What are some lesser known mockumentary series

Interface mockumentary. A hybrid genre between fact and fiction

Table of Contents


1 Basics of the mockumentary
1.1 Derivation of the term and attempted definition
1.1.1 Who invented it?
1.2 Differentiation from other film genres

2 Media-theoretical embedding of the mockumentary
2.1 The reality of the film
2.1.1 Comparison of the fictional and documentary film realities
2.2 Documentary reference point
2.2.1 Filmmakers' self-image and aspirations
2.2.2 Forms of presentation of the films
2.2.3 Audience expectations
2.3 Staging authenticity
2.4 Digression: Counterfeit or Fake?
2.4.1 Example: The Born Affair

3 strategies and intentions of the mockumentary
3.1 (Pseudo-) authentication strategies of the mockumentary
3.2 The 'mock-docness' of the mockumentary
3.2.1 Grade 1: Parody
3.2.2 Grade 2: Criticism
3.2.3 Grade 3: Deconstruction

4 film samples
4.1.1 Dates, staff and staff
4.1.2 Brief content
4.1.3 Sequence listing
4.1.4 (Pseudo-) authentication strategies
4.1.5 Degree of 'mock-docness'
4.2 Example 2: DEATH OF A PRESIDENT 42 Mockumentary interface
4.2.1 Dates, staff and staff
4.2.2 Brief content
4.2.3 Sequence listing
4.2.4 (Pseudo-) authentication strategies
4.2.5 Degree of 'mock-docness
4.3.1 Dates, staff and staff
4.3.2 Brief content
4.3.3 Sequence listing
4.3.4 (Pseudo-) authentication strategies
4.3.5 Degree of 'mock-docness'

5 summary

Bibliography I

Web sources

Film directory

List of abbreviations

List of figures

List of tables

5.1 Sequence listings

“What is is both reality and possibility. What you think up because it is possible is also reality. [...]> The only question is why an imagined reality has to be placed next to the existing one. "

Nooteboom 2001, 43


“Film, that's 24 times the truth per second. "2 This is the sentence Jean Luc-Godard had one of his characters say in his film LE PETIT SOLDAT (1960/1963). Some time later, the director Brian De Palma responded by claiming that the camera would lie 24 times a second. These two provocatively formulated statements reflect the discourse that has surrounded the medium of film since its inception: Can film depict, reproduce and convey reality? Can film lie? And how do the mechanisms work that contribute to a film's impression of reality?

The cinema was created as a fairground attraction. It does not deny its origins to this day, as it still promises us to always show new, unbelievable sensations and unprecedented things with great advertising expenditure. The paying viewer should take their breath away at the magical attractions that reality does not know. When it comes to the "realization" of such miracles, the feature film has a wide range open to it thanks to digital technology. The documentary also works with illusions, but it cleverly blurs the traces of manipulation. Similar to photography, however, there is a claim on him to reproduce facts objectively, unadulterated and credibly. In the social discourse, this form of relation to reality and the strategies and problems associated with it are discussed again and again.3 As members of a modern media society, we have learned that films are “somehow” always subjective, and it is the truth not there. We no longer believe everything that television presents and is, we assume, to be able to differentiate between the representation of reality (in documentary films) and the representation of fictional worlds (in feature films).

The mockumentary represents an interface between these two worlds. Although it has the form of a typical documentary film, its content is purely fictional.

The following work examines the relationship of the mockumentary to the documentary film.

The two central questions are:

1. How do mockumentaries adapt a documentary style?
2. Why do mockumentaries adapt a documentary style? What is the intention behind this?

The work is divided into four main chapters and a résumé.

The first chapter introduces the genre of the term and its delimitation from other, related film genres according to a general definition for Mockumentaries searched. Already here the reflexivity towards the documentary becomes clear, which the work deals with in more detail in the subsequent chapters.

