used to describe the fake rockumentary
documentary practices. Such examples of mockumentary are deliberately reflexive
T1zisIs Spinal Tap (Rob Reiner, 1984), and is often assumed by commentators to
toward the nonfiction fonn, which they appropriate. In the tem1s meant here,
refer only to similarly parodic or satiric material.
reflexivity involves a foregrounding of how and why a text has been put together.
Because of the range of material that now falls under this label, however, it is
In a conventional documentary, these moments might inadvertently appear when a
more useful to consider mockumentary as a discourse:a broadening set of textual
cameraperson is caught reflected in a mirror, a boom 1nike floats into frame, or
strategies characterized by the appropriationof codes and conventions from the full
gaps appear in the authority of the voiceover narration. Mockumentaries in general
contimH1111of nonfiction and fact-fiction fom1s. A mockumentary, then, might refer
are reflexive toward the production practices, textual strategies, and range of audience
to a text that borrows from the codes and conventions of documentary, or from
expectations and interpretations which characterize documentary and reality-based
hybrid texts such as nature documentary or animated documentary, from the wide
media, precisely because they encourage their audiences to consider how constructed
variety of factual-based television fom1ats such as reality game shows and doc-
these kinds of media are. The producers of mockumentaries play to a knowi11,'<
usoaps, or from traditional nonfiction fonns including newsreels, news bulletins,
audience, one which is assumed to be familiar with a variety of nonfiction and
and current affairs programs.
related aesthetics, to immediately recognize the specific types of nonfiction which
.M_ockumentary discourse, in other words, has closely paralleled developments
are being referenced, and to be willing to engage with a more playful exploration
w1thm documentary proper, broadening to appear across a wide range of media
of these in the service of different kinds of storytelling.
fonns and platfom1s as mediations of reality themselves have inflected every part of
Given their playfulness toward nonfiction codes and conventions, a key aspect of
the mediascape. Mockumentary entails a call to play (rather than documentary's
any mockumentary is the degreeto which it flags to its audience that it is fictional.
assumed appeal to social and political engagement) and in part is symptomatic of a
Some mockumentary texts, like Spinal Tap, are intended to be inunediately
more problematic and challenging environment for documentary's more traditional
recognized by viewers as fake. Their pleasure derives from the ways in which they
"discourses of sobriety," as described by Bill Nichols (1991). A feature of broader
might reference ideas from popular culture, play with typical or iconic scenes from
 1tw Mot k111111•11t,11y
1.9

dr>CUlll('IJt;11y
culture, or p1"v1dc the t1.1d111n11.d c111,·1t.111111w11ts
1 ,t 11;11Ta(JVl'.
( >thn dr;1111a/c0111edyl'rojcct X (Nema Nourizadeh, 2012). The range of genres covered
mocku111entaries arc lllorc tkl1lw1.1tcly ,11Jil•11:uo11s,.111111111:
to k;1vc it up to the iii just this selective listing is illustrative of the number of film producers who arc
viewer to make up their rninds whether wh.1t they ;Jrl' viewing is real or not. A key i11tnested in using mockumentary to revitalize generic conventions. As is discussed
example here nught be 171eBlair Witch l'rojccl(Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, below, there are a number of advantages in adopting a "found footage" approach
1999), a horror film that was convincingly promoted as a real documentary about (I Icllcr-Nicholas 2014) particularly for lower budget feature films, and Chro11iclc is
three missing student filnunakers. It is no coincidence that Blair vVitch relied on illustrative of this strategy, with first-time filnunaker Trank looking to approach
online marketing for its impact-the production of mockumentary has flourished ve1y fanuliar generic terrain while escaping from the demands of CGI-laden
within the more playful spaces of online video, where it can be more difficult to superhero spectacles.
detennine whether or not a text is fictional. Most of these found footage examples also fit more broadly within a pattern of
Mockumentary has been employed as an innovative approach to storytelling dramatic mockumentary, which includes the early classic DaFid Holzman's Diary
across a wide range of media, including popular cinema (as with the science fiction, (Jim McBride, 1967); Hard Core Logo (Bruce McDonald, 1996), a punk Canadian
horror, and superhero genres), television genres, and any number of experimental derivation of T11isIs Spinal Tap; and a couple of "documentary" investigations of
fom1s of media production that pursue a more critical agenda toward representa- assassinations, Nothing So Strange (Brian Flemming, 2002) and Death ofa President
tions of reality. Mockumentary is also not limited to audio-visual productions; an (Gabriel Range, 2006). These last two films play with the possibilities of examining
early example of mockumentary is the infamous 1939 radio version of War of the vVorlds, "assassination tapes," of Bill Gates and George Bush respectively, drawing inspiration
developed by Orson Welles's theatrical troupe, wluch transfonned H. G. Wells's science from the endless debates surrounding the Zaprudcr film of the assassination of
fiction classic into an apparent breaking news bulletin. The broadcast continues to President Jolm F. Kennedy in Dallas in November, 1963. In these mockumentaries,
be an inspiration for producers in perpetrating media hoaxes. It is also an example the footage is forensically examined by experts, who debate its relevance and possible
of mockumentary used as a stunt or to create novelty within a more conventional insights into broader conspiracies. (Unsurprisingly, there are overlaps here with the
series, as has been done with one-off episodes of the popular television programs wealth of conspiracy documentaries that proliferate onlinc.)
