MOCKING THE DOCUMENTARY:
An exploration of aesthetic and production elements in
Arrested Development as intersectional cross-genre
MA Media Studies
Television and Cross-Media Cultures Master Thesis
__________________________________________________________________________
MOCKING THE DOCUMENTARY:
An exploration of aesthetic and production elements in Arrested Development as intersectional cross-genre
__________________________________________________________________________
June 2017 Word Count: 22 538
Thesis Supervisor: 2nd Reader:
CONTENT
TABLES & FIGURES 4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Genre and Genre Theory 5
1.2. Research Ques7ons 6
1.3. Research Object 6
1.4. Methodology 7
1.5. Chapter Structure 7
2. FROM THE REAL TO THE UNREAL
2.1. Introduc7on 9
2.2. Defining Documentary 9
2.2.1. Documentary Modes and Characteris7cs 11
2.2.2. The Purpose of Documentary 13
2.3. The Rela7onship between fact and fic7on 14 2.3.1. Documentary Transforma7on and Muta7on 15 2.3.2. The Entrance of the Mockumentary 16
2.4. Conclusion 16
3. THE MOCKING OF DOCUMENTARIES
3.1. Introduc7on 17
3.2. Defining Mocumentary 17
3.2.1. Conven7ons of Mockumentary 18
3.2.2. Degrees of Mockumentary 19
3.3. The Sitcom and Mockumentary 21
3.3.1. Comedy Vérité 23
3.3.2. Humour 24
3.4. Conclusion 27
4. ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT AS AN INTERSECTIONAL CROSS-GENRE
4.1. Introduc7on 28
4.2. “This is the Story…” 28
4.3. Arrested Development Through the Lens of Genre 29 4.3.1. How does Arrested Development Comment on Documentary? 29 4.3.2. How does Arrested Development Transform the Sitcom? 35 4.3.3. Arrested Development as an Intersec7onal Cross-Genre 42 4.4. Arrested Development as Social Cri7que 44
4.5. Conclusion 47
5. CONCLUSION 48
TABLES & FIGURES
1. TABLES
1.1. Summary of Arrested Development as an Intersec7onal Cross-Genre 43
2. FIGURES
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Genre and Genre Theory
Genre theory discusses conven7ons that are found in similar texts and employs those conven7ons to draw connec7ons between the texts and society (Mikesell, online). By establishing how one text relates to others, the expecta7ons of the reader are shaped. Examples of popular television genres include drama, comedy, sitcom, documentary, and serials. Genre assists audiences to guide their decisions to consume specific media. Some media texts can be neatly classified as one genre, but occasionally, a “re-invented” product or text originates that defies the narrow constraints of a specific genre and thus almost transcends, or even escapes a narrow restric7ve genre categorisa7on. Such a text would s7ll rest on tradi7onal genres, while also posi7oning ficng into another genre or a new trope of an exis7ng genre.
This disserta7on intends to explore the show, Arrested Development (Fox: 2003–06; Neilix: 2013–present), by subjec7ng the content and format to an analysis of narra7ve genres, codes, conven7ons, and style. The techniques used in Arrested Development appear to u7lise aspects of the original sitcom, documentary, drama, serials, and comedy while s7ll falling into the broad genre of “comedy”. The show is clearly influenced by the concept of postmodernism, which in essence means that the text is aware of itself or meta. Mikesell states that postmodernism is oken used as commentary on established genres and narra7ves (online).
This popular show that has alracted a rela7vely small but passionate community, is typical of cult media intersec7ng with mainstream culture, resul7ng in a series with “high-profile, mainstream success” (Leitch, 2013). This has invited and challenged me to undertake this inves7ga7on into Arrested Development and its precise genre descrip7on, especially in light of the
recent announcement (17 May 2017) on the show’s Twiler and Facebook pages that fans can expect fikh season as Arrested Development return to Neilix in 2018.
1.2. Research Questions
The primary research ques7on which guided my study is as follows:
How does Arrested Development ar7culate an assemblage of various genres in rela7on to techniques, aesthe7cs and produc7on elements associated with the genres of documentary and sitcom?
The following sub-research or secondary research ques7ons that I will also explore and answer as extensions of the above ques7on are:
i. How has documentary influenced the fic7onal genre of mockumentary?
ii. How has the sitcom genre fractured in using documentary and mockumentary codes and conven7ons, and how has this development changed sitcom aesthe7cs and produc7on?
iii. How does Arrested Development comment on and cri7que documentary? iv. How does Arrested Development push the boundaries of sitcom?
v. How does Arrested Development deliver social cri7que?
1.3. Research Object
I myself am an avid viewer of series like The Office (US: 2005 - 2012), Parks and Recrea9on (2009-2015), , Arrested Development and other similar produc7ons. I have oken contemplated which genres some of these shows would be categorised as and why, as they oken adopt documentary techniques within the context of a sitcom. Arrested Development applies certain codes and stylis7c elements of documentary, but s7ll embraces the fic7onal nature of sitcom.
I consequently proceeded to develop my research proposal following a literature review of documentaries, mockumentaries, and sitcoms. The research ques7ons that I developed assisted me to inquire how mockumentaries apply aesthe7cs, humour, produc7on and narra7ve inquiry, and if/how mockumentaries have retained specific elements of documentaries when is applied to a fic7onal situa7on and characters.
The conceptualised research ques7ons guided the secondary research part of my literature review and a primary research sec7on where I applied qualita7ve data analysis to establish what elements, styles, codes, conven7ons I can iden7fy in Arrested Development, in order to put a ficng genre label on the produc7on.
Following my research into documentary and mockumentary, I will analyse Arrested
Development. I will be looking at the codes, conven7ons, style and structure used in these texts,
camera techniques, etc. In addi7on, I will also examine other relevant genres that may be of note when discussing Arrested Development, such as sitcoms, drama, and reality series.
1.4 Methodology
I will apply the methodology of textual analysis. Textual analysis has the purpose to iden7fy and inves7gate specific characteris7cs of a body of material. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2013), this qualita7ve research methodology focuses “on any verbal, visual or behavioural form of communica7on”, and it can thus be useful in the analysis of television content as well.
I will use the methods of purposeful data collec7on where I will iden7fy and select relevant examples of the specific material from Arrested Development to compare how produc7on and aesthe7c aspects of the documentary genre are used in fic7onal television with the primary purposes of entertainment and humour.
I will use documentary film theories to explore and establish genre conven7ons of documentary from which mockumentary borrows the handheld camera, fly-on-the-wall footage, the “talking head”, archived material and footage, interviews, amongst others. I will further draw on research on mockumentary from the observa7ons of Jane Roscoe and Craig Hight’s Faking It:
Mock-documentary and the subversion of factuality (2001). These authors use Nichols’s descrip7on
that a documentary constructs views and arguments in the same vein that a fic7onal text would. They examine mockumentary through the specific rela7onship which the form has with documentary. Their seminal book assumes that there are boundaries between 'fact' and 'fic7on', and they examine the special nature of mockumentary's rela7onship with documentary, while comparing these texts to other fact-fic7on forms such as drama-documentary, reality TV, and docusoaps within a wider discussion of the current status of factual aesthe7cs. Finally, I will make use of a considerable body of work on Arrested Development itself to s7pulate how the show comments on and exposes documentary techniques, and how it challenges the sitcom form. I will also comment on the social cri7que of Arrested Development.