The second chapter approaches the mockumentary on a media-theoretical level. It illuminates the relation to reality of mockumentaries and their vacant position between documentation and fiction. First, the problem of reality is transferred to the discourse of film theory. In this context, Eva Hohenberger's model of reality is presented. In the search for an answer to the question of whether and how the medium of film can serve as an instrument for (re) production of reality, many different currents within documentary film have developed over the course of time.4 Since the mockumentary always refers to the documentary film, the various modes of reality of documentary forms of representation according to Bill Nichols are explained in this chapter. In addition, this chapter compares the fictional and documentary film realities. It becomes clear that the distinction between "fictional" and "documentary" is based on different conventions, which can be viewed as unwritten "contracts of perception" between director and viewer.5

This is followed by an excursus in which a demarcation of the mockumentary from the forgery and the lie in a media-specific context is made using an example.

After the media-theoretical embedding in the topic, the third chapter focuses on the question of how filmmakers create documentary authenticity. In addition, the chapter serves to set up an analysis grid, with the help of which some mockumentaries are examined as examples in the fourth chapter.

For this purpose, the (pseudo-) authentication strategies that mockumentaries use to establish the reading of a documentary film are explained. Using Roscoe and Hight's three-stage scheme on the reflexivity of the mockumentary in relation to the documentary, the filmmakers' intention behind these strategies is followed up. Here it becomes clear, among other things, that the mockumentary, by imitating the documentary film, can aim not only to entertaining amusement for the recipient, but also to raise critical awareness or even deconstruct the documentary film genre and that this is not only dependent on the intention of the Filmmaker, but also from the prevailing codes and conventions as well as the expectations of the recipient. Roscoe and Hight accordingly divide mockumentaries into three different degrees of 'mock-docness'.

In the fourth chapter, the films belonging to the mockumentary genre, THE FESTIVAL OF THE CHICKEN, DEATH OF A PRESIDENT and MUXMÄUSCHENSTILL are presented and analyzed using the previously established grid. First of all, the (pseudo) authentication strategies that occur in them are worked out in order to then assign them to the degrees of 'mock-docness' introduced by Roscoe and Hight.

1 Basics of the mockumentary

1.1 Derivation of the term and attempted definition

"Mock u men ta ry, n .: A television program or film which takes the form of a serious documentary in order to satirize its subject" 6

Accordingly, mockumentaries take on the form of a serious documentary film in order to present their topic in a satirical way. This entry from the Oxford English Dictionary already makes clear the relation of the mockumentary to the documentary film and provides initial information about its form, its approach and its intention. It will later become apparent, however, that this definition is too narrow, since it ignores the fact that a mockumentary is not necessarily a satire, but that it can also be intended to criticize or even deconstruct the documentary genre itself . According to the current understanding of the term, one can use the Mockumentary as a hybrid7 or documentary form - or simply as docufiction describe.8

Instead of Mockumentary, are also used by other authors Fake documentary 9, Mock Documentary 10 or more bogusdocumentary 11 used. With the so-called Pseudo-documentary it is also a fictional format that gives the impression that it is documentary. In contrast to the mockumentary, however, the viewer is not informed about the fictional character of the plot - on the contrary, various authentication signals reinforce the belief that real events are involved.12

Where did the term come from Mockumentary originates and since when it has been used can only be guessed at. Also the two authors Roscoe and Hight who deal with the genre in their book "Faking It - Mock-Documentary and the Subversion ofFactuality " have dealt with, state that despite extensive research, they were able to find only a few clues as to the origin of the word.13 What is certain is that in 1964 in the film A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, a comedy that documented a few days from the life of the Beatles describes first clues to the concept of mockumentary surfacing. Ringo is asked by a reporter "Are you a mod 14 or a rocker? "whereupon he replies "Um, no. I'm a mocker 15 . “16 In 1965 the Mockumentary then in the Oxford English Dictionary Mentioned for the first time, but it only became popular in the 80s when director Rob Reiner called his film THIS IS SPINAL TAP - A ROCKUMENTARY BY MARTIN DIBERGI (1984) in several interviews Mockumentary designated. This represents a parody of the documentary sub-genre of Rockumentary, (the documentary films about rock bands that were produced in large numbers at the time). He is considered the best-known representative of the mockumentary genre.

