Michael Glode

Professor Bednar

Capstone

March 6th, 2021

Death to 2020

Context and Description

Death to 2020 is a British Mockumentary which offers insight into the year 2020, including presidential elections, environmental issues, and especially COVID through the lens of famous actors whose use of performativity leads the audience through different narratives. This is important because the way in which the actors portray their character’s personas to the audience determines if the message is interpreted correctly. This mockumentary style has become increasingly popular in recent years with shows like The Office and Modern Family but probably the catalyst for this genre was This is Spinal Tap. Within this analysis of Death to 2020

I will be looking at mockumentaries as a genre, the characters depicted within the special, and the specific events within the film followed by what they represent. Many characters have specific characteristics that add to the narrative that the director wants the audience to notice that

I will discuss further below. There is also something interesting about the release of the special which was done before the year was even over and many critics pointed out that fact that this special is unnecessary. This is touched upon with satire within the trailer of this special which says “It’s coming soon,” but as the announcement also asks, is it “too soon?”

It has only been a few months since the special’s release and it has received many mixed reviews. This is because many people believe the Special was unnecessary since we just lived through it while others say a collection of events in one place like this are beneficial to reflect upon. Many media critics had a lot to say about this Netflix Special including the flipping of perspectives inside American politics and a British frame of reference, which seems to include the queen who only seems to care about Prince Harry and Maghan leaving the royal family and views on Boris Johnson who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The bottom line is that many would describe this as just a piece of content with no real purpose other than to recap of the year that no one wants to relive. Many critics pointed out that from the trailer it seemed as if the writers had something they wanted to present to the audience but they couldn't pinpoint what that thing is other than chronologically running through the year with fictitious characters for narrative. It was also stated in reviews that while this may be characterized as a political comedy, it lacks the imagination to take it to the next level. A political comedy does not need to persuade someone but rather it could change minds, or add new insight, or allow us to see the world in a new way, but all it really needs to do is let us laugh at the world (Allen).

While a lot of the critics have been negative, there have been those that see the positives within the special. Dan Stubbs describes it as a story of “fake news, polarisation, the technocracy, media bias, the climate emergency, Karens, “lib-tards'', conspiracy theorists, anti- vaxxers and everything in between.” The Netflix special provides different perspectives that may be fictitious but the audience can still relate because again we all went through the same year.

While there are events from the special that we still deal with right now, specifically COVID-19, this special tackles a lot of issues big and small that plagued the year in hopes to offer a satirical

way of looking at these events. This allows us to view a year in review that seeks to bring comedic attributes to that hard year we went through and reflect on it in our own way.

The humor seen in this special can be described as observational humor in which they observe the events over the year and bring satire in to make the viewers laugh or engage in some sort of social critique. The first clue to Death to 2020’s sense of humor is the names it gives to its characters. Samuel L. Jackson plays Dash Bracket, a journalist for a publication called the

New Yorkerly News. Kumail Nanjiani is an ethics-free tech CEO named Bark Multiverse who is a representation of the top 1%. Joe Keery, whose character is identified onscreen as “Gig

Economy Millennial,” gets the name Duke Goolies and is a representation of how society sees millennials. A scientist played by Samson Kayo is stuck with the name Pyrex Flask which is also ironically a flask used in a lab. The character development beyond the names and an impression provided by the characters is non-existent. This seemed to be one of the biggest problems with media critics because the creators decided all the characters needed was a funny name and stereotypical persona. However, the show does have more sturdier characters in its arsenal that are jam packed with quirks due to the actors performances. These include Leslie Jones, as behavioral therapist Dr. Maggie Gravel, who gets to be performatively furious with all of humanity. Cristin Milioti plays a next-door Karen named Kathy Flowers and gives the role to her all, with a brittle smile and intense gaze.

Simplicity is the name of the game within this Mockumentary because there is no character development beyond that. This is important because seeking these stereotypes and understanding what they represent will be one of my biggest challenges. When viewing a medium that includes both real life footage events but fictional characters, you get an interesting

dynamic which allows for an exaggerated representation of certain groups of people. The film in many ways wants to address the audience with these stereotypes, many times the personas are very exaggerated to express this. One of the most important ways in which they address the audience is through the actors they picked as well as the fictional names provided. This is because the audience can understand from very early on that the characters in the film are really actors playing these characters. So at a basic level we understand the line between fictionality and reality. This puts the audience in a position to decode and reflect on the information they are being given with each new character being introduced.

