Catfish
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about Catfish is that its filmmakers – Henry Joost, Areil Schulman, and Yaniv Schulman – were naïve enough to think that its viewers couldn't see what was coming, or that they actually thought anyone think they were genuine, interesting people. Ever since AOL chatrooms and IM, people have been fabricating lives on the interweb. Now with the ease of social networking via Facebook, it's all the easier. Fear not: I have not given anything away about the film's super-secret reveal, nor have I spoiled the experience for you because, really, anyone having grown up in the age of chatrooms and IM knows that people lie on the internet. So, the first 30 minutes of the film works as a kind of suspense film: our protagonists lead us on a journey motivated by nothing more than mischief and curiosity. Here, the filmmakers show an uncanny ability to keep the viewer interested despite knowing what most likely lies ahead for Yaniv as he seeks to find out about a girl named Megan with whom he's been having a "Facebook relationship" with. Megan is the older sister of Abby, a child prodigy of sorts, saw one of Yaniv's photos in a New York magazine and painted it; this intrigued Yaniv to the point where he received a package from Michigan where Abby and Megan are from. Yaniv corresponds with other family members, but when a late night Gmail chat involves a song being sent where Megan claims ownership…things get a little messy and the boys want to confront Megan about it.
Here's the deal: taken at face value the film works as it keenly observes the folly of entering into such a relationship. However, and this is a big however, the film fails when we finally see what this whole thing is about (and no, I don't care if it's real or not…my inkling, though, is that it is real and that Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix soured everyone on docs that appear to be fake…and then end up being fake). The only way to do this is to talk about the film's final 30 minutes. So stop reading if you haven't seen the movie, and I'll continue after the jump…
…
…
…
…
Okay. So, Yaniv finds out that there is no Megan and that Abby never painted the pictures. What he does find out is that Angela, who is very real, has fabricated the whole thing because, essentially, she like Yaniv's smile. But it's really not that simple. As the documentary continues to pervade the life of this poor woman, we learn that Angela is married and takes care of two mentally retarded sons that are her husband's from a previous marriage. Abby is just as a little girl would be: she's no prodigy, and in one of the film's best scenes she is asked by Yaniv how often she paints…and she replies: "You're confusing me!" in a way that only a little kid who is telling the truth can.
It's about this point in the film, too, the point where everything that's been hyped about the film's awesomeness hinges, feels faux. I was willing to go with the film, and quite honestly, was hoping that the big truth was that Megan was real…just not like her picture. Sometimes the obvious isn't so bad. I would have liked to see how the filmmakers responded to that, but it doesn't help a documentary film when your hosts ushering you through the events are pretty unlikable people. And as the suspense of the first half of the film gave way to exploitation tactics and an icky exhibitionalism, I couldn't respond to the film any longer because I didn't feel like its filmmakers were genuine people. Sure, they wanted to find the truth – whatever that is in a situation like this – but that lingering 20 minutes of the film where their camera catches Angela caring for her two sons as one repeatedly slaps himself in the face struck me as the most curious of decisions. Why? Are they really learning something that they couldn't already ascertain from their juvenile motel conversations? It's a question that kept creeping up as the film chugged towards its faux-poignant, disingenuous conclusion. I mean is it really interesting to us to see a final title card that informs us that "Yaniv is still on Facebook"? Was there ever any doubt? Was this a dilemma that was broached? The only dilemma for Yaniv was how he was going to get out of this sticky situation, and since his friends were filming the whole thing, lest he look like the cliché, heartless, young Manhattan douchebag…he sticks around until the bitter end making it even worse on Angela. (Nevermind the extremely false title card that informs us of how many friends Yaniv has, and that one of them is Angela*.)
There are some things to like about the film, though (again, this is what makes it so damn frustrating…I really wanted to love this movie): The aforementioned opening of the film that pieces together everything that's simultaneously cool and annoying (and dangerous) about the social networking experience, the way the film parcels out its information like the best of suspense films, the way that documentaries can show the potential for powerful moments through dumb luck and happenstance. I also liked the way the filmmakers, despite their disingenuous tone at the end, do show a clashing of cultures – Manhattan and Michigan – in the beginning moments of the filmmakers' trip into Michigan. It's an interesting contrast that sets the viewer up nicely – like most of the film, which is, in fact, a setup – to think that there's going to be some kind of major epiphany by film's end.
