Mockumentary

Examine the founding and evolution of the Mockumentary genre from big screen to small. To what extent can mockumentary film making be described as ‘Documentary's Awkward Turn to Cringe Comedy and Media Spectatorship’. Referencing; Christopher Guest, Semiotics Theory and Reality-TV.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

The word Mockumentary derives from the fusing of ‘mock’ and ‘documentary’ which is extremely convenient but also a very accurate and concise way of describing them. Mockumentaries usually consist of fictitious story lines and deliver them in a documentary format. Most, as a result are comedies. The genre of mockumentary adopts the traditional documentary traits such as interviews, hidden camera footage and the camera moving with the action as it unfolds. However, the underlying difference is instead of documenting real life current affairs the mockumentaries document fictional stories played out by professional actors. They are often loosely scripted however rely largely on the improvisation of their actors for the comedic value. Some mockumentaries blur the lines between fiction and reality by getting their actors to interact with real life people and situations. A mockumentaries purpose, although highly entertaining, is to convey the underlying message in which it often critiques modern day culture. By giving the audience a false sense of reality the events and facts within the film become far more believable and relatable. Using over exaggerated stereotypes to mock the way some people view and interact with the world, it’s possible for them to be used to mock and critique almost any major part of modern culture; politics, religion, lifestyles, and pop culture trends.

Through this extended research report mockumentaries will be explored historically, discovering where the genre began and how it is visually communicated, researching how it has developed throughout the years and grown to cater for its changing audiences. The director Christopher Guest will be of interest as he has pathed the way for the emerging mockumentary genre we know, and love today and never given up making them. From This is Spinal Tap (1984) to his most recent Mascots (2016). Other avenues of interest include the demise of mockumentary cinema and its move into the TV series platform. Even more so reality-TV’s adoption of mockumentary tropes and creating contrived drama in a documentary set up.

The visual and aesthetic traits of mockumentary, what directors and audiences recognise as conformative will be explored in relation to the semiotics theory, a concept whose foundations were laid by linguist and semiotician Ferdinand De Saussure. Ferdinand splits the theory into two sections, the first being signs. This is a pattern of data which when perceived, recalls something other than itself. In relation to Spaghetti Farming (1957, Charles De Jaeger) the sign of people physically farming spaghetti would signify reality. Cinematic signs break a film down into its consistent parts to identify narrative building blocks. Something becomes a sign when our attention is drawn towards it to understand meaning. Another example would be during the opening scene of This is Spinal Tap where director Rob Reiner who plays presenter Marty Di Bergi is introducing the documentary and describing when he first saw the band whilst walking through a large room filled with filming equipment. This hyperbolic multiplication of signifiers of a ‘behind-the-scenes view’ of the film making process has a comic effect, because we are presumably about to see a low budget cinema vérité documentary shot largely hand held. A signifier is a denotation as it has a literal meaning, whereas the signified is the sign as a concept, a reaction to an object, a psychological response. Ferdinand recognises that there are 3 types of sign, firstly ICON which links to its object by qualitative characteristics. An INDEX denotes its object by being physically linked to it, or affected by it and SYMBOL which is unconventional, no physical or qualitative link defined by social convention.

CHAPTER 1 Mockumentary Early Years; Founding and Growth

The first sign of mockumentary is from the 1950’s and although the exact origins aren’t clear it is believed Spaghetti Farming (1957, Charles de Jaeger) made by the BBC is the first example of the genre. Aired as an April fool’s joke, most of the audience were non-the wiser. Viewers called into the show to say there had been a hoax and others asked where they could find this spaghetti farm. The short 3-minute advert cleverly uses previously recorded footage; a sign of documentary planning signifying truth and reality. A voice over; Panaroma’s anchor-man Richard Dimbleby, a sign of a voice we trust. A similar effect David Attenborough narrating a nature documentary has, this sign causes immediate believable contents. Additionally, the unstabilised camera work; signifies how the camera men were up close and in on the action moving with it as it ‘unpredictably’ unfolds. Despite being a fictitious story the social realism in the genre at this early stage is clearly shown through the signs and signifiers. Seeing people physically harvesting and preparing the spaghetti they have picked, the people in the video taking the task extremely seriously and furthermore enjoying the spaghetti for dinner at the end all constitutes to the point made earlier about mockumentary blurring the lines of reality and fiction. Understandable now why audiences denounced it a hoax. Prior to this the only other known example was back in 1938 in a radio play broadcast. Orson Welles read out a fake news report based on an adaptation from H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds (1938), his delivery and the format of the program reportedly led many people to believe that Earth was, in fact, being invaded by a genocidal Martian army. With the real fear of war looming in Europe, this heightened tension for the audience and before the broadcast was over authorities attempted to shut it down based on reports of public mass hysteria, although these attempts were unsuccessful. Even now, with 80 years of hindsight it’s easy to see why the realism unintentionally deceived people. There’s no doubt that War of the Worlds adaptation kickstarted the whole idea of fiction presented as fact, even if it was unintentional.