1.5. Chapter Structure
In this chapter, I have introduced my research ques7ons and the research object of Arrested
Development. I have also given a descrip7on of my research design and methods of explora7on.
In Chapter 2, I will commence with the literature survey on the characteris7cs and func7ons of documentary, how its codes and conven7ons have been borrowed by fic7onal media texts and also how the lines of fact and fic7on can oken blur. This chapter will construct a rela7onship between documentary and mockumentary and contrive a comprehensive understanding of the role of documentary within mockumentary.
In Chapter 3, I will examina7on of the characteris7cs of mockumentary and how it pertains to the genre of sitcom. The aim is to present a comprehensive understanding of these genres while analysing the scope of mockumentary as well as the form and produc7on codes, and again tes7ng
The textual analysis of Arrested Development will be discussed in Chapter 4. A range of fascina7ng techniques that comments on documentary and which challenge sitcom will be discussed. I will also look at the implica7ons of intertextuality, narra7ve complexity, and social cri7que.
Chapter 5 will serve as a final summary of answers to my research ques7ons stated in this chapter, and I will conclude the study with some final remarks about genre, the series of Arrested
2. FROM THE REAL TO THE UNREAL:
The Translation of Documentary to Mockumentary
2.1. Introduction
In this chapter, I will discuss the basic tenets of documentary and the various techniques used in documentary films. I will link these techniques to some of the documentary modes which have been established by Bill Nichols (2001). Following this overview of documentary, and its codes and conven7ons, I will outline some of the basic purposes of the documentary genre.
In the second part of this chapter, I will examine at the rela7onship between fact and fic7on, the transforma7on of documentary, hybrid genres, as well as fic7onal genres that u7lise codes and conven7ons from documentary.
2.2. Defining Documentary
Documentary can best be described as a film form or genre which chronicles real events set in the real world, and which audiences can view either in cinema, on television or even a computer screen. The (referen7al) rela7onship that the documentary has with the real world has posi7oned as the screen form that can “gain direct access to, and present, the most accurate and truthful accounts of the social world” (Rhodes & Springer, 206). As a result, documentary is oken considered as a reliable source of informa7on. Rhodes and Springer (206) point out that it is precisely this angle on the real that allows society, audiences, and individuals to project themselves into these “accurate and truthful accounts of the social world”.
It is understandable that when audiences see content that originates in reality, they also perceive it as more true and factual than other material and texts that are created by writers, producers, and directors. When an audience member is aware of the fact that they are watching a soap opera, they will oken base it on their genre expecta7ons, and not expect true reality. The fact that the content of many (if not all) documentaries is situated in original and factual events and people, contributes to the assump7ons of viewers that it is unmediated and real - and therefore it must be true. When the camera is the direct observer between the audience and the subject/s in the film, the viewer/s assume that what was hidden before is now open precisely as a direct result of camera observa7on - they understand the camera may and can go where they can not. While we are curious voyeurs, we can s7ll perceive the subject or events objec7vely because of the apparent connota7on of unmediated reality that has developed with documentaries.
Bill Nichols, best known for his work as frontrunner of the contemporary study of documentary film, bestows three “common-sense ideas” on documentary (7-14):
1. Documentaries are about reality or something that actually happened. 2. Documentaries are about real people.
3. Documentaries tell stories about what happens in the real world.
A defini7on thus begins to emerge: documentary is related to real situa7ons, events and people who are presented as themselves. These social actors take part in real stories that reveal an interpreta7on of events, people, causes or places. Common denominators of documentaries reveal that they offer a depic7on of the world that is recognisable and familiar, and suggest a unique view of reality which is presented to the viewer (Hill, 47). This is done by a documentary maker’s camera, which enters private and even in7mate spaces of social life that were mostly offered previously to viewers as fic7on (Aus7n & De Jong, 121).
It is important to note, however, that every documentary is different, and that there is no fixed defini7on of a documentary, especially in the present 7me where cable television appears to have realised a new demand for informa7on and oken sensa7on. Some theorists believe that the current popularity of documentaries had been fed by reality television, although documentaries also touch on “hot” societal issues that people are deeply curious about such as climate change, food industries, popular figures, etc.
While a documentary is also a story, it is a real and factual narra7ve of reality, and Grierson (1946) emphasises that it remains a crea7ve and ar7s7c product, using raw material and telling meaningful narra7ves about events or people. This, to me, is the crux of the genre - factual impressions and material that is uniquely woven into a mostly factual telling of real events and people.
In the era before mobile phones and digital cameras, where edi7ng was impossible without sophis7cated programs or manual splicing of footage, the fallacy that “seeing is believing” was valid. However, in modern 7mes, that adage is no longer applicable. What cannot be argued with, however, is that visual images carry enormous power and that people are aware of these discourses about the real and unreal in what they are seeing. In many cases, people oken s7ll cling to the convic7on that seeing is indeed more real than knowing (Hight & Roscoe, 12).
2.2.1. Documentary Modes and Characteristics
Rhodes and Springer point out that documentary has developed a repertoire of “specialised codes and conven7ons to promote and reinforce its claims to objec7vity, its access to the real and truthfulness” (206). We can thus define these codes and conven7ons as tradi7onal documentary characteris7cs. These include voice-over or narrator, real and archived footage and images, interviews, eyewitness tes7mony, realism, reconstruc7ons and audio. These stylis7c techniques add to the ambiguity that is typically associated with documentary (Hill, 102).
In a discussion of the codes and conven7ons of documentary, it is important to men7on the different documentary modes that are exposed by documentary codes and conven7ons. Essen7ally, sounds and images are selected and arranged in conceivably dis7nct ways, using specific cinema7c techniques and conven7ons. These prac7ces have translated to television, digital produc7on and the internet, and assist to determine the shape and feel of the documentary. These modes can be defined as quali7es that dis7nguish one sub-genre in documentary from another one. When listed, these modes assist us to categorise different documentaries into formal, cinema7c quali7es, says Nichols (143). As such, we can find specialist, observa7onal and general documentaries, which can either be a strand of or stand-alone documentary on any number of topics (Hill, 5).
Nichols (2001) further suggests that there are six primary modes of documentary filmmaking that are categorised according to their different features: Poe7c; Expository or Exposi7onal; Observa7onal; Par7cipatory; Reflexive, and Performa7ve. It can be said that there are specific conven7ons which exacerbate and blur conven7ons within a number of modes of representa7on - which are mobilised in order to advance arguments about the social world and reinforce its truth claims, which necessitates this brief explora7on. While there are six modes of documentary, I will be examining three primary modes - the expository mode, the observa7onal mode and the par7cipatory mode. These three represent what we might know as the classic documentary and, as Hight and Roscoe point out, these modes are best appropriated by the mockumentary (21).
