Direct link: http://filmspotting.net/reviews/spotlight-reviews/599-catfish.html
| Catfish |
| Tuesday, 28 September 2010 16:25 |
| Spoiler Warning: This review discusses in detail a film that hinges almost entirely on your complete lack of knowledge about its story. If you have not yet seen "Catfish" then we do not suggest you read on until you have. Kerry and Alex think it’s worth your time. Alex: “Don’t let anyone tell you what it is.” That’s the tagline that you’ll find on all official marketing regarding “Catfish”, the enigmatic documentary from Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost. The story about Ariel’s brother Nev and his online relationship with an attractive girl, according to the filmmakers themselves, should be entered completely blind. On their account, “Catfish” is an experience that is worth dodging every synopsis and online blurb of information about their film. The only way to see “Catfish” is to see it for yourself. Kerry, does this film merit tiptoeing around all secondhand information to walk into it blind? Was it an experience that you found rewarding? Kerry: I have been finding the more frequently I walk into a movie blind with no expectation the better opportunity I have to be truly surprised and excited by something, though I am not sure I can say I walked into this one completely unaware. I had seen the preview for “Catfish”, and being marketed as a cautionary and suspenseful tale of the dangers of social networking, I did pretty much know going in that things would not be as they seemed. Schulman and Joost decide to document Ariel’s brother Nev’s online relationship with a family in Michigan Nev has never met. Nev is contacted by the youngest daughter, 8-year-old Abby, with a painting she had made of one of Nev’s photographs that was featured in a newspaper, and Nev slowly befriends much of the family via Facebook. Eventually a romantic relationship develops online with Abby’s older sister Megan. Knowing Megan would ultimately not be whom she claimed, suspense builds over the first hour of “Catfish”, and I am almost embarrassed to say how much I was into it. It plays like a horror film (there were moments where the men sitting next to me could barely contain their squeamishness) until the big reveal, and the audience and Nev get to see who this family really is. At this point, all the marketing and suspense pretty much falls flat. We are led where you would have expected without all the dramatization and hype-- a lonely woman desperately trying to escape her reality and cling to the life she wishes she had. In an age where kids are constantly warned of the threats of the internet, and where our connection to each other can so often bring so much disconnect, the questions raised after this point seem much more interesting to me than any gasp the marketing of this film was so adamantly after. Alex: I see what you’re saying, but I didn’t feel quite so duped. Catfish plays out like a good This American Life episode and the state of knowing nothing about the conclusion is important to its progression. Yes, I’d say the marketing was a little overblown, but I will point out that we live in a society in which information is immediately accessible. You have to actually cause people to intentionally keep themselves in the dark instead of trusting them to experience a story as it is meant to be experienced. I could have logged onto wikipedia and read this movie in a 350 word synopsis. In fact I probably would have, maybe even accidentally if I wasn’t so conscious of the filmmakers’ desire to keep me in the dark. It’s a bit of a sham, yes, (maybe even as much as Angela’s facebook ruse) but it’s necessary to force the public to experience a story as it’s meant to be told. That said, I actually thought the film itself played out very well. It captured that kind of schoolboy sense of fun and fear that drives those sorts of investigative journeys. I remember one time in college sitting in my dorm room with ten or so other guys and seeing a bright green flash of light on the horizon. We kept seeing these weird green flashes until finally we all just hopped into our cars and drove toward it, not knowing what it was. Before realizing it was just a downed power line I remember feeling being both scared and exhilarated and I think this movie really captures that spirit very well. Of course, once we actually meet Angela, the tone changes considerably. The fun is over and the filmmakers have a difficult job continuing their movie without embarrassing their subject. Kerry, should this movie have been made? Was it respectful or exploitative? Kerry: That is an interesting question, and I asked myself the same thing. There is so much here that I think could have informed a really interesting piece of fiction, but as a documentary there are ethical questions that I think needed to be asked. I noticed that after the guys meet Angela they reassess their game plan and intentions in the car. Joost is quick to point out that they do not want to be malicious; they want to make sure their intentions are empathetic. I give the filmmakers credit for sticking around and trying to understand what was really behind everything, but it really felt like they had to have seen something like this coming when they committed to make a documentary about a correspondence with an 8-year old girl. They had to have known there was something strange in this to pick up a camera in the