Does Sundance Sensation Catfish Have a Truth Problem?
At the end of yesterday's well-received screening of Catfish -- easily the most buzzed-about documentary at this year's Sundance Film Festival -- one man raised his hand for the Q&A.
"This may be a minority opinion," he said. "I think you guys did a great job, but I don't think it's a documentary."
A murmur went through the crowd and the filmmakers became angry and defensive, but more on that later. In the meantime: Brother, I'm right there with you. There's something fishy about Catfish, and I'm not just talking about the title.
Catfish is directed by Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost and stars Schulman's photographer brother Nev, a good-looking 24-year-old who's also very comfortable in front of a camera (despite his cursory protests to the contrary). Shortly after Nev takes a picture of two dancers for the New York Sun, he's sent a painting of the photo from an eight-year-old painter named Abby Pierce, who he then befriends on Facebook along with her mother, Angela, and Abby's foxy older sister Megan. Soon enough, the film posits, Nev begins falling for Megan, and the two of them begin a long-distance internet courtship since Megan and her family live in rural Michigan. Still, things are not quite as they seem.
(I'll warn you now that there will be some spoilers to follow, though many of the film's principal surprises will go unrevealed by me.)
After several months -- all filmed, of course -- Nev and the filmmakers grow suspicious when they learn that the intimate, unplugged songs that Megan has sent to Nev weren't actually recorded by her. Conveniently, they're already on a trip to the midwest when they figure this out, so they decide to drive to the family's house to figure out whether any of the Pierces truly exist, and who exactly is behind what increasingly appears to be a ruse.
What they find and film there is ultimately a very sad, lonely person, though Nev and the filmmakers (wearing shit-eating grins through the encounter) try to skirt charges of exploiting her by leaning heavily on all that build-up. All three men claim that they had no idea that anything was amiss during those several months of online and on-the-phone chats. I don't buy it at all; I think the filmmakers knew from the start what they had on their hands, and they baited a mentally unwell woman for almost a year until their film needed a climax.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Something's rotten in the state of Hipsterville.
Yes, the best way to plug your movie is to be a complete asshole. Looks like someone's been taking lessons from Uwe Boll.
Being that arrogant works well before the movie's sold. Just ask Troy Duffy.
Regarding something rotten in the state of hipsterville, I thought it all started when that douchebag borrowed a camera from Circuit City for 30 days to try and get famous by stalking Drew Barrymore.
Controversy sells tickets. You gave it 2 pages. Who else will? Fake doc is the new black.
I think I've seen this... wasn't there a balloon involved and then it turns out that Nev or Abby was hiding in a box in the attic?
Oh brother. Forget the obvious fact that this isn't a documentary. It's a reality TV show! But the really disturbing question is: This is entertainment? What imbecile distributor is going to pick this up? And what special kind of idiot is going to shell out ten bucks to see this dreck?
It's an excellent movie, and it's not fake. I know Henry personally. I kicked his ass in Tekken 2 when I was 12, in the Paris apartment where he then lived. He's been video editing for years, making not-a-lot of money, and after paying his dues he's finally got his shot--- and succeeded beautifully.
This article is speculative bull****. Every review coming out of Sundance praises this movie as original, moving.. do your own Google search. And based on the comments of one douchebag at a Q&A session, you post an "article" accusing it of being fraudulent? Shape up, movieline.
The guy who raised the comment at the Q&A wasn't a douchebag, he just pointed out a truth they were for some reason trying to hide. It doesn't mean they made a bad film, it's just an inauthentic film. The film-makers were naive not to be prepared for that line of questioning.
I have not seen the movie, but I know who asked the question (also a good friend of mine, but not from the age of 12 - from current every day life, thank you) and that person is not a "douchebag" at all.
Rather, the questioner was someone who watches hundreds of documentaries a year and champions the rights and talents of independent filmmakers, both features and docs and a professional. He is someone who works with the purpose of lifting filmmakers up - not tearing them down. If this particular man questions the sincerity of the people featured in the film, when he's seen thousands of interviews in the last year alone, then I think (as do many others) that it's worth discussing.
What business are you in Andrew?
And relax, Francis, no one said it was a horrible film. What we're all implying is the jury is out on who is the douchebag around here.