Since these earliest findings, the genre has continued to evolve but holds onto the establishing tropes set out so early on. When attempting to make a mockumentary there are several tropes which constitute the genre (The Beat: A Blog by PremiumBeat, 2015). First, finding an odd topic/subject. This is both the enjoyable and most difficult part. It’s easy to think a subject, situation or topic is too over the top but these often make the best mockumentaries, the more absurd the better. Signs to represent obscure subjects such as mascot costumes instantly signify an unknown and untold world in just one image. When filming they tend to use a singular camera. Mockumentaries aren’t like major feature films which incorporate various angles, so it’s treated like a tight-budgeted documentary. Framing within mockumentary can often be overlooked however what you choose to include and more importantly exclude is extremely telling. For example, in Mascots when Parky Poser is introducing her armadillo mascot alter ego, a medium close-up is used and cuts off her legs. Her legs then interject upwards and break the frame of the shot as she shows off how it moves. We then cut to a wider full body shot where we can see the whole movement in action, this gradual reveal and framing choice emphasises the comedic element and slowly introduces the audience to her character. Shaky and handheld footage is not frowned upon and has even become the standard for the genre. A mockumentary keeps the feel of a standard documentary, in which the camera operator is typically using a shoulder rig. Thus, it’s totally normal to see some shake and zoom in footage. Ben Wheatley comments that the handheld camera can make you feel like you’re right there in the room, investigating. “It’s not just about jiggling the camera around. The camera becomes a character, so you must brief the cameraman like you would an actor. There’s not just one style of handheld camerawork: it changes depending on the mood you’re trying to create, and even the weight and shape of the camera you’re using.” Although Wheatley is a TV comedy director and not directly mockumentary, it is interesting to see how different genres and directors adapt the camera work to their own films to create this same effect.

Natural or minimal lighting is a mockumentaries favourite, the scene needs to come across as untouched and natural as possible. Improvisation is a useful tool as is talking head interviews, although it’s easy to overuse them as the story will drag. Only use them to put an emphasis on a situation. Additionally, simple sets, you want to keep the look of a traditional documentary so incorporate actual places, like you would in a normal interview. Locations link to Ferdinand’s theory as an icon, as they are linked to their object through qualitative elements and characteristics. For instance, in Waiting for Guffman (1997, Christopher Guest), the first-time Corky approaches Jonny Savage, it is set against his workplace; the mechanics. This visually reveals Jonny is a hardworking labourer, physical and not afraid to get his hands dirty. The interruption of his Father also reveals it a family run business. Again; an example of mockumentary film telling stories visually and quickly, intercut with the comedy and out of place presence of Corky himself.

Throughout the genres history there have been many films which have paved the way for the genres development, achieving major critical acclaim and being named blockbusters at the box office. Since Spaghetti Farming the first full length mockumentary film was not released until years later. A Hard Day’s Night (1964, Richard Lester), which featured the Beatles and followed them over a three-day trip. The film was a major success being named by ‘The Time’ magazine as “one of the top 100 films of all time.” (Corliss, 2010) With the driving force of the mockumentary artform now building; a few more titles embraced the style; Diary (1967, David Holzman) and the forgettable Pat Paulsen for President (1968, Pat Paulsen). Yet, it was Woody Allen who pushed the genre to new levels with Take the Money and Run (1963) and Zelig (1983).