The Netflix special begins at the start of the year and continues chronologically throughout the year supported with 12 months of actual news footage that the directors used around their fictitious characters. Nick Alen had to say: “This project on the other hand, only tries to engage with the viewer by scanning though headlines and giving it all a funny face, which itself is a cynical approach to a year that might have taken a lot out of us”. The first event was the Australian bushfires which took a toll on the country and required allied countries to give aid to Australia. This then led Greta Thunburg to speak at the World Economic Forum to discuss the world leaders inaction to assist in the first disaster that we would experience at the start of 2020. Greta Thunberg is a young 18 year old environmental activist who demands immediate change from world leaders. The show specifically takes a jab at her by saying that she got famous even though everything she says is depressing which goes to show that no one is safe from critique within this film. While the special addresses a lot of the big events, it also covers smaller ones like Prince Henry and his wife leaving the royal family, which causes the queen to not be focused on within the Mockumnetary. The special also touches upon the Black Lives

Matter movement, which represents a political and social movement protesting against incidents

of police brutality. This included specific individuals such as George Floyd and Brianna Taylor as victims of such police brutality who lit the flame of these protests. The Netflix special also touched upon the United States election between Trump and Biden which represented a transfer of power from Trump to Biden. This led Trump to spew out false claims and insisted on lawsuits that would never amount to anything because it was his beliefs as well as his followers that our democracy was trying to cheat him of a second term. This was followed by the overarching topic that is COVID-19 that struck the world causing shutdowns everywhere which originated from

Wuhan, China. This event represents one of the world’s worst pandemics that took many lives over the course of the year but also shows the proper action many countries like New Zealand took to fight this virus while others like the United States still struggle to keep the virus under control. The show explores themes like life during the quarantine of these “average” people. It also makes apparent the amount of false news that was produced throughout the year specifically regarding COVID-19.

Literature Review

Mockumentaries

Mockumentaries are a film genre that pushes past the boundaries of narrative to drive the story in a certain direction for the audience. In Cristina Formenti’s Expanded Mocku Worlds she presents us with the notion of texts outside of the Mockumentary taking part in the narrative landscape. She gives the texts the name of paratexts which help with her concept of transmedial storytelling. She directed attention to The Blair Witch Project, which has websites that presented the three teenangers as real missing person cases as well as a section labeled “aftermath” with things not included with the movie. For my Mockumentary, there was a trailer as well as a

couple different movie posters that are specifically made to market the movie to its intended audience which are those of us that have access to a netflix account. This concept of transmedial storytelling will help me understand not only the mass media paratext surrounding this netflix special but also everyone’s own personal experiences of 2020 can play a part in their interpretation of the Mockumentary.

Most Mockumentaries which aren’t produced in the horror genre usually have elements of humor or satire as well as mocking of the documentary genre. Richard Wallace also stated that most Mockumentaries seek a specific subject such as a rockstar or a political figure although there are no rock stars in Death to 2020 There are many jokes made towards political figures including Trump, Biden, as well as some political figures located internationally. The way in which many mockumentaries use humor within their narrative is irony. For example in Mirranda

Campbell’s article ‘The Mocking Mockumentary and the Ethics of Irony’ she discusses the popular Mockumentary Borat, which follows a foreign reporter in America. The main discussion of this Mockumentary by both critics and Campbell was the use of irony and many jokes people would not get. This is unlike the Death to 2020 special because in this special we understand everything within the scope of the film because we lived through it. This raises the question of the role in which humor plays into the effectiveness of the message of the Mockumentary and does humor off a new perspective of a terrible year. This is similar to what Gerd Bayer discusses in his article by saying ”In order to come to an appreciation of the parodistic and hence critical characteristics of mockumentaries, viewers need to be aware of the cinematic traditions that are being mocked” This could be the explanation to why some people didn't understand some of the jokes in Borat and why many people thought this Mockumnetary on 2020 was not necessary because we are already aware of all the events that this special seeks to Mock. Does this mean

that the Special is useless? Or are there more interesting takeaways that the filmmakers are seeking to present to the audience?