i\!l.A.S.H. (1976), ER (1997), X-Files (2000), and 17lf West Wing (2009). Each of As with other contemporary found footage films, Chro11icle is presented largely as
these move out of their series' aesthetics in order to present their fictional char- edited amateur video footage, from digital camcorders, camera phones and sinular
acters apparently engaging with a television documentary crew, or to ground their devices, but it also references broader video and surveillance cultures (especially
fictional worlds in a more plausible version of reality. CCTV and police surveillance practices). There arc also constant references, visually
In the last two decades, however, mockumentary has also broadened and diversi- and in the dialogue, to prank videos and other familiar YouTube tropes. The
fied, as it has established itself as a distinctive and at times innovative approach to variety of material which is edited together here provides its own commentaries
storytelling. The remainder of this chapter explores in greater detail three examples on the ubiquity of video-capturing devices within contemporary society, how
of contemporary media texts that employ mockumentary discourse. Collectively, easily these are carried into every social space, and how quickly video footage is
these illustrate some of the variety of ways media producers have explored its distributed through social networks and digital media. As with all mockumentary,
storytelling potential, ainung to develop innovative media content referencing its style is symptomatic of its time; the core of its aesthetic is directly linked to the
broader currents within visual culture. They especially play to viewers assumed to image-gathering technologies available at the time of its production. 2
have rich and layered fonns of media experience. These are the superhero feature Chro11icle'slead characters are non-professional filmcrs trying to capture events as
film Chronicle(Josh Trank, 2012), the UK and US versions of the mockusoap The they are unfolding (we constantly hear them exclaiming "Look at that!" and similar
Qffice (UK, 1997-2000; US, 2005-13), and independent feature film I'm Still comments). At the core of the film is an extended video dia1y for main character
Here (Casey Affleck, 2010). Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan), 3 who eventually employs a number of cameras
to document himself and his friends testing out suddenly acquired superpowers.
Chronicle:documenting the superhero Andrew is closely attached to his cameras, preferring to use his devices as con-
fidantes rather than reveal his feelings to his family and friends. While early in the
Chro11icle
is one of a number of examples of "found footage" mockumentaries, 1 a tilm he uses a camcorder as an extension of his ann, eventually his cameras become
grouping that includes The Blair Witch Project;Zero Days (Ben Coccio, 2003), pre- extensions of his telekinetic abilities.
sented as the video diary of the perpetrators of a Columbine-style high school There are also significant reflexive moments throughout the film. There arc
massacre; Clol!e,field(Matt Reeves, 2008), the home movie of an alien invasion; li-cquent moments when the act of filming is captured in a nurror, and instances in
Diary of the Dead (George A. Romero, 2007), from the long-running zombie which multiple cameras document each other, especially later in the narrative.
franchise; the ParanormalActillity (2007-) supernatural franchise; and the teen/ Everyone is aware of being filmed, and reacts to and/or perfonns for the camera.
Tlin(' arc sn·m·s 111wliicli A11dn·w is ;1lius!·dhr( ,Ill'><' J'<'opk ;1m1111,·
lit· is li1111i11g
illicit pen i11to the lens and rt:joicc on discovering it is operating ("please t('II 111cyou got
behavior or just because having a c;1111na011;tll the ti111c1s "creepy." A11drcw's co11- that!").
stant filming of others marks him out early as an outsider, a11d while he is initially 'The manner in which footage is captured is also character-driven, meani11g that
uncomfortable with appearing in frame himself, he eventually takes self-surveillance each character tends to employ slight differences in style or approach. Andrew is
to disturbing extremes. The broader sense of surveillance that pervades the film also somewhat dictatorial with his camera(s); he takes control and has his camcra(s)
allows it to make reference to familiar examples of domestic video surveillance. At zooming in and out, floating around him and his friends in ways that they find
one point Andrew positions a camera in his room and captures his father physically uncomfortable and cannot control, which reflects in part his lack of social sensi-
abusing him (which echoes the practice of anxious parents secretly filming their tivity. This visually suggests his sense of superiority and isolation from them, and
children's care-givers to capture moments of possible abuse). ultimately the camera becomes an extension of his disturbed personality, his filming
The use of a first-person camera has clear advantages in positioning the film a reflex and habit he cannot give up. When he is alone with his terminally ill
within generic boundaries. A common characteristic of found footage films is the mother, however, they hand the camera back and forth to each other, in gestures
ways in which they allow filnunakers to plausibly constrain and interrupt the amount that fom 1 part of an intimate conversation as they take turns recording their
of narrative infonnation that is conveyed to audiences, usually in order to build exchanges and questioning each other. Matt and Casey's relationship begins as they
dramatic tension. New York partygoers in Clovetjield, for example, are initially accidentally film each other. It is notable that she makes a point of asking if she can
confused about what is going on, and while they attempt to document an apparent film (in the narrative's only examples of conventional filmmaking ethics). Their
disaster unfolding, they only slowly gain evidence and glimpses of the alien monster video encounters are more equal, and their mutual filming almost serves as foreplay
which is assaulting the city. This effectively delays the moment of the monster's (importantly, again, they make a point of not filming when they have sex).
