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
I had to laugh just a little bit at Kyle Buchanan for responding to Molly Friedman's posts when she was cleary just trying to do damage control and get some plugs in for that redbucket website.
Now all these jokers need to do is get on Obrah, then have the smoking gun dot com prove they are a fake so they can then edit a sequel out of thier "hundreds of hours of unused tape" showing how they made this all up and dupped a major film company into believing them!
Chill out. He's merely stating the truth, and giving his thoughts. Not say, locking them up with a false charge from faulty journalism. Sheltered, right? This is why I hate hipsters. They think they deserve everything and can't even dal with nothing.
SPOILER ALERTS:
First, yes, given the premise of the film which is filled with 'faked' comments, it's going to be difficult at times to take any comment on the film with anything more than a grain of salt. wasn't that the point?
Second, after seeing the film, I have to say that I was convinced through the first two acts that the film was faked. It's easy to see the between the 'witty' dialogue/banter and poor acting that a lot of is contrived. And there's just too much constant 'why are you filming this anyway?' to make it seem legitimate. Where in documentaries do subjects protest too much?
That said, my mind did a flip when I saw Angela and the remainder of the film. Between her role and the twins, particularly giving one of the twins his feeding tube, I can't believe any of that isn't real. She was just too amazing an actress to be acting as was Abby, which is arguably even harder for an 8 year old to pull off. If either were faking it, they should be in much bigger and better films right now.
So where does that put it? I believe that however the third act came about, the first two acts were put together after-the-fact as a setup. It's such a weird manipulation of the mind because it's the normal reaction to think that things as we see on tv/movies happen in the sequence that they actually happened when most of us know in reality that films in particularly are always filmed out of sequence for budgetary purposes if nothing else. Not to mention multiple shots of the same scene edited together, pick-up shots, etc. Basically there is no law that requires us to assume that the first hour of the movie happened before the last 40 minutes and I contend it didn't.
Although it did remind me of The Night Listener and I have seen people point out other various real stories that the filmmakers must have ripped off, it's kinda obvious that this sort of internet manipulation was never limited to just one person. There are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of people who don't just lie on the internet but create alternate personas. So I wouldn't point the finger at any one particular case as inspiration, least of all because I think the final act was real (but just the final act).
And for the record, I had the same thought about the barn and the gallery. I think they were elements just thrown in as plot devices (and to mislead the audience in the case of the barn). I had the same question about the letters in the mailbox (why they'd be stamped RTS, had several lines blacked out in marker) not to mention why there's electricity/lights on at a barn that appeared to be abandoned.
In fact, I have several questions about some of the things in the first two acts, but couldn't honestly find anything questionable about the third other than the parties involved seemed to be rather open with the whole situation.
I'm truly impressed by all you brilliant, perceptive, bullshit-resistant geniuses who know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "Catfish" must be a put-up job, because no one would ever fall for such a transparent ruse -- certainly not young, smart hipsters with which you all identify.
Well, guess what, children? You don't know shit. The kind of events depicted in "Catfish" DO happen. How do I know? Because something very similar to them happened to me.
Now I'll just wait for the geniuses to pronounce that I must be a shill for the filmmakers, or that I'm lying, or that I must be either mentally disturbed or criminally stupid to fall for such a thing.
Must be nice, going through life the way you all do. Frankly, you're a pack of smug assholes, and you make me sick.
Oh, man, when Vincent Gallo called Molly Friedman the c-word, he was actually right!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NyaFOOCYPJYJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/12/05/allure-and-the-s_e_35600.html+molly+friedman+page+six&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Yeah, so, just like your manipulating-the-truth friends, you are also a cash-grabber, Molly. There is no effing way that the CATFISH story is "the truth." It is so painfully obvious that Nev & Ariel manipulated this poor woman so that they could make a movie out of her situation. SHAME.
So this is actually a movie about the kids of the Boomer Generation, who turn out to be spoiled, self-centered, cynical hipster douchebags who resort to exploitation and fraud to sustain their fake progressive lifestyles after wallowing in their half-assed attempts at bohemianism for too long? About time.
I think that although the filmmakers expressed an insincere naivete as they coaxed this story to unfold, the woman behind it was real. I also think Nev bought into the personas at the very beginning, but then suspected they were fake at some point earlier than expressed in the time-line of the movie. He and his friends decided to make this early disappointment into an film-making opportunity.
However, this is how many documentaries get made. Someone doesn't just walk around aimlessly with a camera for months on end without any idea of their story and no end in sight. There is a focus, a predicted outcome, and a hope that the story will be interesting.
This could have had a much less interesting outcome had Angela refused to speak with the filmmakers. Nev did a good job approaching her in a non confrontational manner to get her to speak. I think many of the people on this message board would have just told her to f-off on day one rather than explore her motives. Had Nev been a complete a-hole to her, she probably would never have confessed and never have told the full story.
One thing was very suspect, HOW DID THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE UNDERWATER HOUSING FOR A CAMERA ON HAND?
This whole "discussion" has gotten to such a low point that I suggest there is only one sensible solution: all parties are to be locked in a room with sharpened pool cues until only one comes out.
That one is then shot in the back of the head. This is all completely inane. If you don't like my previous idea, consider "Start drinking shots of tequila, all of you, until you either (a) no longer care (b) have pulverized your sensitive egos so badly that you can start granting the other side the benefit of the doubt."
Jesus Christ, people.
Let me say that my son met a woman through a social website and gone to meet her in person—after considerable planning— and she was who she said whe were. Without my son's cooperation, I researched and collaborated what she presented on the website—and I'm no tekkie— just an overbearing mother. But, my son wasn't planning on submitting a film to Sundance about his rendezvous with the woman because it wouldn't make a very compelling documentary, now would it?