Sadly, though, the film is ultimately a miss. It's a misfire of exhibitionalism where instead of peering into the lives of people we would otherwise know nothing about, we instead walk away feeling gross for having been a fly on the subject's wall. A documentary should never make you feel that way (unless it's fake and being played for drama or shock effect); it should never make you feel like you regret having gone on the journey with the filmmakers. I learned nothing I didn't already know about the perils of online relationships and falsifying information through various social media outlets. I would venture that most viewers of Catifsh know this, too, and so it comes to be that the big super-secret reveal of the film (which I would like to add that I am glad, like with any movie, that I went into this film with no knowledge about its content) ultimately falls flat and leaves the viewer not so much with a "wow!" feeling but with a shameful, gross feeling. Which is too bad, I would have liked to get to know Angela and her family and to better understand why she creates such a fairy-tale world that caused her to user her young daughter and lie to her husband. Instead, the filmmakers show their immaturity by not taking us to the genuine depths of the film's real subject (read: Angela) and instead have a false sense of caring about the world that Angela inhabits.
*This was the tipping point for me. I was ready to concede that film worked on me for about 40 minutes and call it a good, but ultimately disappointing, movie; however, when the title cards came up – a trick filmmakers use that almost always feel phony – and told me that Yaniv, a guy I cared nothing about for the 82 minute running time, is still on Facebook made me roll my eyes to the point where I decided to pan the film and be a bit harsher than I probably should have been. As a curiosity, the film is worth seeing.
Great review, Kevin.
ReplyDeleteI left Catfish just off my top 10 list of the year (written for myself, not posted online) because I hadn't thought about it in a while. But reading this review brings it all back for me. And for a good two months, I thought about this movie as much as The Social Network, and figure I'd probably hold it in higher regard if there'd been a larger, more complex discussion of the film happening online (rather than all the "Is it real?" stuff).
The thing I like least about this film is its ending, but not for the same reasons as you. To me, the ending is problematic because it distracts from everything that comes before it, which I believe includes some pretty compelling stuff.
Without rewriting my review (linked above), I will say that I'm not shocked at all that you came away from the film feeling "gross." I think it's so easy to look at these three young dudes and feel like they're being bullies. But, I have to say, I was shocked by their compassion. There's so much "gotcha" in this day and age, and these guys play "gotcha" in the most sensitive of ways (as opposed to the Dateline specials on child predators which always -- always -- make me feel bad for the child predators until I remind myself about seven times that they are CHILD PREDATORS). Point is, this could have been much worse, and if this story is "true," and that's a big if, then I think these guys deserve some credit for the way they approach the situation -- going to alarming degrees to give the woman an out, to keep her from feeling terrible about herself, while also confronting her, which is what she deserves, regardless of the quality of her life at home.
(More thoughts coming ...)
So with the above said, here are some questions to toss out there, book-club style ...
ReplyDelete(OH, and SPOILERS for those who have not seen it.)
* My theory on the "reality" of the movie is that the woman exists and that her end is essentially true, but that the filmmakers from the very beginning thought it smelled fishy and decided to bring out the cameras for a "gotcha" that they felt was inevitable. In that sense, Nev would be as much of a fraud as anyone, but the "twist" (which is what people are reacting to) would be real. Let's assume for the moment that the film is about that real -- not completely true or false -- and thus that the filmmakers showed up in Michigan not knowing what they would find. OK, here's the question: If the Michigan side of the story is genuine is accurate, then are the filmmakers insensitive or exploitive for documenting what they find?
* I ask that because on of the most shocking things they find are the woman's mentally handicapped sons. But what if that's actually her life? Should that have been edited out? Are we actually revealing something about ourselves, rather than exposing the insensitivity of the filmmakers, when this woman's reality makes us feel uncomfortable?
* What if these guys weren't relatively good looking dudes in there 20s and 30s with swagger that borders on cockiness? What if the filmmaker who showed up at the door was Werner Herzog? What if it was Steve James (Hoop Dreams)? Are we judging these guys on appearance and not on their actions?
