From very early on, realism has been one of the great guiding pillars of cinematographic theory, alongside with formalism. The realistic character of cinema is a commonplace that is based, from the outset, on the very technical nature of the device. However, beyond this basic premise, we can identify very different approaches to realism in cinema -or, if we prefer, different realisms. The same cinematographic work can be read in the light of the epistemological or testimonial accuracy of its content, the mimetic fidelity (verisimilitude), the correspondence with the sensitive and immanent truth of its images (for instance in the Deleuzian sense), the semantic literality, the ethical relevance, the ability to produce poetic or performative effects of authenticity, etc. There are more naive versions of realism -which relate directly to the literal, the natural or the factual -and there are less naive realisms that accept the inevitability of performance and artifice, even though, at the same time, they also seek to preserve, or even intensify, some form of truth or authenticity. For instance, this is what Werner Herzog proposes when he highlights the subjectivity and poetic effort involved in cinema, including documentary cinema. In his words: "There are deeper layers of truth in cinema and there is a 9 Aesthetic Authenticity in Cinema (thereby proving false, misleading, damaging-slipping from 'culture' to 'cult'), and at last, emerging in our present predicament in which few have a command of the concept, and fewer still have strident commitments to a single meaning of the term" (p. 42). And yet, the concept always returns, even if readjusted to new historical contexts and respective epistemological, ontological, aesthetic binders. Perhaps this recurrence is fundamentally driven by what Nietzsche described, in LaRocca words, as a "'truth drive' in humans, something that, ironically, [also] gives rise to a passion for dissimulation" (p. 37).In art, the use of the term authenticity seems to remain transversal even to the distinction between realism and formalism. LaRocca notes: "If we turn to ask about formalism, especially in experimental and avant-garde cinematic traditions, its celebrated standard bearers may seem very far from "realistic"-and yet may still derive from an artist's 'authentic ' vision"(p. 35). Ultimately, despite the ever-renewed attractiveness of the concept, perhaps we may be condemned to verify its theoretical indomitability, its resistance to watertight and transhistorical boundaries: "Authenticity is a buzz word-that is, a word with a charge (and occasionally a sting) but also without any fixed or formal or agreed upon definition. The word makes an impact-we feel its power when applied-but also cannot account for what it entails" (p. 39). However, this assumption should not deter us from realizing new uses or interpretations of the concept, namely from the perspective of the present time in which we live and from which we direct our questioning. According to LaRocca: "We're not so much in an ...