Documentaries

While it is important to understand Mockumentaries as a genre it is also equally as important to first understand the genre of Documentaries whose visual and narrative tropes are being used in Mockumentaries as a way to mock. I would describe this similarly to a parody of a music video which seeks to mock the original video with uses of satire and humor. The specific definition of a documentary is a film or video examining an event or person based on facts.

Obviously before viewing a certain film we more than likely will know what the film is indexed as whether that be a Documentary, Mockumentary, or any other genre. This is important contextual information for the audience so they know how to view the film beforehand. For example, how I would view Borat which is supposed to make me laugh is different from how I would view something off the National Geographic Channel. Richard Blumenberg in his article on Documentary Films and the Problem of ‘Truth made an interesting point regarding

Documentaries, saying their attempt for objectivity is never possible in terms of cinema because even in this documentary format you are still cutting and manipulating the footage to fit the narrative you are trying to direct to the audience. Blumenberg also stated that we begin to see that even in the genre of facts, the truth can be manipulated. When a film has real life footage this brings emotions to the audience which they might mistake for objectivity and is a filmmaker's way of showing ‘truth’. Two qualities that he says represent authenticity are

‘legitimacy’ and ‘significance’. In terms of legitimacy he uses examples of seeing something happen so in our case the real world footage can bring legitimacy to a film. In terms of significance we understand this as events being portrayed as important only as long as it is

photographed and projected, whether in society or mass media. This understanding of documentaries is crucial because this is the genre that Mockumentaries seek to mock, so knowing the specific characteristics of documentaries are crucial. This will help me better understand the effects that this mocking has on the way the film works.

Comedy/Humor/Narrative

One of the more vital ideas used within this Mockumentary style film is the use of comedy and humor. I seek to understand the use of this as a narrative tool within the film. In

Vandaele’s article on humor mechanisms, there are different types of mechanisms including

‘incongruity’ and ‘superiority’. These are described as the reasons why we laugh. Superiority being that our laugh is caused through feelings of superiority while incongruity is the idea that our laugh is caused by “something that violates our mental patterns and expectations.”

Comedy through incongruity relates more to my own research object in the sense that all the events that occurred within 2020 violated our mental pattern and expectations of what we thought the year was going to be like. The film takes it a step further and creates comedy through the incongruity within the film using humor to mock or reflect on the year that had just passed

I will also be looking at aspects of narrative within ‘Death to 2020’ through Walter

Fisher's narrative paradigm in which he states that humans are ‘naturally storytelling animals’ and this idea of narrative is a more ‘meaningful form of communication’ especially compared to an argument. This will assist me in my analysis because the narrative within the

film isn’t here to argue something with you but rather communicate a series of real events using a series of fictional characters.

As we know because most are played by well-known actors, each of the characters are fictional, but the personas they portray are not fiction but reality based on our own society. Understanding this about the characters in the film is crucial because it will help me analyze the film's narrative coherence since the characters are key to how that flows. In Jorg

Scweinitz’s section of the book “Characters in Fictional Worlds'' he describes stereotypes as

“unsophisticated and fixed mental images of individuals belonging to a certain group.” This article will be very beneficial when I am looking to analyze the characters within the

Mockumentary on how they push forward with the narrative through humor, satire, and performativity of their personas. However, it is important to note that the extent of the characters’ development within the mockumentary are these stereotypes and the character names unlike other movies that focus more on the characters story arcs.

