MovieChat Forums > Radiant City (2007) Discussion > I felt cheated? - spoiler

I felt cheated? - spoiler


The subject of suburban living was interesting but I thought the film crossed the line and I came out of the theater feeling cheated.

reply

I saw this at the Full Frame Documentary Film Fest and I too felt cheated. Gary Burns gave a Q&A after the film and he said the reason for doing what they did was because they were afraid no one would want to see it if it were a straight-up documentary, because, in his opinion, the topic of suburban sprawl is too "dry." Because the characters in the film were essentially actors, many audience members wondered if the experts too, were actors.

reply

I saw the trailer and read the review. Now that I know the characters are actors, I am actually much less inclined to want to see it now, contrary to what Gary Burns had said about worrying that no one would see it if it were straight documentary.

Who wants to see a fake documentary? Either do a documentary film about an interesting subject matter (which this is) or do a fictional film about the same subject matter.... "Faking the Real Thing" makes no sense.

reply

I was absolutely convinced while watching the film it was a real, non-fiction documentary. It was one of those things that in hindsight everything adds up, but while you're in the moment it's just not something that dawns on you, because you simply trust that everything happening on the screen is real, at least to an extent (a lot of credit for this goes to a superb job by the cast).

What's important, though, is that only the families were actors, not everyone in film - and as they explain at the end of the film, much of the story isn't far from their real life anyway. I must agree the filmmakers approach wasn't one I would agree with at first - after all, if it was so close to the truth, why not go the whole nine yards - but, to be honest, I can't deny that I enjoyed it.

But, I too did feel angry about this at first - in the same sense that you feel angry after being the victim of an elaborate prank. As for making a mockumentary about a real social issue, the boy puts it best after the film when, while trying to figure it out, he says something along the lines of "But wait, that sort of contradicts itself."

You could argue that it was a cop-op, and there isn't a legitimate excuse for that no matter how hard you try, but still, I enjoyed it.

Chalk another one up for art imitating life, I suppose.

reply

it was obvious they were actors - with the exception of the one dad. he was a great actor. but the mother was obviously an actor. it takes but two or three minutes to figure out who is an actor and who is a legit commentator (mark kingswell, et cetera)

reply

Yeah, to me there really is no appeal to a fictional documentary. The characters and scenarios weren't outrageous/hilarious/obscene enough to warrant actors. In my opinion there would have been a much more interesting palette from using real people rather than just building on suburban stereotypes via stereotypical characters

:X :X :X I grind films into vaseline. :X :X :X

reply

[deleted]

I was confused, because I knew right from the start that something was off with the family bits - they were just slightly the too-perfect satire. So I thought it was all satire, even the experts, until one of them turned out to be the author of a book I'd read. At which point I decided the family was satire, but the woman and her daughter weren't - and they of course turned out to be as well. So, while I wouldn't say I felt cheated, I did feel I was being misled and there was a lack of clarity.

reply

Hi,
I think it should be fairly obvious that the director's choice of using actors instead of non - actors was a conscious and, I think, clever one. The whole point of the film is that the modern suburb is a artificial sham, a poor substitute for the homey and comfortable places older generations grew up in, and so the director shows actors depicting what should be real life circumstances, but they ring as false as the so-called communities the film describes.

reply

Apparently the people in the suburbs weren't scary enough so they had to fake it. Killed any impact the movie could have had so I don't know why they bothered - oh wait, it's propaganda so lying is ok.

reply

"Hi,
I think it should be fairly obvious that the director's choice of using actors instead of non - actors was a conscious and, I think, clever one. The whole point of the film is that the modern suburb is a artificial sham, a poor substitute for the homey and comfortable places older generations grew up in, and so the director shows actors depicting what should be real life circumstances, but they ring as false as the so-called communities the film describes."



I don't thing it was so clever. I think it was disingenuous, dishonest, and biased to make a point that fit into the producers' tidy little view of the suburban world as they see it. So they thought they had to lie and use actors because their points were so weak? The movie said nothing new that hasn't been said before about suburbs, but of course implied that the "concept of suburbs are bad, North America is bad, we should live more like Europe, etc. Typical self-hating, self-loathing documentary subjects that are supposed to make you feel guilty for what - living your life? Then they bring on the so-called societal experts who act all morose and claim that suburbs are the end of civilization as we know it. They wring their hands and shake their heads - THEY are the ones who need to get a life! They go back to their cushy life of academia, where they are tenured for life and don't have to worry about the consequences of their foolish actions or words.