* You noted that this film shows us what we already know about the realities of Facebook. But doesn't it show realities about online communication with otherwise unknown people that goes beyond people pretending to be things they aren't? (See my reivew for examples) And doesn't that make Catfish actually rather groundbreaking, at least in terms of being one of the first -- and maybe the first -- film to capture these elements?
* And on that note, is it possible that there are aspects of Catfish that we don't appreciate now because it does such a good job of capturing the unimpressive present and that over time we'll appreciate the film even more as a time capsule?
** I don't have answers for all those questions. In fact, I could answer those questions several different ways. The fact that Catfish gives me so much to think about is one of the reasons I like it so much.
Jason:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughtful comment and for bringing up those questions. I want to think about them before I answer them (which will probably be later tonight), so I thought I would throw this comment up here for now to let you know that I've read your comment and appreciate them.
More coming late tonight. Meanwhile, I hope some others will jump in here and add to the conversation by answering some of your questions.
I didn't realize, Jason, that you already had quite the conversation about this film. I read through all of those comments and was fascinated (interest and shock) by what was being said.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I don't think I'll respond as thoroughly as I was planning to...but here are some quick thoughts to your questions:
My theory on the "reality" of the movie is that the woman exists and that her end is essentially true, but that the filmmakers from the very beginning thought it smelled fishy and decided to bring out the cameras for a "gotcha" that they felt was inevitable. In that sense, Nev would be as much of a fraud as anyone, but the "twist" (which is what people are reacting to) would be real. Let's assume for the moment that the film is about that real -- not completely true or false -- and thus that the filmmakers showed up in Michigan not knowing what they would find. OK, here's the question: If the Michigan side of the story is genuine is accurate, then are the filmmakers insensitive or exploitive for documenting what they find?
I have to be honest with you: the first thing I thought of during Catfish was the Bret Hart documentary Wrestling With Shadows which started out as just a documentary about Hart having to live in his father's shadow. However, by pure luck and fate the film ended up being about so much more as the documentarians lucked out and caught on camera the biggest controversy in professional wrestling since the 1980's steroid trials.
So with that being said, I don't question the film's validity, and, as I stated in my review, I don't really care. I agree with you that too many people (whether they loved it or hated it) focus on the "twist." Therefore, I guess I don't question the filmmakers intent...they're doing what all good documentarians should do: be opportunistic. That still doesn't change how the film made me feel. Instead of feeling empathy for this woman, I just felt uncomfortable sitting there and watching what unfolded in front transpire. I think Nev and his brother and his friend are very disingenuous when it comes to their "gotcha" moment. It's the false notion that they are caring and letting Angela tell her side of the story that rubs me the wrong way.
And maybe I'm most frustrated by the notion that these guys lucked into something that should have made me feel like I was watching a great documentary; instead, I felt icky after viewing it especially in light of the final title card as if I were to believe that the film was really about Nev and not about Angela. I wanted to see more of why Angela does the things she does, and why she feels the need for escapism. We get glimpses of that with her home-life, but it all felt so shallow.
Exploitation isn't always a bad thing; it's in how one presents it. I felt like the presentation and motivation of the filmmakers here was such: "If we film her mentally retarded sons for long enough, people will feel uncomfortable and sorry for her, and that will take the attention off of what we're really doing."
more thoughts coming...
I would like to add that another recent documentary that started as one thing and became something else was the wonderful 2007 film Dear Zachary. In that film it seems as thought the filmmakers were participating in a bit of exploitation; however, it felt different because there was a personal connection between the subjects and the filmmaker. In Catfish, from the motel scene where they find the fake music on it's almost like an invasion/assault on Angela and her family all in the name of finding out the "truth."
ReplyDeleteI think I answered your second question in my last response. I don't feel like the moments with the mentally retarded children should have been omitted, but I just wonder why they felt the need to focus so long on the scene where her son is continually hitting himself. Again, for me it felt like a diversion tactic.
