The Imposter

The Imposter is a 2012 British-American documentary film about the 1997 case of the French confidence trickster Frédéric Bourdin, who impersonated Nicholas Barclay, a Texas boy who disappeared at the age of 13 in 1994. The film was directed by Bart Layton. It includes interviews with Bourdin and members of Barclay's family, as well as archive television news footage and reenacted dramatic sequences.As a whole, It is a relief to know that I can congratulate ‘The Imposter’ in regards to its narrative sequencing and the accuracy of its enclosed contents. Despite some amount of questionable reenactments being used to accompany specific details ‘The Imposter’ doesn't depend on dramatic gestures to get most of its points across and is careful to insert interactions that are most pertinent to the case (such as the inclusion of voice records or security footage that has acted as evidence) as it is appropriate. There are creative choices made that could be considered disrespectful or obtuse - like making Bourden and the interviews he provided for this documentary - but even these serve to ultimately share a story that otherwise would seem vastly suspended from reality. The praise this documentary is deserving of is stunted by an apparent lack of self-awareness regarding questions and suspicions an audience member might have if we assume the majority of them are not familiar with investigation related processes and formalities. For one, It is easy to forget while watching this that the event at the center of this film takes place in the late 1990s, and because of this there are obvious criticisms of the professionals involved in this case when an overarching amount of context is omitted. Many complaints are made about the nature in which the investigation unfolds - Like those questioning why a DNA test was not performed sooner - and failure to discuss the /accessibility/ or the nuances involved with having a DNA test makes this practically inevitable. I understand that this is probably the consequence of not wanting to potentially bore viewers with legal jargon and/or technicalities, but this results in a lot of p(l)ot-holes some may fall into with ease.This is one of those rare times I would have liked to have heard the questions that were being asked to the individuals interviewed, and the reason being is connected to the behavior we see in all those involved in the making of this documentary. Bourdin - an individual that many might agree deserves to be ridiculed or ashamed of his actions - doesn't break as much of a sweat and I fear much was done to preserve his comfort as a means of appeasement. In contrast to this there are moments where Barclay’s family members present in a way that infers some amount of distress potentially driving some of the conversations and narrations taking place. The presence of primary sources leads me to believe that ‘The Imposter’ has a genuine interest in being a non-biased source of information, but perhaps more could have done to make this all the obvious or overt for individuals that may be naturally skeptical as opposed to effortlessly convinced when consuming this type of media.In closing, the question one should have when watching documentaries about events and individuals like this one should not be “Why”, but should be primarily concerned with “How:; At the same time, however, it is arguably just as important to treat all involved parties with the respect and dignity they deserve when having been the victim of a serious crime or gross misconduct. Layton’s attempt in capturing the totality of elements that contribute to one of the most bizarre identity-theft related cases is commendable, but it inches into territory that seems obsessed with bolstering and entertaining Bourdin’s vapidly inflated ego.All things considered ‘The Imposter’ covers subject matter that is undoubtedly fascinating despite having goals that could be fairly described as fragmented and disorganized.I would recommend!

This story was more unique that I originally thought. And certainly heartbreaking.

They make the identity thief out to be some kind of mastermind all throughout the "documentary" while giving him the liberty of narrating the entire story in the most ego-driven, supervillain perspective and including dramatized reenactments of his 'mind-blowing' quick thinking. They don't include any critical questioning of this guy (French identity thief), and just give him free rein to tell it how he wants it to be perceived. I'll save you some time- a French man, in Spain, steals the identity of a missing child from Texas. He claims to be 16 year old (13 at the time of disappearance) Nicholas Barclay. he comes to find out, while Nicholas' sister is flying to Spain to pick him up and take him home, that he has both the wrong hair color, skin complexion, and eye color. So much for a mastermind criminal. The family of the missing child seemingly ignore these glaring inconsistencies, and instead welcome their 'returned family member'.Some time passes and the authorities end up getting a warrant for blood samples and find out that he is indeed not Nicholas. The criminal goes to prison and they find out that he has done this many times in the past. He is just a compulsive liar. They just made a film about an uninteresting compulsive liar and made him seem like a genius. Then the story takes a turn and a new investigation opens into the disappearance of Nick, with his family being the prime suspects... all because this compulsive liar accused them of killing their child. Nothing ever comes of it and they close the investigation, but the last scene shows a private investigator and current homeowner (of the home the family previously lived in) digging up a corner of the backyard because, "Oh just MAYBE that family, who certainly hasn't been through enough heartache, DID kill him!" but then it goes to credits, essentially leaving a more suggestible viewer to theorize- with no evidence- that they are murderers.The only reasons this guy made it one foot out of Spain were luck, incompetence from authorities and a heartbroken family that didn't want to acknowledge reality.It was bizarre and disrespectful to glorify a sub-par criminal whose only accomplishment was rebreaking the hearts of this family. Then for the director to end it by suggesting they had a hand in potentially murdering him, with zero evidence, with no motive, brings it to ~disgusting.

I think in this documentary, true character comes through those participating in the story. The logic that puts blame on Nicolas Barclay's family is so faulty. I wonder how they will feel when they really know (maybe after this life) that they helped victimize the Barclay family a third time. I hope the Barclay's in some measure share my ultimate hope that Jesus Christ has the power to make this all right and make up all losses, and dry all tears, even if it won't happen in this world. To me they were believable. I'm so sorry for all they have gone through.That same Jesus also has power to help Frederic Bourdin become a better person and get over himself and his devastating lies.I wish the best to all.

