i saw *best in show* last night and was struck by the effect of "reality" or authenticity that the mockumentary achieved . . . many of the factors that contributed to this effect can readily be inferred from careful viewing . . . these include such elements as apparently unmotivated camera motion, unorthodox editing [flagrant violations of continuity conventions], improvised [or improvisational] and overlapping dialogue, and assorted other elements of editing and mise-en-scene [although obviously it will be necessary to see the film it a few times to see exactly how these elements are made to work] . . . but over and above these there were certain qualities of [i surmise] the cinematography itself, that added immeasurably to the feeling of reality and made much of the film so convincing . . . some of these, such as the occasional use of video rather than filmic images, were clear enough . . . but many of these qualities cannot be inferred from simply viewing the film, at least not by someone like myself whose knowledge of film, cameras, lenses, filters, etc. is minimal . . . is there anyone out there who can provide somewhat more useful insight into exactly what technical tricks this film [and other similar films] use to distance themselves from more conventional narrative films [however "realistic"] and to create such a powerful simulacrum of the real? thanks in advance for any guidance mike frank ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]