"reveal" to the audience. In contrast, I11eBlair WitclzProjecthas a more dichotomous The variety of camera angles gradually expands as well over the course of the
aesthetic, as the filmmakers searching for the Blair Witch oscillate between employing film, initially as Andrew starts to use his abilities to send his camera out to get mid
the fonnal conventions of filmrnaking for their documentary and more casually and long shots, including aerial shots, but also because his superior telekinetic abilities
videoing themselves behind the scenes. The limited frame of their video camera is allow him to have two cameras floating around him (see Figure 2.1). As he gradually
used here as a key generator of horror, as we cannot see beyond the constraints of becomes overwhelmed with the sensations and emotions he is experiencing, his
the camera's gaze. The film commits to this, denying even a final revelatory reveal filming also becomes more chaotic and expansive. By the time of the climactic
of the supernatural forces that appear to be targeting the filmmakers. final scenes, an inner-city battle sequence between Matt and Andrew, he grabs any
For Chronicle, the effect of a handheld camcorder aesthetic is to ground the number of cameras from bystanders who are t1ying to record what is happening.
superhero narrative in a more personalized perspective. 4 For the bulk of the film we By this stage, there is a constant tension between the self-imposed limitations of
see more or less what the main characters see, supplemented by their commentaries the found footage frame and the expansion of the aesthetic to include a broad
directly to the audience in the fonn of video diary confessionals or their overheard
discussion and arguments. This approach revitalizes well-trodden parts of every
superhero narrative, such as the "origin" scene, in which Andrew and his two
closest friends, cousin Matt Garetty (Alex Russell) and popular Steve Montgomery
(Michael B. Jordan), encounter an extraterrestrial object and mysteriously acquire
powers. The moment when the boys encounter a (possibly radioactive) meteorite
is hidden, as the camera image distorts into static, the soundtrack becomes chaotic,
and we are left just with impressions of what might have happened.
Employing a first-person video narrative also allows the film to jump into other
scenes and perspectives, as the footage cuts quickly from camera to camera, from
Andrew's personal diary to footage captured by other people. We see, for example,
the footage captured by Matt's girlfriend, Casey Letter (Ashley Hinshaw), for her blog.
The jumps in the narrative appear natural because they are simply when the boys or
other characters were too busy to turn the cameras on or were interrupted in their
filming. When they have a close encounter with a plane while testing their newfound
flying abilities, the footage turns into the familiar tropes of accidental disaster footage.
FIGURE 2.1 Andrew, Steve, and Matt debate what to do with their newfound superpowers.
The camera tumbles to the ground and lies on an angle. They move closer to
ra11gc of video sources. The pcrspcct ivc culs r;1pidly bet Wt'l'II police survcill:1nce directly fro111tlic lt;111dlicld1111111<'d1.1<
y nf d11cd n11c111a,pretending to docu111cnt
footage reminiscent of reality progranuning such as CO/'S ( 1989··) (complete with the cveiyday dramas of ;1 nillcct ivc of ch:1ractns within specific locations, and pro··
time code and garbled police radio), inner-city CCTV cameras, cellphone footage viding a distinctive addition to the long-established traditions of sitcom production.
from a number of bystanders (including some presumably uploaded inunediately to Many mockusoaps dispense entirely with even such standard sitcom conventions as
YouTube, Facebook, or another platfonn), and footage from a cloud of devices a laugh track, aiming for a more subtle and ambiguous form of comedy. Some
that are appropriated by Andrew. The effect is similar to the variety of angles that draw directly from the common docusoap practice of a voiceover narrator (for
are typical of mainstream action films, with some shots from behind or through example, 17,at Peter Kay 11zing(2000) uses Andrew Sachs, who has actually served as
buildings capturing glimpses of action, some extremely shaky and including bad a docusoap narrator) to introduce each character, link scenes together, and generally
focus and flash pans, while the surveillance footage appears more stable and static. provide rational, deadpan counterpoint to whatever is happening on the screen.
Although overall it mimics the frenetic editing approaches of action montage The need for characters to respond to and anticipate the presence of an apparent
sequences, in a broader sense it also provides a visual representation of the expanding, documenta1y crew opens space for new fom1s of sitcom performance. As with
proliferating, and fracturing of means of documentation in contemporary society. mockumentary feature filmmaking, it is common practice in mockusoaps to
develop characters and comedic situations through improvisational rehearsal,
creating perfonnances that rely on subtle gestures that can be amplified by the
The Office and the emergence of the mockusoap intimacy of the television screen. Final episodes arc then structured and polished
The UK and US versions of the television series The Office are exemplars of through post-production.
