Week 11: Nov. 29 Study Questions Juhasz “Phony Definitions” and Lerner, “Troubling Taxonomies,” pp Why does the question of indexicality matter when we start to consider the satirical or parodic aspects of the faux documentary? 2. What are the differences between a fiction film and a fake documentary? 3. How can a fake documentary be “productive” in relation to documentary reception as well as production? 4. Why does Juhasz’s definition of the “fake documentary” require discovery, and what do you think we should call it if it isn’t “found out”? 5. Compare the critical potential (to make us think about documentary as constructed) of the “fake documentary” with that of what Nichols would call “reflexive” and Bruzzi would call “performative.” 1. What do you think are the most difficult problems Lerner believes Luhasz’s definition of “fake documentary” poses for the hybrid documentary? 2. Why, according to Lerner, was it not possible for the parodic to arise in the silent era documentary? 3. What does Lerner mean by the “tropes” of observational or verite documentary and how is this different or not different from documentary style? 4. Lerner starts to classify films that “trope” documentary as those that remake other films, those that set off hoaxes and those that use documentary sensationally as on the border and therefore not exactly documentary or fiction or fake. Evaluate his categories at this stage, proposing alternative terminology.

Week 12: Dec. 6 Study Questions Lebow, “Faking What?”; Juhasz and Lerner, “As a Finale” 1. Explain what Lebow means when she says that the question of “faking” is moot because documentary is “already a fake of sorts.” 2. Why does Lebow prefer “mockumentary” to “fake doc” and which term do you think does the most to challenge the credibility of documentary work? 3. What does she mean by the mockumentary as “propping up” documentary and why do you think it would it need “propping up” at this time in its evolution? 4. Why should we be concerned that documentary’s verisimilitude should be “subject to highly conservative, normative codes of reality”? Or, when does documentary’s “this is so” mean “this is normal therefore everything else is abnormal”? 5. Lebow is willing to concede that there might be one thing that could be called subversive about the mockumentary. What is this? 6. Give examples of the kinds of things contemporary documentary makers might say that could be understood as the “rhetoric of the unmediated real.” Why do makers continue to use this language in reference to their practice? 1.Explain how it would be possible for one student documentary to “throw into crisis” the entire proceedings of an academic conference on Fake Documentary. Which categories and what definitions are challenged?

Final Project Presentation Due: in class Dec. 13 Final Paper Due: Dec. 20, 2:00 pm Dodge Hall (office) Directions: Read Carefully Lioult, “Framing the Unexpected” ejumpcut.org Shoot a still or moving (preferably moving) 30 sec. image that exemplifies one of Lioult’s 3 kinds of encounter with the event before the camera: Type I Non-Fiction – highly flexible and relatively unplanned Type II Non-Fiction – relatively planned, controlled, constrained Type III – Framing the Unexpected – Combination of I & II: facilitate the unforeseen but do not exactly control the events Class Screening/Discussion Plan: Clip uploaded to YouTube Username: Password: Your Presentation: 30 sec. clip screened Class Discussion: 2 min. Focus on difference between audience perception and documentary maker intention. Your Presentation: 2 min. explanation of your documentary practice Final Paper: 5 pg. double-spaced written analysis of your presentation comparing it to those of others in the class, evaluating the experiment vis a vis our evolving understanding of the definition of documentary as it relates to the maker’s practice. Return to your definition from the first short paper you wrote. Explain how thinking about the faux doc or the “fake documentary” changed or didn’t change your thinking about how to define documentary. MLA-style in text citation; Works Cited at end from course readings only.