 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. The director selected his four subjects from many hundreds of potential candidates, followed them around for months, and then scripted their monologues and dialogues to reflect what he says he saw. 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." The larger dramatic truth is that Michael has lots of trouble getting dates and is very bitter about it. Just in case you feel too sorry for him, however, Barker is careful to include a homophobic monologue in which Michael complains about young women who waste their lives hanging out with effeminate males. Michael turns out to be the film's most sympathetic subject--by a wide margin. At least he's not Mikey, a paunchy 54-year-old who writes but can't sell screenplays and who always flees blind dates, because the women he gets fixed up with are "mutts." He also reminisces about that 24 hour period in the '70s when he managed to sleep with three different beautiful women, whose pictures he shows off.
 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