In the following an attempt is made to define the mockumentary. This is not entirely trivial because, analogous to documentary films, there are very different forms of mockumentary. Roscoe and Hight have made a detailed categorization of the mockumentary in their extensive study. You define them as follows:

"Mock-dockumentaries are fictional texts which in some form› look ‹like documentaries. These texts tend to appropriate certain documentary modes, as well as the full range of documentary codes and conventions. ” 17

In her book "F is for Phony. Fake-Documentary and Truth's Undoin g ", Alexandra Juhasz goes one step further and, in addition to the use of documentary stylistic devices, also emphasizes content-related aspects:

"For my purpose here, fake documentaries are fiction films that make use of (copy, mock, mimic, gimmik) documentary style and therefore acquire its associated content (the moral and social) and associated feelings (belief, trust, authenticity) to create a documentary experience defined by their antithesis, self-conscious distance. ” 18

The website provides another, relatively extensive definition Wikipediawhich is considered worth mentioning due to the small number of other definitions:

"The film genre term Mockumentary is a suitcase word (English (to) mock: `faking, mocking´ (mocking oneself) and documentary: "Documentary") and the name for a fictional documentary that parodies a real documentary or the whole genre.

A mockumentary pretends to be a documentary without actually being one. In doing so, apparently real processes are often staged or actual document parts are placed in a fictitious or invented context. It is a common cinematic genre medium for parody and satire. A mockumentary can also aim to create greater media awareness and encourage viewers to question the media and not believe everything that is seen on television on a daily basis. Mockumentarys present themselves e.g. B. often as historical documentaries from previously unpublished material talking headsdiscussing past events or as ciné ma vé rité Seem to accompany people through different events.

The author, actor and director Christopher Guest has specialized in this genre and has created four such mockumentarys so far. The most famous one was This Is Spinal Tap.

Also the relatively new genre of Documentary soaps is often parodied by mockumentary series.

Not to be regarded as a mockumentary Pseudo-documentaries ("Scripted Reality"), in which documentaries are not parodied but imitated. "19

As forms of mockumentary, Roscoe and Hight introduce the parody (1st degree), the criticism (2nd degree) and the Deconstruction (3rd degree).20 However, they emphasize that these are not fixed categories, but that the transitions are often fluid. Classification of the films is therefore by no means absolute, but also depends on their respective reception.21 Aesthetic features of a mockumentary film play no role for them in determining the mockumentary form.

Bayer, on the other hand, describes mockumentaries as "Films thus recreate the aesthetics of ciné ma vé rité films from the 1960s. ” 22 As this work will show, this description is too generalized. Rather, the mockumentary adapts various documentary aesthetics and representation codes in order, depending on the degree, to parody or criticize aspects of popular culture or even the entire documentary film genre.

1.1.1 Who invented it?

Luis Buñuel's film LAND WITHOUT BREAD (1933), which is a parody of the ethnographic film of the time, and Orson Welles' radio play WAR OF THE WORLDS paved the way for the mockumentary genre (1938), which had the form of a fictional report and originally as Hoax23 What was meant was, but according to newspaper reports it led to severe irritation among the population.24

A few lesser-known members of the genre were produced in the 1960s and 1970s. Films such as DAVID HOLZMAN'S DIARY (1967), PAT PAULSEN FOR PRESIDENT (1968), TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN (1969), and THE RUTLES: ALL YOU NEED IS CASH (1978) were made. After the commercial success of Woody Allen's ZELIG (1983) and Rob Reiner's THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984), there was a real boom in the genre and numerous mockumentaries followed. According to the "Box Office Charts", measured by the sales figures and the amount of income earned25 since 1978 until today the five most successful among them BORAT (2006), BRÜNO (2009), BEST IN SHOW (2000), A MIGHTY WIND (2003) and ZELIG (1983).26

1.2 Differentiation from other film genres

Since the search for a clear definition of the mockumentary genre has so far brought relatively few results to light, an attempt is now being made to define the mockumentary in more detail by distinguishing it from other hybrid film forms and genres.

