The Truth About No Lies

I enjoyed Mitchell Block's article about his film No Lies. There is a very interesting part where he talks about three separate relationships within the film. There is the filmmaker/subject relationship, the filmmaker/audience relationship and the film/audience relationship. No lies does well to abuse all of these. The filmmaker is harassing the subject during the film making. By doing so, the filmmaker then becomes unlikeable to the audience. (Even I started out liking the cameraman, but then turned on him towards the end.) Finally, the film presents itself as truth, although it is not, therefore deceiving the audience.
Although Block's film does well to abuse all three of these relationships, he takes pride in his ethical treatment of his work. He credits the film as fiction, even though it appears to be real. However, Block goes to great lengths to condemn documentary filmmakers such as Michael who parade their work as reality, yet misrepresent their subjects and the truth. I also liked his distinction between No Lies (which is drama that is fictional) and reality shows (which are drama that is real.) The difference is scripting before shooting and scripting after shooting.