The exposiBonal mode is prominent and generally the one that people would associate with documentary. While it emphasises verbal commentary and argumenta7ve logic, according to Nichols (154); it also directly addresses the viewer, maintaining the appearance of being objec7ve and balanced. The use of music and sound are usually applied to emo7onally persuade and cue viewers into a certain direc7on. This includes spoken commentary, synchronous speech, real sounds, and music. Nichols explains that “arguments call for logic that words are beler able to convey than are images” (27). This is oken done through the voice-of-God narra7on that guides the viewer through the documentary text and describes what is happening; it relates compe7ng arguments by “shaping the thema7c structure of the text, pushing viewers towards certain readings and favouring specific arguments” (Hight & Roscoe, 16). In this manner, exposiBonal
documentaries give priority to the spoken word in order to convey the perspec7ve from a single,
unifying source, which facilitates comprehension (Nichols, 154). The tradi7onal authorita7ve male voice, white and educated, such as the trustworthy voice of David Alenborough who narrated several nature documentaries and series, seems to be preferred and popular.
In conjunc7on with the voice-of-God narra7on, an argument is constructed with visual representa7on such as interviews and/or opinions of experts, photographic evidence, and archival footage. These may include photographs, news footage, surveillance or CCTV footage, and prior interviews or video appearances. This material is coupled with narra7on that guides the viewer through the argument and towards a definite conclusion (Hight & Roscoe, 18). The archived
images and video footage are oken presented in black and white, which seemingly carries more authority because of historical value (17). These documents provide ‘conclusive’ evidence, thereby making the documentary narra7ve more authen7c. These can include diagrams, maps, and charts, and aid in contextualising issues and events, as well as summarising important material in a visual way (17). In order to examine historical malers or construct an argument, the exposiBonal mode creates validity for its truth and factual claims and incorporate many similari7es with fic7on. The appearance of objec7vity and balance renders this mode convincing.
The Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (2006) by David Guggenheim, is a significant example of an exposi7onal documentary. The filmmaker follows former presiden7al candidate, Al Gore, on a campaign to raise awareness about the dangers and effects of global warming by means of a “slide-show” - a document edited and adapted by Gore which he presented hundreds of 7mes. The film makes prominent use of the voice-of-God narra7on of Al Gore; it features supplementary materials such as photographs, news footage, informa7on graphics, visualisa7ons, charts, sta7s7cs as well as interviews with experts that are all assembled and presented in thoughiul and compelling ways. This film constructs an argument about climate change and global warming and guides the viewer in a certain direc7on, as it raises awareness and explicitly seeks to provoke ac7ve responses and support from viewers.
Documentary’s claim to capture reality is most evident in the observaBonal mode: it depicts “direct engagement with the everyday life of subjects” captured by an unobtrusive camera (31), while the filmmaker appears to be invisible as he/she adopts a fly-wall or on-the-scene presence to give the viewer a sense of being in the situa7on without the presence of the filmmaker. The viewer is provided with a voyeuris7c spectator posi7on that offers a window to reality. Natural sound and ligh7ng, and hand-held camera shots create a sense of realism, which supports the idea of an ‘unmediated reality’ and repeatedly, subtly reminds the viewers that they are witnesses to certain actual events and subjects (16). Handheld camcorder footage, which may in other cases create a disturbing effect, oken presents a sense of immediacy and being a fly-on-the-wall as we see the story and the world in the documentary unfolding. Oken, long takes - which hold our gaze in this unobtrusive and almost invisible posi7on - are also popular.
Hill points out that observaBonal documentaries tend to follow and record a selec7on of characters and their experiences over a period of 7me. She explains that these documentaries are typically based in a workplace or ins7tu7on while showing everyday life, maintaining either an “emphasis on slightly unusual and drama7c people and events” (48) or larger-than-life characters. A ficng example is the Albert and David Maysles’ documentary Grey Gardens (1974) that depicts the everyday lives of a tragic mother and daughter-duo, both named Edith Beale, who are two former upper class socialites who lived completely isolated in the derelict 28-bedroom mansion called Grey Gardens. It was in a state of decay - infested by fleas, inhabited by several cats and raccoons, had no running water, and was filled with garbage. The film is shot cinéma vérité or Direct Cinema style (as the filmmaker alempts to give an unbiased look at living stories) with a handheld camera, does not make use of any voice-over or interviews, and instead opts for an observa7onal fly-on-the-wall approach.
This observaBonal mode is different from other modes in the sense that it does not develop around a problem or argument about the social world, but instead around an exhaus7ve depic7on of everyday life as the text is presented with unrestricted and unmediated access to reality (Hight & Roscoe, 19). There exists a no7on that the images presented have a deic7c rela7onship with reality - the images ‘speak for themselves’ by offering the truth without any need for interpreta7on (20). This is achieved through the use of diaries, reports or even biographical
facts (Nichols, 148). While Grey Gardens does not specifically make use of such diaries and reports, it does employ archival footage such as magazines, photographs, newspaper excerpts, etc.
The parBcipatory documentary mode might be interpreted as the opposite of the observa7onal mode - in the laler, there is no interac7on between filmmaker and subjects, and in par7cipatory mode, there is an emphasis on the interac7on between filmmaker and subject. Nichols explains that the filming of this mode entails interviews and/or more direct involvement, such as more informal conversa7ons and provoca7ons (31). Interviews grow into conversa7ons that lead to either collabora7on or confronta7on between filmmaker and subject (179). The interview style is commonly that of the ‘talking head’ where the subject - an expert or an eyewitness - directly addresses the camera and viewers (Hight & Roscoe, 20). The interviewing mode is undoubtedly one of the most common characteris7cs of documentaries. The filmmaker and subject/s engage to adding factual informa7on into the documentary. The more formal interview is a key method of communica7on and differs from spontaneous, social encounters. It is not a conversa7on, but rather a purposeful and directed exchange of communica7on about the framework in which the story is told. Usually, these interview protocols, schedule or guidelines are determined beforehand by the director (Nichols, 189).
Supersize Me (2004) directed by and starring independent filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, is
an outstanding example of a documentary executed in the parBcipatory mode. The film follows Spurlock’s 30-day journey during which he only eats McDonald’s. The primary footage and focal point of the film are Spurlock himself, as he talks about the experiment and its effects on him, as well as interviewing people such as medical experts, scien7sts, poli7cians, food industry professionals, and civilians. Like the exposi7onal mode, the film also uses narra7on as Spurlock himself supplies the voiceover for the film. Like the exposi7onal mode, Supersize Me includes excerpts from newspapers, sta7s7cs, charts, informa7on graphics, and visualisa7ons. The filmmaker directly addresses the camera in what could be described as a video diary. This verbal tes7mony of Spurlock is central to the film as his 30-day journey is the focal theme in the documentary.