I, for one, can't wait to see it!
Who's to say those guys are even brothers?
Are they? and those fakey names they have?
And what kind of name is Joost? Dutch? Is he? The whole thing seems like JT LeRoy all over the place! Are these guys for real? Maybe they're not even real.
Maybe the woman made the film about herself, did anyone ask the 'directors' that? Tho they'd probably make something up!
Also, why is the film called catfish, do they eat catfish? I totally hate that kind of fish, not that it matters in this context but still.
Has anyone read The Night Listener by Armistead Maupin? It would seem this trio did collectively. Both stories are uncannily similar. The former is revealed on page...the latter through social media. Behold the millennial generation. Imitation rears its flattery head.
Kyle, I'm sorry to have to say this as a former co-worker of yours, but you have NO clue what you're talking about. This entire piece is both disgusting and (again, I'm sorry) downright pathetic.
I've been friends with Ariel and Nev for six years. They would sooner walk out the door without their wallet and keys than leave the house without a camera. They've been documenting everything around them since they were kids. Whether they're at a family reunion or a friend's birthday party. Take your own advice and Google the guys. Anyone doubting their life-long obsession with documenting anything and everything need only browse Rel's extensive collection of equally eccentric and brilliant shorts he produced with his first production company at http://www.redbucketfilms.com.
And they didn't just "happen" to be in Colorado, you jerk. Do your research. They travel on work assignments constantly. http://www.gosupermarche.com. And quickly noticing their acting credits on IMDB, then suggesting they're closeted famewhores? Did you take an actual look at those "credits"? Rel popped up on-screen now and then in his OWN short films from ages ago. He's always the first one to tell you he can't act, nor does he want to.
Painting two of the most genuinely sweet and talented filmmakers at Sundance as "hipsters" and frauds just because their choice of underwear and cell phones makes you "suspicious"? When journalists grow suspicious, they do research. They don't whine and bitch about the new cool kids like some Heather with jealousy issues. This isn't Defamer, kid. Calling guys you don't know "bumpkins" just because you don't like 'em used to fly under Grambo's Defamer (guilty myself obviously), but you're at Movieline now. Grow up.
Molly,
I appreciate someone defending a friend, but the thrust of your point is basically, "I know them and they would never..." not "Here is an explanation for why three smart guys would fall for a ruse where the mother of the girl Nev falls for is demonstrably younger, to go by her fictional Facebook account."
I don't call them "bumpkins" -- I say they're most decidedly not, which makes their gullibility and their decision to never Google any of these people they're documenting or "falling in love with" hard to buy.
My article simply says that they're talented guys who came across a great story, then massaged the truth of the matter in a way that's raised questions both here and from other outlets. You know a little something about that, right?
Surely you see how people who like to be followed around 24/7 with a camera - documenting everything in their lives since you can remember - might be famewhores, right? At least narcissists?
Let's put things in perspective, Molly.
As far as I'm concerned, point Buchanan.
And the filmmakers' reaction at the Q&A, while not technically damning, is awfully fishy. Rather than rally a crowd, why wouldn't you just tell the questioner, point-blank, "No, sir, this was not faked"?
The bottom line is film making is no longer about film making-it's about who can be the most controversial so there film gets talked about the most. These 2 are not film makers they are just big brother trihards
I didn't read the book, but saw the film with Robin Williams. This article makes the documentary sounds like a weird twist on that plot.
John M: Not true. Ariel's response was 100% sarcastic. He was pointing out that, had the entire film been a fake and/or scripted, then all the positive reviews are due to his writing skills, putting him on the level of famous WRITERS. And had Nev been acting in a scripted role rather than being himself, his critical acclaim puts him on the level of famous ACTORS. Sarcasm, not "fishy."
Pinkie Avalon: They do not only "document everything in their lives," certainly not in a narcissistic fashion. Again, anyone who disagrees needs to learn more about this trio before making statements like so many of the ones above.
http://www.redbucketfilms.com: Hundreds of short films Ariel, Nev, and the Safdie brothers (former Sundance stars in their own right) made when they were in college. Most are amateur film school experiments, but the majority of them prove my point: they are artists, they've been going on road trips since high school to see what might happen (at times, literally titling the films an "Experiment"), and whenever they DO script a scenario, they happily present the film as being scripted.
