Post 4

To start of I would just like to say that I truly enjoyed the film American Splendor. I found that the movie was innovative, humorous and Harvey Pekar was a very interesting character to say the least. This movie is labeled as a biopic because it is a blurring of aesthetics and genres. The creators of the film, Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman could have chosen to do a documentary on Harvey Pekar’s life, but they believed they owed it to Harvey and his comics to present something different.

In the article, When is a documentary? Documentary as a Mode of Reception, writer Dirk Eitzen discussed the long debated definition of the documentary. There are a few concepts that I like that he mentioned, many which made me thing directly about American Splendor. In the history of documentary film, Eitzen tells us that the genre has been defined in many different ways. It is a “film with a message,” a “dramatized presentation of man’s relation to his institutional life” and “the communication, not imagined things, but of real things only” (81). I believe that American Splendor partially falls under these categories. After all, it is partially a documentary film. It is definitely a film with a message. The story of Harvey Pekar is an inspiring one with a message about originality and being true to yourself. The film is beyond doubt a dramatized representation of Harvey’s life. In the interview with Pulcini and Berman they state that the film is a “fictionalized account of Pekar’s life…” When it comes to the third definition of a documentary, American Splendor mixes reality or imagined things with real things and this is what makes the film so groundbreaking and different from just a plain documentary film. The definition of documentary I feel fits best with this film is John Grieson’s definition, “ the creative treatment of actuality.” This is exactly what American Splendor is except that the film handles reality with extra creativity. For example, the film shows Harvey Pekar in actor form, the real Harvey Pekar as well as cartoon figures of Harvey that pop up every now and then. It is a perfectly blended combination of reality and fantasy.

Another concept in the article that I enjoyed was the question of “how can a documentary be real when it is a replica of the real?” The neat thing about the film is it doesn’t try to make you see flat out reality. It shows and openly tells you that these are actors telling a story by having the real Harvey Pekar appear and narrate the story. A great example of this is when the camera starts to zoom in on Paul Giamatti while the real Harvey Pekar narrates. The real Harvey says, “this is the guy playing me, even though he looks nothing like me.” This line really allows us to separate reality from make believe.

The interview with the creators was very interesting as well. It basically explained why they decided to do this overlap of documentary and biopic. It truly is a hybrid film, “one that celebrates the blurred boundaries between comics and film, documentary and fiction.” The creators explained that they chose this style of film to match up with the uniqueness of Harvey the person and his comic books. With his comics, Pekar decided to push the boundaries and do something that had never been seen before. Pulicini and Burman saw it fitting to do the same with their movie, using comic book esthetics, animating sequences and illustrated frames to pay tribute to his comics, while creating an exciting element to the film.

After reading both pieces, it is clear to see where the documentary style and biopic style come together in the film. The greatest, most creative example of this is when Paul Giamatti is finishing a scene and then walks off the set. We see him sit next to Judah Friedlander in the background, while the character Judah plays has a discussion with the real Harvey Pekar. This decision has us face to face with reality and non-reality. We also get to see that Judah and Paul’s performances are pretty accurate portrayals of the real life characters. Pulcini comments about this scene saying, “It is moments like these where the film is able to undermine its realism at the same time as it defends its accuracy.” I believe the creators choice to do something new with this film was very fitting. This film truly is a celebration of uniqueness and innovation in more ways then one.