"mockusoaps," a key recent development in mockumentary. They draw inspira- Mockusoaps draw from and exaggerate the slippage between the different forms
tion from the prevalence of docusoaps, a distinctive hybrid television fonnat of of social perfom1ance offered by (fictional) characters that are "captured" by cameras.
documentary and soap opera, which gained popularity in the 1990s. Mockusoaps Their comedic effect builds particularly from contrasts between what characters tell
are evidence of the manner in which television producers have become increas- each other, what they will reveal directly to camera in interviews, and what they
ingly confident of using mockumentary discourse to revitalize and reorient sitcom are caught doing by cameras that often fil111from around the comer of buildings or
conventions in particular. through windows without their knowledge (all familiar conventions of a mock-
Docusoaps focus on the everyday, on the perspectives and activities of the umentary narrative style). Mockusoap hu111or, in other words, is embedded within
"common people," and have been used as a relatively inexpensive fom1 of prime- the different forms of knowledge that arc provided to the viewer. These gaps are
time television programming, a kind of "documentary lite" which build their made obvious especially through the juxtaposition between interview and obser-
appeal around distinctive and idiosyncratic individuals within local and national vational sequences, as individual or joint interview segments overlap with footage
contexts rather than around investigating social and political issues (which would that adds telling details to their nan-ativcs, generating unexpected observations on
attract a more elite audience). Docusoaps have been a popular televisual reality- how they mi<>htb
be pcrformin" ti in different contexts, or capturing the moments
based format for over 20 years, helping to reestablish nonfiction progranuning when their perfonnancc fails.
within primetime schedules while also complicating the relationship between There are layers of complexity here, however. As is also co111mon with docusoaps,
audiences and documentary discourse. Together with trends toward satirical tele- there are typically many reflexive 111omcntsthroughout a mockusoap series, scenes in
vision programming (such as The Daily Show withJon Stewartand numerous satirical which characters demonstrate that they arc well aware of the presence of the
news programs), such hybrid fom1ats have contributed to a naturalizing of reflex- camera, of the manner in which it might be framing and capturing their behavior,
ivity toward core issues of documentary representations of the social world. In and especially of the impact that an appearance on television could have on their
particular, docusoaps impart to viewers a critical awareness of how participants of lives. Many characters are actively perfonning for the camera, or continually com-
these programs manage their behavior in the presence of a camera. Instead of mentin<> ::,
on its presence, either warning others to behave con-ectly while it is on or
capturing social actors in the natural perfomiance of their everyday social roles (the complaining about its presence. On the other hand, mockusoap characters are
pretense of direct cinema), reality TV fonns inevitably create tensions between the often presented as being unaware of how the confessions of their private lives
ways in which participants are encouraged to act (within highly constmcted con- might appear on the small screen. They will confide a great deal in an (unseen)
texts), how they articulate their actions, and instances when their more deliberate interviewer, and especially reveal to the camera much more than they intended.
perfonnances are inadvertently revealed. Across mockusoaps there are a variety of more specific styles and approaches, but
In addition to their narrative concerns, docusoaps tend to have a distinctive usually a series will aim for a stylistic consistency across an entire season. The more
aesthetic, one that is derived from observational documentaries but adapted to suit interesting examples look to sustain storylines and characters across entire series (as
the tighter and more intimate frame of the television screen. Mockusoaps draw compared to earlier, more episodic mockumentary television series such as People
 Lil,I' Us ( I 'J<J<J:200I) or 1/11111,111l~m1,1i11, (.(()(HI)), 111the process, 111ocku111e11tary
:1s f'co1J/cl.il,c ( Is a11d ( >1wrotio11 ( :ood ( :11ys( I ')'Yl :2000). The series is focused ,111 a
discourse has become naturalized 011 the s111allscreen, c111ergi11gas a familiar but
small 11u111bcrof key characters in the local branch of a paper company t111dn
distinctive storytelling style available for television producers (although to date this
threat of closure in the depressed industrial area of Slough, Berkshire. Gervais and
has been applied ahnost exclusively in comedic fonnats).