Methodology

The specific methodology that I seek to use for my analysis is rhetorical analysis in which I'll be using textual analysis to look at key aspects within the Netflix Mockumentary

“Death to 2020”. I will be specifically looking at the performativity of characters, narrative, and humor within the special to understand the reasoning behind the release of such a controversial film. The reason I say controversial is a lot of the content that the Mockumentary delves into relates to events that many would consider hardships from the year. In my analysis I will be

discussing which level Death to 2020 fits into in the mockumentary genre and what documentary conventions are being used to convey the mocking of traditional documentaries. I would like to delve deep within the characters in the mockumentary and the use of stereotypes within the film as tools for social and cultural critiques. This is the best course of action for methodology because there is a lack of scholarly articles specifically on my research object which can be attributed to the release of this mockumentary being only a few months ago. It also makes sense because this is a sort of satirical year-in-review of 2020 and to evaluate the effectiveness of that my method of analysis must explore the film itself. I will explore my research object using theoretical frameworks like Performativity, media framing, and narrative theory. I will be discussing performativity theory because stereotypes within the film are very prevalent and are important to the story’s narrative and how the audience interprets each character. It also determines the takeaway that the audience gets from each character that they can use to reflect on in their real lives. I want to understand the effect in which having a-list actors has on the present in these performative stereotypes. Media framing specifically looks at the thematic coverage that professor Shanto Iyengar identified as the “linking of events together” compared to episodic which focuses on only one event and limits your ability to make important connections between events. An example of a connection that can be made when linking two events together is poverty and crime. I will also be exploring the idea of narrative theory specifically within Mockumentary to understand why this Netflix special is set up the way it is narratively and the impact that has on the audiences perceptions of 2020 because even though we all lived through the same year and experienced many of these events our perception are unique to us. It will also be beneficial to understand the documentary convention that helps drive this narrative while simultaneously mocking the very genre they are parodying.

Introduction

The main objective of this genre is to mock the traditional documentary format through forms of humor and irony or critique of social and cultural issues. I will be discussing the levels of Mockumentary form and which level Death to 2020 fits into and what documentary conventions are being used to convey the mocking of traditional documentaries. Using characters within the Mockumentary the use of stereotypes within the film as tools for social and cultural critiques in hopes to understand if this mockumentary special was successful.

Mockumentaries and the Privilege of Knowledge

Mockumentary as a genre seeks to mock the popular documentary genre through the manipulation of documentary conventions to convey a certain message or various messages to the audience. This is specifically done through forms of humor and parody elements often presented to the viewer for the goal of social critique. The film uses various shots typically found in the documentary format that includes interviews, talking head shots, and real footage of various events. The key element for the audience to understand this as a Mockumentary are the characters and the actors that play them who are very well known. So we are made aware pretty much from the opening scene when we see Samuel L. Jackson who we all know as Nick Fury.

Since the audience is made aware of what it is they are watching they are not required to dissect these documentary conventions or test the bases of the facts presented in the film. This offers the audience the privilege of knowledge beforehand. Similarly to the various jokes that are presented you are only going to understand if you have prior knowledge of what it is the film is mocking.

Roscoe and Hicks discuss the different levels of mockumentaries which include three levels of the Mockumentary form which are parody, critique, and deconstruction. “The first degree, parody, appropriates documentary aesthetics mostly for reasons of style.’ Films that belong to the second degree, that of critique, 'also incorporate a partial or muted critique of media practices' (p. 70). The third degree, deconstruction, “takes these problematic claims to truthfulness to further extremes: comments on the cinematic language and style used in documentary films, as well as in visual media in general.” This raises the question of where

‘Death to 2020’ lies within these levels. I would argue that this film sits in either level two or level three similar to how Campbell described the Borat films. When you think of the film as a deconstruction of the year that occurred through its use of humor and irony, you begin to understand how it participates in social critique. For example, when the film presents the death of George Floyd the first response is from Samuel L. Jackson’s character who says “Fact is, those officers did not see George Floyd as a human being” “but the world did.” With the use of live footage interviews from news sources this section of the films serves as a perfect example of how this Mockumentary participates in social critique. Samuel L. Jackson's character is presenting to the audience the disconnect between those officers and the rest of the world while also showing this as the catalyst for the protest that would follow. These protests also offer the characters to respond with their thoughts on the issue which leads to the social critique of many of the police departments as well as Trump pointing out their incompetence in dealing with the situation.

The film comments on the language and style within the documentary genre specifically seen with Hugh Grant's character who denies his attempt to pass white walkers from Game of Thrones as reality by saying “I am a historian; I think I would know” which is a play on the common documentary stereotypes of ‘Experts’ who are the ones giving factual information to the viewers. This joke only works if the viewer has prior knowledge of the show

"Game of Thrones" as well as prior knowledge of the documentary genre to be able to understand that they are mocking the "experts".

