MovieChat Forums > The Imposter (2012) Discussion > Filmmakers Should Be Ashamed Of Themselv...

Filmmakers Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves

posted 12 years ago by weathered2
17 replies | jump to latest

It was unpardonable for the filmmakers to have framed the final part in the way they did. For a pure "here's another twist coming" moment they show the private investigator digging up the backyard as the ditzy FBI lady questions the family's motive - promising a "here's where the evil family put the body" finale. That was awful. It was really unconscionable. And, why was it that IMPOSSIBLE for the airhead FBI investigator, who failed miserably at investigation 101 (clue he had brown eyes and a foreign accent, not blue eyes and a Texas' accent), to imagine that maybe, just maybe, this family was traumatized to the point of wanting to believe, against all facts, that their family member was back in their lives? Nah, after the 15th lie detector test, the ditz found the mother lying about god knows what. What evidence, you ask, did the filmmakers have to go in the direction they did? The evidence, if you want to call it that, was the rantings of a sociopath and a private detective who was reaching for a sensational story to satisfy the networks.

[–] GuyWhoSezThatsNotGood 12 years ago

I agree with you generally, but I have a few responses.

1. The empty hole at the end is intended to be a metaphor--viewers can put in it whatever they want. That's according to the director.

2. The other evidence was that the dead brother had apparently made a police report about the kid coming back. Not even remotely definitive, but it is curious.

3. The family was, according to the director, happy with their portrayal. This had previously been presented in an article in the New Yorker, which was much more slanted against the family. So all this was out there. the director offered them a chance to give their side in a way previous portrayals really hadn't.

[–] ohsogrey 12 years ago

Thanks for that insight, it's helped me better understand some of the directors choices.

Personally I love the film but I've come out of it very split on what I think happened which I think shows that the accusing the family was very fair because they were given the chance to tell their side and point out very rightly that this man is a habitual liar.

I feel they believed because they really really wanted to and you can make yourself believe anything if you want it bad enough. But that's just me.

[–] Scribblenaut 12 years ago

That's really a big hook of the film. Bourdin's a natural liar and a sociopath, so he knows every trick in the book. He can spot a liar from across the room. That coupled with the family's bizarre behavior gives room for doubt.

I actually thought it was brilliant. I'm sick of sappy docs about good versus evil that are clearly skewed towards one side. Why not make something fun and interesting?

[–] jeffy3 12 years ago

I have mixed feelings about this. Just the examination of how some people can overlook what is right in front of them in order to have closure is fascinating enough, then to pull the rug out from under us and suggest well maybe they were just covering up a crime was sort of unfair. Which story is it? THat said, it was fascinating and well-made.

[–] SnoopyStyle 12 years ago

The filmakers showed that the guy was a definite pathalogical liar. So if you're trying to say the filmakers were bias, I think that's lacking any base.

[–] Zwaan7 12 years ago

Good point, weathered2. I admit I got sucked in as well believing the family did some very bad stuff, but at the the end that would be totally unfair based on this 'evidence'.

[–] theplotterist 12 years ago

It wasn't only Bourdin who suspected this family covered up the death of their son. Lots of folks did, and that the family's acceptance of Bourdin, with all his flaws, was part of their cover story.

The sister fed Bourdin info about the family as soon as she met him. Bourdin's English was poor at that point, and heavily accented, and he has those brown eyes. Why would she believe him to be her brother? Why did she NEED him to be her brother?

The other brother (who might have killed the original kid) gave false reports of contact with his brother after he went missing. The older brother refused to acknowledge Bourdin, address him as any sort of relative.

The mother refused DNA tests until it was court ordered.

The mother was on drugs for 2 of her lie detector tests (this came out in other articles on this case.) For the third, the FBI made sure she was sober.

This documentary didn't quite tell the whole tale concerning this family.

[–] StakkaDakka 12 years ago

i know it is prejudicial, but there are a lot of pointers about this family that suggest they are bad news. Then there are a number of large problems with their story. I think the filmmakers were clearly highly suspicious of the family and therefore you cant really call the way they made this to be shameful. The only bit I frowned on was the gravedigging.

[–] Nitarna 12 years ago

Wow, I had the exact same thoughts as you after seeing this movie.

[–] madmiri 12 years ago

I don't agree about the ending. I'm from the US; I think that if the filmmakers had uncovered the remains it would have made the news...I never heard a thing about this case within recent years. Therefore, it was a bit obvious nothing would be found. It would've really been unpardonable if they found the remains but kept their lips sealed for the sake of the ending. That FBI agent was awful though.