CHAPTER 2 Christopher Guest; Life and Times

Christopher Guest directed and starred in his 1997 hit, Waiting for Guffman, an American mockumentary comedy film. Like most of his films the title is a reference; in this case to Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot. The film received a 91% approval rating and the Rotten Tomato’s critical consensus reads, "This riotously deadpan mockumentary about aspiring community theatre performers never stoops to ridicule oft-ridiculous characters" (Rotten Tomatoes, 2011). In its opening weekend, it received complimentary reviews and made a small but respectful $37,990. Despite this the film earned less than $3 million worldwide which at the time correlated to the audience’s lack of exposure to this style of comedy and film making. People from larger states in America and worldwide may not have been able to relate to the stage and theatre communities found in smaller regions such as Kansas. Todd McClary, an Ottawa, KS resident and a patron of community theatre productions commented; “I think a lot of the appeal has to do with the fact that it’s set in a small, fictitious Missouri town. There’s also a significant appreciation of non-Equity and community theatres in the Kansas City area. I think people recognize the subject matter more so than they might recognize slick Equity or touring productions." (McClary, 1997) Despite this Guest’s persistence in the genre meant Waiting for Guffman was a breakthrough for the genre and some of the first of its kind.

Waiting for Guffman (1997) Directed by Christopher Guest, United States: Sony Pictures Classics

[endif]--The premise of the film is set in the fictional town of Blaine in Missouri America. Christopher Guest plays Corky St. Clair who is a way-off Broadway theatrical director looking to put on a play to showcase Blaine’s 150th Anniversary in a historical pageant. Guest has cleverly chosen an intricate and obscure subject to incorporate a varied cast of characters. Who are both inhabiting this small town and who can portray a different persona whilst in performance of the play. Initially we are introduced to the towns council and the local historian, who add a layer of reality and truth. Guest uses floating head interviews for the first 11 minutes of the film to introduce the characters whilst intercutting them with cut-away’s to reveal more about their occupations and stance within the town. For example, a shot from outside a travel agent store, is overlaid with dialogue of the inhabitants on the phone. An index sign and signifier that these characters; Ron and Shelia, are not from a performing background. This is a convention of the mockumentary genre and is typically used to further mimic a real documentary. For the most part of this film the dialogue is improvised, again another theme within a mock-comedy film, particularly one directed by Guest. Ron and Shelia Albertson’s introduction shows them working at a little independent travel agent shop and talking about how it’s ironic that they’ve never left the town of Blaine. The dialogue then fully embraces the improvised element as the characters awkwardly reveal that they did travel to Jefferson once for Ron to have surgery (later revealed its for penis reduction purposes). Shelia quietly probes Ron in the background as the camera zooms in on a single shot of Ron. Long awkward pauses are interrupted with Shelia’s mumbling and Ron looks around the room to distract from his reluctance.

Corky then goes about putting together the so-called "talent" for the event. His eventual stars, all terrible actors who don't know it, include a dentist, Ron and Shelia, a DQ waitress, a mechanic and Corky himself. The relationships between these characters are where the most comedic elements are triggered and where visual opposites are shown. For example, during a rehearsal of the infamous stool song, musical director Lloyd; who makes it obvious he isn’t a fan of Corky’s work and is extremely jealous of his creative position, raises some issues. He tries to air to Corky that he needs to make a schedule as the cast don’t know the songs or the routines. He whispers as to not alert the cast, however Guest plays on this and subsequently makes the conversation about the volume of Lloyds voice more than anything else, which makes for some comical watching.

The film blurs the line between fiction and reality through the town council and historian characters which add the most believable elements. When Corky asks for £100’000 for the shows budget, they reject his request, as any council would, explaining that they only have £15’000 for the whole town for a year. The council are thus a relatable symbol of authority within the film and fictitious town. Additionally, the character of Dr Allan Pearl (Eugene Levy), the Jewish dentist with the glint of stardom in his eyes, is a relatable symbol. He describes himself as someone who loves to make people laugh, people said to him; “you must have been the class clown”, “No I wasn’t but I sat next to the class clown, I studied him and saw how he made people laugh, I picked stuff up” he replies. Pearl clearly has no vocal talent yet at his audition Corky is mesmerised and pleased that the dentist came as “you don’t often think to tell people like that, that you are putting on a show”. Thus, making both Pearl and Corky even more endearing. Putting on a show whilst making a show is quite a feat but Christopher Guest, who stars in both makes it look seemingly easy. When screened in Kansas, the towns people said they knew the characters themselves, just by different names. Corky St. Clair is a manifestation of the wannabe Broadway directors who seem to sniff out these types of shows. Auditionees such as Shelia and Ron are the deluded talentless has-been’s who cling onto the American dream.

