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
My main problem with the film isn't whether or not it's true, it's the marketing. I occasionally drive a good distance away from my hometown (Very small berg in Kentucky) to see a film if it looks good and I know it won't play near me. Last Sunday, I drove approximately 90 miles to Nashville, TN to see the film expecting an suspenseful mix of documentary and thriller but I got something not suspenseful or thrilling in the slightest. Had the marketing not let me to expect this, I'd have thought more kindly of the production.
You know, the funny thing is, in a question and answer session, the "documentaries" themselves said in order for it to be fake "Angela" would have had to write everything. Truth is, I believe them. I think she is the mastermind behind all of this. It may be a great "film," but as an owner of a small production company, I don't like people lying. I totally agree with Crystal's post. For those still defending the lie (not the film...it could be great), how do you justify Angela being a filmmaker? Seriously? Wake up and smell the roses. You were duped like Letterman. That brings up one more thing too, documentaries get a little more leeway with "fair use" of material. So yes, the two are different in many, many ways.
Oh so the filmmakers were naive? so then it is entirely plausible that they bought everything this article claims no one could buy? This is clearly not black and white. The very fact that people have so many varying contentious viewpoints on what is and isn't real about this film, to me, makes it a good film. They almost imitate the plot of their own film in the way they make you question the way they made this film. Art imitating life. I think it's quite clever - true or not.
You mad bro?
Not sure if it was the hype I'd been hearing since Sundance or the suspenseful, misleading commercial, but Catfish disappointed. However, at face value, it's smart, well-conceived and a good social commentary, regardless of whether or not it's fake. Just wish I had seen a screening before it came out. And as far as the analysis in this article, I tend to agree. I think the premise or initial impetus is very possibly real, but that the filmmakers manipulated the situation. I don't believe for a minute that any of them were that naive. That said, some of the links supplied above are also food for thought! The participants have to be "in" on it -- I think the real question is WHEN -- at the beginning (if the entire thing was a ruse), or later on, when it became clear that everyone could benefit financially. Besides other, more involved legal premises, in regard to just obtaining permission to use footage and likenesses, we'd be reading about lawsuits, wouldn't we?
Scratch all I said before this. Catfish is an authentic experience.
Intriguing how THE SOCIAL NETWORK came out at the same time CATFISH did. Both tied together in a sense. One about what Facebook was really all about and how it was created, and now, how the masses are using Facebook.
Socrates said not to trust the masses with the tools of leaders.
Angela was/is in love with Yaniv's 'otherness'. She never met anybody like him before. She reminds so much of my mother-in-law. It is eerie.
I found this comments site after tonight's 20/20, which used a screen capture of this article for their one hour feature on "Catfish."
What follows is what set off alarms in my head without knowing much about the film, the filmmakers, the subject matter, or the controversy. I came to it with "fresh eyes," so to speak.
The first thing that hit me was: Wow, that guy is incredibly handsome and beguiling and has been fortunate to have truly good dentistry work done. He looks like an actor trying to sell me something. What is he selling me and why?
Oh, he's a filmmaker and so is his brother and best friend. Okay.
Hmmm.
Next thing that makes an alarm go off is this cute guy with the pearly whites, Nev in New York, is suddenly and unexpectedly contacted via (initially) MySpace (this is what 20/20 said) and then later Facebook by another beguiling person who happens to be a photogenic 8 year old girl who says she can paint. That this grown man in New York thinks to continue having an online relationship with this 8 year old girl in Michigan set off so many alarms in my head I could barely hear the TV. WTF? She's eight.
We're led to believe that the relationship with this young girl progresses to where she is now sending him many "original" paintings based on photos that he is sending her. Where are her parents? Where is Nev's inner voice telling him it's not the best thing to carry on with an 8 year old online, no matter how many pretty smiles he can put on for the camera? Where were his inner alarms?
20/20 showed us the photos that Nev sent to the little girl and paintings of the photos that the little girl sent back to him. Another alarm rang: The so-called "original" paintings by "Abby" looked as if someone had used a projector to outline the photos on canvas and then painted over the outline. My dad did this in the 80s. I think he bought the projector in an art supply store. It made my dad feel like a real artist.
