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
Ick on all if it...
the posters arguing here and the film.
I hope the poor woman grts taken care of for her part. She worked very hard on her deception.
They need to pay her.
Poor thing.
Creepy and weird and exploitative events documented for selfish reasons. I saw these guys on Ellen and they were very off putting.
Now the comments on here are following in that trend.
By the way... how funny is it that MOLLY has friends at Gawker and is friends with the filmmakers? I work with a lot of these tragically hip little bastards and they run all of the media in New York. If that doesn't point to a well connected little New York circle of rich friends and how you REALLY get an indie film out there these days, then I don't know what does. Trouble is, the films ALWAYS suck. The real talent, meanwhile, goes and makes a movie like District 9 that collectively kicks everyone in the nuts. As Bale would say, f**kin' amateurs...
Tallhotblond is the true and much more explosive version of Catfish.
"First of all, it strains believability that these savvy, plugged-in New Yorkers didn’t have any doubts about the Pierces until several months in. "
Why? Don't most New Yorkers vote Democrat?
it takes exactly 13 seconds to figure out this movie is bullsht. scientists have actually determined this. if you don't see that, you are obviously overcome by childhood affections.
"I know them, so there's no way they've done bad things."
God, you must be one of those women who testifies on behalf of wife-beaters and rapists in court, because you're "friends."
Like the previous commenters, I'm deeply concerned about the woman who may very likely have been exploited by this film. My preliminary research on Angela Pierce, however, yielded an interesting resulted: http://www.whohub.com/artbyapierce
Although most of here e-paper trail has been deleted, this survey still stands... and I find it a bit suspicious that she lists herself as both a "photographer" and "filmmaker."
Wow. Kudos to you, sir. I am applauding. Reading that article about this Molly chick really makes it clear who is the more reasonable among us, not that you needed that support anyway.
Does anyone else find it odd that you see the hipsters at the screenings and interviews but you never see Angela??????
She has virtually disappeared from the internet.
This "Catfish" is totally a hoax. You can see the real pages cached in Google. Angela Pierce
is Painter, Photographer, Writer, Illustrator, Animator & Filmmaker - all according to her own bios before she got "famous". She is the owner of Panorama Management Group, LLC in Ipsheming, Michigan. She had numerous blogs running, explaining all of her commissioned work and film projects. Most of her films are screened in small festivals and go straight to DVD - so Catfish is her big shot, like Henry Joost, Nev Schulman, and Aimee Gonzales all up and coming - Aimee Gonzales a.k.a Megan Faccio is an upcoming photographer and model in Vancouver, Washington whose images are seen as the supposed Megan Faccio.
Angela's real name is Angela Wesselman-Pierce. Aimee Gonzales a.k.a Megan Faccio is a wife, mother of two small children and photographer with her own studio and company called Bella Divine Photography Studios. She does wedding photography and other projects in eastern Washington and Portland, Oregon.
Soo, um, yeah film-makers, photographers upcoming models etc are not "real people" caught in a bizarre situation. They are all clearly wanting a shot at some fame or noteriety while also engaging in a social experiment about peoples obsession with Facebook and the alter-egos. This reminds me of The Blair Witch Project or Joaquin Phoenix with his crazy stint with a bushy beard, talking nonsense and rapping ... turns out it was all for a movie called "I'm Still Here."
Angela Wesselman-Pierce is a film-maker. These are the films she has to her name so far:
Fruition - DVD available for purchase
Dancing Under the Sun - currently in production
Touched by the Sun - premiered January 22, 2010
Matriarchal Preserves - premiered February 12, 2010
Snowflakes - DVD available for purchase
My Last Leaf - currently in production
The Season of My Discontent - currently in production
I'll Fly Away - premiered June 4, 2010
Also, sadly, her of her sons, Ronald Grant Pierce, who was seen in the film, had Noonan's Syndrome and passed away in 2008.
Angela Wesselman-Pierce also owns and runs Bittersweet Publishing & Production, LLC.
She has scrubbed herself from the net, almost entirely - but I was able to find government licensing of her companies and business, and domain registrations as well as her tax records for a non-profit she runs. I think she may have deleted herself or turned her production blogs into subscriber only to keep the film elusive and secretive and play along with the role she was paid to do.
I believe I encountered Aimee Gonzales's [the girl who is "Megan Faccio"] name somewhere stating she was in the process of suing Nev Schulman & Co. for unstated reasons related to the film. I'm still investigating.
Keep investigating, Asli.
My problem isn't with the movie, it's with the trailer.
They make it seem like a big, scary thing will happen
(and the clown who blurbed, "The best Hitchcock film
Hitchcock NEVER directed" should NEVER be allowed
to review a movie ever again). It doesn't.
Catfish has the most dishonest movie trailer I've seen
since The life of David Gale.