Merchant took great pains to sustain the consistent premise that everything we an'
There are subtle variations in mockusoap across national production cultures.
watching is the product of a documentary crew's encounters with the core cast
Australia, for example, is the site for mockusoap auteur Chris Lilley, who plays
members. They experimented initially (in their pilot) with the use of a voiccovcr
multiple characters in a number of series: We Can Be Heroes:Finding the Australian of
narrator, using an experienced docusoap narrator, and briefly considered the possibility
the Year (2005) and its part-sequel Summer Heights H(t,;h(2007), Ar~t,;,YBoys (2011),
of making the documentary crew openly incompetent (Walters 2005: 16). However,
and Ja'mie: Private Sc/zoo/Girl (2013). Lilley is as much a mockumentary auteur as
they soon developed a distinctive approach, one that relied on rightly written scripts
Christopher Guest is in feature films.5 Each of his series strives to replicate docusoap
rather than improvisation. Ahnost all of the action occurs within the uncomfortable
style extremely closely, not just in eschewing laugh tracks and relying on deadpan
environment of an open-plan workplace, and centers on the generally banal
performances, but also in minimizing reflexive moments in order to create as close
everyday activities of an office (even to the extent of occasional long and close-up
a pastiche of docusoap fonn as possible. These mockusoaps flag their fictionality to
shots of a bubbling water cooler, or the mechanical operations of a photocopier,
viewers through Lilley's multiple appearances as a variety of characters (of various
within an otherwise soundless environment).
ages, genders, and ethnicities) and the sharpness of their satirical insights into Australian
The series otherwise closely references a docusoap aesthetic, using naturalistic
culture. Wayne Anderson: Sin,1,;er ~fSon,1,;s
(2005), a New Zealand mockusoap, went a
lighting and sound, and developing a layered set of representations of each of the
step further in constmcting ambiguous perfonnances, the main actor using his own
characters and their interactions with each other within the confines of their
name and appearing in character in interviews to promote the series, leaving many
apparent workplace. In classic mockusoap fashion, scenes arc constructed from
of its viewers confused about whether or not it was fiction.
individual partly confessional interviews with characters, observational sequences in
Tize Comeback(2005), in contrast, is a high point in reflexive mockusoap, a series
which the characters arc obviously highly conscious of the presence of the camera,
which foregrounds the reflexive potential of mockumentary. The lead character is
and more surreptitious filming in which the camera quietly lurks in semi-surveillance
Valerie Cherish (Lisa Kudrow), a fonner sitcom actor attempting to revive her career.
mode behind office equipment or outside doorways or windows to capture the
The series uses a show-within-a-show premise, as Cherish stars in her own reality TV
employees at their most natural and with their guard down. This layered aesthetic
series about her efforts to tum a small part in a new sitcom into a launching pad for
is central to our understanding as viewers of what is happening and how these
a new career. The key innovation of the series, one that no other mockumentary
characters operate. As noted above, the interplay between these layers of narrative
seems to have attempted, is to present itself as a pre-edit of the footage captured by
infonnation closely informs our understanding of the diffrrcnces between their
the reality TV crew. What we see is the rough cut of the apparent docusoap,
private thoughts and feelings and those they otfcr to other people.
before it has been edited to broadcast standard-including the crew and director
The employees within the office arc generally uncomfc)rtablc with each other,
repeatedly caught in frame or in negotiation with Valerie over what they should
partly because they seem to have little in common apart from their shared space,
and should not film. The result is that the series partly operates as the "making of'
and partly because that space is made more excruciating by both the presence of
a docusoap. HBO revived TI1e Comebackin 2014, with Valerie now playing a fic-
the cameras and the behavior this prompts from the office manager, David Brent
tionalized portrait of herself in a series based on the making of the sitcom featured
in the original version. (Gervais), who is the dominant character in the series. Alone among the subjects of
the documentary camera, he appears delighted at its presence. He is constantly
Within this broader context of mockusoap developments, the British and
dismpting the everyday activities of the office to perform in a self-created rol_eas a
American versions of Tize Qfficehave served as exemplars and templates for mock-
beloved leader and entertainer. He appears familiar with (British) docusoaps himself
usoap production (much as T11isIs Spinal Tap is invariably cited as inspiration by
and notes how many have propelled their subjects into instant stardom. He has not
contemporary mockumentary filmmakers). Both have enjoyed popular and critical
understood how a documentary camera might also capture character flaws. Brent
success, helping to reshape sitcom development in their respective countries, but
hovers constantly into view, ready to interrupt his employees as they are being
also providing a ready-made template to be adapted and revised by different
6 fiilmed , and insists on beino- :::, the focus of attention. The comedic tension that his
national broadcasters. Despite beginning with the same basic premise and largely
presence creates is between his assumptions that he is able to control how he appears
employing the same mockumentary textual strategies (an aesthetics referenced to
on camera and the precision with which the camera is able to reveal his ambitions and
popular docusoap fom1ats), the two series are distinct in some important ways.
his naked desire to be at the center of everything. When his expectations of positive
The original British Qfficewas created by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant,
reinforcement of his sense of humor or his assumed status are not forthcoming,
inspired in part by This Is Spinal Tap and earlier British mockumentary series such
there are moments of uncomfortable silence-heightened by the presence of
 ' .""'' ' "~,," I ti,, Mm kur1wnt,1ty J/

the c:11m-ra,and oti.c11exquisitely prolonged through editing by slightly delaying a The American series is also rnuch less bleak, toning down the satirical bite of tl1t·
cut to the next shot or scene. As is characteristic of docusoaps themselves, original series to create more of a sense of the office characters as a surrogate f;11nily.