Then we see a "painting of Abby's Mother." Not having read this article here at Movieline, I had no idea that anyone else also thought that the "mother" looked awfully young, especially when we eventually see a picture of "Megan."
Alarms, alarms, alarms: "Megan" lives in Michigan, right? Upper Peninsula? Very small town? How's the nightlife in that podunk town? Those New York boys think that all women in these United States look like New York models with heavy make-up and hair to die for? Both mother and daughter - fashion model perfect?
Right about then, whatever this "Catfish" film was I'd exhausted all of my alarms and we had a raging fire of doubt going on in my head. What the hell was this all about?
Aside from that - Nev fell hopelessly in "love" with this high fashion looking woman with the photogenic sister and mother as if he was the Loneliest Boy In New York. Come on! Nev, you date much there in the Big Apple? Why no girlfriend? You have to find it online? Please, please, please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
And we weren't even half-way through 20/20!
By the time these boys got in a car and drove to Michigan (what, no Google Earth in NYC? No White Pages to track down what were supposed to be "real" names and/or places?) I was in full-scale laughter mode. But I think (as someone in this thread pointed out) the Big Tell has to be the mailbox. Boys, you needed to edit that shit out because a.) the acting sucked; b.) going through a stranger's mailbox is a federal offense; and c.) you showed us cards and letters that had already been returned to you. I don't know about most folks, but I don't carry around red rubber stamps from the United States Post Office to stamp an official "return to sender" type of message on a post card. I use long-hand. And the boys clearly showed us that all items in the mailbox had been stamped in red.
Everything that came after that was anti-climatic, though no less shocking. Imagine that - it's not true! There is no Megan! The boys from NYC were scammed! Nev's heart was broken as he laughed and smiled when asking Angela to talk to him like Megan (hey, if he has an 8 year old as a pen pal, he might as well engage in more creepiness with grown up Angela). For a minute there I thought he was going to ask her to play Misty for him.
20/20 did manage to bring up the doubters for "Catfish" - to which Not-Nev jumped in, interrupting Nev much the same way he apparently jumped in at Sundance according to this article here at Movieline. Another odd response for the doubters out there courtesy of Not-Nev. It's near the very end of the program. Knee-jerk. You have to see it.
All in all, I started out watching 20/20 because I wanted to know what "Catfish" was. Long before it was over, I realized that it was a scam on its intended audience. To what extent, I'm not sure, but I think I shall pass on it when it comes to my area.
One thing I am certain - featuring the disabled boys was exploitation on everyone's part, and indeed, for that no one escapes condemnation.
And as a p.s. I, for one, am sick and tired of this Borat/Bruno/Joaquin/Affleck/Blair Witch/Paranormal, etc etc etc etc bullshit type of filming.
I think you exactly nailed it on the head with this comment. I believe Nev bought into it at first but not for an entire year and at some point discovered the truth but realized that it was a good story. I think that this story would have been better served had it been presented honestly.
i have read the news articles about this so called documentary online, i have also read several synopses about it. It makes good commentary about the disturbing side of the internet. At first i thought it was fake and then i saw part of the angela interview on the news. so now i don't know what to think. i believe the filmakers knew they were dealing with an impostor, but they chose not to disclose it because they saw the opportunity to make this film. In doing so they exploited a lonely, depressed and mentally ill woman. was this ethical or proffesional? ask yourselves that.
what angela did was wrong, but what they did was much worse. Angela deserves to be compensated, she presented them with an opportunity and they took advantage of her. Angela needed help and using her was very wrong. you just don't exploit the mentally ill. these men shouldn't be hailed as cinematic geniuses, they should be forced to see that what they did was wrong. none of these guys are the next coppola anyways.
see "talhotblond" is a much better documentary with a similar story.
ha. I went to college with nev (more commonly known as "skeve") and the call of 'bullshit' is apt. the only truthful part of this movie is the fact that he's a douche. after stealing my computer and trashing my room after mistaking me for someone else and then leaving evidence at the scene linking him to the offense, and after the month of law-enforcement related drama that ensued, after it was cleared up, he said "we're both interested in film making (i studied cinematography, his parents had assloads of cash so he wanted to "produce") so maybe we'll work together someday!" sadly, he didn't call me to take part in this steaming pile of shit.
