 How does the author compare Macnee's performance to Fiennes' performance in The Avengers?
Can a documentary use scripted scenes and yet remain ontologically authentic? The movie tracks four aging New Yorkers--two men, two women--through their lonely dating rituals, in the process depicting a universe of lusty, coupled-up haves and downcast, excluded have-nots, all viewed Rear Window -style through rectangular openings in the massive apartment houses in which they reside. Calling his own film "an exercise in mendacity," Barker goes on, "I'm quite happy to tell lies about my characters and even collude with their self-delusions if it enables me to communicate larger dramatic truths." Michael turns out to be the film's most sympathetic subject--by a wide margin.
 Macnee feels more natural in the role while Fiennes' feels like a buffoon
 Macnee feels more natural in the role while Fiennes' feels like a buffoon  Macnee takes the role more seriously while Fiennes trivializes the script  Macnee's performance is authentic while Fiennes' performance is too rehearsed  Macnee's performance is timeless while Fiennes' performance tries to be modern for the sake of being modern