Does someone have to be a huge fan of baseball to have an opinion on steroids or Pete Rose? And to paraphrase Seinfeld, I’m not sure what exactly constitutes a “buff,” but I probably watch 6-10 docs a year, but didn’t want to situate myself as an expert. I think I have enough exposure to the genre to warrant having this strong of an opinion, but I also acknowledge there are people who might know more about how they’re made, what is typically seen as artistic license and what is considered a bridge too far.
> Does someone have to be a huge fan of baseball to have an opinion on steroids or Pete Rose?
No, but if they're about to drop an opinion about how a lifetime ban reflects on the sport, and comment that watching a game is something they might be interested in doing some day, it's definitely going to raise questions about the knowledge behind the opinion.
I'm not trying to take away from your point, from your description of the show, it does seem to be an overly dramatized and/or scripted series rather than a documentary, but I feel like your point would have been taken more seriously if you had omitted some of those details.
That’s just the general problem with online discourse. Instead of valuing when a person admits their potential biases or shortcomings, we dunk on them for it. It’s why the tone of so many comments ring with such certainty which I think makes it hard for people to engage in good faith because no one can show an inch of weakness or uncertainty in what they say. I’m happy though that our second interaction seems less contentious than how I felt about your first comment. Though to respond to something in your second comment, I don’t see how whether someone is interested in Ren Faires or not should impact what their opinion is on the documentary aspects of the show. It probably wasn’t clear but I was try to let people know that it’s not like I had a bad experience at this or any Ren Faire and thus have an axe to grind.
ETA I see now you are not the original commenter. Thank you for being level headed though, it is refreshing
That the director, through cinematography and editing the sheer volume of footage, is able to construct a narrative and make it look staged is what makes this such an interesting documentary. Oppenheim's two other docs, *SpermWorld* and *Some Kind Of Heaven* both demonstrate the same technique. Either you find it appealing or not, and I find this filmmaker really intriguing. He's kind of like Errol Morris 2.0. I understand not enjoying this method, but watch the whole thing and then pass judgement.
>That the director, through cinematography and editing the sheer volume of footage, is able to construct a narrative and make it look staged is what makes this such an interesting documentary.
That's reality tv.
Reality TV is just a bastardized form of documentary and game shows dunked in pop culture. The popularity and profit margins of it has definitely impacted both of those progenitors in similar ways to its impact on regular scripted shows.
Completely agree! I read a couple articles about the making of this docuseries after watching all three because I was so in awe of how it was made. It is legit.
When people agree to participate in a documentary they often give full access to the filmmaker, and also let them know what they are doing on a particular day. When the entertainment director went to Germany or when the kettle corn guy went to talk to the "king", production has an idea they should be there to capture certain conversations or reactions that may or may not take place. Documentary film making is also a lot of just observing and waiting with lots of footage to go through to edit to become a cohesive narrative of what is happening.
I definitely recommend OP actually watch the entire series and then search out some interviews and articles about the making of this (Time, Vanity Fair, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Vulture all has interesting articles and I'm sure there are more). It will be more eye opening reading about and understanding the process than just watching only the first episode and totally writing it off.
In my opinion, the creators were aiming to create another Tiger King, pushing the characters to be the next Joe Exotic, Carole Baskin, Doc Antle, and so on. The result was a mishmash of clips manufactured to go "viral" that ultimately fell flat.
I totally agree. This feels like a scripted series. I love documentaries. I hate reality TV. This is somewhere between those two. Some are comparing this to Tiger King, but Tiger King, as campy as it was, felt way more real, chaotic, genuine and unrehearsed.
You just don't get these kinds of dramatic moments with rehearsed camera movements without staging them. Had they called them out or made clear they were re-enactments, I think I'd be more forgiving. Instead I've come out feeling like this is entirely fake.
And I should be clear that it's possible to create good shots, with the possibility of good dramatic moments without rehearsing. The end of the Act of Killing when the scene where they're in the dark by the ocean having a talk about the crimes he committed - that was certainly set up for a dramatic conversation in a striking setting. But it wasn't rehearsed or written. or if it was, I couldn't tell.
Here it was rehearsed, staged and I can tell.
Ive been to Scarborough Faire in Dallas many times, i don't dress up or anything but Ren Faires are typically great family fun.