Documentaries although factual are still manipulated by the producers to fit a certain narrative which can include cutting interviews, so what the subject says may not be the whole picture just a piece of it. While the information may be true, the filmmakers can still alter the audiences’ perception of what they are viewing through the narrative as well as the documentary conventions presented above. This is where Mockumentaries stand out because they do not need to be factual but rather focus more on using certain Documentary conventions as a tool to further social critique. If broken down we really are just watching a series of events with individuals responding with their thoughts on the topic. The audience can make an assumption about a film being a Documentary through the conventions used similarly with genre of Mockumentaries there are certain aspects that can make the audience aware what they are watching. This can be done through the characters chosen or how the film is set up including the camera angles to the specific lines given by the characters. One of the very first examples of this mocking of another genre is with Samuel L. Jackson's character who asks to not be used for an

introductory shot, specifically calling it ‘demeaning’. If viewers were not aware of the

Mockumentary genre before this, then they would be after this scene. Before this statement by

Samuel L. Jackson’s character in the film sets the scene for which he will be interviewed but specifically pays close attention to his ID badge that gives us his character name “Dash Bracket” which is ironic since he works for a newspaper. Audience members who see this ID badge can identify the character by Samuel L. Jackson shows the presence of an actor. Also he seems to be unaware of the reason he is there until the people behind the camera tell him it's about 2020. This seems unrealistic and a way to mock documentaries because the subject being interviewed would have some inclination of what he is doing the interview on. This helps the film establish the notion to the audience of necessity of this Mockumentary when Samuel L Jackson states “Why the fuck would you want to do that?”

Specifically, in terms of the Mockumentary 'Death to 2020', the viewer is already aware at least at a basic level what the film is going to be about because of the title as well as multiple trailers surrounding the film. This differs from Campbell's analysis of Borat, which was based on a country that no one really knows anything about “and features an actor, Sasha Baron

Cohen who is famous for disappearing into his roles by being physically nondescript.” This allows the viewer to focus on the social critiques within the film rather than the Documentary conventions or testing the factuality of the information within the film. It is important to understand these documentary conventions, though, because it allows us to understand the specific ways the film seeks to mock documentaries. It is through these conventions that the film can mock another genre by copying them or using them as a tool for social critique. These

conventions include how the shots are filmed to include single subject interviews and many times includes just individuals' “talking head,” which is a popular shot found in documentaries.

This is more so to get the documentary feel especially when the characters are portrayed as

"experts” specifically like Hugh Grant's character and Pyrex Flask.

Another convention is the cutscenes that serve as transitions while the subjects are narrating, which was specifically used to make fun of the scientist within the film because to viewers of documentaries, visual cutscenes are more interesting than the scientific facts he discusses. Scientist Pyrex Flask who while talking about COVID-19 when the people behind the camera cut to an unrelated clip of a blindfolded juggler which they said are to keep it “visually appealing”. This implies that what the scientist is saying is not “interesting” and in need of visual aid for the audience. Although many times visual cutscenes can benefit what is being told to the audience but that is not the case here. This is supported by the scientist's reaction asking “what does this clip have to do with what I am saying?” This is interesting to note because of its ironicness due to the fact that in reality this clip would have been added after the fact and the subject would not be able to respond as he did. The viewers may overlook this little detail, but it offers another great example of these documentary conventions. This could also be interpreted as a way to make fun of individuals' short attention spans. These cutscenes are put in place because what is being said is deemed not important or in need of visual cues to help get the point across.

This is because many would consider science to be complex often shown with simple animations

to make understanding easier. Another convention is the use of the narrator for more than just simple narration of the story. The film uses a lot of narration from both the characters and the main narrator who doesn’t just help transition the story but is actually adding to the film's humor by telling jokes. One of the first instances is in the beginning when the narrator is describing the basis of the film by stating “A year whose story couldn’t be told until now because it was still happening”. We can see that the film seeks to mock the deep narration voice that many

Documentaries use and many times these narrations are to help the flow of the story or in this case it's used to mock this certain convection.

