MovieChat Forums > Stories We TellĀ (2012) Discussion > The 'fake old' footage was pretty obviou...

The 'fake old' footage was pretty obvious


It didn't take long to figure out that most of the "Super 8" type home movie footage was actually new footage, using actors to play family members.
The young Michael's hair and mustache were last seen in the Beastie Boys' video for Sabatage.
Some folks on the board feel cheated by this and others are trying to find all kinds of deep artistic motives for the use of this technique. Personally, I think the film-maker just wanted to avoid using non-stop shots of talking heads!
She was solving a simple problem of not having much visual material to work with.
On the other hand, if the shots at the end of the film showing the creation of this footage were supposed to be a twist ending or a big reveal, well there was no surprise at all.

reply

[deleted]

I just kept recognizing an actress from Slings and Arrows in all of the home movies and thought: "Yup... this is a reenactment."

Not to mention how convenient the existence of this intrepid ever present 1970s filmmaker was with his/her catching of all the relevant moments in the story (David at the Funeral and his facial expression that was perfect for the voice over) Also, home movie Michael Polley (Peter Evans) definitely had brown eyes while the real Mr. Polly has blue eyes.
-------------------
Suspension of disbelief is a privilege, not a right. Abuse at your own Peril.

reply

You should have a look at this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072962/?ref_=nv_sr_1







reply

I think it was just an aesthetic device as well, through out the film I started to wonder if it was re-enacted footage or maybe some of it was re-enacted and some of it wasn't I thought wow this family filmed everything it made sense a little sense to me but in the end it just didn't bother me at all and It was a stylistic choice which I liked.

reply

Don't hurt yourself patting your own back. You obviously already know it wasn't obvious to everyone. I am not ashamed to admit I didn't know until reading it here! I went back and found the shots you are talking about and clearly I had become so bored my eyes had glazed over (or maybe I was checking my phone) because I did not catch that the first time through.

What I would like to know is which scenes (by time marker) did show actual footage of the people when they were younger. Was the black-and-white "test footage" of her mom in closeup (singing a song at one point) really her?

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

I didn't know at first, but there was something off about it after a while. I thought it was pretty obvious then. The people were far too actor-y, and too charismatic for home movies.

reply

Depending how deep your curiosity is, you might want to watch on Amazon Prime. The "X-Ray" feature at the left of the screen indicates when the person being shown is the actor and when it's the actual person.

"What else do you like? Lazy? Ugly? Horny? I got 'em all."
"You don't look lazy."

reply

To be honest, the actor they chose for her mom was so perfectly cast that I completely bought it until I realized how perfect the footage was in quality and illustration of the narrative. And then sometimes the mom looked different and it got me wondering. Overall though the old footage evoked really strong feeling and told the story extremely well.

reply

I kept thinking the mother looked so much prettier when she was in the play. But I never imagined it was fake:(

reply

I'm quite confident no-one was trying to fool you. The idea that a piece about memories and how we tell our stories was going for a "twist" surrounding the making of the doc is frankly pretty silly.

"What else do you like? Lazy? Ugly? Horny? I got 'em all."
"You don't look lazy."

reply