Critics note that blurring the line between fact and dramatization in a documentary about deception is potentially manipulative, that it could lead viewers to believe they are seeing actual historical footage when they are not.

The film also makes the choice to feature Bourdin extensively as an on-camera presence — allowing him to narrate his own deception in considerable detail, with apparent candor and significant charm.

This is another double-edged choice: it provides extraordinary access to the perspective of the deceiver, but it also gives a demonstrated deceiver a platform on which to perform.

Layton’s approach to this risk is to not attempt to referee between Bourdin’s account and the family’s account — to present both and allow the viewer to assess which is more credible.

This is honest in one sense: the filmmaker genuinely cannot determine whose account is more accurate.