What are they diverging from? Well, I agree with some that the Michigan farm scene seems too cinematic, but I think we've all seen enough documentaries where we'd be fools to think that most of what we see on camera, even in non-fiction films, is meticulously planned or story-boarded. I think they're trying to get people to not look at how they look and the prototype they represent (good looking Manhattanites), and are trying to prove their mettle as grind-it-out, investigative journalists/documentatians. I think, again, that it all rings false. I think they're fully aware of how people are likely to view them and so they are taking premeditated measures to help squelch the fact that Nev is just as responsible for keeping the charade going.
There were two scenes that bothered me in this regard: Nev, frustrated, yells at his brother that he was tricked into making the movie...his brother gives him a phony line about Nev being able to make it stop whenever he wanted. It all felt performed. That's not to say, again, that I think the film is a fake (not the debate here), just that in their pursuit of the "truth", they're very self-aware. This is postmodern filmmaking at its best.
The other scene was the change-of-heart of Nev's brother who seemed legitimately freaked out by Angela and her family. He wanted to leave, but all of a sudden Nev is this brave journalist wanting to document the reveal of this fraud? There were a lot of drastic changes-of-heart in the movie, and who knows what was being said when the camera was on, but I just thought that when they arrived in Michigan, they became aware of the backlash of how it might look that these good-looking city boys were going to the country to unveil some ugly truth.
more...
ReplyDelete* You noted that this film shows us what we already know about the realities of Facebook. But doesn't it show realities about online communication with otherwise unknown people that goes beyond people pretending to be things they aren't? (See my review for examples) And doesn't that make Catfish actually rather groundbreaking, at least in terms of being one of the first -- and maybe the first -- film to capture these elements?
* And on that note, is it possible that there are aspects of Catfish that we don't appreciate now because it does such a good job of capturing the unimpressive present and that over time we'll appreciate the film even more as a time capsule?
I'll respond to both of these here:
You may be right about the film as a time capsule, but perhaps what I would liked more of was less of Nev (which is odd since I thought the beginning moments with him and his phone calls to Megan/Angela were the best parts of the movie in getting to the heart of what you're describing above) and more of the little interview they do with the waitress when they're in Michigan (or on their way to Michigan...I can't recall). I wanted to hear from other people besides them about why they post what they post online; why that anonymity, the virtual fence, allows us to say things or even be things we aren't. I kept thinking to the first moments of The Social Network trailer where the choir singing Radiohead is being heard over the status updates and Facebook goings-on of various individuals. I wanted more of an explication of that mentality as the context for what they eventually (inevitably?) find in Michigan. THAT would have made the final moments seem like the "right" kind of exploitation.
How is it that all of these people we've interviewed have these stories about online relationships/communication/fabrication? Why is the ease of it all so appealing to people? What does that say about our culture...how easy it is to fabricate the truth online? And then what does it say when, instead of interviews and second-hand stories, this very real person we show you in Michigan -- who has a helluva life to deal with -- resorts to creating an alternate reality for herself? Is it merely escapism? Is it something deeper that goes into a psychosis?
These are the questions I wished the filmmakers broached. But alas, I don't think they ever wanted to make that kind of movie.
So allow me to be a bit snarky (caused by disappoint in what I wanted the film to be) when I say: I'm SO glad Nev wasn't so incredibly scarred by this experience that he had to give up Facebook.
More comments tomorrow, maybe. I hope this all made sense...
I just realized I didn't really answer your last question. In short: you raise a great question. I'd like to think about it for a little bit longer. Hehe. But yes, I think you're onto something.
ReplyDeleteYep, that all made sense. (Loved the reference to the Bret Hart doc, by the way.)
ReplyDeleteOnly have a moment, but one quick follow-up ...
There were two scenes that bothered me in this regard: Nev, frustrated, yells at his brother that he was tricked into making the movie...his brother gives him a phony line about Nev being able to make it stop whenever he wanted. It all felt performed. That's not to say, again, that I think the film is a fake (not the debate here), just that in their pursuit of the "truth", they're very self-aware. This is postmodern filmmaking at its best.