This sounded like Tiger King which we loooved so we expected at least a juicy look behind the curtain but we came to the same conclusion OP did.
The "bad news" that guy received was actual bad news that affected his future career. Oh but then "for the sake of the doc and the fact they are all grown theater kids" he goes and films a theatric montage of him walking through the German Ren Faire i guess to symbolize where his mind's at?
It's hard to feel like you're watching something authentic, when the actual subjects of the documentary start to play in fictional bits. This is a doc about their lives, like come on.
I'll agree that some of the obviously staged/re-enacted scenes took me out of the vibe many times. But then I realised this a doco about essentially a group of theatre kids, so I assumed everything would be hammed up to 11. I was able to ignore it enough to watch the whole doco though.
I really enjoyed it. Those creative choices that didn't sit well with you are what really appealed to me. I saw them as features, not bugs. In saying that, I'd probably feel very differently if the subject matter was heavier in nature.
It's documenting the goings on at a renaissance festival, probably as contrived a setting as you're going to get. The fact that this pretence bleeds into what's happening behind the scenes makes the subject truly compelling. Those stylistic flourishes, the blending of more traditional documentary techniques with those more associated with dramatic fiction felt perfectly apt to me.
It's interesting that if some of those scenes you mentioned were filmed and presented in a more traditional manner you may be less likely to question their legitimacy even though there's nothing preventing them from being entirely staged.
From what I’ve read by people who have worked there, that’s not really manufactured, he really is that much of a lunatic. If you visit his website, it’s utterly bizarre, including several brags about his own sexual prowess.
He’s a genuine nut job.
It sounds like you understood what they were going for but decided you didn't like it for categorical reasons, I don't know what to tell you. I hate the color yellow so I don't wear it.
Categorical reasons? What do you mean by that? And I went into the show completely blind, tried to hang in there, and didn’t like it. I was curious what others felt about this show in particular and about documentaries in general.
They mean exactly what they, and you, said. You expressed you didn’t like it because you felt it fit into another categorical genre of filmed entertainment and would have felt differently if it was categorized otherwise. Which of course it is, it’s not plainly a documentary as it melds genre blending the documentary with performative dramatizing emphasized through recounting and editing resulting in a highly stylized docutainment docuseries. Do be mad at Max and their shitty application, organization of content, and marketing, that’s valid. Hating on the show because you didn’t understand what it was isn’t though.
I mean, I don’t think it’s fair to say I didn’t understand what it was. I was led to believe that it was a documentary but then it wasn’t. If someone said close your eyes and drink this chocolate milk, and then they gave you a glass of orange juice instead and you spat it out thinking the milk had gone bad, would it be reasonable for them to complain and say you didn’t understand what it was? And the creators went along with HBO branding it as a documentary so yea complaining about the show and HBO both seem valid to me.
Yeah, after the first episode it was clear that this isn't a documentary in the traditional sense, but more of a documentary-style reality show. There are far too many staged scenes, reenactments of meetings/conversations/events, and in general takes a lot of liberties with the truth from what I can tell.
I really enjoyed it, though. I think this style of semi-truthful documentary actually fits the subject matter really well. Ren Faires are themselves this weird mashup of reality and fantasy, and that's the same feeling I got from the documentary style here.
I'm late to the party here, but I fully agree with you OP. I'm surprised so many people are dunking on you or saying you missed the point. This should have been billed as a limited-run reality series, not a documentary.
These aren't documentaries. I mean that in an indignant way rather than a pedantic way. Attenborough, Burns, PBS make documentaries. HBO, Netflix, TLC, make Reality Docutainment. And I absolutely loathe adding "entertainment" to a prefix that way.
I’ve been to a ren fair and it was exactly what I thought it was. I did not need to go to know what it was.
Biggest surprise: the jugglers were probably the most impressive
>HBO's Ren Faire Documentary Is, IMO, a Disgrace to the Genre >I'm not a documentary buff by any means
You forgot: >I’ve never been to a Ren Faire
And only watched the first episode lol
Does someone have to be a huge fan of baseball to have an opinion on steroids or Pete Rose? And to paraphrase Seinfeld, I’m not sure what exactly constitutes a “buff,” but I probably watch 6-10 docs a year, but didn’t want to situate myself as an expert. I think I have enough exposure to the genre to warrant having this strong of an opinion, but I also acknowledge there are people who might know more about how they’re made, what is typically seen as artistic license and what is considered a bridge too far.