While it can be assumed that the primary reason for all of the above-men7oned alributes is to create a sense of reality, it can also contrive an atmosphere of confidence and in7macy which is not usually present in fic7onal films and shows. This in7macy can evoke a sense of sympathy from the viewer as they perceive the characters and situa7ons as they really are without interference and bias.
It becomes clear that a documentary does not necessarily have to adhere to one par7cular mode, but can u7lise codes and conven7ons from various other modes. This use of other mode codes and conven7ons frequently applies to the genre of the mockumentary.
2.2.2. The Purpose of Documentary
Audiences across the world have been educated in the documentary purpose and how it differs from other media products. Clearly, audiences have a natural perceptual-cogni7ve func7on that guides them to make dis7nc7ons between the real and representa7on. These are categorised by
Docufic9ons (2007) as ‘mechanical, linguis7c and symbolic understandings of representa7on’. A
person who has never been exposed to television or film may encounter difficulty understanding a documentary, but viewers who are familiar with the tradi7onal media, certainly develop an educated and experienced understanding of what they are seeing (Rhodes & Springer, 71-72).
Certain researchers refer to this as the audience or viewer’s gaze. Nonetheless, even with experienced viewers, this gaze can be shiked. We ins7nc7vely understand that documentary not only documents, but also interprets, analyses and comments through this product about our social worlds (212).
Documentaries serve various func7ons and purposes. These include entertaining, informing the public about certain topics, educa7ng, uncovering hidden truths, and enlightening.
An Inconvenient Truth is a typical example where a filmmaker and social actor (in this case, Al
Gore) alempts to bring to light the issue of climate change and change or improve society’s understanding and prompt the viewer to some extent of ac7on. By exposing this issue, the public is provided with informa7on about their responsibili7es, and human interest is aroused in the alempt to change the public’s opinions and actudes on the maler (in this case, climate change) so that they desire to take ac7on and demand change.
Unlike An Inconvenient Truth or Supersize Me, Grey Gardens does not alempt to educate or incen7vise viewers to take any ac7on. The story is not necessarily in public interest but instead aims to entertain and enlighten. This can be classified as a human interest story. These documentaries are oken observa7onal and allows the audience to arrive at their own judgments and conclusions. Jiro Dreams of Sushi (2011) is another example of a documentary that entertains audiences, as the film follows and observes the life of an 85-year old sushi-maker in Japan. Unusual or eccentric characters are oken the subjects of these types of documentaries, and the films are more ar7s7c in the sense that they mix expressive, poe7c, and rhetorical elements. They emphasise subjec7vity instead of historical materials.
Another cri7cal func7on of documentary is to educate people about any number of subjects. Nature Documentaries (which are mostly observa7onal), such as Planet Earth (2005, 2006), is an example of an educa7onal documentary that features a global overview of different organisms and habitats on earth. Historical documentaries about events or people can also be described as educa7onal. There are several documentaries about prominent historical figures (Hitler, Pablo Escobar, Biblical figures, adventurers, etc.) and historical events such as the different World Wars (The World at War, 1973), the Feminist Movement (She’s Beau9ful When She’s Angry, 2014) or the War on Drugs (Cocaine Cowboys, 2006) that all use facts, interviews with experts and eye-witnesses, archived material, personal documents, etc. in order to inform and educate the viewer about the person or event in ques7on, or to give evidence of (and some7mes the mo7va7on for) specific events.
Yet another popular func7on of the documentary is to uncover some hidden truth or mystery. These documentaries have become increasingly popular as mystery docu-series on plaiorms such as Neilix and HBO (Making a Murderer, The Keepers and OJ: Made in America). Forgolen mysteries or events are brought to life anew by the filmmaker with the aid of interviews, archived material and re-enactments in order to get to uncover a truth that might have been regarded a conspiracy or coverup.
In the same way that documentary codes that overlap, documentary func7ons may also overlap. It does not have to solely educate, entertain, uncover a truth, solve a mystery, or create awareness. It can fulfil various of these func7ons simultaneously.
2.3. The relationship between Fact and Fiction
In order to characterise the genre of documentary, a comparison between the concepts of fic7on and documentary is paramount. One approach would be to consider documentary’s rela7onship to
fic7onal texts. Roscoe and Hight explain that this par7cular approach of documentary is based on a fact/fic7on dichotomy (7). The documentary becomes factual and “in direct opposi7on to the imaginary worlds of fic7on” (7). This implicates an ethical and moral factor: something cannot be merely conjured up in order to be categorised as a documentary.
Various theorists, including Nichols, have pointed out that there are no absolutes in factual documentary or fic7on (8). By looking at the rela7onship between fic7on and nonfic7on, the rela7onship between documentary and mockumentary also becomes clearer, as mockumentary takes place in that liminal space between fact and fic7on - it represents a fic7onal world by applying non-fic7onal characteris7cs. This enables the mockumentary to expose codes and conven7ons associated with documentary and in turn, allows the mockumentary to comment on the documentary form. In my analysis of Arrested Development, I will argue that by using documentary techniques in a fic7onal format, the show rather comments on the documentary form, its validity, and its func7ons.
There is a parallel dis7nc7on between documentaries and mockumentaries that is also linked to the broad divide between fic7on and nonfic7on. This will contribute to a finer line between documentaries with a factual, real-life content, and those with a fic7onalised storyline that has the appearance and effect of truth and reality.
2.3.1 Documentary transformation and mutation into diversion/hybrid genres The dis7nc7on between fic7onal and nonfic7onal content is not as clear-cut as it may ini7ally appear. The ques7on arises: how is documentary categorised and labeled when it has no func7on beyond entertaining and providing pleasure as if it is indeed fic7on? With such radical separa7on and breaks from the original format, how can these products then be defined, and what does it mean for classical media func7ons of representa7on and audience theories (Corner, 263)?
With the rise of television and online streaming as the daily staple of mass audiences, increasing convergence has evolved. Some of the expanding forms that were birthed from the documentary genre include “scripted” or “structured” reality television that claims to be non-fic7onal, but in reality, becomes so forced that it exposes itself as scripted. The docusoap (such as
The Real World or Cops), which borrows from the style of documentary but resembles soap operas
in terms of plot and edi7ng, and the docudrama (such as Na7onal Geographic’s Genius, or Ancient
Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire), which takes the form of a drama7sed show that is based on
real events, has become increasingly popular. These reality-based programs u7lise codes and conven7ons of the documentary (voiceover, narra7on, talking-head, fly-on-the-wall footage) to give an appearance of documentary authen7city to events that are actually staged and scripted (Rhodes & Springer, 5). Hill, interes7ngly, says that viewers do not experience genres as dis7nctly different, but as part of a wide range of genres that report on facts (213).
The increasing popularity for the merging between fic7on and non-fic7on is that it does not offer an escape from reality, but instead, a voyeuris7c escape directly into reality as fic7onal entertainment has become “formulaic, predictable, and, hence, boring” (Andrejevic, 8). Nonetheless, one of the biggest possible reasons why so many producers and broadcasters have adopted this “fic7onal-reality” genre may well be be the result of lower produc7on costs. Extensive 7me is no longer required for pervasive camera and ligh7ng setups, and expensive sets and costumes are no longer of cri7cal importance. There are no special effects or substan7al
edi7ng, and oken in the case of reality television, actors are no longer needed but can be replaced by unpaid contestants yearning to be in the limelight.