At this point it should be noted that there are different opinions on the independent genre character of mockumentaries in the relevant scientific literature. For example, Heller defines a genre as “[...] an ensemble of works that has a relatively constant regularity in terms of subject matter, dramaturgy and aesthetics, with the constant variation of the recognizable familiar for the liveliness andhistorical consistency of a genre pattern. "27 In view of this requirement of uniform regularity, however, it would also be questionable whether documentary film can even be described as a genre in its own right. However, since the majority of authors assume that the genre is independent28 and an in-depth investigation into this would go beyond the scope of this work, we will also speak of in the following Mockumentary genre.

Roscoe and Hight also relate the mockumentary to other documentary forms such as the drama-documentary, and also define them as fictional texts,

"[...] who position themselves quite differently in relation to the discourses of fact and fiction. In sharp contrast to drama-documentary, they tend to foreground their fictionality (except in the case of deliberate hoaxes). [...] mock-documentary utilizes the aesthetics of documentary in order to undermine such claims to truth. ” 29

To illustrate the difference between the two forms, Roscoe and Hight compare Mockumentaries with April Fools' jokes, which are printed as short messages in a newspaper.30 This comparison is not all that far-fetched, as the SPAGHETTIERNTE (1957), described by most authors as the first mockumentary, was actually intended as an April Fool's joke.

The authors Rhodes and Springer proceed in a similar way in their book " Docufictions. Essays on the Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking ” in front. They try to approach the genre by contrasting the documentary with the fictional and the form with the content. In this way, they differentiate between four different genres:

Figure not included in this excerpt

Tab. 1: Scheme for classifying hybrid genres31

Even if this scheme, with its strict juxtaposition of documentary and fictional formats, is now considered obsolete, it is still suitable as a first approach to the characteristic and genre-specific features of mockumentary. It becomes clear that the mockumentary genre, just like the docu-drama, is at the interface between fictional and non-fictional film. In contrast to the mockumentary, however, the docu-drama uses scenic elements to present actual events such as (temporal) historical events in narrative form. Often these are key historical events, political scandals, legal cases or accidents. By recreating game scenes, so-called Re-enactments, a dramatization of the content is achieved and "The› promise of complete seeing ‹" 32 will be completed.

2 Media-theoretical embedding of the mockumentary

As explained in the first chapter, the mockumentary is no different in form from the documentary, it has the same aesthetic characteristics and uses the same strategies to create authenticity. In contrast to a real documentary film, the story that a mockumentary tells is not found, but invented. Its content is purely fictional - people, places and events come from the filmmaker's imagination.

Talking about mockumentaries therefore also means talking about documentaries and feature films and their relationship to reality. Philosophical and media-theoretical approaches should serve as a basis for examining the mockumentary in the course of this work using concrete examples.

2.1 The reality of the film

For all people who see a film, the filmmaker is the creator of a section of their reality at this moment.

"[The film] reflects [...] reality in a specific way:through emphasis, interpretation, distortion, commentary,Fictionalization, dramatization, gathering, stretching, etc. The film thus creates its own cinematic reality, which refers to the supposedly real reality, but is distinguishable from it. "

This quote implicitly makes it clear that models of reality automatically pluralize when the concept of reality differs from reality33 solves.34 An absolute division into “really” and “not really” therefore makes no sense.