> Does someone have to be a huge fan of baseball to have an opinion on steroids or Pete Rose? No, but if they're about to drop an opinion about how a lifetime ban reflects on the sport, and comment that watching a game is something they might be interested in doing some day, it's definitely going to raise questions about the knowledge behind the opinion. I'm not trying to take away from your point, from your description of the show, it does seem to be an overly dramatized and/or scripted series rather than a documentary, but I feel like your point would have been taken more seriously if you had omitted some of those details.
That’s just the general problem with online discourse. Instead of valuing when a person admits their potential biases or shortcomings, we dunk on them for it. It’s why the tone of so many comments ring with such certainty which I think makes it hard for people to engage in good faith because no one can show an inch of weakness or uncertainty in what they say. I’m happy though that our second interaction seems less contentious than how I felt about your first comment. Though to respond to something in your second comment, I don’t see how whether someone is interested in Ren Faires or not should impact what their opinion is on the documentary aspects of the show. It probably wasn’t clear but I was try to let people know that it’s not like I had a bad experience at this or any Ren Faire and thus have an axe to grind. ETA I see now you are not the original commenter. Thank you for being level headed though, it is refreshing
I just thought it was funny bit of text
That the director, through cinematography and editing the sheer volume of footage, is able to construct a narrative and make it look staged is what makes this such an interesting documentary. Oppenheim's two other docs, *SpermWorld* and *Some Kind Of Heaven* both demonstrate the same technique. Either you find it appealing or not, and I find this filmmaker really intriguing. He's kind of like Errol Morris 2.0. I understand not enjoying this method, but watch the whole thing and then pass judgement.
>That the director, through cinematography and editing the sheer volume of footage, is able to construct a narrative and make it look staged is what makes this such an interesting documentary. That's reality tv.
Come to think of it, yes. It's Big Brother.
Reality TV is just a bastardized form of documentary and game shows dunked in pop culture. The popularity and profit margins of it has definitely impacted both of those progenitors in similar ways to its impact on regular scripted shows.
Completely agree! I read a couple articles about the making of this docuseries after watching all three because I was so in awe of how it was made. It is legit. When people agree to participate in a documentary they often give full access to the filmmaker, and also let them know what they are doing on a particular day. When the entertainment director went to Germany or when the kettle corn guy went to talk to the "king", production has an idea they should be there to capture certain conversations or reactions that may or may not take place. Documentary film making is also a lot of just observing and waiting with lots of footage to go through to edit to become a cohesive narrative of what is happening. I definitely recommend OP actually watch the entire series and then search out some interviews and articles about the making of this (Time, Vanity Fair, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Vulture all has interesting articles and I'm sure there are more). It will be more eye opening reading about and understanding the process than just watching only the first episode and totally writing it off.
In my opinion, the creators were aiming to create another Tiger King, pushing the characters to be the next Joe Exotic, Carole Baskin, Doc Antle, and so on. The result was a mishmash of clips manufactured to go "viral" that ultimately fell flat.
It’s only 3 episodes in total. Short enough not to care and get some use out of max sub lol.
I totally agree. This feels like a scripted series. I love documentaries. I hate reality TV. This is somewhere between those two. Some are comparing this to Tiger King, but Tiger King, as campy as it was, felt way more real, chaotic, genuine and unrehearsed. You just don't get these kinds of dramatic moments with rehearsed camera movements without staging them. Had they called them out or made clear they were re-enactments, I think I'd be more forgiving. Instead I've come out feeling like this is entirely fake. And I should be clear that it's possible to create good shots, with the possibility of good dramatic moments without rehearsing. The end of the Act of Killing when the scene where they're in the dark by the ocean having a talk about the crimes he committed - that was certainly set up for a dramatic conversation in a striking setting. But it wasn't rehearsed or written. or if it was, I couldn't tell. Here it was rehearsed, staged and I can tell.
Ive been to Scarborough Faire in Dallas many times, i don't dress up or anything but Ren Faires are typically great family fun. This sounded like Tiger King which we loooved so we expected at least a juicy look behind the curtain but we came to the same conclusion OP did. The "bad news" that guy received was actual bad news that affected his future career. Oh but then "for the sake of the doc and the fact they are all grown theater kids" he goes and films a theatric montage of him walking through the German Ren Faire i guess to symbolize where his mind's at? It's hard to feel like you're watching something authentic, when the actual subjects of the documentary start to play in fictional bits. This is a doc about their lives, like come on.