Great article. Molly, if you really know these guys my question is, what is your cut? I'll state clearly up front, I haven't seen the movie and am not saying it appears fake or real (as I haven't seen it!) but simply did some research on the characters. Well, Asli has the smoking gun. Although a google search shows very little on Angela now...a paining website from the same town in Michigan comes up. You can also ultimately link her as the step mom evidently to one of the boys in the movie through the obituary which is still online (most likely because a newspaper wrote it so they couldn't take it off line). Then, if you search Angela's company, you come across a company you must have credentials to enter. Well, Angela has a LinkedIn account as well. It states there everything Asli stated as well. So, with this said, not only was acts 1 and 2 questionable, but act 3 is as well.
It may be a great movie, but why does it have to be told through a major lie? Don't we get fed enough lies from the news these days? lol
People speak without experience because people are naturally useless...
spoken from my own "experience".
- Paid for by "Some Guy on the Internet With Experience" for the annihilation of Humanity.
Wow -- it's interesting to read this blog now that the movie has been released. Many of you may not notice that the entry was written on 1/29, after the movie's second or perhaps third screening at Sundance. I was at that screening, and was there when the audience member during the Q&A asked, or declared, that the movie was a "faux" documentary. It caused me to really think hard, and I found this blog the next day. I posted my reactions on February 3, above.
The interesting thing about the screening was that it was very likely the first time -- and certainly the first time in public -- that the filmmakers were confronted with the assertion that the movie was at least partially a hoax. The author of the blog, and I in my comment, were struck with the odd response the assertion drew. I certainly think that's a valid thing to blog about, and to troll and argue about how much we're jerks for questioning the movie seems besides the point.
The movie was a lot of fun. But it made certain assertions and its impact changes if it was not true. I don't know the answer. I have my suspicions. And I remain perplexed as I was on January 28. I haven't been back to this blog, I don't think, since. It was just a small entry with a few comments back then and now it's exploding as the movie gets wider release. I look forward to watching the dicussion progress, but hope it will do so without trolling.
Nev lives in the weak and the wounded
I found it hilarious that the clown in question is writing for that universally recognized arbiter of cinematic worth, the Financial Times.
I found it hilarious that the clown in question is writing for that universally recognized arbiter of cinematic worth, the Financial Times.
I'd like to know how many of the people who have written in here have actually watched the movie. I saw it again last night and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It was interesting to hear people murmur during certain parts and express delight in others. All in all it was well received by the audience.
I saw it and it sucked.
Everyone was acting except they family. Yes, the woman was manipulative you know what? grow up. So she wasn't who she said she was, so you Google her and cut off contact. It's creepy and you get over it. You don't keep calling her blindly and drive across the country unless you decide that it would make a great story. So you fake some dialog, except your acting sucks, and there are plot holes. She didn't know what she was getting into when she signed that film release. And filming those disabled kids (one of whom has since passed away?) so base, déclassé, bottom-feeding, exploitative film-making. Is *that* what you meant by Catfish?
there is backlash and now you and your friends have to go to every message board, review, and site and innundate with comments under multiple names, "Did you even see it?", " I saw it last night and it was awesome!", "Check out the trailer here http://www.xxx."
If Gawker is really in on that, then that stupid fawning Valleywag review makes a lot of sense.
The debate over Catfish, here and other places, seems to be missing a few larger points:
1. One could debate the veracity of all documentary films. The argument has been made that even the strictest verite films are manipulations of truth. The presence of cameras, direction of shots, editing choices all serve to shape a narrative. Documentary aims at using the raw materials of reality to tell a story and to unveil truth, but documentary is not, and never claims to be, truth itself.
2. Does Catfish work as a film regardless of its level of manipulation? I think the debate over its content answers the question justly. A friend of friend, who recently returned from a trip to a museum of modern art, claimed that the paintings there were not art because they "were just scribbles with no real point." The point, one could argue, is the discussion about the nature of art those paintings engender. If a film like Catfish elicits a debate about the state of documentary, the evanescence of cinematic truth, the paradox of loneliness within a social network, it's done its trick.
3. With whom lies the obligation of discerning truth from fiction? Is it with the filmmaker or the film viewer? Even if Catfish were heavily manipulated, should it require a disclaimer? Or should audiences be sophisticated enough to draw their own conclusions and not be distracted by the lesser, some would say irrelevant, question: "Is it a documentary?"
Is it a film? Does it make us think?
ZING! Ha that article link was a nice touch! 😉
Hars, I think you make excellent points and agree with #3 EXCEPT for the fact that the filmmakers are insisting that everything in the film is 100% real.
They are not allowing us to "draw our own conclusions" because they telling us what conclusion to draw - that it was all real and thus a documentary. If they had said something similar to you i.e. "we're proud of our work and we'll let the audience interpret it as they wish" then fine and god speed.
That is not what they have done and (call me naive, which I am) that is what unsettles me.
Angela's LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/angelawesselmanpierce
July 24, 2010 cache of Angela's blog: http://gigablast.com/get?q=artbyapierce.com&c=main&d=84763540521&cnsp=0
Sept 5, 2010 cache of AbbyIsAwesome.com: http://gigablast.com/get?q=variousshadesofgrey.com&c=main&d=97888908643&cnsp=0
Aug 11, 2010 cache of VariousShadesOfGrey.com: http://gigablast.com/get?q=variousshadesofgrey.com&c=main&d=252803235595&cnsp=0
Next » « Previous