Even as I fulfill my mother's worst criticism: "You don't even have a job to support yourself!" (tutoring and subbing at the High School and trying to get kids on the edge to graduate doesn't count, I guess.), I find cable t.v. a guilty pleasure--especially old movies and bad reality television. Recently, a re-run of "Catfish" (the movie) aired.
Somehow, in the drama of 2010, I missed the controversy of this documentary. Too bad. It is exactly the kind of question-raising, edge-blurring slice-of-recreated-life that perks up my sluggish imagination these days. Not only is the premise of the "docu-maybe" interesting, the fact that it might NOT be a for-reals documentary spices the pot. As with film medium itself, documentaries have evolved into entertainment vehicles utilizing all sorts of manipulations to frame "a story". Animation, recreation, staged meetings, rehabbed statistics, false interviews and in some cases, fake footage, are just a smattering of "new rules".
Of course, what is any writing, really? All comes from the point of view of the creator. Same with film-writing. Same with videography. The one constant is "story". Does it pique the viewer? Does it infuriate or entertain or move the viewer in some deep way? Does it have a point of view that is clearly stated? Is it interesting? These questions seem to be a common ground. All else is up for grabs in a time when real-life actors aren't even required to show up on the set to shoot a full-length movie.
Basically, "Catfish" (for those of you who also have missed the 2010 premiere) is the supposed true life story of a FaceBook romance gone wrong. A young New York photographer took a picture that was supposedly "seen" by a younger artist--like a little kid artist. She hunted him down and found his page on FB and began contacting him.She liked his photograph enough to draw a picture based on it. He was charmed when he viewed her "work". She began sending him stuff in the mail, building the relationship. He responded, sometimes paying for the work and sometimes accepting it for free. Thus begins the documentary....maybe.
Along the way, the mother of the child becomes involved, of course.She begins to correspond with the NYer. Then, pictures of the family are shared, of course. There is one beautiful and older cousin whose photos capture the NYer's eye. Another "relationship" blossoms. Of course. Phone calls ensue. The documentary, written and filmed by the photog's brother and another friend (Ariel Shulman and Henry Joost) convince the brother to play the romance out...until it begins to smell...well...fishy.
"Reeled In" might have been a more sincere title for the work--not only is the photographer (supposedly) pulled into this very involved scenario of lies and betrayals and family dysfunction (including twin brothers, who, at 22 and developmentally disabled, need constant care; a loveless (it seems) and controlling marriage; uterine cancer and chemo; an estranged step-daughter; isolation on a far-away midwestern farm and an artless child, used for her identity), but the audience is reeled - in to believing this story is "for reals". However, it is like summer beach fiction: enough twists and turns, with just a smattering of "this almost happened to me", to keep us entertained.
I, too, was "reeled-in". I have also been "catfished"--that is, begun corresponding on social networks with individuals who were not who they claimed to be. It happens often enough in real life to make one wonder: Is this how humans actually relate? Hmmmm....Is no one immune?
Later in the week, I found that the photographer, after the controversy of the film's release, went on to sell his idea to MTV, to begin a series called "Catfish" wherein he would be contacted by individuals who have had similar relationships, online, and are now wondering what is real and what is "made up". He and his team interview people and arrange for both parties to meet--to see who is telling the truth and who is hiding behind a contrived persona. Supposedly, this will bring true lovers together and weed out the "villains". However, in this series, there really are no villains. (How could anyone be a villain when the creator of the series perhaps created his own victim-persona to finish his brother's film?)
Just as in the documentary, the series only reveals very needy people reaching out, albeit via fantasy, to other needy people. Usually one of the pair is more attractive (in a mainstream way) than the other, and often people are hiding their true sexuality, or gender, or physical looks. It is sad when the photographer tries to play "therapist"...I think that is dangerous. Many of the expected emotions of the folks involved (as was the case in the film), seem dampened and unreal. When people find out they have been duped, for years, by someone who posts pictures (for years) of a twenty-three- year- old- Barbie- look-alike,who turns out to be a forty- year- old- male- office worker, well, it would seem that a little pissed-offness would be healthy. However, on "Catfish" the series, we find people willing to change their sexual preferences, geographical locations and lifestyles--forgiving any and all lies--and simply hugging it out; smiling; moving on--usually with the same relationship firmly in place (if exposed). I guess real-love is a thing involving cameras...
I think the series lives up to the documentary by being a staged, pre-written (obviously), scripted thing. It pulls the viewer in, at first, the way a good mystery story does. There is a kind of crime; there is human outrage; there is betrayal of what one has come to believe.We must get to the bottom of it! But then, somewhere on the road, there is a turn. The story isnt' clear-cut. What is wrong begins to emerge wrong on both ends. Sadness is the link in all the stories. There is no satisfying wind-up--in fact, the wind-ups only bring up more questions. (Perhaps this IS the point?)
On the other hand: people lying about their personas online isn't new. People trolling for victims online isn't new, either. Fantasy is what fuels the Internet. Sometimes, it is all we need. Reality t.v., which began as "real life situations video-taped for our enlightenment", has become real-life entertainment, period. Maybe what we need to learn is to watch the edges and begin to discern. We need to teach kids critical thinking skills. (We also need to learn to get back in touch with our own true emotions and not rely on what might look good to someone else, onscreen.)
Anyway, that's my two cents.