and for the record, when i accused him, the obvious culprit, his defense to the school security staff was that I was a friend of the girl he date raped and i was just out to get him in her honor (i never knew the girl). douche. some things never change.
ha. I went to college with nev (more commonly known as "skeve") and the call of 'bullshit' is apt. the only truthful part of this movie is the fact that he's a douche. after stealing my computer and trashing my room after mistaking me for someone else and then leaving evidence at the scene linking him to the offense, and after the month of law-enforcement related drama that ensued, after it was cleared up, he said "we're both interested in film making (i studied cinematography, his parents had assloads of cash so he wanted to "produce") so maybe we'll work together someday!" sadly, he didn't call me to take part in this steaming pile of shit.
and for the record, when i accused him, the obvious culprit, his defense to the school security staff was that I was a friend of the girl he date raped and i was just out to get him in her honor (i never knew the girl). douche. some things never change.
The controversy and 20/20 segment about the movie Catfish seems to be way better than the movie itself. Plus, it saves you $13!
Manipulating authenticity sure as hell gets people talking. Capturing or defining it seems like a pretty fruitless endeavor though, but that's just my stubborn opinion. Seems to be me, that in this age of post-modernism where art is most definitely aware of itself - Nev's naivete is most definitely staged somewhat, somehow.
But my pet-peeve is regardless, as other protests are as well. The film wins. People are curious as hell and talking about it and it's prescience is undeniable. Scratch that - people are googling, blogging, and 'investigating' it, online. In the end wherever the line is revealed on it's authenticity is irrelevent. It is next in line to be a movie reflecting it's time a la Blair Witch, and blurring the line between reality and fiction.
Furthermore. Underneath, all the marketing, manipulation queries, etc. Is the portrait of Angela that will stand the test of time. It's about the loneliness, and gifts of introversion; and the quiet tragedies we all carry in life. The dubiousness of Social Networking in place of real life interaction. And yes, perhaps, how self absorbed and culturally cancerous hipsters, ne' youngsters can be. It is art reflecting our world back to us and doing a damn good job at that. In the big picture of things this could be a reflection of our time. Wether we like it or not neither helps or hinders it's importance...
Course, that's just my opinion. I could be completely wrong.
- D.'Caf
Jake, its not a question of if the movie is "good" or "bad" (at least for me). Its a matter of "truth" or "lies." I'm a firm believer that you either make a "movie" or make a "fake documentary" if you aren't making a "real documentary." A fake documentary like the Blair Witch Project. Yeah, they tried to make it appear like a documentary, but they didn't hide the fact it was actors. I just don't like the lie behind it. I just wish they either said "decide for yourselves" saying nothing, or actually just came out and said, "its a great movie but yes, its not real."
The fact is, its fake...all the people are known actresses. What more proof do you want? So...the movie may be great...but don't lie and say its a documentary then. What if there was a documentary on the Civil War that said the South won? What if someone like Ken Burns just started making stuff up? That is why I have a problem with this film. It may be a great movie, but its simply wrong to be called a documentary.
Say what you will, we're all here talking about Catfish. Are we not? (for the rash/knee-jerk commentators, which the Internet never seems to run out of, that's a rhetorical question. It cannot be rebutted.)
the only "honest" thing i saw on screen or off about this was a wheelchair bound ill young man hitting himself in the head over an over.
its been suggested hes no longer alive. i suggest his surving brother, assuming he was his brother(i did think the sons and father were visually similar enough to be related as indicated -same for nev and bro) be provided with this atrifacts financial profits... thus provideing him all the health support he' l
need for life.
all other "producer/creators/actor/dancers /etc" involved etc who believe that this artifacts value CAN and SHOULD be seperated from its actual affect in culture, should get what value they deserve.almost nothing.
that goes as much for ratner and jj abrams as well as the production companies and even abc/disney/ 20/20 news... that all are making a buck off of what used to be called a freak show or side show. that used such emotinally or physically challenged young people as the COD, while calling them not human, but "bug boy. or lizardboy, or some other marketable name, while telling us that we should be thankfull for PT barnum , the ultimate CATFISH.