Even if an exhaustive presentation of the discussion about the constructivist understanding of reality cannot be provided at this point, it seems worth mentioning in this context that, according to the constructivist understanding, it is not the one "objective"reality there, but that each person constructs his or her own reality with the help of individually different perceptions and their processing through consciousness. According to this view, there can be no objective representation in the media, since the reality depicted is always the construction of a subject who interprets it out of his or her individual disposition: "According to the constructivist understanding, media provide statements about reality, but are at the same time part of reality and ultimately constitute it." 35 Reality is therefore always dependent on the respective “[...] biological, cognitive and socio-cultural conditions to which socialized individuals are subjected in their social and natural environment. "36 The reality is consequently not reproduced by audiovisual media, but staged within certain conventions and fits.

Eva Hohenberger also makes a distinction in her book "The Reality of Film" between different realities, but refers to them as "realities". In order to facilitate the further investigation of the mockumentary and its strategies and to create a uniform nomenclature of the levels of reality, this reality concept is briefly presented below.

The reality concept developed by Hohenberger divides the film reality into different levels and in this way allows different types of film to be categorized.37

The non-cinematic reality describes the state of reality without a camera, film and personnel involved.38 This reality corresponds most closely to the constructivist "reality". She has to submit to the filmmaker's selection.

The pre-film reality describes the reality that takes place in front of the camera before the completion of the film and during the shooting. After something has been selected by the filmmaker from the non-filmic reality, it is staged in front of the camera. This staged reality is recorded on the respective storage medium and is thus temporally and spatially separable and independent of the non-filmic reality.39

The term Reality movie refers to everything that characterizes the film as an institution, i.e. intentions, technology, editing, organization, financing, etc. Hohenberger describes the result of the entire process, i.e. the finished film, as cinematic reality. This is initially completely independent of the non-filmic reality, but then returns to it through the reception of the audience.40

At the moment when the non-filmic reality meets the filmic reality, the post-film reality. It includes, for example, reviews, rental shops, cinemas, so simply everything that affects both the direct viewing and organization of the film, as well as the reactions that result from it.41

These different levels of reality are of course not always easy to separate from one another. So pre-film and film reality often blur into each other, because what once “That took place pre-film is now dissolved in a cinematic reality. "42 Strictly speaking, when the filmmaker selects the pre-film reality that interests him from the huge repertoire of non-film reality, the transformation of pre-film reality into film reality begins, as he always has the finished film in the back of his mind. The non-film reality stands for itself and, in contrast to the pre-film reality, is independent of the film itself.43

In summary, it can be stated that every film contains the principle of pre-film reality, which is brought back into non-film reality through the projection of the film. The advantage of Hohenberger's concept is that the relationship between the individual levels of reality enables a film to be classified in certain film categories. A staged or unstaged pre-film reality alone does not guarantee whether a fictional or a documentary film will be made afterwards.44 Because a film only represents a hint of "reality" and only the way this hint, i.e. the relationship of the film to non-film reality, allows it to be classified between fiction and documentation.

But what about the mockumentary? How is it related to reality? What role do the viewer's media competence and the associated expectations and conventions play in this? In order to answer these questions and to be able to define the mockumentary in more detail, a comparison of the fictional and documentary film realities is made below.

2.1.1 Comparison of the fictional and documentary film realities

The goal of the fictional film is for the viewer to take the camera's perspective. In this way he has the illusion of being there when it happens. To achieve this, the fictional film usually obscures the pre-film reality. It hides its means and the process of its creation, neither camera view nor montage are revealed. The cinematic reality is presented as an excerpt from the non-cinematic reality, the pre-cinematic reality is to a certain extent skipped over.45 An important point, however, is that the viewer surrenders to the illusion of the feature film, so he knows that what he sees is fiction.