first place. I think they had made their decision from the beginning and exploitation was inevitable. What really troubles me about this is that I don’t know if these people really learned anything from their experience. Did Angela learn anything, or did the entire country just get to watch her embarrassment? The other issue is Nev: he plays the victim throughout much of the encounter, but very little is asked of him. In the end, we are informed that Nev is still friends with Angela via Facebook, but does that really mean anything? Alex: Yeah, ethically, this film is a bit of a question mark. Nev doesn’t really seem like the kind of guy who would get too caught up in an online relationship in the first place, so I was a bit skeptical as well. You’re right, the filmmakers are very careful to be respectful and I’m still not sure if they succeeded fully, but I do feel a bit hypocritical pointing this out because I have to admit I was totally taken in the whole time. I wanted to find out what was going on and blow the whole thing wide open just as much as Nev did. I had this feeling that if I had been in their place, I would have done the exact same thing. When they were arguing about whether or not they should drive up the driveway to ‘Megan’s’ house, I was gripping the chair thinking “do it! do it!”. I was totally engrossed by their journey. Were you? Kerry: Yes, there may have been some questionable decisions made along the way, but I was enthralled. This was partially due to the swift pacing. (Special thanks to editor Zachary StuartPontier. I am sure all those hours of shaky video footage were a lot to handle.) Another thing that kept me involved was the infectious honesty in Nev and the filmmakers when they were onscreen. They didn’t seem to edit themselves too much. We get a really great cringe-worthy moment, when Nev shares some of his sexts with ‘Megan’ while wearing his retainer. The filmmakers are good at making fun of the situation, but we also get to see them stand back and try to understand the things as they become more complex. While I wish that Nev’s brother and Joost would have taken the time to ask more questions of Nev, there are parts of himself he reveals in these moments that I really appreciated, but I think he could have revealed more of what the experience really meant to him. Alex: I do want to give a shout out to the film style, I thought this was one of the prettiest homemade documentaries I’d seen in a long time. I usually really hate shaky cameras but I could detect a real intentionality behind much of the footage in this film. Kerry: Are you serious? So much of the footage was incredibly horrible. I did notice it got better when they were in Michigan. They must have brought out the nice cameras for that. Maybe it’s just the film student in me talking, but I thought this film looked awful. Alex: But I loved all the shots of Google Maps and GPS screens, I thought it really pushed how digitally saturated our world is which really was the point of the film, I thought. It was really haunting. Kerry: We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that. Bottom line: The questions this movie raises are probably not what the filmmakers intended. By the end I was too involved in wondering if the filmmakers were justified in pursuing Angela. The uncomfortable question ‘should this movie have been made?’ was far too present on my mind. The concern I felt for Angela was not really connected to the portrait the film paints of her, it was rather because she was onscreen at all. The ethics of this film stuck out a little too much for my tastes. Alex: But did have fun watching it? Kerry: Yes, I had a lot of fun. Is that bad? Alex: If it is then don’t feel too bad because I’m right there with you. While I do think the filmmakers walk a close tightrope between the fun of making a film and accidental exploitation, I had a great time walking it with them. I think I empathized with the filmmakers because I knew they were having so much fun making this film. I could see myself in that exact situation and I thought they did their best at really altering the tone of this film dramatically once Angela was found out and making it all about her. There is an inherent current of regret running through this film. Angela’s regret is there, but I could also detect some regret on the filmmakers’ part. All of a sudden their little scavenger hunt is not so fun when real people are involved and I think they understood that by the end. I do understand your point, Kerry. It would be a very unpleasant shock to find your online boyfriend on your doorstep toting a camera. If this movie is a cautionary tale at all, then I think its message is actually: “watch out who you flirt with online, he could be a filmmaker!” I hope that Angela’s life is not harmed but improved by the film. I sympathized with her and felt that the film gave her proper dignity. I know there are going to be a lot of different opinions about that, but I actually felt like it did me some good to see into Angela’s life and learn from it and her connection to Nev. Kerry gives this film a semi-guilty thumbs-up. My thumbs-up is less reserved. Catfish is a really good time, particularly exciting for a documentary and surprisingly controversial at the end. Catfish is now playing in select theaters nationwide. It opened Friday in Chicago at AMC River East and in Evanston at The Cinemark Century 12. |
No comments:
Post a Comment