a smile and slick dv camera shoot, overlayed with facebook and google earth graphics wasnt enough to hide that young mand screams and head hitting...
or ours.
lets face it, a "real" documentary film into the thinking that went into the making and selling/marketing of this film is whats needed...
again, i suggest the most truthful scene to be presented even in that effort, that will never occur(no financial merit-roi) would again be a screaming man hitting himslef in the head over and over while being fed via tubes the nutritional equilvant of this films true meaning.
one wishes that having grown up on media like this that nev and his bro's would want to have stopped eating at age two. 😉 or that they would have learned how to scream, not smile at the camera.
This is absolutely true. I hope that poor woman and her family somehow benefit fro this terrible exploitation by these self-absorbed idiots. In turn... I hope they disappear completely. They do not deserve to benefit from the tragedy of another.
I watched this on the internet tonight (FREE). I called bullshit half way in. How dumb where they to include the scene with the freaking post cards marked RETURN TO SENDER with the post office stamp. Give it some time. Someone will spill all the beans eventually.
I enjoyed watching this film. My main problem is actually that it was marketed dishonestly-- I was really expecting something more along the lines of the Blair Witch Project. It was marketed as a thriller.
Otherwise, well scripted, nicely edited and the acting, especially on the part of Angela, was poignant. Sexting is a phenomenon with which most people are familiar-- this was the first movie I've seen where it actually entered the dialogue. It was a viscerally funny, awkward and refreshing scene.
I called bullshit when Angela described how she faked a dozen facebook identities. Even if she could have pulled that off, pretty party girls like the fake Meg would realistically have hundreds of friends, and at least 50 commenting over the course of a year. If this was a facebook relationship, you'd start wondering why she was only in touch with ten or twelve of the same people, including her brother.
I'm not really choosy and like to be entertained, which I feel I was. I'll leave it to the rest of you to argue about the ethics of this film. I don't feel that the twin brothers in the film were portrayed in an exploitative way, but maybe some do.
“As the mystery unravels I find myself really involved in the whole endeavour, I just wish they’d come clean with it. If they’d followed the rules with a fairly convincing viral marketing campaign, but later, when pressed, admitted that all we have here is simply a cautionary tale concerning what constitutes identity on the internet, then I’d feel more inclined to enjoy the film in retrospect. Instead, I’m left wondering why they insisted on treating us like numb skulls and trying to pass off their film as genuine. It just isn’t.”
http://ewfbtw.blogspot.com/2010/11/film-catfish.html
I find the flame wars occuring in comment sections across the internet more entertaining than the movie.
i just watched the film, and had to find out more, resulting in my reading this entire thread.
You have got to give a film credit for causing huge intrigue, and it certainly has, both prior to, and since its release. But the film's merits and filmmaker's morals are certainly questionable.
whether it was entirely staged, partially, or just deceptively edited, it is surely not fully truthful, and yes filmmakers are entitled to play with the truth, but it is a dangerous game to play. If played incorrectly (as is possibly the case here) viewers can be left feeling manipulated emotionally. Perhaps deceived to such an extent that the realm of the fun movie twist is lost, along with the movie itself, and it is the lie that sticks in the memory.
Deception is definitely the legacy of this film.
But if thats the case, what do u say to a friend who asks if they should see it???
I'm sorry, but the whole thing was contrived. At best it was a couple of trendy new york jewish kids and their goy friend Joost who decided to ridicule a family of midwestern ordinary people. This condescension is predictable enough, but when they use handicapped children as shock value props, the film crosses the line and becomes utterly tasteless. Fake documentaries are one thing, but can we at least leave the helpless out of the ruling class sport of derision?
As others stated, the three supposedly duped film makers are more intelligent than they let on and the veracity of this film is completely suspect. Life is rarely so convenient for the people who need it to be convenient.
So it's not a true 'as it really happened' documentary - it was still enjoyable to a point. The main problem I have aside from the tiresome condescending "we NYC jewish kids are so much better than the moronic goys from middle America" is their use of handicapped people as shock value props, a-la Gummo. Their phoney concern is beyond the pale.
Next » « Previous