The maker of this film was mocking his subjects the entire time.And none of them even realized it.
sharefew documentaries DONT mock their victims... i mean, subjects. it all stemmed from SPINAL TAP which, although it's a mockumentary, started that trend in secretly bagging on the people you're spotlighting.
"faith is for nuns and amateurs" ham tyler
I absolutely disagree. First that the director was mocking his subjects, but second that the subjects were somehow unaware of how people (like you) perceive them. I did "background work" off and on for 3 years and you'd be shocked at the behavior and absurdity of some extras. Had the director intended to poke fun at his subjects, he could've focused on any number of far more ridiculous full-time extras. Rather, the people in this doc are (for the most part) well-spoken, likeable and very fun to watch. If you think the filmmakers were somehow pulling the wool over the eyes of, say Cary Mizobe (the asian man) just for example, I'd say that you're the one being patronizing.
I was actually quite impressed with the movie for NOT taking the easy jabs at its subjects, and instead taking a sympathetic and compassionate view of a routinely belittled group who are used to suffering far more insulting degradations on set than a mere (and I'd argue, restrained to non-existant) mocking tone.
Do we occasionally laugh at a subject's expense? Perhaps. But do any of them come off particularly ridiculed or judged by the filmmaker? Are there ever any knowing, winking moments from the movie that somehow betray its otherwise humanistic approach to a quirky but likeable sub-culture? I don't think so. I found myself cheering their small victories and saddedned by their setbacks. And I genuinely liked most all of the people interviewed.
Compare this with Vernon, Florida (1981) or Starwoids (2001), or to a lesser extent Trekkies (1997) or American Movie (1999), all of which derive most of their comic moments at the expense of their subjects. No, I think the film is very respectful of its subjects, and I think the subjects are smarter than you take them for.
A lot of strange things happen in this world. Things you don't know about in Grand Rapids.
I agree with Hollywoodpsychic -- the filmmaker had genuine affection for his subjects. There was no mocking at all. As someone who has also done extra work, I do have one criticism of the film. They never once mentioned the food! As I'm sure Hollywoodpsychic and other extras will attest, that is the only thing extras care about. They talk about it all the time -- who serves the best food, who is cheap with food, etc.
share
I don't think he was mocking them in a mean spirited way, just showing the audience that succeeding in the Hollywood business environment takes some delusion. The documentary on aspiring screenwriters ("Dreams on Spec") had the some delusional personalities. The subjects sort of mock themselves in the level of their own delusions.
Live Full & Die Empty. Tap Your Potential and Realise Your Dreams!