However, it is not Guests intention to portray these people in a bad way. Royal Scanlon likes Guffman even though he had never lived in an area like Blaine. He says he likes the film because it’s funny and because of its tone. He explains, "Guest’s portrayal of Corky St. Clair is done in a loving way. It’s not demeaning. It just says this is how this character acts and reacts. When people are trying out for the play, (the tone-deaf) Dr. Pearl is completely unaware of reality when he gets up and sings, and Corky St. Clair loves it and thinks it’s brilliant. That just adds to the charm of the character and the movie." (Scanlon, 1997)

Comedy within Guest’s films is dynamically an interplay between an individual ego and a collective, which insists that vanity can be found in characters of all kinds. Guest has helped pioneer a form of mockumentary which combines both farce and falsity. The divide between one’s self and a culture, peoples sense of themselves, self-awareness and its laughable absence which exposes the people who are inflated with their own bravado. Whether that be dog owners, mascot wearers or mulleted deluded rock stars. How you perceive yourself and how others perceive you and the obliviousness of characters is something other mockumentary film makers have latched onto.

The character of David Brent in The Office (2001-2003), and Ja’mie and Mr G from Summer Heights High (2007, Stuart McDonald) have personalities, characteristics and actions which are formed and dependent on the making of the mockumentary. Would they be so self-indulged, deluded and egotistical if the camera crew weren’t there? These characters all exhibit qualities that conform to the criteria described by Henri Bergson (2014, p.32); “in obstinacy, lack of adaptability to society, cluelessness about how others see them. The films construct a differential in perception, consonant with Carroll’s analysis of the sight gag, between how we view them and how they view themselves.” Thus, this makes an interesting comment on society and the people of the 21st century. Famous photographer Martin Parr (2012), who captures real and un-staged moments, believes its becoming increasingly difficult to capture people naturally. As soon as people see a camera, they pose or change the way they are acting, both consciously and unconsciously. It becomes clear now why mockumentaries as a comment on society are becoming so popular.

CHAPTER 3 Modern Mockumentary; The Rise and Fall

Due to the rise in the number of mockumentaries being made worldwide their popularity has exploded over the last decade. The genre has taken on different formats of storytelling which has popularised and made it more accessible to a wider audience, such as the TV series platform. In Documentary's Awkward Turn (2014, pp. 9-10) New York times critic A.O. Scott’s describes a messy field in which possible hoaxes, reality-TV, docu-soaps and mock documentary sitcoms like The Office stake as much claim to the label ‘documentary’ as does more conventionally serious fare. Specifically, he points to the example of how fake-documentary methods were popularised by Christopher Guest in This is Spinal Tap and his other films which “have become staples, or perhaps clichés, of the small-screen-sitcom.”

One of the first major break throughs in the US was the American version of the award-winning show The Office (2005-2013, NBC). The concept was first aired in the UK on BBC 2 in 2001 and documents the somewhat mundane goings on of the day-to-day lives of office employees in the Slough branch of the fictitious Wernham Hogg Paper Company. Famously starring Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant who created, wrote and directed the programme. Both the UK and US version pokes fun at the typical work life and stereotypes found within that environment. The show centres on themes of social clumsiness, the trivialities of human behaviour, self-importance, conceit, frustration, desperation and fame. The Office was one of the first of its kind to be featured as a regularly scheduled televised show. When executed well, the mockumentary style informs how every character appears on camera. David Brent comes across as a worse boss than normal: he’s further alienated from his staff because, while they are trying to hide from the camera’s gaze, he’s

The Office US (2005-2013) NBC, United States: NBCUniversal Television Distribution

Since its premier in 2005, The Office has won 9 awards and influenced and inspired the making of other mockumentary series such as Parks and Recreation (2009-2015, Greg Daniels, Michael Schur) and Modern Family (2009-present, Christopher Lloyd, Steven Levitan) both also very critically acclaimed and popular. Due to its raging accomplishments, The Office is patriot both to the continued popularity of the genre and the genres evolvement in change and progressive film making. A wonderful way to help the audience connect with the film is to put in characters they can relate to. The success in both the UK and US versions can be tied to the fact that the audience could relate to working in an office place. They were familiar with the idea of an annoying manager or lazy co-worker, so is successful in pushing and developing those character types and exaggerating the relatable clichés.

Success and mainstream attraction of hits such as the The Office has ushered in a wave of comic documentary and mockumentary films. Reality-based humour has found a home in the ascendant formats of reality TV and the viral internet video. Certain strains of reality-based humour have thrived across multiple media formats, for example the social satire of Sacha Baron Cohen. In 2006, he unleashed Borat (2006) on the world, bringing in a staggering $261 million at the box office along with two Academy Award nominations. A case study which was all it took for the style to overtake our TV screens. Since then hits such as American Vandal (2017, Netflix), People Just Do Nothing (2012, Jack Clough) and Come Fly with Me (2010, Paul King) have all adapted to the evolution of the moc-doc and docu-soap founding.