The documentary, on the other hand, usually does not obscure the pre-film reality of its creation. He provides one "[...] the process of searching, researching, collecting materials in all possible directions."46 The pre-film reality researches and searches in the non-film reality from which the story in question originally comes. This process, in turn, is revealed in most documentaries on the level of cinematic reality, i.e. in the actual film. In this way, the viewer is provided with a relatively authentic image of non-film reality, but here, too, an illusion is stirred up: by being included in the pre-film reality, as it were, the viewer gets the feeling of 'being there' and the impression is created of authenticity, actually is "[...] the viewer no longer directEyewitness in the filmic process […]. "47 The documentary film cannot therefore do justice to the claim to objectively depict reality, because it is also staged. If it were objective, pre-film and film reality would coincide. Even if he tries to disguise his staging by blurring the different levels of reality into one another, he is still arranging his own reality.48

How this newly constructed reality is recognized as this by the recipient and to which of the two discourse systems he assigns it depends on the one hand on the transmitted reality and fictionality signals, but on the other hand is also based to a decisive extent on its interpretation. This in turn requires the ability to differentiate between the categories “fiction” and “non-fiction” and a knowledge of the associated conventions.49 The difference between fictional film and documentary film arises not only from the filmmaker's intention, but also from the recipient's expectations.

The mockumentary is therefore a kind of meta-film. Just like a documentary, it pretends to reveal the supposed process of its creation, i.e. the search for pre-film reality in non-film reality. In fact, however, it veils the pre-film reality, hides the means of its creation and thus only creates an illusion of authenticity, which in the following is also referred to as '(pseudo-) authenticity'.

2.2 Documentary reference point

Obviously, there must be characteristics that can be clearly assigned to the documentary film, as we have always spoken of the Documentary and the documentary form that mimics the mockumentary. At this point, therefore, the central question emerges as to whether it the Documentary at all and in what the Documentary consists. Since there are a large number of documentary sub-genres, the mockumentary, in order to be authentic, has to imitate the specific form of representation of the documentary film being satirized or criticized.

Since documentary film has been perceived as an independent genre, there have been numerous attempts to approach its essence by definition.50 These are not presented here in their entirety, as this would go beyond the scope of the work and lead away from the actual question.51 In this context, however, the approach to the documentary film after Bill Nichols seems to be important. In his book "Representing Reality" the film theorist works out the similarities between documentaries. To do this, he examines the documentary from three points of view:52

1) Filmmakers' self-image and aspirations
2) Forms of presentation of the films and the codes and conventions used
3) Audience expectations

2.2.1 Filmmakers' self-image and aspirations

First, Nichols concludes that most filmmakers would have devoted themselves to depicting the factual rather than the imaginary world. Since they share the claim to present their topic in a reasonable and fair manner, extensive research and a neutral consideration of the facts are just as much a guiding principle of a documentary filmmaker as adhering to moral and ethical principles. In this way, the filmmakers would also meet the expectations of the public, who approach a documentary film with the general expectation that it will gain access to facts and backgrounds through it.

2.2.2 Forms of presentation of the films

Nichols then analyzes the documentary on the text level and thus works out six different forms of representation and the codes and conventions they use. In its typology, the different modes are representative of the historical stages of development of the documentary film. Although these different forms of representation often overlap, usually only one mode is dominant within a development stage.53

1) Poetic mode

The poetic mode develops in the 1920s and is heavily influenced by the avant-garde movement. With the intention of creating a certain mood in the recipient, the aesthetics of what is shown always dominates here. The fragmentary representation of the artist's subjective perception is characteristic of the poetic mode.54

2) Explanatory mode

Nichols primarily counts films from the 1930s, such as those by John Grierson and Robert Flaherty, in this mode. These films are also referred to as 'classic explanatory documentarism'. They are characterized by a so-called 'Voice of God'55 off, i.e. an apparently omniscient narrator's voice commenting on the event from the off and addressing the viewer directly. With the help of archive material and expert knowledge, the pictures and the arguments of the narrator are to be supported. The viewer should therefore be convinced of a certain point of view, which is to a certain extent imposed on him.