reflexivity is naturalized here; people make no attempt to ignore the camera, and As the American Office progressed it expanded its roster of seconda1y characters,
there are many moments in which characters look into the camera lens, directly to exploring their office and personal lives in action over a larger social geography.
the audience, in a shared moment of horror over a Brent-inspired moment of The broader production environment of American television also imposed so1m·
embarrassment.
stmctures onto the American ()_{{ice. Unlike the condensed narratives of the six-part
The only positive relationship we see is the frustrated buddino- romantic rela- British version, the American seasons provided a longer season of twenty-three
tionship between salesman Tim Canterbury (Martin Freeman) "' and receptionist episodes, but shorter episode lengths of only twenty-two minutes. These helped
Dawn Tinsley (Lucy Davis). Dawn is engaged to another character, but the mutual foster a faster-paced style, virtually eliminating the quieter moments that arc so
attraction between her and Tim is suo-o-ested
ot,
throuo-h
t,
suo-o-estive
oo
body lanauao-e
'oo, distinctive of the British Office.
fleeting facial expressions, and their shared rapport in enduring the everyday bore- The American Office was also produced within a more deliberately improvisa-
dom of their workplace (see Figure 2.2). Their relationship is hidden from the tional approach (more directly drawing upon practices common to mockumentary
other characters but not from the camera crew, as they capture the fleeting filmmaking), with episodes carefully crafted and structured in post-production.
moments of intimacy between Tim and Dawn. Their sexual tension is heio-htened t, Finally, a key difference emerged through this series' use of the camera, which was
in part because they have not openly declared their attraction to each other, and in allowed a more dynamic and collaborative series of relationships with key characters-
part because it is glimpsed indirectly by the cameras, caught through surreptitious they would talk directly to the camera/ crew, and the camera would occasionally
filming through windows and around office plants. nod or shake "no" in response, in contrast to the more distanced and objective
Almost uniquely among mockusoap producers, and deliberately breaking with position of the UK Office's fictional documentary camera crew. This meshed also
sitcom tradition, Gervais and Merchant decided to acknowledge a sense of broad- with a generally more confessional style of interview segment, which accorded in
cast and audience feedback. They used the second season to suggest how viewers tum with a more confessional television culture in the American context. As there
might have responded to the "docusoap" about the little paper company office, was no suggestion that early seasons had actually been broadcast, members of the
and how those reactions impacted upon the characters themselves. Likewise, they US Office are never confronted with what their colleagues have said about them, or
used a Christmas special at the end of the second season to give narrative closure to what the camera crew has been able to document about their relationships. The
171e()_{{ice's
narrative arc, which again is unusual within the more perpetual fictional overall result is that the US Office operates in more conventional sitcom territory,
worlds of sitcoms. Both are key differences between the British series and its more with characters living in complete ignorance of the kinds of knowledge that the
conventional American descendent. docusoap of their professional lives reveals to viewers.

I'm Still Here and mockumentary hoaxes

In contrast to the found footage constructions of Chronicleand docusoap pastiche of
771e Office, ['111 Still Herc suggests the potential of the discourse to provide more
ambiguous and challenging forms of media experience. At the heart of this film is a
stunt: it "documents" the year which follows Joaquin Phoenix's 2008 announced
intention to retire from Hollywood acting in pursuit of a music career, all apparently
filmed by his brother-in-law and fellow actor Casey Affleck. The majority of the
film's scenes play out in hotel rooms, limousines, and other claustrophobic spaces,
with Phoenix shadowed by personal assistants and Affieck's camera. Phoenix
quickly falls into depression in the face of indifference and hostility to his efforts in
musical creativity, and his failed pursuit of Puff Diddy (Sean Combs) as producer
for his hip-hop album. He becomes more bellicose and incomprehensible, mumbling
in long monologues and increasingly abusive toward those around him. Throughout,
he has encounters with representatives of the press, who question him on whether
FIGURE 2.2 The subtle and tentative Office flirting between Tim and Dawn in the he is serious about his retirement and about persistent rumors that his year-long
original series.
sabbatical is all a sustained hoa.,'C. Included is actual footage from Phoenix's
 111i· 1v,,,._r,u,,,~ 11,tny

and the staged, and the faked 111urdn that e11ds S1111{J' (197(>). Orson Welles
engaged in a film hoax with Pji1r 1'i1ke(f/critl"sct 111cnso11ges)
(Orson Welles, 197.))
as he detailed an apparently real narrarive about fakery before ultimately revealing
the latter half of the film is fiction. The same stunt impulse infonm Sasha Baron
Cohen's perforniances in Bora!: Cultural LearningscifAmericafor lvlake Benefit Glorious
Nation of Kazakhstan (Larry Charles, 2006), which combines mockumentary sequences
with footage that documents encounters between Cohen's "Borat" persona and
unwitting participants.