John Fiske (1987) states that; “genre attempts to structure some order into the wide range of texts and meanings that circulate in our culture for the convenience of both the audience and producers.” Hence, genre is a term used to categorise certain codes and conventions to fit a text. He goes onto say genre is a way of setting up audience expectations, its culturally dependent as various cultural groups construct different genre expectations. Furthermore, its constructed through a series of signs (visual and aural) which are associated with that genre through use of generic narratives and ideologies. For example, signs such as shaky camera work, awkward long pauses, talking head interviews, bizarre storylines, a voice over, facts and realism would signify that film as a documentary; however, it could also be interpreted as a mockumentary. Genre theory is useful as it allows both audiences and film makers to manage expectations, people watch these films already knowing whether its fact or fiction. This mixing of elements is used by the film makers to encode the film for the audience to decode as fiction or realism. We can read mockumentary film stories as a snippet from a real-life situation or we can read it as a fictitious comment on a group of people or current climate situation. Regarding this notion John Fiske offers this striking example in An Introduction to Genre Theory: “A representation of a car chase only makes sense in relation to all the others we have seen…There is then a cultural knowledge of the concept 'car chase' that any one text is a prospectus for, and that is used by the viewer to decode it, and by the producer to encode it.” (Fiske 1987, page 6) Thus the genre of mockumentary only makes sense in relation to the others we have seen before it, which is why the first attempts went unnoticed. Fiske (1987, p.4) asserts that generic conventions “embody the crucial ideological concerns of the time in which they are popular.” Therefore, mockumentaries typically embody the stories of the current social market to mock problems with society; religion, politics, pop culture trends, lifestyles to appeal to a wider target audience.

Even with the success of the mockumentary genre evidently evolving alongside the audiences changing demands of the form, in recent years its popularity has wavered. The wants of audiences and thematic trends in entertainment has changed. Audiences no longer wanted television to masquerade as real for the sake of comedy; they wanted shows to mimic real life purely for the authenticity. Our current definition of TV comedy has become weirder, more political and more complex. Consequently, new attempts at the genre have fallen short. Christopher Guests most recent endeavour Mascots, (2016), scored 51% on Rotten Tomatoes, whilst all his other films have ratings between 88 and 95%. AMC's Breaking Bad (2008-2013) ushered in a new era of expanding TV platform. Family dramas like NBC's Parenthood (2010-2015) and This Is Us (2016-present) also followed suit. TV was suddenly either highbrow with a glossy finish, brutally sentimental, or unpolished and raw. The days of the deadpan half-characters and intentionally shoddy camerawork looked to be behind us, but it wasn't coldly calculated; audiences seem to have simply moved past the mockumentary. The state of broadcast and cable comedy is sharper, darker, and sometimes more surreal, but ultimately still as wonderful as it's ever been. Pop culture proving once again, nothing is gold forever.

It’s undeniable that when mockumentary film first infiltrated popular culture it wasn’t long until the style was inescapable. Yet years have passed since the entertainment section hit peak mockumentary and the genre has somewhat been forgotten, pushed to the back for the current wave of high drama and dark comedy known as prestige television. However, today, in the 21st century our generation has been propelled into a routine of consumption and sharing where we reveal most of our lives through a documentary lens. We record, create and share our days and events through Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, with the addition of Instagram stories and live Facebook videos. We’re inundated with modern technology to develop this even further, companies dazzling us with new visual languages on YouTube such as GoPro stunts and footage, dashboard cams and the infinitely varied world of vlogging. More than ever, our everyday lives are mediated, which suggests that mockumentary is the most appropriate comedic style to explore how we live now.