3) Observing mode

In the 1950s, the observational form of representation replaced the form of classic explanatory documentarism. The decisive factor here are advances in camera and sound recording technology. The development of handheld cameras and portable magnetic tape recorders enables filmmakers to shoot in original locations and record original sound. Her maxim is no longer the explanation and interpretation of the world shown, but rather its observation and description. In this way, they believe they have direct and undisguised access to reality that only needs to be captured with the camera.56 Any kind of staging is avoided, no take is re-enacted or repeated. The filmmakers, who have dedicated themselves to the style of this so-called 'direct cinema', work without a script or script, always act spontaneously and avoid direct communication with the actors. Interviews are also frowned upon, because the "[...] observational mode stresses the nonintervention of the filmmaker".57

4) Interactive / engaging mode

The Interactive mode According to Nichols, this is the predominant mode of documentary film in the 1960s and 1970s. It has its origins in the women's movement and the political protests since 1968. In this mode, interviews were again increasingly used Expressing opinions on past events or processes.58 In this mode, the contemporary witness and the verbal description of his story become the central figure. His utterances are used to comment on what is shown and replace the 'Voice of God' of the Explanatory mode, "Whose only comment now shifts to several voices".59 Often these comments of the so-called "Talking Heads" are supported by archive recordings, diagrams or historical photos.

The filmmaker takes im Interactive mode no longer plays the role of the uninvolved observer, but is included in the action. In France it comes Ciné ma Vé rité which creates a direct interaction between the filmmaker and the filmed subject by provoking the subject. In this context, the method developed by Jean Rouch is also the Ciné trance that serves the filmmaker as a means of approaching reality.60

5) Reflexive mode

The 1980s saw a kind of upheaval in the documentary film genre. The newly emerging reflective documentary film fundamentally doubts the claim to objectivity and the realism of the documentary genre and focuses on the relationship between film and viewer. The reference to non-film reality is clearly recognizable in it. The filmmakers take a self-reflective approach and are aware of the constructive and subjective nature of the documentary.61 The reflective documentary film is therefore always a kind of meta-commentary on the documentary form itself:

"Rather than following the filmmaker in her engagement with other social actors, we now attend to the filmmaker's engagement with us, speaking not only about the historical world but about the problems and issues of representing it as well". 62

6) Performative mode

This mode, which also appeared in the 1980s, is difficult to grasp and is only vaguely described by Nichols. This is how the films in this mode are often ’ "Rather than feature or experimental films - and less than documentaries" 63 perceived.

Due to the new claim to objectivity in the so-called reflective and performative forms of representation, Roscoe and Hight only include the second, third and fourth modes in what is known as "Classic objective argument", in other words, to the classic documentary form, which is still the basis of the general understanding of documentary film.64 It is therefore not surprising that mockumentaries usually imitate the cinematic means of these three modes.

2.2.3 Audience expectations

"Our fundamental expectation of documentary is that its sounds and images bear indexical relation to the historical world. As viewers we expect that what occurred in front of the camera has undergone little or no modification in order to be recorded on film and magnetic tape. ” 65

Accordingly, the recipient approaches the documentary with the expectation of being supplied with evidence of events that actually took place, which were hardly or not at all modified by the camera or sound recording device. Even if he doubts the correctness of a representation, he still knows that it relates to the real world. Nichols also refers to this attitude of the recipient as "Oscillation [...] between a recognition of historical reality and their cognition of an argument about it".66 But how does the recipient recognize that it is a documentary film? The outline of the documentary forms of representation has shown that there are certain cinematic strategies and codes that are used again and again in documentary films. Through years of viewing experience, viewers have got used to this. The habits have finally manifested themselves into conventions, "[...] which as changeable cultural conventions can ultimately be used as stylistic devices and thus as calculable aesthetic strategies. " 67

By creating the impression of “authenticity” and “credibility”, an association between the real and what is shown is created in the viewer and his expectations of the documentary are met.