2.3.2. The Entrance of the Mockumentary
What will audiences be inclined to think and do when presented with a format like Arrested
Development? The documentary look and feel are, aker all, s7ll present; the tradi7on of drama7c
events, the adver7sing elements, the look of modern, popular video formats are all involved - this can compromise understanding of viewers. This may account for accusa7ons and arguments that mockumentaries have contributed to the dilu7on and weakening core of the iconic documentary (263), however, I believe that rather than mockumentary undermining documentary, it provides a cri7cal reflec7on on documentary aesthe7cs (which I will further argue in Chapter 4).
2.4. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have alempted to establish a defini7on of documentary and summarise the characteris7cs, different modes and func7ons of the genre. In addi7on to examining the documentary, I have also briefly examined and demonstrated the blurring of boundaries in media products and hybrid forms. While we have seen tremendous shiks in the documentary genre, it is possible that the future even holds more sub-genres and hybrids for new media, where every ci7zen can become a journalist and social reporter of the reality around them.
In the next chapter, I will focus on the sub-genre of mockumentary and its rela7on to the sitcom format. It is vital to inves7gate these new hybrids which enjoy huge popularity. What is essen7al to this study, is that it seems to not use facts, but ves7ges of the tradi7onal codes and conven7ons, as well as new influences or tropes.
3. THE MOCKING OF DOCUMENTARIES
3.1. Introduction
In the previous chapter, I have explored the func7ons as well as the primary characteris7cs of the genre of documentary, in prepara7on for my primary analysis of Arrested Development in Chapter 4. In this chapter, I will examine the genre of mockumentary as well as its development in rela7on to the medium of television and the sitcom format.
This chapter will be divided into two parts. The first sec7on will aim to define the mockumentary genre and explore characteris7cs, codes, and conven7ons, as well as different degrees thereof. I will then proceed to narrow down this par7cular genre by looking at mockumentary in rela7on to the television sitcom. I will also explore how humour is applied in television mockumentary (or comedy vérité).
3.2. Defining Mockumentary
Mockumentary, simply stated, tells fic7onal stories under the guise of truth-telling by simula7ng the style of documentary. Hight and Roscoe define mockumentary as:
A fact-fic9onal form which has a close rela9onship to both drama and documentary. It not only uses documentary codes and conven9ons but constructs a par9cular rela9onship with the discourse of factuality. (7)
This defini7on is en7rely limited to fic7onal texts "which make a par7al or concerted effort to appropriate documentary codes and conven7ons in order to represent a fic7onal subject” (Hight & Roscoe, 2) and “which mimic the visual and aural conven7ons of the documentary in order to challenge the very founda7ons and privileged status of the documentary form” (4). These fic7onal texts appear like documentaries in some way or another, while they appropriate some of the documentary modes (Chapter 2). Mockumentary takes its subject from
the world of fic7on and combines that par7cular subject with the codes of documentary (Jacobs, 2000).
Rhodes and Springer argue that mockumentary can be compara7vely defined in terms of its func7on. In the case of mockumentary, it becomes clear that the func7ons are rela7vely intertextual and directly subversive (14). They argue that documentary codes and conven7ons are appropriated by mockumentary in order to create a fic7onal world, “thereby severing the direct rela7onship between the image and the referent” (14). The mockumentary makes use of documentary (as a genre), documentary filmmakers, and also cultural, social and poli7cal icons as their objects of parody. They seek to develop a rela7onship with a knowing and informed audience who can appreciate both the humour and the inherent cri7cal reflexivity of the form by ‘being in on the joke’. Finally, mockumentaries provoke ques7ons about form — specifically, about the permissibility, usefulness, and danger of mixing the func7ons of drama and documentary.
Mockumentary films have the ability and license to approach the rela7onship between reality and film. By pairing documentary form with a fic7onal narra7ve, mockumentaries are in the posi7on to “appropriate the appearance of authen7city in service of irony and cultural cri7que” (Miller, 24).
It is clear that the mockumentary and documentary exist in symbiosis. While Juhasz and Lerner describe it as “iden7cal twins separated at birth” who are in their origins one and the same (232), it is important to remember that documentary takes place in a non-fic7onal realm and mockumentary in a fic7onal one - nonetheless, both of these genres aim to represent the real.
It is important to note that the mockumentary landscape is fairly broad. While the genre is most oken associated with humour and comedy, there are other mockumentary produc7ons which do not include these elements and would typically fall into the hoax or “found footage” horror genre, however, they remain mockumentaries by defini7on. Some examples include The
Blair Witch Project (1999) and the supernatural film, Paranormal Ac9vity (2007), which is
seemingly comprised of found footage and which had viewers ques7oning the authen7city of the films as they seemed more real than fake. It is for this reason that I deem it necessary to narrow down the genre even more when discussing comedic television mockumentaries, which I will do in the second part of this chapter.
3.2.1. Conventions of Mockumentary
In the previous sec7on, it becomes clear that mockumentary is en7rely fic7onal, even while it fully adopts the format of documentary. It adopts this appearance by appropria7ng the actualisa7on of documentary and borrowing codes and conven7ons from the documentary mode. As discussed in Chapter 2, Nichols suggests that documentary represents various characteris7cs of representa7on which are categorised in different documentary modes according to their features. Each mode exposes a different stage of the documentary and these modes are explicitly helpful in characterising mockumentaries.
These documentary modes and aesthe7c codes are assumed in mockumentary - it essen7ally appears to be documentary but has been convincingly faked (Rhodes & Springer, 18). While it is common for mockumentaries to appropriate one specific mode, it is more typical for them to shik between different modes (Hight & Roscoe, 49). This becomes apparent when looking at Arrested Development as it borrows from the observa7onal mode by using the unobtrusive camera that is not acknowledged by any of the characters as well as “fly on the wall” moments.
Arrested Development also appropriates the exposi7onal mode by making prominent use of a
voice-of-God narrator (in this case, Ron Howard who also produces the show) in conjunc7on with many forms of archived material which ranges from news clips, photographs, excerpts from magazines and newspapers, home-video, “official” s7lls and footage from surveillance and traffic cameras, and clips from other television shows. Documentary modes are an easy target for mockumentary - par7cularly because the ‘look’ of their codes and conven7ons lends itself to replica7on, but also because they posi7on themselves as morally superior in their representa7on of the social world (49).
Besides the modes that are appropriated, mockumentary also borrows many of the aesthe7c elements that are associated with documentary. These include handheld-camera footage, voice-over commentary, newsreel footage, and one-on-one interviews with characters as well acquaintances and so-called “experts” on the topic of the mockumentary. Best in Show (Christopher Guest, 2000) features many interviews with people who are “experts” on the topic of dogs, dog training and dog-shows. These aesthe7c elements are all signifiers of reality which makes the mockumentary format seem more real and authen7c than other fic7onal forms. These elements are oken appropriated for stylis7c reasons and in order to emphasise humour (Rhodes & Springer, 16).