Riveting.

The Imposter poses as a dramatic thriller hidden within the confinements of a documentary. Nicholas Barclay, raised in San Antonio, Texas. A streetwise boy mysteriously disappeared at the age of thirteen back in ‘94. The family left to grieve for his absence, wondering the endless possibilities that could’ve been bestowed upon him. Run away? Kidnapped? Killed? Nicholas was never found. Fast forward three years later, the family receive a telephone call from the US embassy in Spain. “We’ve found Nicholas”, they confidently assure the Barclays. Overwhelmed with inexplicable emotions, Nicholas’ sister flies to Spain, which she initially thought was across the country and surprises herself that Coca Cola was available there too, and greets her missing brother with open arms. The individual hugging her though, was not Nicholas Barclay. A confidence trickster who maintains an extensive record of impersonating children, Frédéric Bourdin.Thus begins Layton’s acute insight into documenting one of the most bizarre crimes to have ever taken place. First and foremost, this case is absolutely insane. One hundred percent unbelievable. Shocking, grotesque and occasionally sympathetic. For a man, whom was sever years older than Nicholas, exhibited a French accent, had dark brown hair and brown eyes (the complete opposite to the blue-eyed blonde Nicholas), and to get away with it for so long was, quite simply, astonishing. He fooled the Spanish police, US embassy, an FBI agent and, most importantly, Nicholas’ own family. The very people who knew him better than anyone else.Layton’s documentary maintains a neutral standpoint by interviewing both Bourdin and the family members, provoking the audience to question who’s responsible for this indecorous crime. Bourdin for desiring an adequate childhood that he never received, for he consistently felt unaccepted in life? Or the family for apparently unknowingly accepting this imposter into their lives? There is an underlying layer of sympathy for both entities that supplied each side with an abundance of investment, fully involving viewers into an enigmatic puzzle, courtesy of Layton’s intuitive interviews.Despite the sheer lunacy of the case itself, this documentary feature does include many reservations that conflict with my own personal taste. The narrative unfolds chronologically, from Bourdin’s embellishment of Nicholas to the revelatory third act accusation thrown at the Barclays. With this in mind, footage was not available for every detail described in this case, consequently employing dramatisations of events. The problem is that Layton failed to balance the documentarian power of the interviews with the cinematic aesthetic of the recreations. Frequently, The Imposter resembled a fictitious feature with narration playing over the top, rather than extrapolating information from its compulsory discussions. It lessens the impact of the story through mediocre recreations commonly found in crime/journalism television shows such as ‘Watchdog’. This documentary solely focuses on illustrating the events that unfolded, yet rarely explored the emotional vulnerability of both parties. Sure, Nicholas’ sister and mother state “I was sad”, however the narrative swiftly moves onto the next plot point without blinking. Automatically hindering emotional vulnerability. Incredibly rapid, yet incidentally vacuous.The Imposter sheds compelling light onto a seemingly implausible and relatively unknown case. Depicting the events through the narrative exploitation of a thriller, Layton certainly delivers extraordinary shocks and insight. Unfortunately though, it hosts qualities that conflict with my own personal taste when divulging into documentaries, lessening the staying power of its contents. Outstanding, just not for me.

I challenge anyone to watch this film and not have they're mouth drop open and shake they're head repeatedly in disbelief. It is unbelievable, and if it was fiction open to scorn. However it is the true story of a recent event featuring many of the real people involved in it. Knowing it is true and listening to each persons side the film is gripping, I'm not sure if it shakes your faith in the authorities and family or reaffirm your belief in human ingenuity. You decide!

Watched this having avoided reading too much about the story in advance - and the less you know, the more I think you'll enjoy it. Yes, it is a documentary - with some dramatic reconstruction. It's beautifully shot - and there is real skill to the editing and the story telling. What is already an incredible tale, builds tension via the construction, using a combination of portrayed flashback, actual videotape from the time and head to head interviews. It's all woven together with real care and creativity. I'm not a huge documentary fan, but this film has awoken my enthusiasm for its potential.

First thing's first: if you live in North America and are wondering if this will play, it will -- at least it did for me in my PS3.Let's be clear: the film is abolutely fantastic. No one can deny this fact.However speaking about the Bluray itself, it could be ever so slightly better, at least in terms of special features. The disc boasts only 2, a making of and a Q&A. It would have been nice to included a commentary or some extended interviews or just something to flush it out a little more (granted, for 6 pounds you're not exactly getting ripped off).What's perhaps more troubling is the fact that (on my disc at least) the Q&A simply will not play. Attempting to activate the feature simply restarts the menu loop. It is entirely possible this is due to the fact that I'm in Canada and as a result we use the NTSC standard and perhaps this feature is in PAL and my Bluray player (a PS3) cannot play this one video. That's purely speculation though, it could be a glitch.That said, everything else on the disc seems to play just fine for thsoe of us in North America. The disc does indeed seem to be region free (or at the very least playable in a PS3) which is great news for those of us over here who cannot go out and purchase the Bluray in stores.A great film. A very good bluray. A fantastic price.