Sasha Baron Cohen’s Borat and Bruno (opening in theaters today) both walk a fine line between reality, fiction, and documentary. Indeed, Cohen may be ushering in a new genre of film altogether. Most unfortunately, reality TV is the most popular and most profitable genre on television these days. It comes as no surprise then that audiences and critics find Cohen’s films to be extremely entertaining, despite their vulgarity and pervertedness. Cohen and company give us a look at real people in extreme situations — just like any other reality TV show. It would appear then that films like Borat and Bruno are ushering in a new age of the “Reality Film.”

When Borat was first released, there were multitudes of people that were still under the illusion that it was an actual documentary (sponsored by the nation of Kazakhstan) and that Borat himself was a real person (Cohen helped reinforce this belief by showing up to all interviews and talk shows in character). The film was presented as such, so anyone who had never heard of Cohen or his Borat character from “Da Ali G Show” just assumed it was an actual documentary… at least until they saw the film (and even then in some cases, the densest of people were still unaware they were being duped). But neither Borat or Bruno can fall under the classification of a mockumentary, because in mockumentary all the subjects of the fake documentary are aware that it is fake, and are playing characters. In Cohen’s films, there are a few people aware of the satirical nature of the project, and the rest of them believe they are in a legitimate documentary about the exploits of a gay Austrian fashion reporter or a culturally ignorant Kazakh.

In that way it is a certain form of reality, in that we observe people’s real reactions to staged / procured events through Cohen’s actions in character. One might argue this is a call back to the cinéma vérité of the 1950’s, when subjects of a film were regular people (sometimes actors, sometimes not) that were provoked by staged events or the mere existence of the camera, whereupon their reactions and interactions were then presented with stylized filmmaking devices through editing and camerawork. However, Cohen’s films also present us with a clear “narrative” of what the documentary is about, so there are scenes that are entirely written out that do not involve  the “reality” element at all. For example, every scene between Borat and his “producer” Azamat in Borat are usually expository scenes used for setup or to propel the narrative / their journey forward. It also builds up the stunt Borat pulls with Pamela Anderson — a thread laced throughout the film — that ultimately culminates in a combination of reality and staged (Anderson was aware of what Cohen intended to do, however the security guards and crowd did not).

So how then should Borat and Bruno be classified since they meld many genres together? Well, at their cores, they are reality films. Something we as audiences may begin to see more of as reality TV continues to dominate television. This psuedo-mockumentary / cinéma vérité style then, could be considered a subset of reality film. However you classify it, there’s no doubt people enjoy watching other people just like them reacting in absurd situations.

Can you think of some other examples of “reality film”? Do you think we’ll see more films that fit into the niche Cohen has created? Do you think the idea of reality films is a bad thing? Do you have a favorite reality film, mockumentary, or cinéma vérité film? Discuss and respond in the comments below!

This past Wednesday, Public Enemies, Michael Mann’s crime drama starring Johnny Depp as famed bank robber John Dillinger, opened into theaters worldwide. The film tells the story of Dillinger’s last exploits and romance with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) as the newly formed FBI attempts to track him down under the leadership of Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale). Set in 1933, the film implements a certain color palette that gives it a distinctive look, as many period pieces do.

American cinema has always had a fascination with our own history and period pieces. One of the earliest examples are the westerns of the 1930’s that grew into their own genre. And the trend to look to our past has not faded in the least; more than half of the best picture nominees of the last four years have been period films (or films that have taken place over many periods, such as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). What is interesting is that filmmakers always make an effort to distinguish these films from films that take place in present day by working towards a specific look or visual style.

Obviously, filmmakers work with their production and costume designers to achieve the authenticity of the period they are trying to recreate through fedoras, full piece suits, log cabins, classic cars, what have you. But there is also a tendency to strive for a certain visual look that will transport us back to that period. This is most commonly done through the use of a certain color palette. For example, the film negative of Saving Private Ryan was put through bleach bypass in order to give it that reduced brightness and color saturation look.

What is it exactly about these visual approaches that seem particularly vintage though? It seems obvious enough. When a film looks like it came out of that period, i.e. a period when films where faded, scratched, unsaturated, or black and white, we associate it with that period. Good Night, and Good Luck, although shot on color film, was color corrected to black and white during postproduction. And it effectively transports to the 1950’s, when all television broadcasts (around which the story centers) would be in black and white. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino used digital technology to purposefully add blemishes, scratches and damage to their Grindhouse films to recreate the experience of seeing an actual exploitation film in a grindhouse theater where a film print would have accumulated such damage through repeated use and handling. To a filmmaker trying to transport the viewer to another time, presentation is everything.

What are your favorite period films? Do you have a specific genre within the period film genre that you find particular appealing (western, crime drama, etc.)? What is your least favorite type of period films? What kind of visual approach works best for period film? What visual approach just doesn’t befit a period film? Can you think of examples where a period film just had the wrong look? What makes period films so appealing to filmmakers and audiences alike?