A film that's no fraud in the thriller department

CineVerse's examination of "The Imposter" garnered a diverse array of strong opinions and insightful reactions from group members last evening, many of whom were surprised by the power and structure of this decidedly different type of documentary film. Here's a roundup of our most salient talking points:

HOW IS THE IMPOSTER DIFFERENT FROM OTHER DOCUMENTARIES YOU’VE SEEN?

·         It uses dramatic re-enactments with actors to show you what happened, instead of relying solely on talking head testimonies.

·         It has the actors lip synch to words given by the real people talking heads.

·         It features archival footage from TV news as well as pop culture video snippets from shows like “Kojak”

·         It uses a few pop songs, including “Listen to the Music” (Doobie Brothers) and a tune by Cat Stevens

·         Even though it’s rehashing news that occurred years earlier and that may be known to some viewers, it tries to tell its story in a fresh, revealing way as if this was a never-told-before tale

·         The major talking head, and a major coup for the filmmakers to obtain, is Bourdin himself

THE FILM FORCES US TO ASK SEVERAL KEY QUESTIONS TO RATCHET UP THE TENSION AND BUILD SUSPENSE FOR THE VIEWER. WHAT ARE SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS?

As posed by Urban Cinefile reviewer Louise Keller:

·         Why would a 23 year old dark haired man with a French accent want to assume the identity of a missing boy seven years his junior?

·         What of the story of military sexual and physical abuse?

·         How does this man know of Nicholas' disappearance?

·         How can he fool the boy's family on the other side of the world? Or do they want to be fooled?

·         Is it human nature to want closure on the disappearance of a loved one?

·         Or is there another reason why they are quick to embrace him?

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR SURPRISES AUDIENCES EXPERIENCE WHILE WATCHING “THE IMPOSTER”?

·         We are shocked to discover that Bourdin fools the Spanish authorities as well as the family and is taken home to America.

·         We are awestruck at how Bourdin is able to be so accepted in his new role within the family and surrounding community.

·         There’s a major twist: suddenly, it’s possible that the family has murdered the real Nicholas and has accepted the imposter to cover up that crime.

·         Bourdin’s real identity is finally revealed, and we learn more about his past and possible motivations for attempting this deceit.

·         Consider that the only person who really suspects Bourdin is the private detective hired by a TV news show; this man wasn’t even assigned to investigate what he uncovers.

CONSIDERING THE HARSH TRUTH THAT THE REAL NICHOLAS IS NEVER FOUND, DO YOU BELIEVE, AS SOME CRITICS DO, THAT THIS MOVIE EXPLOITS ITS SUBJECT AND THAT THE FILMMAKERS ARE INSENSITIVE TO THE REALITY THAT A 13-YEAR-OLD BOY STILL REMAINS MISSING?

DOES THIS FILM REMIND YOU OF ANY OTHERS?

·         The Chameleon (a dramatic non-documentary adaptation of this story released in 2010)

·         F for Fake

·         Catch Me if You Can

·         The documentary Capturing the Friedmans