We are rewarded for the cultural knowledge and experiences that we have and this opens up the viewer to realize the line between fact and fiction. For the purposes of this paper in 'Death to 2020', we can make this distinction as the characters being fictional while the various events being discussed are factual. This places the viewer in a position of social critique of the real- world events that they, too, probably experienced themselves. For example, Hugh Grant's character discusses BLM but says he would rather say “All Lives Matter” which has been a growing ideal for many people in the United States since the beginning of BLM. So the audience has two choices in how to approach this: they could see this and agree or disagree based on their perception and experiences. We are watching actors play characters that are responding to events which we then can interpret in our own way. So, while the characters and their personas may be fictional, the viewer is still able to draw very real conclusions from the film and establish their own view of 2020. Everyone will experience this film differently because we all experienced the year differently. This allows interesting discourse surrounding this mockumentary and relates

back to the privilege of knowing the facts, our personal experience during 2020 determines how we engage in this Mockumentary.

Stereotypes as Social and Culture Critique

As we have learned, mockumentaries use satire and humor as either media critique or social critique (or both). In the case of this film specifically, we can see this done through the characters in the film who drive the narrative through each event, cracking jokes along the way.

The film does this perfectly because of the actors portraying the characters. It is also interesting to think about how the use of A-list actors affects how we interpret this mockumentary. This means that the film would not be as successful if there were unknown actors within the film. It is also important to note that these being A-List actors brought more publicity surrounding the film that otherwise might not be there if the characters in the film were real individuals. This is because people are more likely to watch something if they know the actors within the film. Since all the characters within this film are very well-known actors it allows the viewer to instantly understand the fictional part of the film. Another advantage is that because we know these are well-known actors then we know they are portraying this character in this specific way for a specific reason. This emphasizes these personas and makes it obvious to the viewer that these portrayals are purposeful. It is up to the viewers to pick up on this and deconstruct the characters and their personas to understand the cultural critiques. If the viewer does not understand the stereotype in which the character is playing, they may be left out of the joke. Many jokes within the film or comedy, in general, require prior knowledge to understand what is being mocked. For example, within the film, the scientist's name is "Pyrex Flask" which is chemistry glassware used

in labs which is ironic. This irony would not be possible without prior knowledge. This puts viewers on different levels in terms of the film's content.

Death to 2020 specifically uses its characters' personas and humor for social critique.

While the characters within the film lack complex character development like Borat, it still can participate in a social critique by hitting relatable characteristics or discussing relatable topics.

For example, the ‘Karen’ mom that is played by Cristin Milioti embodies a popular stereotype that has emerged in recent years as a person who racially profiles and complains about everything. This has become a popular insult towards older middle-class white women who have a sense of entitlement. The film does very well to portray this without explicitly stating what type of stereotype she is trying to play. This is done through the way the character looks at the camera with her wide eyes as well as various fictional news reports of Karen racially profiling an

African American man. This specifically references news reports over the last few years in which this racial profiling has occurred. .

Roscoe and Hight argue "mock-documentaries [that perform critiques] explicitly highlight their own fictionality, but generally do so to ask their audience to reflect on the validity of the cultural or the political position of their subjects." For example, with Christin

Mililoti’s character is being interviewed right after discussing the news reports she was in for racial profiling she looks at the sounds guy who is a person of color with a concerned look.

She then proceeds to ask the interviewers “Is he with you?”. Obviously this is very racially driven but I would say this would be a good example of highlighting their own fictionality but with the goal to reflect on the cultural position of the subject. While Campbell described

Borat as gawking at idiots rather than understanding social issues, I would describe 'Death to

2020' through its use of stereotypes as a reflection of cultural and social issues. I would describe the characters within the film as hyperbolic tools for social critique because not only are the characters responding to events of 2020 but their personas themselves are representations of various cultural stereotypes of the year.

