"Unveiling Reality's Mirage: The Artful Play of Mockumentary in Questioning Truth and Form"

What is Fake Documentary?

It is a subgenre that questions the existence and usage of documentaries using the codes of documentary filmmaking. Fake Documentary, to a certain extent, can be regarded as criticism. Whatever is speculated in terms of criticism pertains to how credible or realistic the entire documentary is, and what kind of paths can be taken with a critical approach. The purpose of Fake Documentaries is not to strictly follow a path but rather to highlight the flaws and potential usage errors of the watched documentary path. It is deliberately made using documentary methods. The reason for this is to give the viewer the feeling of watching a documentary ('seemingly'). Saying that Fake Documentary is a complete genre, in my opinion, is a wrong approach. Trying to be 'seemingly' real derived from the codes of documentaries cannot go beyond mimicry. The primary characteristic that stands out in this subgenre is mimicry. This mimicry attempts to reflect the truth in the best possible way. For instance, classical narrative cinema has chosen the path of reflecting the truth most effectively. Here, one could talk about the similarity between Fake Documentary and Classical Narrative Cinema. However, the biggest difference between Fake Documentary and Classical Narrative lies in questioning the truth. The purpose of Fake Documentary is to question whether the truth is really true, by pretending to be true, by actually presenting the reality of reality, by really presenting the viewer with real (fake) documents, by making them think, by prompting the viewer to ask real questions about reality. Fake Documentary sees reality as a problem, as it has a problem with the documentary itself. It has taken it upon itself to turn this problem into a solution and has succeeded in producing a falseness by saying 'I am a documentary.' The most beautiful Fake Documentary is the one that is a Documentary. The more it approaches the Documentary, the more it is fake, which makes it uniquely happy. The Fake Documentary created to reveal the lies of the reality it is engaged in can be said to play a game with the documentary, in a way. It is not playing a game with the documentary itself. It is a game played with the viewer's reality. This is a cry out to the audience who believes that every part of the presented work is true: Don’t believe it.

What should a film be called if a documentary that was once considered a documentary in the future is found not to have documentary characteristics? To put it this way: What seemed real due to technological deficiencies in the conditions of that day may not seem real in the future. Such a possibility always exists, and in a highly probable manner. Now my question will be: If a documentary prepared to be a documentary will have fake qualities in the future, does it lose its documentary characteristic? This thought wandered in my mind for a while, and in the end, I came to this conclusion. If something is a documentary and it has become fake, then it is now a Fake Documentary. Therefore, even the most real documentary watched over time can be called a Fake Documentary. The truth changes at any moment. The function of Fake Documentary is, in fact, more functional than the documentary. A documentary that may undergo certain corruptions is vulnerable and more difficult to produce. No matter how competent the director is, they will remain in the conditions of their time. However, the Fake Documentary, even if the lie is revealed, has the luxury of saying that everything was actually a lie. Now, here's a situation that has formed in my mind: Did the Fake Documentary emerge as a result of the documentary being corrupted over time? To explain it this way: Did the documentary that lost its reality over time start saying 'I am fake'?

How does the Fake Documentary, which sees the documentary as a problem in itself, try to reach a solution? First of all, it reaches a semblance of reality, playing games with reality, actually describing the non-existence of reality or how easily the illusion of reality can be given, using the codes of the documentary and actually breaking those codes while using them to achieve a solution. The Fake Documentary that needs to be meticulously prepared is harder than the Documentary. While pursuing pure reality in making a documentary, in Fake Documentary, creating a reality and then trying to unquestionably break that reality makes the fake aspect more challenging. Firstly, one must know the truth and then go towards breaking that reality. Thus, Fake Documentary demands more information than a documentary. The seemingly real and the fake cannot be separated from each other. Both the Documentary needing more reality to reach and the Fake Documentary criticizing the reality creating Documentary need each other. The Fake Documentary must not reveal that it is fake throughout the film in order to change perspectives. Although some directors explain their fakeness at the end of some films, the general tendency should not be in this direction. There should not be the slightest hint of fakery in the film. If there is a Fake Documentary made in this way, it can be considered the best representative of the subgenre. Fake Documentary not only uses the reality of the Documentary. The features that can be found in a documentary should also be found in the Fake Documentary. The better this is done, the more the Fake Documentary is considered a Documentary. Being fake is actually about pursuing a game. It means 'I can do it.' It's about playing with reality, time, and people one by one. On the other hand, it is about questioning and showing the viewer how wrong or as a means of orientation reality is used. Fake Documentary expects a Documentary viewer not to settle only for what is shown, but to conduct research after watching the film, to read, and to reach the conclusion of whether the information is given correctly or incorrectly.

I see Fake Documentary as superior to Documentary because it is interested in making people aware of knowledge or reality awareness. Actually, this cannot be considered teaching. What I see as superior is that it triggers something within a person, makes them question. Now, can a Documentary made to provoke questioning be more effective? It can be, of course, but the one asking the question must not forget that even that documentary can be fake. In response to this question, I ask, 'What if I end up facing incorrect questioning?' I'm beginning to slowly understand that pure reality may not exist. This caused me to drift away from the concept of Documentary a bit. Even the position of the camera is a blow to reality, so talking about reality seems a bit meaningless now. However, the irony part is that I still have the idea of making a Documentary.

(Quotations: What I have heard, seen, learned, and interpreted so far.)"