
Screenshot from movie trailer: And yes, I realize there is now a fake FB account this *character* in the movie...
Spoiler alert, I don’t really talk too much about the actual film’s “plot”, but if you haven’t seen it, watch the trailer here – watch the movie in mid September, and then come back. I am not going to reveal the *twist* ending, go pay and watch the film. I was very fortunate today to be invited to a screening of the new movie Catfish. It is a new documentary/reality-thriller about an online relationship that goes sour. I knew very little about the film other than a very intriguing trailer that was floating around YouTube. The film was quite enjoyable, and it did prove to be the emotional roller-coaster as promised, however there were a lot of mysteries behind the nature of the film itself. In this post, I wanted to outline what I found fascinating about the film, what I found unsettling about the film, and address the biggest question surrounding the movie: Were the events in this film was REAL or FAKE?
Well… it was all real..
To be quite honest, I assumed it was a horror/mockumentary. It was marketed as a horror/mockumentary…. When I saw the trailer I assumed that, when I watched the film I began to question that, and when I sat through a live Q/A session with the creators, I was really really confused. There have already been other posts which outline the questionable nature of the film itself, and even at Sundance, an audience member apparently asked whether it was real or not (to the surprise of the audience and the film-makers). I am generally skeptical about everything I watch, I am from the internet generation where we are trained to question almost everything we see. After all, without questioning the genuine nature of the film would be horribly ironic and would miss the whole point of the movie itself. That said, I don’t feel bad for asking the question in the first place.
Not surprisingly, opinions online range from “C’mon, it is obviously fake”, to “No, seriously, this is actually real.” These varying opinions to me point out that it is not obvious. At a high level it seems so outrageous that it cannot be true, however, for now I’ve come to the uncomfortable conclusion that the movie is real. Here is why:
1. A live interview with the crew: After the film, there was a great QA session with the filmmakers who took many questions from the audience. Almost every question was about the circumstances of the events, and the interactions with the real people in the film. I can’t imagine the act needs to be drawn out that long… They seemed like genuinely nice guys. *(update, I just met them, and all 3 of them were awesome guys…)
2. An almost overwhelming amount online evidence leftover from the events in the film: After Googling around for literally like 10 minutes out of curiosity, I found enough evidence to convince myself within reasonable doubt that it is real. I am not going to post links, but you can easily find tons of links to the people and events referenced in the movie. It took me about 2 minutes to find the actual Google Street View location we see in the film of the house, which made me very uncomfortable. At that point, my personal creep meter was at a limit and I backed off. I had seen enough, and want to respect these personal boundaries (which I had already over stepped)
Then why did I come to such an uncomfortable default conclusion?
It was marketed as fiction, so I was compelled to do some research. I really didn’t dig that deep. After watching the movie, and hearing about the “great viral marketing”, I jumped online. Being a huge fan of LOST’s famous alternate reality campaign, and probably being one of the few people who saw all the extra content LOST scattered online, I figured it was all part of the experience. But then I guess I dug too deep. I am presented with the option of either accepting that the story is real, or that it is fake and some very distasteful viral-marketing department has made some questionable marketing decisions. Given the evidence presented to me, I don’t want to look any deeper. If everything I unearthed is an elaborate alternate reality ploy by a devious marketing department, then I will have been duped. But I really don’t want that to be the case, and will just default to the assumption that I saw an interesting accounting of some pretty bizarre events miraculously caught on tape by the film crew it just happened to involve.
So then the biggest mystery to me now is this: Why did the marketing team (presumably Rouge Media/Universal) make it so ambiguous of whether the film is real or not?
- The biggest draw of this film, which intensified the emotions exponentially, was that it was all REAL, why hide that?
- If the actual film makers weren’t there for the 1 hour QA after, I’m fairly certain that 1/2 people in the audience would have assumed it was a work of fiction.
- There was very little mentioned in the film that really emphasized that it was all true events (no more than say, Blair Witch). Again, why down play this?
- Why did they market this movie like a Blair Witch / Paranormal Activity knock off if they were legit?