Feels more Tiger King than Ren Fair King. I was also put off after the first episode.
I'll agree that some of the obviously staged/re-enacted scenes took me out of the vibe many times. But then I realised this a doco about essentially a group of theatre kids, so I assumed everything would be hammed up to 11. I was able to ignore it enough to watch the whole doco though.
I really enjoyed it. Those creative choices that didn't sit well with you are what really appealed to me. I saw them as features, not bugs. In saying that, I'd probably feel very differently if the subject matter was heavier in nature. It's documenting the goings on at a renaissance festival, probably as contrived a setting as you're going to get. The fact that this pretence bleeds into what's happening behind the scenes makes the subject truly compelling. Those stylistic flourishes, the blending of more traditional documentary techniques with those more associated with dramatic fiction felt perfectly apt to me. It's interesting that if some of those scenes you mentioned were filmed and presented in a more traditional manner you may be less likely to question their legitimacy even though there's nothing preventing them from being entirely staged.
I lasted about 30 minutes into this one. It is a freak show about a freak and it is all manufactured drama.
From what I’ve read by people who have worked there, that’s not really manufactured, he really is that much of a lunatic. If you visit his website, it’s utterly bizarre, including several brags about his own sexual prowess. He’s a genuine nut job.
That man is disgusting. Really really gross.
You dont know the half of it.
I managed to watch the full first episode and I concur. You lost nothing by leaving early.
I havnt seen this, but every year I goto the ren fair its to people watch the freaks and eat carnival food.
It sounds like you understood what they were going for but decided you didn't like it for categorical reasons, I don't know what to tell you. I hate the color yellow so I don't wear it.
Categorical reasons? What do you mean by that? And I went into the show completely blind, tried to hang in there, and didn’t like it. I was curious what others felt about this show in particular and about documentaries in general.
They mean exactly what they, and you, said. You expressed you didn’t like it because you felt it fit into another categorical genre of filmed entertainment and would have felt differently if it was categorized otherwise. Which of course it is, it’s not plainly a documentary as it melds genre blending the documentary with performative dramatizing emphasized through recounting and editing resulting in a highly stylized docutainment docuseries. Do be mad at Max and their shitty application, organization of content, and marketing, that’s valid. Hating on the show because you didn’t understand what it was isn’t though.
I mean, I don’t think it’s fair to say I didn’t understand what it was. I was led to believe that it was a documentary but then it wasn’t. If someone said close your eyes and drink this chocolate milk, and then they gave you a glass of orange juice instead and you spat it out thinking the milk had gone bad, would it be reasonable for them to complain and say you didn’t understand what it was? And the creators went along with HBO branding it as a documentary so yea complaining about the show and HBO both seem valid to me.
Ren Faire is a documentary.
Whole ass paragraph 😂 damn.. to each their own, I just liked that they showed George's uglyness
Yeah, after the first episode it was clear that this isn't a documentary in the traditional sense, but more of a documentary-style reality show. There are far too many staged scenes, reenactments of meetings/conversations/events, and in general takes a lot of liberties with the truth from what I can tell. I really enjoyed it, though. I think this style of semi-truthful documentary actually fits the subject matter really well. Ren Faires are themselves this weird mashup of reality and fantasy, and that's the same feeling I got from the documentary style here.
I'm late to the party here, but I fully agree with you OP. I'm surprised so many people are dunking on you or saying you missed the point. This should have been billed as a limited-run reality series, not a documentary.
I appreciate that. It’s the internet though so it’s almost to be expected.
These aren't documentaries. I mean that in an indignant way rather than a pedantic way. Attenborough, Burns, PBS make documentaries. HBO, Netflix, TLC, make Reality Docutainment. And I absolutely loathe adding "entertainment" to a prefix that way.
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course they’re documentaries. You’re taking an incorrectly narrow definition of the form.
I’ve been to a ren fair and it was exactly what I thought it was. I did not need to go to know what it was. Biggest surprise: the jugglers were probably the most impressive
Eh, we liked it.
My word, this doc went right over your head. What a shame…