The use of the unstable handheld camera creates an impression that the viewer is watching events unfold in an unmediated way. The aesthe7cs related to the handheld camera look ranges from a shaky frame, images moving in and out of focus, seeing film crew and equipment on camera or in reflec7ons, as well as the inability to keep the subjects within the frame. Importantly, these aesthe7cs are all associated with in7macy (Hight & Roscoe). One can almost state that the shaky handheld camera has become the norm in the majority of mockumentary films or television shows. Fly-on-the-wall moments are also popular and the viewer gets to see a different side of the character than the character that “performs” when the camera is present. The talking head is another feature that is oken seen in mockumentaries such as The Comeback (2005, 2014), Parks
and Recrea9on, Modern Family, and The Office. These elements are used to create addi7onal
humour in many cases. Viewers feel like they are being let in on a joke and thus enjoy the film for the parody that it is (Nichols, 17).
3.2.2. Degrees of Mockumentary
Roscoe and Hight categorise mockumentary into three different degrees: parody, that focuses on “some aspect of popular culture rather than the documentary itself” (68); cri9que, that incorporates a cri7que of documentary prac7ce into the text; and deconstruc9on or “sustained cri7que of documentary” (72), which sa7rises the conven7ons of documentary. These degrees approach mockumentary according to “the intersec7on between the inten7on of the filmmakers, the nature and degree of the text’s appropria7on of documentary codes and conven7ons, and the degree of reflexivity consequently encouraged for their audience” (67).
The first degree of parody is rela7vely indis7nct in its cri7cisms of the documentary text. Documentary codes and conven7ons are appropriated for stylis7c reasons and also to enhance and emphasise humour (68). This degree oken reflects on easy targets who are “ripe for mocking” (Rhodes & Springer, 16). Arrested Development is an excellent example of this degree of parody. The “documentary crew” are following and documen7ng the Bluth family, just as they would follow a family or group of people in the real world. Details such as home video footage, old family photos, excerpts from magazines and newspapers, and news-clips aid in crea7ng an extra-textual impression of the family’s “real existence” to the audience (Roscoe & Hight, 69). Even
though the show and everyone in it is fake, the audience buys into it because of the convincing documentary style and fabricated informa7on. This is also evident in The Office, where someone (most likely Michael Scol or Dwight Schrute), might say or do something exceedingly absurd, aker which the camera turns towards Jim Halpert with his deadpan face looking directly into the camera, as if to say, “you see?”. The viewer is aware that the people are not real and it is not a real documentary, but Jim’s interac7on with the camera makes it seem more real and and even more comedic. In both of these examples, we see that the observa7onal mode becomes exposed in parody.
In contrast with the first degree, cri9que (and hoax) mockumentaries are inten7onally reflexive towards factual discourses (70) and as the name describes, offer a cri7que of the media prac7ce and represent a cri7cal approach towards their subjects. This degree departs from the first degree in terms of addressing documentary codes more explicitly. It raises ques7ons about the documentary form as well as other factual media prac7ces and how media representa7ons are constructed. In order to support the filmmaker’s inten7on, this degree of cri9que uses the codes of documentary to construct a false argument and in doing so, implies how documentary codes can be used to manipulate the audience as well as the subject (70). The reflexivity in the text becomes independent from the filmmaker’s inten7on. Although the cri7cism of the codes of documentary is not the main focus of these types of mock-documentaries, the reflexivity through the factual discourses of documentary cannot be ignored.
These mockumentaries, while not necessarily containing messages which are deliberately intended to be reflexive towards factual discourse, s7ll manage to trigger reflexive interpreta7ons among viewers because of the subsequent uncovering of their fic7onal status (Roscoe & Hight, 72). Bad News Tour (a follow-up of This is Spinal Tap!) is a good example of this, as the film claims to represent a detached, truthful representa7on of the world that is sa7rised (71) as it explores tensions and contradic7ons that are intrinsic to the collabora7on between documentary filmmaker and subject.
The hoax can also be situated within cri7que as it “triggers reflexive interpreta7ons among viewers because of the subsequent uncovering of their fic7onal status – this text’s reflexive poten7al derives from the success of its fakery, and in par7cular from the context created for its recep7on, including the extra-textual cues deliberately created by filmmakers and broadcas7ng ins7tu7ons” (72). In other words, the text deliberately tries to confuse - or rather obfuscate - an audience about its authen7city that results in automa7c interpreta7ons about the fic7onal status of the text. One notable example of a hoax that was believed to be true is the radio adapta7on of H.G. Welle’s The War of the Worlds that was performed by Orson Wells in 1938. The radio broadcast converted the 40-year-old novel into fake news bulle7ns that described a Mar7an invasion of New Jersey. Some listeners mistook the broadcast for recording of actual ongoing events and anxious calls to the police, newspaper offices and radio sta7ons proved that Well’s broadcast caused a mass hysteria. The following morning, Wells’s name was on the front pages of several newspapers alongside headlines about the mass panic that the CBS broadcast allegedly inspired.
The third degree, deconstruc9on, presents and explicitly cri7ques the documentary form. Mockumentaries that fall into this category tend to be more harsh and sophis7cated. The inten7on of mockumentaries that fall into this degree of deconstruc9on is to cri7que the codes, conven7ons and expecta7ons surrounding tradi7onal prac7ces of documentary and its ability to document the truth (72). Roscoe and Hight describe it as “a sustained cri7que of the set of assump7ons and expecta7ons which support the classic modes of documentary. The documentary project itself is
then their [mockumentaries] true subject [...]: the level of expecta7ons associated with the camera and its perceived ability to record truths” (74).
Man Bites Dog (1992), which is about a film crew whose main focus and subject is a serial
killer, demonstrates a vicious appropria7on of documentary codes and conven7ons and u7lises them with the aim to deconstruct the founda7ons of the documentary project. The documentary crew follows the serial killer and soon find themselves to be accomplices in his murders (74). The film deconstructs the text on many levels as it seeks to destroy the ethical and poli7cal posi7ons that a documentary filmmaker takes on. It is common to see that humour is oken underplayed “in favour of representa7ons that seek to create ‘ethical unease’ that will lead to cri7que” (Rhodes & Springer, 17). Deconstruc7on is rarely used in mockumentaries, as it is more likely to comment on the documentary form instead of filmmakers or other subjects. Most mockumentaries would either fall under the first degree of parody or the second degree of cri7que (74).
I will now move onto the second part of this chapter to give an overview of mockumentary in rela7on to television and humour.
