kristen Blog

Under discussion:

Forgotten Silver  (1996)

            Rob Reiner's mockumentary This is Spinal Tap (1984) pushes the mores of rock and roll to a hilarious extreme, and is funnier by the fact that it is not too far off from reality. Woody Allen's mockumentary Zelig (1983) spoofs the fluctuations and inconsistencies of human nature/ personality. This is funny because it reflects a truth of personality by the absurd and impossible phenomena of chameleon physical changes. Peter Jackson's mockumentary Forgotten Silver (1997) takes the mores of early cinema and mocks them?

            One part of Forgotten Silver shows how film historians obsess over an innovative forgotten filmmaker. If one discovers this caliber of lost footage today though, film historians would react precisely the way shown in Forgotten Silver. Who cares? Is Forgotten Silver trying to say that film historians should not react this way? I do not think so, because if it is, it is equivalent to saying that no historian should care about a new discovery that changes that way he or she views history. To me, this observation is not funny, just accurate. And if it is just accurate, what is the point of a mockumentary? Why not a documentary?

However, Forgotten Silver does not forget it mockumentary elements. It is absurd that this filmmaker, Colin McKenzie (Thomas Robbins), invents every innovation of early cinema. He builds his own camera, invents the tracking shot, films the first flight, invents color film, invents artistic cinema, inspires for the first feature and for the first epic. For one person to do so much for early cinema is absurd and that is part of the joke. The other part of the joke is that no one recognizes these innovations. Here Forgotten Silver comments on the troubles that filmmakers face, and even something as brilliant and new as color may not be recognized until after the artist is dead. This is a funny way to show how the artist can make great gains for his/her artistic medium that go unappreciated by the public. This spoof comically and accurately captures the struggle of the artist. It is funny to think that people did not appreciate color footage just because of accidental racy footage.

Mockumentaries also reflect on the form of documentaries. This twists the audience expectation of truth by giving something absurd in the place of something real. Though Forgotten Silver has its absurdities, overall it is too plausible. There are hilarious parts, but the concept as a whole is not funny. (Overall concept- Jackson found lost footage from a brilliant filmmaker)

Peter Jackson edits this "lost footage" to complete Colin McKenzie's vision of his epic feature Salome. The acting in Salome seems to criticize and attack the melodramatic acting of early cinema by being even more melodramatic. I do not understand what is funny about this early way of acting, especially since the filmmakers did not have the background knowledge and history of cinema that we have today. The acting of early cinema may not have reached "cinematic" acting (as opposed to stage acting), but that is not a fault to be criticized. Salome does seem to criticize though, and if not, I do not understand the point of Salome.

Forgotten Silver ends appropriately at 53 minutes. Any longer and one would loose interest. This mockumentary is never boring, and it has some things to say about filmmaking. But as a mockumentary, and as one of the only ones that I have seen, it does not meet the highest standards. Forgotten Silver is too much like a documentary to be a brilliant mockumentary.

Under discussion:

Bombay Talkie  (1970)

Another movie to be indifferent toward from the famous Merchant-Ivory productions. It is funny to note that this film and Shakespeare Wallah are the films that brought this team worldwide recognition. Shakespeare Wallah has no heart and nothing of interest. Bombay Talkie is very much the same. The two movies are not awful, they are simply movies to be indifferent toward.

The concept of this film is awesome. It is supposed to show the clash between the east and the west in terms of filmmaking (Bollywood-Hollywood), except that the movie does not do this at all. What really happens is that an American woman goes to India and becomes infatuated with Sashi Kapoor, a famous Bollywood actor (and he even looks ugly in this movie, hardly the charming, naive man from The Householder). The have an affair that goes on for far too much screen time. They end should strike a chord with the audience, but no one cares by the time the movie ends. The characters are awful, slutty, with no depth, only a desire for sex.

The movie starts with a promising scene where a director films a Bollywood song and dance sequence on a gigantic typewriter. After that, nothing of interest happens. Towards the end on the film there is a car scene where two cars suddenly stop, one with the American, one with Sashi Kapoor. The camera zooms in on each of them looking at each other. This is a perfect moment for Bollywood magic. There should have been a song and dance sequence right here, but unfortunately the movie continues. If this really is about the clash between the cultures of filmmaking, the movie should have exploited the clash. I really do think that if the characters had broken out into song at this moment I would have liked this film very much. It still would have been long and drawn out, but at least it would have the message it wanted and something of interest.

This is in no way a Bollywood film. It is simply a Hollywood film shot in India.