April 9, 2007
All Lies
Although No Lies embodies the quality of refelexivity and touches on real issues, it falls short of the title "documentary". No Lies is documentary style in appearance and structure; however, the use of theatrical actors and a script seperate it too far from any form of documentary. No Lies could be considered a reflexive fiction, or even a reflexive pseudocumentary. If the actors were replaced with social actors and the script traded for an interview (even guided), the film would be a perfect documentary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
No Lies, while entertaining, is dangerous in that the average layman would just accept that as truth, instead of a staged, acted out piece. The fact that it is so easily accepted as truth may not be so bad for the subject matter in No Lies, but the same scenario of lies projected as the truth could mean trouble if it's believed, depending on the subject matter.
What I did like about No Lies is that it used an actress to touch upon a subject that real life rape victims may not have been comfortable talking about, especially on camera. She channeled all of their emotions - rage, fear, confusion, helplessness. She gave countless, anonymous women a voice, even if it was a fabricated one.
When I think back to my first time watching "No Lies," and the fact that the credits weren't shown, nor was I made aware of the fact that what I had watched was actually fictional, I do find myself mildly concerned. While "No Lies" is certainly entertaining, and maintains its stance as a hard-hitting commentary on the issue of rape and the debasement of females, it must be looked at as a narrative piece, rather than a true documentary.
The entire film, down to the title, projects an undisputed air of authenticity. When I did finally learn that the entirety of the dialogue was staged, I felt betrayed by the filmmaker, and annoyed with myself for not having caught on sooner. As I said before, this knowledge doesn't take away from the fact that the film was well-made and convincing, but it does call a lot of other films into question by comparison.
While I do understand how this manipulation of the viewer has the potential for danger, I'm pleased with the fact that the previous poster acknowledged the importance of the subject matter in such a situation. With this particular film, at least as far as my reading of it is concerned, there was no inherent danger. However, applied to a different matter, this could very well change (as was stated in the previous post).
I couldn't have voiced the conclusion of the previous post better: Shelby Leverington, as the victim, gave a face and a voice to countless women who have been objectified and violated, but have been too humiliated or afraid to come forward. In this particular case, the manipulation of the viewer may not only be innocuous, but helpful. With one woman sharing her own accounts of horror (fictional, though they may be), she exposes sexual predators, corrupt cops, and innumerable victims in a narrative that comes across as "accidental."
Post a Comment