I recommend the film, "Catfish". I don't believe it is the truth as it played out. I think everyone involved in its making needs serious and long-term talk therapy (if not medication...). However, it is worth a screening. And if you get "catfished" yourself, don't say I didn't warn you!
Somehow, in the drama of 2010, I missed the controversy of this documentary. Too bad. It is exactly the kind of question-raising, edge-blurring slice-of-recreated-life that perks up my sluggish imagination these days. Not only is the premise of the "docu-maybe" interesting, the fact that it might NOT be a for-reals documentary spices the pot. As with film medium itself, documentaries have evolved into entertainment vehicles utilizing all sorts of manipulations to frame "a story". Animation, recreation, staged meetings, rehabbed statistics, false interviews and in some cases, fake footage, are just a smattering of "new rules".
Of course, what is any writing, really? All comes from the point of view of the creator. Same with film-writing. Same with videography. The one constant is "story". Does it pique the viewer? Does it infuriate or entertain or move the viewer in some deep way? Does it have a point of view that is clearly stated? Is it interesting? These questions seem to be a common ground. All else is up for grabs in a time when real-life actors aren't even required to show up on the set to shoot a full-length movie.
Basically, "Catfish" (for those of you who also have missed the 2010 premiere) is the supposed true life story of a FaceBook romance gone wrong. A young New York photographer took a picture that was supposedly "seen" by a younger artist--like a little kid artist. She hunted him down and found his page on FB and began contacting him.She liked his photograph enough to draw a picture based on it. He was charmed when he viewed her "work". She began sending him stuff in the mail, building the relationship. He responded, sometimes paying for the work and sometimes accepting it for free. Thus begins the documentary....maybe.
Along the way, the mother of the child becomes involved, of course.She begins to correspond with the NYer. Then, pictures of the family are shared, of course. There is one beautiful and older cousin whose photos capture the NYer's eye. Another "relationship" blossoms. Of course. Phone calls ensue. The documentary, written and filmed by the photog's brother and another friend (Ariel Shulman and Henry Joost) convince the brother to play the romance out...until it begins to smell...well...fishy.
"Reeled In" might have been a more sincere title for the work--not only is the photographer (supposedly) pulled into this very involved scenario of lies and betrayals and family dysfunction (including twin brothers, who, at 22 and developmentally disabled, need constant care; a loveless (it seems) and controlling marriage; uterine cancer and chemo; an estranged step-daughter; isolation on a far-away midwestern farm and an artless child, used for her identity), but the audience is reeled - in to believing this story is "for reals". However, it is like summer beach fiction: enough twists and turns, with just a smattering of "this almost happened to me", to keep us entertained.
I, too, was "reeled-in". I have also been "catfished"--that is, begun corresponding on social networks with individuals who were not who they claimed to be. It happens often enough in real life to make one wonder: Is this how humans actually relate? Hmmmm....Is no one immune?
Later in the week, I found that the photographer, after the controversy of the film's release, went on to sell his idea to MTV, to begin a series called "Catfish" wherein he would be contacted by individuals who have had similar relationships, online, and are now wondering what is real and what is "made up". He and his team interview people and arrange for both parties to meet--to see who is telling the truth and who is hiding behind a contrived persona. Supposedly, this will bring true lovers together and weed out the "villains". However, in this series, there really are no villains. (How could anyone be a villain when the creator of the series perhaps created his own victim-persona to finish his brother's film?)
Just as in the documentary, the series only reveals very needy people reaching out, albeit via fantasy, to other needy people. Usually one of the pair is more attractive (in a mainstream way) than the other, and often people are hiding their true sexuality, or gender, or physical looks. It is sad when the photographer tries to play "therapist"...I think that is dangerous. Many of the expected emotions of the folks involved (as was the case in the film), seem dampened and unreal. When people find out they have been duped, for years, by someone who posts pictures (for years) of a twenty-three- year- old- Barbie- look-alike,who turns out to be a forty- year- old- male- office worker, well, it would seem that a little pissed-offness would be healthy. However, on "Catfish" the series, we find people willing to change their sexual preferences, geographical locations and lifestyles--forgiving any and all lies--and simply hugging it out; smiling; moving on--usually with the same relationship firmly in place (if exposed). I guess real-love is a thing involving cameras...
I think the series lives up to the documentary by being a staged, pre-written (obviously), scripted thing. It pulls the viewer in, at first, the way a good mystery story does. There is a kind of crime; there is human outrage; there is betrayal of what one has come to believe.We must get to the bottom of it! But then, somewhere on the road, there is a turn. The story isnt' clear-cut. What is wrong begins to emerge wrong on both ends. Sadness is the link in all the stories. There is no satisfying wind-up--in fact, the wind-ups only bring up more questions. (Perhaps this IS the point?)
On the other hand: people lying about their personas online isn't new. People trolling for victims online isn't new, either. Fantasy is what fuels the Internet. Sometimes, it is all we need. Reality t.v., which began as "real life situations video-taped for our enlightenment", has become real-life entertainment, period. Maybe what we need to learn is to watch the edges and begin to discern. We need to teach kids critical thinking skills. (We also need to learn to get back in touch with our own true emotions and not rely on what might look good to someone else, onscreen.)
Anyway, that's my two cents.
I recommend the film, "Catfish". I don't believe it is the truth as it played out. I think everyone involved in its making needs serious and long-term talk therapy (if not medication...). However, it is worth a screening. And if you get "catfished" yourself, don't say I didn't warn you!
No comments:
Post a Comment