1'111Still Here was something of a critical and commercial failure. It is not an
exemplary example of mockumentary or filmmaking more generally, but the reasons
for its failure provide useful insights into the nature and future of mockumentary
discourse more broadly. The film itself tries to build an intimate and poignant
perspective of Phoenix's decline into depression and confusion as his intended
music career stalls and he regrets his decision to retire from acting. Its narrative,
FIGURE 2.3 Joaquin Phoenix's infamous appearance on The Late Show with David however, docs not build toward a compelling climax but meanders from one
Letterman. public/social disaster after another involving Phoenix, and repetitive scenes capturing
his poor management and communication skills, particularly in engaging with his
infamous appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman on Febmary 11, 2009 staff, whom he tends to blame for his own failures. His character is not particularly
m which h e appeare d antagomstJc
· · and unresponsive in the face of an openly irritated' likeable; he is boorish, tedious, and increasingly uncomfortable to watch. Cmcially,
Lettennan, and extracts from a variety of tabloid television news reports on his we arc never invested in his troubles or possible redemption (something which
strano-e distinguishes Ricky Gcrvais's character in the UK version of 71,c Office). The best
"'. pubhc
. behavior · (see Fio-u
o re ?-· 3) . Afi
. ter a d.1sastrous gig
· m· a Miami night-
club, 111 whJCh he abuses and physically attacks hecklers, he retreats in confusion mockumcntaries, those which reward repeated viewing, tend to be layered in their
and melancholy to a childhood haunt in Panama. narrative, taking pains to develop characters with which the audience can identify,
I'm Still Here falls into an occasional pattern of mockumentary hoaxes in which and building a narrative arc which provides dramatic highpoints and a cathartic
media producers_ have attempted to employ nonfictional codes and conventions to conclusion. The pleasures of watching the television hoax Fo~~ottenSilver, for
convmce an audience of the validity of a fictional character and/ or events. The vVar example, are actually enhanced with the knowledge that this is a carefully crafted
of t'.ze vVorldsradio mockumentary is an early example here, and The Blair Hlitclz pastiche of historical biography and contemporary investigation.
ProJea (for Its convincing marketing campaigi1, particularly centered 011 a number Part of the reason I'111Still Here is uncomfortable to watch is also that if it were
of onl~e resources), as are a smattering of television mockumentary hoa,'Ces,includino- real, it would demonstrate some ethically suspect practices on the part of Affleck
0
Altemailve 3 (Clmstopher Miles , 1977) , which reported 011a C o ]d W ar consp1racy
· himself Phoenix seems to be so obviously self-destructive that we arc increasingly
. to
establish a base on the moon· , Ghostwatch (Lesley Mannino- 199?) · w h.1c-h a super- uneasy with Affleck's commitment to the act of filming over and above any real
. . . , 0 , - , 111

natura_I entity ap_peared to use a hve television investigation of a haunting to attack concern or care for his own brother-in-law. Affleck's lack of empathy does not
watchmg telev1s1011viewers; For.RottenSilver (Costa Botes and Peter Jackson, 1995), appear plausible here.
which detailed the discovery of a lono--]ost pioneerin<Y New Zeal d fil k The reception of the film was complicated by the release at a similar time of
d , . . . 0 o , an er 1 nuna er;
an the prese'.1tat1on of video evidence of alien visitation at the center of Alie 11 films which confused audiences and critics over whether to read their constmctions
Abd11ct1011: as fiction or nonfiction-most notably Exit 'f11roughthe C!ft Shop (Banksy, 2010)
. .Incident in Lake County (Dean, Alioto , 1998) . N ot all o f t h ese h oaxes
were art1st1cal!y or popularly successful, but all looked to exploit an ambiguity in and Ca!fish (Henry Joost and Ariel Shulman, 2010). Of these, only Phoenix's film
perforn1ance to help generate enough credibility as nonfiction to challenge the is an openly declared mockumentary, as he and Affleck acknowledged immediately
expectations of V1ewers. after the film's premiere that Phoenix's whole public persona during the year of
A There ar~ broader precedents for this kind of media production: everything from production, and improvised behavior within the film, had been part of an elaborate
pnl_ Fools Day news reports (when real reporters present outrageous stories with piece of perfonnance art (inspired in part by the exploits of perfonnance artist and
a straight face) to the senes of mondo exploitation fihns produced by Paolo C comedian Andy Kaufoun, who engaged in deadpan public acts that played out
F p . . avara,
ranco rospen, and Gualt1ero Jacopetti from the 1960s, which blended the real over a number of years). Because of the public debates over its possible hoax status
during production, Affleck and Phoenix apparently decided they had no choice
but to include extracts fro111 Sll!IIC of those co111111c11tarics,and have 1'hoc11ix appear (, "J'lw <J//iu· itsdt has l>c-c11rc111adc in !'ranee, Gl'rn1a11y, Canada (l'rcwh l.111gu:1gc),and
lsrac-1,:ind as of this writing there arc versions planned in China a11dSweden.
outraged in response. T'his dissipates rather than deepens the ambiguity around his
perfom1ances, eroding any playful challenge the film might have provided for
viewers. Affleck and Phoenix apparently intended the film as a commentary on the Bibliography
suffocating excesses of celebrity culture and surveillance, but critics tended to agree
Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra. 2014. Found Footage Horror Films: Fear and the Appearanrc <'/
that this message was lost in the face of its meandering narrative. Reality. Jefferson: McFarland.