Another character of importance is Lisa Kudrow’s character who is represented as a spokesperson for the Trump White House. She presents us with an interesting look at a spokesperson who discusses a certain issue and will deny it immediately which plays on government officials who are there to protect an image and this is done through denial. We also see the concept of truth in play here when she is interviewed defending Trump's impeachment but then at the end denying even knowing who Trump is even though she is portraying a spokesperson for the White House. Although subtle, if viewers have ever seen white house officials, they will understand the exaggeration of this portrayal as means of satire to poke fun at the corruption of the spokespeople. The film seeks to bring to light certain stereotypes with the goal of social critique. The audience has a choice whether to understand them and proceed to look at the underlying issue or to continue at the base level of humor. The message might be clear as day presented by the creators but is ultimately up to the viewer. This also relates back to the reflection on the cultural and political positions of the subject, because from this clip we can understand the flip-flopping of the character to be one representation of how individuals may see our government officials within our society.

Performative Representations of Dominant Cultures

As we discussed above that certain characters can be representations of the public's perceptions this will lead to another discussion on how exactly these stereotypes portray the dominant culture and shun those who do not fit within this culture being presented. Specifically within this film they are presenting dominant culture through the discussion of the BLM movement, the audience members then place themselves within the dominant culture themselves through their understanding of the context of the film or outside in the margins based on if they have the knowledge needed to make an interpretation. When a film's goal is to mock something then that means the filmmakers assume the audience must have prior knowledge to be 'in on the joke' otherwise they will be left to the side. When a film is set up as a collection of events such as this mockumentary, the creators must pinpoint the most important events that most people can relate to. This I would define as the dominant cultural representation of the experience of living through 2020 in the U.S and the U.K. This is accomplished through forms of visual, audio, and other social cues that are presented within the mockumentary. While the characters' interpretations of the events drive the narrative, the narrator that is heard throughout the film is the string that ties the film together. For example, the queen is represented as only caring about

Prince Harry and Meghan leaving the royal family. So, without previous knowledge of what had happened even just a small inclination the viewer is shunned by the dominant culture. Similarly, if we look back to the example of the Karen mom viewers may be shunned if they do not understand that she is playing a persona that is a representation of all those who are deemed

Karen’s. This also raises the notion that if one should be labeled a Karen and understand the

notion of a Karen are, they are a part of the dominant culture. I would say the answer to this is no because although they have prior knowledge, they are the ones on display for all the world to mock.

I would argue that while we all went through the same year, we all experienced it differently. We also each have our own perceptions of these events presented in the film. The film does a good job of trying to include everyone in on the jokes, specifically making fun of very well-known political figures both in the United States as well as in the United Kingdom.

This was done because all of these figures receive both local and international attention. So, viewers may already have preconceived notions on these political figures, which either aid or destroy what the film is trying to present to the audience. This notion may help the film if the viewer agrees with the notions being presented to them while in contrast, those whose view may not align with what the film is portraying may just walk away. Specifically, in Campbell's article she discusses the notion of those that do not understand the jokes and are thus left out in the margins, but how does this relate to an individual who just has opposite views than those presented in the special? For example, the narrator makes a joke regarding ex-president Donald

Trump calling him “experimental pig-man Donald Trump.” If you are a supporter of Trump you may not find this amusing. This is interesting because although they understand the joke they are still left out within the margins by the presumed dominant culture because they are in opposition to what the film is presenting to them. This is similar to what Gerd Bayer discusses in his article by saying "To come to an appreciation of the parodistic and hence critical characteristics of mockumentaries, viewers need to be aware of the cinematic traditions that are being mocked". I would argue that they not only need to be aware of the cinematic traditions but also need to be

open to what is being presented to them even if it contradicts their own beliefs. These cinematic traditions could include narrative, camera angles, or even the discourse surrounding the events within the film.

The film spends a great deal of time on the presidential elections which are mostly described through the characters that are deemed "average citizens'. This is of importance because the special is mocking the performativity of the presidential debate and elections.