Yeah, the scene where Nev complains felt VERY contrived to me, too, and I don't trust it at all. Not ruling out its truth, but it sure feels like reality-TV doctoring. Similarly, I smelled a rat in the beginning when Nev starts detailing all the things happening at the Michigan farm: In theory, that's supposed to be evidence (later on) of how determined she was to con Nev into believing her story. But what it felt like to me, from the very beginning, is an attempt by Nev and the filmmakers to con us -- both about what was happening in Michigan and about their trust about what was happening in Michigan. It was the old bathroom story from Reservoir Dogs -- packed with details so that it must be true.
My hunch is that they filmed that scene long after they began to suspect something was fishy in the upper peninsula. But they cut it -- and maybe even acted it -- to seem like at that point Nev believed the illusion.
It was the old bathroom story from Reservoir Dogs -- packed with details so that it must be true.
ReplyDelete"Buddy...I'm going to shoot you in the face."
It was a good movie. You are so filled with self-loathing, you project hate. Get over yourself. You hate that you care what other people think about you and your dumb opinions. The filmmakers put some considerable energy into creating something. And they shared it with others. So what. It's no big whup.
ReplyDeleteWow, Kevin. That describes you perfectly. And without mentioning wowgold.
ReplyDeleteI know, Jason. I've been pegged. I actually feel honored. This is one of my first anonymous hate comments I've received. I've made it. Hehe.
ReplyDeleteI just watched this the other night and came away fairly fascinated by it. Between your post, Jason's post, and the comments between you two, you seem to have hit both poles on where a viewer would lie here.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts? While I'm convinced that Nev strung Angela along, knowing all along that Megan was fake (and, I think, believing that Abby was probably fake too), I agree with Jason that in how the ending was filmed, the filmmakers were pretty nice to Angela and her family.
The moment they show up on Angela's doorstep I was prepared to start hating the movie, but I never got the sense that they made fun of this woman and her family to the extent they could have (I especially expected this to happen in the talking head segments with her husband). Instead, I think that while they may have intended on doing a shocking expose, they didn't have it in their heart to destroy a good-hearted woman with obvious psychological and emotional issues.
Now, is Nev narcissistic? Sure thing. Are those ending title cards kind of ridiculous? Yeah, especially the one you point out which seems like more of a marketing ploy to garner Nev more friends (I was SO relieved to find out that Nev withstood his ordeal to not abandon Facebook!!). But that's not enough for me to not having been fascinated by the film throughout. I guess it all comes down to the amount of trust you put in the filmmakers.
(speaking of trust in filmmakers, Jason mentions Herzog as someone we'd trust -- but I think back to the scene in GRIZZLY MAN where he had the woman apparently listen to the "death tape". I thought Herzog's always been a bit of a showman with his documentaries and not above manipulation or exploitation).
Now, perhaps you can stop projecting hate for a few minutes and reply to this comment :)
I thought Herzog's always been a bit of a showman with his documentaries and not above manipulation or exploitation
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly right. But how often have you heard Herzog called "exploitive"? Instead, he's a showman, or a mad genius, or some such thing. The Grizzly Man scene is -- from what I've seen -- the most glaring exploitive moment in Herzog's career, which has many of them.
And I guess that's my point: In film after film, Herzog does things that would be called exploitive if attempted by good looking dudes in their 20s or 30s. And I suspect Herzog gets away with it just because we like him so much.
Thanks for the clarification Jason -- that makes more sense...I was misrepresenting your point there. I'd certainly have to agree with you that guys like Herzog often get a pass when they use those kind of tactics.
ReplyDeleteI tend to appreciate documentaries that feel honest and real, but even going back to the beginnings of the genre, more often than not there's some manipulation at work.
My review of Catfish was way longer (in fact, kind of massive) but not nearly as eloquent - I wrote mine just after watching the film and I brought a certain intensity to it, yours is right on the money.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw it, for five minutes afterwards I sat discussing how powerful it was... and then for the next ten minutes I sat discussing how powerful the scenes of Angela were. And that's when I realised it wasn't the film I thought was powerful, and started getting really angry about what that meant in terms of the attention the filmmakers were getting. And I've kind of remained angry about how exploitative it is since. It's quite cathartic to read someone else encapsulate the reasons so succinctly and conclusively xxx