I highly suggest reading this piece on RBF from 2008 to understand my point: http://www.bostonunderground.info/article.php?id=59&issue=48
Sounds like Borat bullshit to me. Capitalizing off of a lonely person by making a faux-documentary is low. And if Brett Ratner wants to buy it then you know it's a piece of shit. "I know Henry personally," ok let's state you know someone over the most anonymous form of communication and technology, if anyone believes you, which they probably don't, doesn't stray away from the fact that this story is far from believable. The gullibility of these people cannot be real. If this story is true, then I don't want to see a sad bunch go on a roadtrip because of this. Then they are utterly dumb and lonely themselves. But it seems these people are definitely more intelligent then they let on, therefore, it is far more naive of them to think no one would question their credibility, to actually believe this shit, and to not find any of this distasteful. I will not see this and tell everyone I know not to as well. Suck it you noodlers.
You guys are missing the larger point. Is it good filmmaking? If it's an original, inspired artistic effort, then I could care less if it "really happened" or not.
Similarly, if the filmmaking is dull and pedestrian, who gives a sh*t? If all it has to offer is a second-rate "This American Life" storyline, who cares? "OMG dude, you never really know people over the internetz!" Nice insight, bro!
this reminds me of a documentary i saw on iTunes - talhotblond. super creepy and good, about people who lie online and die in real life. sounds way more compelling and real than catfish. why aren't we hearing more about that??
Ariel's response was 100% Straw Man. A classic diversion tactic and suspicious in itself, even if unintended.
I was at this same screening -- at least it sounds like the same screening (Prospector, Thursday 1/28). I have to say that I very much want the story to be true, but I have some of the same concerns, although I'm not ready to accept the fully nefarious version.
During the film, I had some question about why they were filming Nev. And when the question was asked at the Q & A, I really didn't find the answer that satisfactory. But it sort of shrugged it off. The faux documentary question (or more of an assertion) at the end of the Q & A, though, really gave me pause. And I have to agree that the reaction -- Schulman's in particular -- just did not hit the right note to me. It just does not seem like what I would have imagined the response to that question to be. It was defensive and aggressive and weird. (My wife saw the next screening on Saturday and I'm told that they were more smooth and polished when a similar, albeit less accusatory question) was raised.
On the bus after the movie, I couldn't get the question out of my head, and got into a discussion with others on the bus. The more we talked, the more suspicious we became -- although one woman said she was sitting right in front of the Schulmans' mother who became furious when the question was asked. I actually put some stock in this hearsay report, although it begs the question whether mom knew what the kids were entirely up to.
Anyway, at the end, I think I come out somewhere in the middle. I don't believe the kids were as naive as the clips they chose to edit into the film suggest. I believe there was a time when they became more about story creation or preservation that documentation -- although I guess even they would admit of course that happened once they got to Michigan, and they didn't try to hide that on the doc (which would be true). My guess is that the revelations occurred to them more quickly and more gradually than the movie's ephinany presentation would suggest. But I'm not willing to say that they had figured out the puzzle and were baiting a woman they knew to be ill. Some of their reactions in Michigan just seem to genuine to me. Without more evidence, that doesn't seem right to me. But whatever -- I'm guessing just like everyone else and want to make clear I'm only going on hunches. The boys say they have 100 hours of film on the cutting room floor that would make everyting clear, so perhaps there will be a final truth.
I don't agree. One of the primary themes of this movie is to explore the circumstance of a person falling in love with someone that doesn't actually exist. That is a distincty 21st century story -- at least, the extent it involves an electronic (as opposed to carbon based) person.
One can make a movie about it, that may or may not be compelling film making. It is a completely different thing to claim to have captured it actually happening on tape and to present it as such.
Molly, I meant the nature of his response, not the substance. An eight-year-old would've registered his har-har response as sarcasm. As the commenter states below, it's 100% strawman. The questioner wasn't implying that it was all scripted--but that the documentary VERACITY of the film seems wobbly. Rather than say flat-out that the accusation is not true, Schulman, perhaps not expecting a response like this, ducks and weaves with a little sarcasm, framing the accusation as something far more extreme than it is. I'm sorry, but the whole thing's fishy. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these guys running for Congress at some point.
Next »