Characters in the film describe it as '' a very confusing game show". They also stated the point of the game is to flip the state's colors either red or blue and the one with the most states filled in with their respected color wins! This is a representation of " the average citizen's" reaction to the live debates for the selection of our next nation's next leader. Again, we as viewers understand that this person would not actually be considered "Average" since she is an actor in reality. This raises the notion of performativity that is so prevalent within the film. Within this specific scene, we can see these two levels of performativity in play. This is supported by our character performing the role of an "average citizen" reacting to the performativity within our presidential elections as well as various other events that occurred throughout the year. This is a common theme within animated shows like Family Guy that seek to participate in social critique through the mocking of mass media. Identifying this performativity within the characters helps us as viewers understand issues within our own society without us even realizing it.

Work Cited

Allen, Nick. “2020 Deserves Better than Netflix Mockumentary Special Death to

2020: TV/Streaming: Roger Ebert.” TV/Streaming | Roger Ebert,

www.rogerebert.com/streaming/death-to-2020-netflix-tv-review.

Bayer, Gerd (2006), ‘Artifice and Artificiality in Mockumentaries’, in Gary D. Rhodes and John Parris Springer (eds.), Docufictions: Essays on the Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., pp. 164–178.

Beattie, Keith (2008), Documentary Display: Re-viewing Nonfiction Film and Video, London; New York: Wallflower Press.

Bishop, R. (2013).Comedy and cultural critique in American film. Edinburgh University Press.

BLUMENBERG, RICHARD M. “Documentary Films and the Problem of ‘Truth.’” Journal of the University Film Association, vol. 29, no. 4, 1977, pp. 19–22. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20687386.

Bradbury, Judd D., and Rosanna E. Guadagno. “Documentary Narrative Visualization: Features and Modes of Documentary Film in Narrative Visualization.” Information Visualization, vol. 19, no. 4, Oct. 2020, pp. 339–352,

Campbell, Miranda. (2017). The Mocking Mockumentary and the Ethics of Irony. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education. 11. 10.31390/taboo.11.1.08.

Chapman, Jane (2009), Issues in Contemporary Documentary, Cambridge: Polity Press. (2002), ‘Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions’, Television and New Media, 3(3), pp. 255–269.

Davis, Wendy. “The Reality Anatomist: Chris Lilley and the Mockumentary Form.” 2012. Screen Education, no. 67, Australian Teachers of Media (ATOM), Sept. 2012, pp. 94– 102, https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.897111275936646.

Devlin, M. B., Chambers, L. T., & Callison, C. (2011). Targeting mood: Using comedy or serious movie trailers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

Eder, Jens, et al. Characters in Fictional Worlds: Understanding Imaginary Beings in Literature, Film, and Other Media. De Gruyter, 2016.

Expanded Mockuworlds. Mockumentary as a Transmedial ... www.gib.uni- tuebingen.de/own/journal/upload/fc68675ed7fbad99e0610b60e6ef5131.pdf.

Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. University of South Carolina Press, 1989.

Hight, Craig (2014). ‘Mockumentary.’ Contemporary Documentary. Eds Daniel Marcus and Selmin Kara. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. 26–41.

Lattanzio, Ryan. “'Death to 2020' Review: Netflix Mockumentary Special Is an

Unfunny Recap of the Year from Hell.” IndieWire, IndieWire, 27 Dec. 2020,

www.indiewire.com/2020/12/death-to-2020-netflix-review-mockumentary-special-

1234606724/.

Marfo, Amma. “The Evolution and Impact of Documentary Films.”

DigitalCommons@URI, digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/42/.

Wallace, Richard. “Mockumentary Comedy - Performing Authenticity: Richard Wallace:

Palgrave Macmillan.” Performing Authenticity | Richard Wallace | Palgrave Macmillan, Palgrave Macmillan, www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319778471.

The Mocking Mockumentary and the Ethics of Irony. digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=taboo.

Vandaele, J. (2002). Humor Mechanisms in Film Comedy: Incongruity and Superiority.Poetics Today,23(2), 221–249

Royal, Derek Parker. “Falsifying the Fragments: Narratological Uses of the Mockumentary in Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives and Sweet and Lowdown.” Post Script 31.2 (2012): 54–66. Print.

USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 1 Jan. 1AD,

www.usatoday.com/premium-

registration/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fentertainm

ent%2Ftv%2F2020%2F12%2F28%2Fnetflix-death-2020-mockumentary-review- half-hearted-lame%2F4058210001%2F.