3.3. The Sitcom and Mockumentary
It could be argued that during the last fikeen years or so, the sitcom has started to change its format and it became more evident that the mockumentary, which was more of a niche genre associated with film, was slowly making its way onto mainstream television (Mast, 231). An ar7cle in the New York Times stated that:
The trend across all of network television is sharply away from comedy as a staple of entertainment programming, pushed aside by an audience bored by a 9red sitcom format, changing industry economics and the rise of reality shows (Carter, 2004)
Scripted television has become influenced by the aesthe7c elements of documentary and other non-fic7on television like reality television and the docusoap, and soon there was an emergence of sitcoms that adopted the visual codes of documentary (Thompson, 64).
This muta7on of the sitcom transpired as a result of several factors. Jason Milell believes that since the 1990s, there has been a trend towards more narra7ve complexity in storytelling that has blurred the separa7on between episodic and serial narra7ves, which in turn demands more viewer engagement (38). Programming has also been affected by viewers who have a wide range of viewing op7ons over many channels and subscrip7on services which led to a dwindling audience. The audiences became smaller and more niche, which led to networks taking greater risks with their programs, and especially within comedy, as these networks did not have to abide by the same rules and guidelines of sitcoms on broadcast television (Thomson, 64).
Another important factor that has allowed the shik from mul7-camera to single-camera sitcoms relates to produc7on. The sitcom aesthe7c which became recognisable by its mul7-camera and ligh7ng set-ups in a studio set, has been replaced with hand-held cameras and minimal ligh7ng. The premise of Arrested Development was conceived when Ron Howard (producer and narrator of the show) had the idea of a sitcom that resembled a reality program.
“The intent by Ron, who spent half his life in mul9ple-camera comedy and half his life as a single-camera director, was to marry the best of both worlds,” David Nevins, president of Imagine Television, said when the deal to make the show was first announced (Schneider). Nevins queried Hurwitz about the possibility of a new approach to making the family sitcom: “His ques9on was, ‘What if we shot a show in digital video, so we could go very fast and didn’t have to spend an hour and a half ligh9ng for each shot, we could just go out there and start shoo9ng, like Cops or Blind Date? Could we spend that 9me sharpening the jokes and making a more ambi9ous produc9on? What would happen if we applied the sensibility of mul9-camera to single-camera?’ (Robinson, 2005).
Instead of spending 7me on secng up the camera and lights, they were instead able to focus on the dialogue and comic delivery (Thompson, 70). Another factor that may have influenced this new style might have been the financial pressures for fic7onal programming and the compe77on from unscripted content. Shoo7ng in a documentary or reality tv style offered a cheaper alterna7ve. This is an example of how the decision to shoot a sitcom in a more simplis7c and low-budget style, led to one of the first mainstream mockumentary sitcoms.
This new style allowed television writers to embrace new tools and techniques to tell stories. The ‘talking head’ shot, which is prominent in The Office, The Comeback and Modern
Family, and where interview style is embraced in order for the character to communicate directly
with the camera “allowed for exposi7on dumps—exposi7on that would feel too cheap or out of place in tradi7onal narra7ves—which in itself allowed for cramming even more plot into a twenty minute episode” (Picone, 2014). This is achieved by the narrator in Arrested Development which aids in simplifying a complex narra7ve - like Ron Howard facilitates understanding between the viewer and that which is unfolding on the screen.
Another reason why single-camera comedies provide a viable alterna7ve to mul7-camera sitcoms relates to the costs involved. Jack Picone (online) points out that in the past, it was cheaper to shoot on tape with a small number of sets instead of shoo7ng more cinema7cally on digital with mul7ple loca7ons. With technological advances, however, it has become more cost-effec7ve to shoot digitally while also producing beler quality and beler aesthe7c.
In mockumentary sitcoms, the medium of the camera almost has a life of its own as it moves and zooms in and out without a “scripted” regularity and plan. By means of long and awkward pauses where the camera focuses solely on a character, the viewer gets a sense of being in the room with characters like Michael Scol from The Office, or Valerie Cherish from The
Comeback. These moments, when it becomes evident that Valerie is a has-been wan7ng to be in
the spotlight, and Michael, an annoying boss who only longs to connect with his employees, oken cause uncomfortable, cringe-worthy moments for the audience, which is proof of the cruelty of the camera. Besides the cruelty of the camera, it also aids in crea7ng humour.
For the typical audience member, the humour is not in the dialogue or heavy-handed jokes - it is in knowing the somewhat weird characters who usually react as a person who knows them, would expect. Because certain mannerisms become familiar to us, those very mannerisms are expected. This is, once again, clearly illustrated in Jim Halpert's (The Office) deadpan stare at the camera aker Michael (once again) makes a fool of himself by trying to be cool. It seems as if this is one of the clues - the characters never fail to do what we expect from them, but in the mockumentary, this is emphasised by close-ups or isola7on of the act (Picone, 2005). One could thus state that the camera aids in highligh7ng and crea7ng (occasionally cruel) humour through its movement.
By using such documentary techniques, these television shows also remind audiences of its ar7ficiality which allows viewers to be distanced and engaged at the same 7me, according to Mills (68). He goes on to argue that such a contradic7on is “vital to comedy generally, in which laughter requires an involvement with, and a detachment from, that which is funny”. The important dis7nc7on here is the absence of the laugh track combined with a more intense film approach - which is to give more agency to the viewer and audience. The viewer is rarely told when to laugh - you have to find the amusing, humorous element yourself, which makes the funny moments in a sense much more personal and meaningful, because it is based on what you personally perceive as funny, strange or ridiculous (Picone, 2005).
These single-camera comedies exploded and provided an exci7ng alterna7ve to mul7-camera sitcoms. Mockumentaries now have “become essen7al weapons in the balle against sitcom predictability” and have offered a way for television comedy to be pushed to new heights and audience involvement (Gilbert, 2010). This new mode of television has led to the need that dis7nguishes itself from the tradi7onal sitcom as well as the broad term of mockumentary - and this is how and why the new mode of comedy vérité was born, which I will briefly focus on in the next sub-sec7on.
3.3.1. Comedy Vérité
As I have discussed above, documentary conven7ons can be appropriated in several ways to produce “docufic7on” content that ranges from docusoap to reality television through the use of various genres such as comedy, as well as horror. The developments in sitcoms that make use of documentary techniques and aesthe7cs show that it is important to dis7nguish mockumentary comedy sitcoms from mockumentaries in general, as well as from sitcoms. That is why a new term, comedy vérité, which has reinvigorated the sitcom format, has been introduced by Brel Mills for this televisual style. This new “cross-genre” style u7lises a mixed genre that incorporates elements from sitcom as well as from documentary and shiks the sitcom towards an “individualised comedic structure, specifically tailored to the television medium” (Madison, 83). The visual characteris7cs of documentary have been adopted exclusively by the sitcom for comedic purposes.