I've read all the character references here & how these guys film EVERYTHING, whatever value that has...but, some have smelled a rat (or three)...either way, once they discovered the big surprise (which I saw coming a mile away before I read the article) why release the film? Are they that selfless to "expose" what the rest of us already know is part of the social networking scene? (Gee, don't let these boys find out about Photoshop or they'll be traumatized.) Actually though, a woman who can deliver such plausible character and plot development sounds like the perfect match for any would-be filmmaker. (Well, I've often said "effin' Hollywood," but now I can say, "Effin' Sundance.")
Before you snipe ne, I meant "corroborated" and not collaborated
Wow, this is supposed to be a true story??? I'd heard all the critical acclaim for it, and then finally saw the trailer today, and -- wow, really? I've seen "Jersey Shore" episodes that looked more "real" than this crap.
And then you managed to take it a few floors lower.
The Night Listener was in turn inspired by the JT Leroy story.
I haven't seen the movie, just the trailer, so I have no idea whether it's real or not. What I *do* know is that the filmmaker's response at Sundance (to a legitimate comment) is a textbook example of a non-denial denial.
Wow. This board has the most hate I've seen for this movie! Why? Have any of you actually watched it yet? I saw it last night here in Toronto (conveniently during TIFF - which btw Catfish is garnering TONS of buzz) and I really enjoyed it. Expectations for films (for me) are based on the style, genre and plot that the movie contains. Billed as something that was true, I simply sat down and watched everything unfold. Whether or not it's true (for me) is besides the point. Decide AFTER you've watched it rather than being a sheep and just regurgitating what you read on other peoples blogs. Catfish is a movie for my generation and aptly tells us that there can be perils involved in social networking. http://bit.ly/b4vCGa
.....there is really only one ethical question that needs to be answered: How [IF] the actual 'angela' woman was compensated for allowing her sad life to be a punchline for this thing.
And: even if they fairly paid her [so very very doubtful] how do you compensate for exploiting her children who do not have a say in it???
Deep bad juju/karma awaits those that exploit the poor, ill, sad. lonely, disabled.
Where is this woman now and is her lot improved ANY way by selling views of it to these hipster creeps to package as an 'ick' ending for their superficial trendy audience??? Will they remain in contact w her??? Would they have been pals w her if they had no chance of selling their movie of her actually creative facebook lies???
All else is actor/film green jealous money ego bs...that woman's life from now on is the only interesting part of the whole story.
I hope she has a lawyer.
Saw this movie last night. Finally someone who has a brain AND integrity sums this all up. Thank you.
This is exactly what I thought upon hearing about this film. I am surprised more people have not brought up The Night Listener, which is also based in fact (book or movie), and wasn't there also another kerfuffle a few years ago about a girl, writing articles pretending to be a boy who then disappeared? I just think this smells of "reality". I don't believe I am even as intelligent as these young men, and I would have been cynical enough to know the score. The filmmakers are clearly to savvy for their own good. They knew the subjects did not exist in the way they were being portrayed and this concept is something anyone who social networks or online dates is aware of. I call shenanigans.
The trailer says "not based on a true story", then says, "it is a true story".
If you've seen the docu "talhotblond" you've already seen a better version of this movie.
Or you're just trolling, looking for attention. My guess.
Molly, Molly, Molly -- are they paying you to post here?
Three buddies baited someone they knew was feigning an identity nearly right off the bat, didn’t know exactly what they had until they met her, knew they hit the motherload, then re-created the film. The only real characters in the faux doc were Angela Pierce and her unusual family. But oddly I don’t think they exploited her and her family; it was a glimpse into a real life and it seemed to ultimately benefit Angela, who was probably paid to give her story (the confrontation was obviously a re-creation), or she did so out of guilt and the understanding that being the star in a film might be good for her artist career.
I've noticed that the latest marketing for "Catfish" says something to the effect of: "Don't read anything about Catfish! just go see it." Now I know why. They don want anyone to know it's fake and exploitative.
Thanks so much for writing this article... you know, what's scary isn't the fact that these opportunistic, well connected, media savvy little brats did something like this... what's scary is that a lot of people even question whether or not this is real. It's so obviously, for the most part, faked and one poor woman was exploited so these guys could get ahead in the world by building a story around that exploitation. I just can't believe how many people want to drink the kool-aid. And I'm sorry, his protestations regarding having to be Marlon Brando, etc.... the guy clearly loves being in front of the camera. I edit reality shows, and you don't have to be Brando... Brando himself even said on Dick Cavett that we all can be as good as him and that we act every single day of our lives without even knowing it. If he watched any reality t.v. before passing, he'd see how right he was. Almost EVERYONE is ready for their 15 minutes (except those who lack an extreme narcissistic impulse which, judging from my facebook friends, is only about 25% of all people... roughly the same as the percentage of introverts psychologists estimate are among us). The New York Times recently did an article on just how quickly these people pick up on the need to phrase conversations in such a way as to bring the audience up to speed (I deal with this constantly in edit, where a scene starts, the producer on 'set' stops it, then the reality 'star' starts over again with an introduction to what they're talking about without missing a beat and 100% natural), how they can repeat what they're doing over and over again as though filming a movie, and how quickly they learn to manipulate their persona to gain the most fame and notoriety. Reality t.v. has proven that most people have the capability to act while being entertaining, and Catfish, to me, says more about the filmmakers and how far they'll go to be famous than it says about that lonely old woman.
And by the way, the fact that the audience clapped when the brats got sarcastic with that questioning audience member says a lot about Sundance and the festival circuit these days too. It's full of close-minded passive-aggressive types (they like to think they're liberal minded) with almost no critical faculties whatsoever and just the thought of the direction indies have gone in the last five years makes me queasy. No wonder distribution has dried up!
Next » « Previous