Typical that this "documentary" ended up on the Sundance Channel, home of all one-sided, liberally-biased documentaries.


"Where's the rest of this moose?"

reply

I found the 'story' in the film so depressing and hopeless I was sort of relieved to find out the story wasn't real. However, these clearly weren't like, Hollywood or theater stars, these were people who really live in these communities riffing on their own personal experiences.

I didn't feel cheated but I noticed a lot of reviewers share your sentiment. I grew up in the suburbs and many of my friends have stayed there to raise their families. Everything that was happening in the story was completely realistic and in terms of the parents' lack of communication with each other -- not even exclusive to the burbs.

Overall I liked it, I share the directors fatigue for "boo suburbs" documentaries and I appreciated the addition of a little zest in the mix.


eat more film:
http://steadydietoffilm.typepad.com

reply

I loved it up to the part where he's fixing the car, then I said, hey! She's acting.... Lost me from there. Too bad great idea, sucky sucky execution.

reply

Making the family fictional doesn't make the whole thing any less true. You can meet those people any day in any suburban strip mall.

reply

I just saw this last night, but I think it's going to take a few days for me to decide whether I felt cheated by the fake-out or not. I am relieved that someone as bitchy and controlling as the mom doesn't actually exist, but I'm not so sure she was an all-out caricature.

And I did think that the boy seemed overly precocious and wise from the beginning (though I didn't suspect that the whole thing was an act, just thought that maybe the family was hamming it up reality show style), but then he really did seem that way at the end when he introduced his real self!

reply

I didn't feel cheated. If they never came out and said they were actor and later found that out during research I would feel cheated. But they come out an tell you they are actors for a reason. It has to do with the whole everything's fake and American Beauty style. Anyway I loved the twist. I felt it was cutting edge stuff, we've had documentarys and mocumentary's but never one posed as one all the way up until the end. I agree with I Love Movies I thought the family was just hamming it up reality show style. I mean how convincing was the Mom when she wouldn't let the camera go in her bedroom. Anyone who has a wife knows that it would go down like that in real life. I did however feel like the family was given things to do and say so I guess that's kind of the same as acting in which case you could say I knew from early on that they were acting, just not actors, if you can understand that.

reply

JohnS-37:
"I did however feel like the family was given things to do and say so I guess that's kind of the same as acting in which case you could say I knew from early on that they were acting, just not actors, if you can understand that."

I had that feeling early on, that some things were staged or scripted (like when the kid climbs up the cell tower). I don't think it hurt the film to find out it was all fake, because there are people like this, and the general critique about suburbia was all too accurate. The mother came off as kind of autistic, like the bit about how she wanted a "brand new" house, because it was clean. When you get down to it, all documentaries are fake, because people behave differently with a camera and crew around them than they would normally.

reply

[deleted]

The car companies, oil industry, and tire companies conspired to create highways and suburbia. They bought up the street cars in cities like L.A, then dismantled them. They pushed the move to highways, single cars, trucking, and suburbia. The auto industries worked together to eliminate public transit, railroads, and turn America into a concrete wasteland of sprawl.

reply

Jeesh...a lot of you probably thought Waiting For Guffman was a real documentary.

reply

[deleted]

Yeah WTF? I liked the movie until I found it was all a lie. I was pissed. *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*

You know, I don't find this stuff amusing anymore...

reply

I've taken a few film classes, and in one of them there was some discussion of what the professor called "the generic contract". Basically, every genre film enters an implicit agreement with its viewers that it will follow a certain set of rules. This is how we tell the difference between a comedy and a horror film, or between a romantic film and a science-fiction film.

I think the reason a lot of viewers (including myself) came out of the film feeling cheated is because we were. Documentaries are not supposed to mislead. At least not to this extent. They can be biased or slanted, they can brazenly distort the truth or present an unorthodox or personalized version of the truth. But they can't fabricate reality.

Because it breaks the generic contract, it would be fair to interpret this film as a failure. But it's an interesting failure.

reply

Salads, with all due respect to your film classes, there IS a genre of movie called "mockumentary."

I sympathize with the people who felt cheated. I might've felt that way, too, had not the filmmakers given such obvious clues starting from the get-go, filming a child climbing a cell tower. Previous posters mentioned that and the the artificiality of the car repair business, the over-precociousness of the boy, and, most obviously, the "Waiting for Guffman" play. They might as well have put a subtitle below those rehearsal and performance scenes with the flashing words "MOCKUMENTARY! MOCKUMENTARY!" It's my own fault I swallowed it all hook, line and sinker.

Great movie.

reply