- Why was the trailer’s copy-writing so confusing?: “Not based on a true story, not inspired by real events… Just True”. Yeah I get what they are saying, but that is just utterly horrible copy!
- Why include real names/addresses in the film (and trailer) that easily link back to online profiles of the real people in the film?
- Why has no one else (seemingly) lifted up a few rocks before questioning, discovering the same (in plain sight) evidence I found?
Why not make it PAINFULLY clear to the viewers that this is a true story? That way you don’t get speculations like this, or this, or this, or this….. I get that it creates buzz, and press, but it takes away from the story (in my opinion).
I guess, it is not that important to know if it was real or not, but I fear the majority of the American audiences will assume it is fiction, and that is unfortunate. Either way, it was a highly enjoyable film and an incredibly story. Perhaps the ambiguity will minimize the public attention/scrutiny of the people featured in the movie. Perhaps the success of this movie will help bury the references to these real people, and hopefully protect them from the Internets. I’ve purposely left out any names, links, or references to avoid the robots and spiders out of (what I feel is) courtesy to the people of the film. I REALLY hope that people respect the boundaries of privacy of these people and that everything works out well for the filmmakers and the family.
So what are you thoughts? End of the day, maybe we just saw the extended version of the HOPA girl…..
As I mentioned in the comments of geekykitchycool, you can find the obituary for Ronald ******… if you follow a link to the funeral home, you can find the guestbook, WHICH YANIV SCHULMAN SIGNED. That would seem to go a bit to far…
…yet Angela ******’s silence on the whole things seems a bit odd. When you do look into her existing websites, and there are a web of them, many are set to “private” and have the whois direct to an LLC, which is a good way to hide identity, which is a mark of fakery or ARG. She had to sign a release and maybe even a nondisclosure agreement, which given the nature of her character, would be hard to obtain unless the price was right, I would think.
Those are some of my thoughts. But I don’t know if the end game would be a cover up of a hoax, or something deeper…
Yeah – As I mentioned, I saw enough, and I didn’t feel comfortable looking deeper. I hope you don’t mind I edited your comment to remove the actual names, I’d rather not perpetuate the problem.
Right after writing this post, I was very fortunate to meet the whole Catfish team, very nice guys. Their is no doubt that this is a true story…
lol, thanks techcrunch….
All the right questions were asked — rhetorically — every one of which points to “in order to enjoy this movie, you had better come prepared to suspend a few metric tons of disbelief”.
Which you apparently have done, as you alluded to as much when you said, “I don’t want to look any deeper…I really don’t want that to be the case…and will just default to the assumption…”
The “utterly horrible copy” wasn’t so utterly horrible, and should have been one of your clues — (assuming you aren’t also part of the marketing machine. You may not be, of course, but how many people have admitted access to the cast and creators?). The terrible copy creates one of those Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” kinds of things. What does “Just true” mean, after all? Especially when those two words follow two “hidden right out in the open” disclaimers. These create a fork in the road, and allow you to either see through a sham, or not “want to look any deeper”, and “…just default to the assumption…” to which they would prefer everyone default.
You are most correct. If it was really a completely true real life story, the promoters would MOST DEFINITELY trumpet that fact the loudest and the longest, right from the beginning, firmly backed by an historic authentication trail that ANYONE could easily follow (i.e., the real world, beginning with Google and Facebook, which would back everything up all by its lonesome — which it does not).
Ah when will this ‘reality’ TV/Movie lunacy finally burn itself out? It is the lamest trend, appealing to the very lowest mental and emotional denominators out there in the world. And it has gotten quite old. Hope this movie falls flat on its backside, perhaps that would herald a refreshing end in sight.
Thanks for the feedback! .. and I’ve put a *strike* through the word “utterly” as it does come off as overly abrasive.
I am not part of the marketing machine, but was extremely fortunate to find the film-makers visiting my office the day after I wrote this post. I do appreciate the humor in the irony that my post might now be considered part of the marketing…
On your last comment, I totally agree. However the fact that the marketing made it look like a horror movie didn’t help. Had this been released as a documentary, I wouldn’t have had the same reaction (you too perhaps?). I always allude to “The Truman Show”, which still seems to be the biggest satire on reality TV, and was wayyyy before its time.