Documentary, as a mode of film rather than a genre has adopted a vast range of semantic elements. The unifying principle of the range of subject matter represented in documentary film has simply been the tacit agreement that Renov (2014, p.30) describes as “a piece of the world plucked from its everyday context rather than fabricated for the screen.” But what happens when a documentary syntax adopts a set of semantic elements that are expressly fabricated for the screen? This is what some theorists and film critiques would call the founding and well-known form of reality-TV. Reality-TV adopts tropes of documentary film making where people are continuously filmed, and the scenes and scenarios are presented as uncontrolled and natural for example Made in Chelsea (2011-present, E4). However, reality-TV’s purpose is for entertainment rather than information. Thus, the subjects of the shows become TV personalities - loud, controversial, provocative, confrontational, for the audiences viewing pleasure. Middleton states; “At the semantic level, many recent documentaries concern people whose claim to viewers’ attention is premised mainly upon their bizarre or comic natures, including a fair number of films focused on the creative projects of individuals whose actual talents and abilities are highly questionable.” (2014, p.31) For example; reality shows such as Geordie Shore (2011-present, MTV) involve a group of people living in a house, partying and sleeping together, both the talent and information seemingly unknown. However, stars will be born from this and will enter other reality shows such as Big Brother (2000-present, C5), I’m a Celeb Get Me Out of Here (2002-present, ITV), Celebs Go Dating (2016-present, E4) etc. A fictitious circle of untalented, tv personalities, portraying their lives through documentary basis for nothing more than entertainment value. This semantic shift is more valuably apparent in the offbeat portrait documentaries such as Christopher Guest’s, Best in Show (2000).

The Only Way is Essex (2010-Present) ITVBe, United Kingdom: All3Media

In conclusion the journey of the mockumentary genre has been diverse and extensive in its growth and development and its evident that it will continue to utilise our generations obsession with documenting. The comparison which can be made between where mockumentary first started out on the small screen; Spaghetti Farming to the big screen; Waiting for Guffman is its establishment of style. It now has conventions both visually and coherently recognisable through the signs and signifiers mentioned earlier. Development in the tropes of the genre has been largely down to the work of Christopher Guest, his resilience with the genre, his want to connect audiences with the style of comedy but through doing so to portray and communicate deeper issues such as desperation, fame, delusion and hyper competitiveness. Comments on modern culture; politics, religion, lifestyles, and pop culture trends are an insightful way to shine light and make light of societal faults. Although critiques of the genre would still describe mockumentary as ‘Documentary's Awkward Turn to Cringe Comedy and Media Spectatorship’, audience’s fascination and love of the genres evolvement into reality-TV means media spectatorship can only mean higher views and ratings. Documentary film making is one of the most diverse, innovative creative outlets we as film makers and people have, thus audience’s ability to interact with the entertainment is informative enough to be cast as a mock-doc, docu-soap, mockumentary or documentary.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

References

Corliss, R. (2010). Is A Hard Day's Night one of the All-TIME 100 Best Movies? [online] TIME.com. Available at: http://entertainment.time.com/2005/02/12/all-time-100-movies/slide/a-hard-days-night-1964-2/ [Accessed 24 Sept. 2017].

Culler, J. (1991). Ferdinand de Saussure. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell Univ. Press.

Dan Lybargar. (1997). Waiting for Guffman--The Lybarger Links Analysis – Five Months of Guffmania. [online] Available at: http://www.tipjar.com/dan/guffman.htm [Accessed 24 Sept. 2017].

Martinparr.com. (2012). Too Much Photography | Martin Parr. [online] Available at: https://www.martinparr.com/2012/too-much-photography/ [Accessed 22 Oct. 2017].

Middleton, J. (2014). Documentary's awkward turn. New York: Routledge.

Olsen, M. (2016). Q&A: Christopher Guest on 'Mascots,' shoelaces and the high stakes of the lower echelons. [online] latimes.com. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-toronto-christopher-guest-mascots-20160909-snap-story.html [Accessed 22 Oct. 2017].

Rottentomatoes.com. (2011). Waiting for Guffman. [online] Available at: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/waiting_for_guffman/ [Accessed 30 Oct. 2017].

The Beat: A Blog by PremiumBeat. (2015). 11 Tips for Making a Mockumentary. [online] Available at: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/11-tips-making-mockumentary/ [Accessed 3 Nov. 2017].

The Guardian – Tom Kingsley. (2017). Mockumentary hasn't killed comedy – it perfectly skewers how we live now. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/apr/05/mockumentary-british-comedy-tom-kingsley [Accessed 3 Nov. 2017].

Venison Media. (2014). Genre Theory – John Fiske 1987. [online] Available at: https://venisonmedia.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/genre-theories-john-fiske/ [Accessed 28 Sept. 2017].

Vice – Tyler Watamanuk. (2017). The Mockumentary Is Dead, Long Live the Mockumentary. [online] Available at: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/qvjzg5/the-mockumentary-is-dead-long-live-the-mockumentary [Accessed 23 Oct. 2017].

Word Press. (2011). Origins of the Genre. [online] Available at: https://mockumentaries.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/origins-of-the-genre/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--