The fliers for the documentary The Imposter come with a blurb about how it will shock and amaze you and have you discussing the subject matter for weeks. Of course, most documentaries make these claims, as otherwise… well, why would one go?
The subject matter of the Imposter also would seem to make interesting subject matter: a person is arrested in Spain and claims to be an abducted American boy, and the family of the boy comes to claim him, accepts the fact he has the wrong colour eyes and speaks with a French accent, and then take him back home. The immediate questions raised are: how did the family not realise this guy was not the boy they lost? And how did everyone also buy the story?
The tale is mostly told from the perspective of the Imposter himself, Frederic Bourdin, a guy with obviously quite a few issues. In his 20s, he wanted to “belong” in a boy’s home and so posed as a teenager when he eventually made his way to Spain. The Spanish authorities needed to know who he was to keep him in the system he wanted to be a part of, and so he claimed he was an American and then, through a few surreptitious calls to the US (claiming to call his family when in reality he was calling the missing persons line), Bourdin claimed the identity of a Texan child missing for three years.
Back in the US, the family, who also recount the tale from their perspective, rushed to Spain to collect their lost family member. They encounter a boy changed from what they knew, wrapped up in oversized clothing and with a French accent, but believing him abused and in shock, give him the tools to fool the authorities into recognising the family by showing him family photos before his assessment, which also convinces the US authorities to issue him with a passport and take him back to the United States.
It’s all a very bizarre story, and things just get weirder in the US, with television appearances and private investigations and all sorts of weird goings on that I won’t recount here.
However, the intriguing tale is hampered by the fact it is told in a quasi tabloid style. The camera lingers over the faces of people in “moments of reflection” and the imposter himself is given free rein to recount his version of events without ever having to explain what he did and what he thought of those around him. Sure, he had a neglected childhood, but as his past is revealed by the documentary, little to nothing is asked of the subject himself.
And then there is the family. They come across as fairly simple folk from a small town, but as the story progresses and the nature of their blindness to the nature of the Imposter in their midst is examined, the reporting style takes an uncomfortable tabloid tone, and the final scenes where two guys try and “uncover” the truth in a spectacularly staged way are so tacky as to be offensive.
It’s a shame really that the film does seem to devolve into complete trash. The story in itself is absolutely fascinating, and getting all the parties involved and talking should have guaranteed a riveting documentary. But the lack of an “impartial” narrator is where, I think, the film falls down, as the agendas of the people involved seem to take precedence over the facts, not to mention the sensationalism that seems a pathetic way to try and drag the story out.
Verdict: Considering the material, the Imposter itself was a massive disappointment. It had a lot going for it, and the facts themselves make for a bewildering tale, but the style of the telling really let the whole documentary down. Worth seeing for the incredible tale, but possibly with a finger ready to mute some of the nonsense. 6 frauds out of 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment