The Imposter Analysis

The imposter is a 2012 British-American documentary directed by Bart Layton about the disappearance of Nicholas Barclay in 1997. The case involves Frederic Bourdin, a 23 year old male that impersonates the 16 year old Nicholas who was missing for over 3 years without a trace. The documentary gives explicit details, evidence, and interviews with individuals involved in the case. The director Bart Layton throughout the documentary presents a story far fetched to be true of the disappearance. The most important pieces to the outcome of the documentary are that the film is divided between reality and fiction, the way that Layton uses Frederic Bourdin in the film to persuade the audience, and Layton’s point of view is questionable of being bias.
The Imposter is an unprecedented story almost hard to believe. After Bourdin claimed to be Barclay, he was taken to the United States, interviewed by the FBI, given an american passport, and living with the family for about six months. The director plays a role between fiction and reality. He guided the audience through the case explaining eloquently every detail and even though he gives us subtle and hidden hints regarding his thoughts on the case, every word is true. Layton said in an interview to “The Telegraph” “If it was fiction, it would be preposterous”. One of the most incredible parts is when Layton shows that not even the mother can recognize his own child, they basically play along believing something that it is obvious and in some way ridiculous. Layton added, “If you want something badly enough you are capable of convincing yourself that it exists in the face of all evidence to the contrary.” In some way this can be true because when people lose a significant person, they become vulnerable and can not think straight. In addition, this film definitely gives the audience the chance to think outside the box and question themselves because it is a different approach to tell a story, some call it “Mockumentary”. In fact, the tone, the position of the camera, the way the events are presented is what makes the audience doubt about whether is fiction or reality, but yet the way that Layton uses the characters is fascinating, mysterious, and credible all at the same time. Layton’s credibility increases by including the imposter in the film.
At the beginning of the film, Bourdin is portrait as an unwanted kid hated by parents and grandparents and that he wanted to be loved by a real family. Layton gives a little back story of Bourdin so that this could increase the reason of why he would steal another person’s identity but it also raises the credibility of the director and Bourdin himself. It was definitely a smart move of Layton to share Bourdin’s life so that the audience could feel sorry for him and believe the story even more because in most criminal documentaries, the criminal will not directly participate in the film. The director usually uses interviews of other people who knew him or police reports. Bourdin’s participation was essential for the credibility of the film; he connects with the audience, he was calm, and open which made the audience believe his
words. Layton shared with the “The Telegraph” “Bourdin is unpredictable ... he isn’t a terribly trusting character and he was very circumspect about what I wanted to do with the story. But at the same time, he is a consummate attention seeker. He was attracted to telling his story in this way.” Layton knew that getting Bourdin on board would gave the film a total different perspective but that it was going to be questioned by the audience. The Imposter was questioned of being one-sided.
Layton documentary is somewhat bias in the sense that it accuses the family of being involved in the disappearance with many facts and claims from many individuals. Layton begins his documentary by giving an introduction to the disappearance of Nicholas; he interviewed policemen, private investigators, FBI agents, and neighbors. However, all these interviews are against the family. Layton reinforced his claim by not showing testimonies in favor of the family and even though he did not present any reliable proof of the family killing Nicholas, the audience can perceive that is the message he is trying to put across. Layton said, “It was a slow process: one family member agreed and then another: “They realised the interviews I was doing were very detailed, but they weren’t aggressive.” The interviews were very well done and the audience could definitely empathized with the family but Layton could have given more credibility to the family by presenting testimonies on their behalf and not putting Bourdin as such a victim. Layton chose to put it that way so that it would be a much interesting story making the audience believe the word of an identity thief rather than a grieving
family. While some believe that The Imposter is one-sided and have an intention of mocking people, this types of documentaries are what makes the difference at presenting this types of cases that may times end up hidden and never talked about. All the points that Layton presented were relevant and well thought. People have different values and ways of perception thus, it is understandable that Layton could be appealing to a specific audience. However, he makes difficult for the audience to fully understand and interpret his message by not being completely clear and most important letting the story in the hands of the criminal.
Anyone who watches this documentary would see themselves engaged in the story trying to figure it out because it is hard to believe, but as Layton presents hidden hints throughout the documentary people can start making their assumptions and realising how they are being persuaded by the director's style of telling the story through facts and using influential people to present a one sided claim.