In a larger sense, however, I'm Still Here serves as a reminder of the challenges of Hight, Craig. 2008. "Mockumentary: A Call to Play." In Retlzi11kingDocumentary:New Pcrspet··
any filmmaker (documentary or otherwise) in engaging with contemporary visual tivcs, New Practices,ed. Wilma de Jong and Thomas Austin. Maidenhead: Open U111vers1ty
culture, which encourages such fluid boundaries between the real and fiction and Press. 203-14.
--. 2010. Television Mockit1t1e11tary:R.4/exivity, Satire and a Call to Play. Manchestn:
critical fonm of engagement from audiences. Manchester University Press. _ . .
Higley, Sarah L., and Jeffrey A. Weinstock, eds. 2004. Nothing That Is: M1llenmal Cmcma
and the "13lair Witch" Controversies. Contemporary Approaches to Film and Telev1s1011
The naturalization of mockumentary discourse Studies. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. ., ,
Juhasz, Alex, and Jesse Lerner, eds. 2006. F ls for Phony: Fake Dow111rntaryand I rntlz s
Parodic and satiric mockumentary in particular has proliferated since the 1990s, and Undoirtg.Visible Evidence Series. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. _
its recent popularity within film and television has some key implications for the Nichols, Bill. 1991. Represrnti11,~Reality: Issues and Conceptsin Dow111e11tary.
Bloommgton and
future of mockumentary discourse. It has become increasingly hard to fool most Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. _. . . .
Plantinga, Carl. 1998. "Gender, Power and a Cucumber: Satirizing Mascuhmty m .. 1111sIs
audiences, either to use mockumentary to perpetrate a hoax or to engage with
Spinal Tap." In Dow1ne11tingthe Dowmrntary: Close Readings of Dom111:11tary hllll and
unwitting participants in faux documentary style, as Sasha Baron Cohen achieved Video, ed. Bany K. Grant and Jeannette Sloniowski. Detroit: Wayne State Umvers1ty
for key scenes within Bora!. Media producers have needed to move beyond using Press. 318-32.
mockumentary as simply a stunt or novelty style, and are compelled to carefully Roscoe, Jane. 1997. "Man Hites Dog: Dcconstrncting the Documentary Look." Metro
craft textual material which explores the reflexive, layered, and playful potential Education 13: 7-12.
Roscoe, Jane, and Craig Hight. 2001. Ft1ki11gIt: !vlock Dow111rntaryam/ the Subversion ef
inherent to its appropriation of the fact-fiction continuum. The widespread appli- Factuality.Manchester: ManchestlT University Press.
cation of mockumentary as a storytelling style across a range of genres and media Torchin, Leshu. 2008. "Cultural Learnings of Bora/ Make for Benefit of Glorious Study of
fonns, including blockbuster feature film production and primetime televisual Documentary." !'i/111& History 38 (1): 53-63.
Walters, Ben. 2005. ·11zeOl]icc. London: British Film Institute.
programming, also suggests that it has less potential to be subversive, diluting its
essentially reflexive stance toward documentary and related forms. As a more natur-
alized storytelling style within contemporary film and television media, mock-
umentary's playful appropriation of nonfiction aesthetics both draws upon and sits
comfortably with the full range of texts that mediate reality.

Notes
Not all of these types of films are sustained exercises in mockumentary. The classic
Italian hoITor film Can11ibalHoloca11st(Ruggero Deodato, 1980), for example, includes
elements of this, as does District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, 2009), but both move in and out of
a pretense that what we are watching has been captured by a documentary camera.
2 Just as David Holz111an'sDiary appropriates direct cinema and ci11c111a vcritc filmmaking
practices which developed around the emergence of black-and-white handheld film
cameras and synchronous sound technologies in the 1960s.
3 There is an early direct visual reference to David Holz111an'sDiary as he films himself
talking into a miITor to explain what he is doing and why.
4 This is very similar to Kurt Busiek's comic book miniseries Mawels (1994), which centers
on the perspective of a photographer who tries to capture more than just a glimpse of
superheroes in action (and may have been an inspiration for Clzro11ide's scriptwriters).
5 Guest is co-writer and co-star for ·11zisIs Spinal Tap and its sequel, and co-writer and
director for mockumentaries Waiting for G11!Jinan(1996), Best i11 Show (2000), and A
i'vlighty Wind (2003), all of which draw from the same stable of actors.