Trisha Dunleavy has iden7fied six main conven7ons that characterise and dis7nguish comedy vérité programs. Firstly, they make use of a situa7onal premise that reunites the progressive poten7al of ‘reality’ docusoap with the sitcom’s conven7onal stasis and entrapment. Secondly, they make use of narra7on by means of vérité-styled aesthe7cs associated with ‘reality’ TV and specifically “on-the-wing camera work” and direct address. Thirdly, characters acknowledge the camera and oken 7mes try to control what is being recorded by exploi7ng opportuni7es afforded by vérité-styled aesthe7cs. Next, it creates a narra7ve structure “between the self-containment and circularity of sitcom and the seriality of most docusoap” (online). It also focuses on flawed, incorrigible characters who have been established by the sitcom and adjusted by the ‘reality’ docusoap through the use of suitable real-life characters. Finally, comedy vérité programs are self-conscious in their comic performance that is encouraged by “vérité-styled interplay between characters, the camera and some7mes including the programme-makers” (online) that results in humour and increases edgy discomfort.
Comedy vérité marries the sitcom’s situa7onal stasis with the real-life situa7ons constructed in docusoaps, according to Dunleavy. A great example in case would be the popular
get close to the key characters’ quirks and an7cipated reac7ons. This is what provides the audience members with a sense of “I knew he or she was going to say or do that!”. These are the people you know, and you know what to expect of them, as with the real individuals.
Dunleavy points out that the characterisa7ons in comedy vérité combine the flawed and hopeless characters oken seen in sitcom, with real-life individuals (similar to some that we all know) who are difficult, opinionated, or deluded-like subjects in documentary and documentary-hybrids, such as the docusoap and reality television. Some of these characters include Selina Meyer from Veep (2012-2017), Valerie Cherish from The Comeback and Mr. G from Summer
Heights High (2008), who are all aspiring but hugely failing professionals. Their inflated self-image
does not ever allow them the ability to see themselves as those around them do, or process any of the feedback that their colleagues or even loved ones may provide.
These unique characters, in combina7on with documentary aesthe7cs, allow comedy vérité the unique poten7al for humour which is not available to tradi7onal sitcoms as it can create opportuni7es to produce laughter and amusement which has not been there before (Thompson, 71). The characters act up when the camera is present, at 7mes they try to manipulate what the viewers see on screen while trying to intervene with what is being filmed, and offers self-revela7on through interviews (Dunleavy, 2008). The characters ac7ng in a manner that would not be possible in sitcom, allows for cringe-inducing moments that the viewer cannot help but laugh at (and at 7mes relate to) that has the same feel-good quality of the sitcom. These moments add to the humour of the piece and can also evoke a sense of sympathy from the viewer as they see characters and situa7ons for who and what they really are. We naturally are also oken reminded about our own pathe7c selves in these moments.
It is clear that the sitcom has discon7nued resembling and re-inven7ng itself, and it has started to ques7on and break down the “characteris7cs of the medium whose forms it is finally beginning to embrace”, according to Mills (78). By using codes and conven7ons associated with dis7nc7ve mockumentary and the sitcom, the pleasure gained by the viewer requires at least some form of knowledge of other television forms (77). It can be said then that comedy vérité is indeed “comedy for audiences raised on television formats” (78).
3.3.2. Humour
One could theorise that the audience member becomes a witness of the funny, the real, and the comedic through an alterna7ve mode of making sense of typical television humour (Thompson, 71 - 72). comedy vérité thus becomes a producer of televisual “Masquerade” by connec7ng the points of understanding and connec7on between what is being viewed and adap7ng or reconciling it with the viewer’s own exis7ng understanding of humour. What cannot be ignored is the central connec7on or rela7onship that comedy vérité literally constructs between the text and the audience. A totally uninformed, inexperienced audience member will not be able to recognise the object of the parody and thus will not understand the meaning of the cri7que - the joke, so to speak. In this respect, mockumentary has always reacted quickly to exploit the elements of sa7re and parody precisely to point out the ever-changing and almost fickle nature of factual screen forms (Rhodes & Springer, 25).
The mockumentary’s general aim is to create a fic7onal world as a non-fic7onal world. It shows characters and events as if they are actually unfolding in front of the camera. In this way ,mockumentaries ridicule the ‘truth claim’ of documentary by showcasing farcical storylines
and characters as if they are well-researched subjects. Mockumentary does this by mocking the style of documentary and in turn in sa7rises and makes a parody of documentary by introducing exaggerated and absurd stories. In this sec7on, I will argue that the televisual style of comedy vérité oken uses sa7re and parody in order to create humour.
Satire and Parody
The term ‘sa7re’ and ‘parody’ are oken used as synonyms but have slightly different meanings. Both involve the imita7on of and ironic commentary on another discourse. Yet, sa7re implies ridicule of its target, while parody need not devalue its object, but may range from an ethos of condemna7on to one of homage and celebra7on (Plan7nga, 321).
Juhasz and Lerner argue that mockumentaries are a “special breed of parody in that they accomplish something different, something extra; they do manage a ‘link to the real’.” (1). The mockumentary is at the same 7me parody as well as sa7re that is “both moral and social in its focus and ameliora7ve in its inten7on” (Hutcheon, 16). As a parody, mockumentary represents documentary; and as sa7re, it simulates documentary’s referent, the moral, social, poli7cal, and historical (Juhasz & Lerner, 2). Parody is cri7cal in nature and oken aids in reflec7ng and commen7ng on other texts, whereas sa7re is not restricted to the imita7on of other texts, but instead to societal and cultural issues. By applying sa7re and parody, mockumentaries create a link between “form, content, style, representa7on, and the recorded world” (3).
The unique concept of sa7re, that has always existed in media texts, is (as explained by Davis) intensified in the case of television mockumentaries. This is visible not only in the characters and storylines, but in fact, in the very essence and iden7ty of the mockumentary mimicking and ridiculing the somewhat important and loky genre of some documentaries. In modern 7mes, this technique is oken quite controversial because of its inherent power. It can transverse genres and technologies, because of its universally understood message in social and cultural contexts. In this respect, I find Collela’s defini7on of sa7re useful:
“Sa9re is defined as a form that holds up human vices and follies to ridicule and scorn. It is ‘an aback on or cri9cism of any stupidity or vice in the form of scathing humour,’ and it is also a cri9que of what an author sees as ‘dangerous religious, poli9cal, moral or social standards”.
(859)
I understand from this that sa7re is not always purely comic or humorous in itself. Sa7re in itself is not a simple methodology, and it contains layers in terms of the tensions, once again. While it amuses, it can also create confusion or alarm - which is inherent to social cri7que. By looking at The Office and The Comeback, one could argue that the shows expose our contemporary habits of self-media7on and self-performance. This trend could also be argued to undermine the documentary form more generally, as it is twisted from presenta7ons of the real into vehicles for narcissis7c self-aggrandisement and grandiose delusions.
Typically, it is not designed to amuse or ridicule - it is rather intended to deliver something to the audience (reader or viewer) that they can recognise. To me, this func7ons on a more ins7nctual level, rather than intellectual or cogni7ve. If we are in contact with true nature, we will be able to see ourselves or others in the characters and messages and therefore it presents a more serious message than we are inclined to believe (Davis, 98). Many other researchers and authors concur that it is never dismissive; rather, it is intended to provoke. Even this objec7ve is not single-layered, but nuanced. The message should be able to provoke scorn or indictments in a playful
