post 4

Eitzen provides great insight to the audience in defining a documentary. His example of Spike Lee's High school film from 1988 helps create an understanding of the difference as the movie focused on actual events, but at times fell into the category of movie with its intense, non realistic dialogue and intense scenes that did not really occur. In fact, Eitzen seemed to have a tough time himself figuring out the concept of a documentary. After all, has there been a documentary with a plot? There is a biopic and a documentary, but the two categories can rarely intervene. In large appreciation of the directing of Robert Pulcini and Shari Berman, American Splendor (2003) consisted of documentary and biopic aspects including personal opinions of the Film's actual based character, Harvey Pekar. Harvey's character was played by Paul Giamatti, who personally, did a tremendous job as his facial features, body movement, and general attitude almost made him seem like a long lost twin brother of Pekar. However, the question of defining the qualities of a biopic and a documentary are far from hidden in the film. Pekar's comic books from the American Splendor series send a message to the audience in a nut shell stating, there are no super heroes, rather the typical individuals at work living their lives are the super heroes. While undoubtedly that last statement could spark some questions or even objections, this a personal opinion.
Shari Berman and Robert Pulcini were new this style of directing, as they had only made documentaries, not films. This made American Splendor (the film) very interesting to view because the documentary qualities are easily found, but would the movie have been possible without some depictions of the past? To make a film such as this one, it was only necessary to flashback and flash forward. Through such styles of explaining who Harvey Pekar was, the American Splendor needed to be a mix of a documentary and a biopic. For example, the film's opening scene features young Harvey Pekar attempting to fit in with various super heroes, and through this scene, it can be gathered (to some viewers) that this event led Harvey to feel the way he did about comic book heroes. On the other hand, would this scene have been possible to film without Shari and Pulcini moving away from their traditional style of the old fashioned documentary? The answer is no, because the audience would have had to watch Harvey Pekar himself (not Giamatti) explain his childhood, and this would have taken away part of the unique style of filming in this movie. In fact, through this scene, the audience gathers a better understanding of who Pekar was. Following this scene, the film quickly moves into Paul Giamatti playing the adult Pekar.
Although the film is narrated by the real Pekar, the other aspect of a documentary that should be mentioned is the interview. Giamatti playing Pekar is further emphasized through the transitions from the film itself to the real life interviews with Harvey Pekar and his wife Joyce. Undoubtedly, this interview which occurs a few times throughout the movie, is the true divider between a documentary and a biopic. This interview, which will most likely be stated by every post on the website, featured a white background, referencing the unique style of the comic books. With only a few objects in the room, the interview is filmed in a setting that completely symbolizes Pekar's comic book. This was an attempt to combine the aspect of a film while gathering input from the creator Harvey himself. This was a great move on the director's part as Pulcini even notes in his interview that the directors wanted the scene to be shot this way. "The Whole point of American Splendor comics is that life doesn't really organize itself well, which is very daunting for a screenwriter. You want to stay true to the spirit of these comic books, but you also want to be able to fashion them into some kind of story. So that was our challenge."
While there were countless examples of explaining the convergence of a biopic and a documentary, there remains one example in the film that points out Pulcini and Shari's unique style of filming. While the creation of the comics through construction paper or even the real life explanations of Pekar's co worker Toby are terrific examples, I would like to move toward Paul Giamatti's immitations of Pekar's many David Letterman interviews. Before and after these many interviews, Paul Giamatti does a great job acting out the stressed emotions of Harvey Pekar, as after all, Letterman completely embarrassed him on national television. Rather the Paul's tremendous acting, Pulcini and Shari take Paul's introduction onto Letterman's show each time (three or four in total) and transfer the filmed scene into the actual occurrence on the show. In other words, rather than filming Paul imitate an interview that simply can't be duplicated, why not just show the film audience what really happened in 1988? This was a great style of directing and aside from the constant narrating of Pekar himself, the viewers were able to understand (again for those who had already seen it, but not me) why the Letterman incident was such a big deal. This style of filming was unique, innovative, and sent a message stating, this is who Harvey Pekar was and no one can duplicate him. Aside from his personal emotional disorders, this brings my previous statement back in noting that Harvey was sending a message through his comics that the average individual could be a hero and too, be featured on the David Letterman Show. Concluding the film, we see Paul Giamatti walking down the street, which turns into the real Harvey Pekar seeing his family and coworkers at a party. This was the director's intention to remind the audience of the mixed style of filming, featuring fiction and non-fiction. Eitzen stated "the boundaries of documentary are fuzzy and variable in viewers' experience and in everyday discourse." This was a good quote to end on, as like the party, we see an actual event, but the rest of the film have shades of gray that fall into the category of a biopic. American Splendor was a film that featured actual events, some fictional events, and acting that imitated what really happened. It was simply a motion picture that mixed biopic and documentary qualities.