2.3 Staging authenticity

At first glance, it appears Staging authenticity as a contradiction in terms, as the two terms are often understood as opposing concepts. What is staged cannot be authentic and what is authentic does not need to be staged. The staging combines the idea of ​​intended action and planned effects on a possible audience, while the authentic seems to exist out of itself and does not require any creativity.68 The concept of authenticity Almost always has a positive connotation and is associated with authenticity, naturalness and credibility.69 Its meaning is complex and can be interpreted in two different ways in the context of film:

1) "Authentic refers to the objective 'authenticity" of one of the cinematic

Figure underlying event. By vouching for an incident as authentic, it is implied that something happened without the cinematic recording influencing the process. The authenticity lies in the source. " 70


2Le Petit soldier. Directed by Jean-Luc Godard. France 1963 (1960). Quoted from Schaub 1979.

3 See Kreimeier 1997, 33

4 E.g .: "Cinema Vérité", "Direct Cinema"

5 See Arriens 1999, 85

6 Oxford English Dictionary 2011, 1137

7 Hybridity is understood here as a mixture of the authentic and the staged or of the documentary and the fictional.

8 See Rhodes / Springer 2006

9 See Edthofer 2008

10 See Roscoe / Hight 2001

11 See Hattendorf 1999

12 See Elias / Weber 2009, 182

13 Roscoe / Hight 2001, 77

14 English term for fashionable young people who used motor scooters in the 1960s

15 Engl. For copycats, scoffers

16 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058182/quotes, 11/29/11, 7:58 p.m.

17 Roscoe / Hight 2001, 49

18 Juhasz 2008, 7

19 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockumentary (11/18/11, 6:07 p.m.)

20 See table 2

21 See Roscoe / Hight 2001, 115

22 Bayer 2006, 165

23 Engl. For joke, joke, joke, dizziness, Halloween joke

24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama), December 5th, 2011, 7:24 pm

25 Box Office coll.] originally referred to the ticket office at the entrance of a cinema. The term is now used for the income that a movie generates in cinemas during its playing time.

26 See http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=mockumentary.htm, 05.12. 2011, 8:55 pm

27 Heller 2001.15

28 See Rhodes / Springer 2006 and Roscoe / Hight 2001

29 Roscoe / Hight 2001, 46

30 See Roscoe / Hight 2001, 2

31 See Rhodes / Springer 2006, 4

32 Beattie 2004, 158

33 i. S. v. Totality of the real

34 See Edthofer 2008, 29

35 Schmidt 1990, 37

36 Schmidt 1994a, 5

37 See Hohenberger 1988, 30ff

38 See ibid., 31

39 See ibid., 30ff

40 See ibid., 30

41 See ibid., 43

42 Ibid., 59

43 See Hattendorf 1999, 45

44 See Hohenberger 1988, 45

45 See Hohenberger 1988, 52

46 Rindlisbacher 1977, 50ff

47 Hattendorf 1999, 69

48 See Leiser 1996, 18ff

49 See Groeben 2000, 179

50 See Hohenberger 1998, 8

51 See, for example, Reclam's dictionary of the film. 2002, p. 124.

52 See Nichols 1991, 14ff

53 See Nichols 1991, 153

54 See Nichols 2001, 105

55 See Koebner 2002, 127

56 See Roth 1982, 9f

57 Nichols 1993, 38

58 See Geppert 1994, 313

59 Hohenberger 1988, 130

60 See Pszola 2010, 10f

61 See Nichols 1995, 64

62 Nichols 2001, 125

63 Nichols 1995, 151

64 See Roscoe / Hight 2001, 21

65 Nichols 1991, 27

66 Ibid., 28

67 Hickethier 2001, 192

68 See Hattendorf 1999, 67ff

69 See Schultz 2003, 12

70 Hattendorf 1999, 67

End of the reading sample from 88 pages