Again, I highly appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks to this review, i cannot wait to see Catfish movie, the sundance hit documentary! http://bit.ly/93x17h
Catfish Movie Review: Putting the puzzle pieces together « Ian ……
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
I already saw the trailer of the film. It makes me curious and i think I will going to watch it.
I really enjoyed the movie BUT a couple of tech-related things lead me to believe that Catfish is either fake or portions of it were faked.
1. The sound is just too consistent. to get even “decent” sound you really need to be rigged up, which would mean from day one of filming Nev the filmmakers would have had to be conscious of that. But if they’re mainly hitting him with Flip camera kind of documentation … how are they getting such good sound? Did it in post? hm, suspicious.
2. Although they made use of low-quality lighting in many scenes … so much of it just seemed unnaturally good. Were they so lucky to find good lighting in Angela’s house in what seemed like every room – they’re never hit with half lighting or unattractive shadows odd?
3. Angela/ her family never reacted to the fact that they were suddenly being filmed all the time. The reality of that seems strained. most folk are painfully aware that they’re being filmed. Angela showed no sign of that, not from the first moment. That is just odd. very odd.
I ejnyoed the movie. The movie is so well done I rarely questioned the legitimacy of the movie while watching it. The postcard scene was the only point where I can honestly say I was extremely doubtful of the movie. Regardless, it is an entertaining watch and highlights a subject untouched by the media spotlight. The debate over this film will likely continue though. If the film is established as a fake, there will be a lot of controversy over just how ethical the film is.
I believe catfish is not a genuine documentary. As some have said, it’s too slick, the subjects’ reactions too controlled and tempered to be truly ‘live’. My view is it is a recreation using actors playing real people, using all the real places and events. Which explains why they are google able. Having said that, I don’t think this detracts from the film: the iintense realism of the filmmaking gives it it’s power and it’s a powerful story and social commentary that the world is better for. I’d call it a ‘re-creation’ rather than a fake…
Your thoughts?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/catfishs-angela-wesselman-speaks-romance-fantasy-computer-11836656
Well, after having watched the movie once I really feel as though the entire film is a fake. Having said that, I think it is a decently well constructed fake and a decently constructed concept. I’m pretty sure the whole concept came from the realization of just how easy it is to forge online social interactions.
Anyways, the scene where they first walk into Angela’s house and there is an unfinished painting on an easel downstairs right by the door seems scripted. It seems even more scripted later when you see her in what appears to be a room more suitable for painting. (when she is sketching Nev) You have to ask why the painting would be downstairs by the door in a house where the inhabitants are likely to knock things over etc. Why isn’t it in the studio-like room if it is a work in progress?
The phone conversation also seems scripted. The first thing he say to Angela/Meghan is a comment about how her voice sounds unlike what he expected. Then after the conversation I think one of the first things he says is how she sounded mature. So this is momentous point in their relationship and that is the most interesting topic of discussion? This is a building block for later in the movie so it is extremely convenient for the telephone conversation to have gone the way it did. Seems fairly scripted..
The post card is pretty much the tell though. I think it had a kitten on it? Why is he writing her on a post card with all the other means of communication available and already in use? And the postcard happens to be in the mailbox of the farm house on the one night they arrive? Really?
I’m sure there are more elements that seem highly coincidental. These are just things I noticed after having watched it for the first time.
Thanks for the read and your thoughts! I agree that there are a ton of a events from the movie that just seem too ridiculous. I posted in the comments a link to an interview with Angela, which would (if fake) take the whole thing to a new level.
When I wrote this post it was before the movie came out so I am not surprised to see now that imdb is just flooded with threads essentially talking about this specific topic.
At the end of the day, I enjoyed the film and it seems unfortunate that most of the talk now is about it’s legitimacy. Hey, it got you commenting on my blog, and any discussion after watching a film implies it had some sort of impact right?
Thanks again for your thoughts!
He was sending her a postcard while on a trip… I’ve done that many times.. & nobody lived at that farm so the post office didnt know what to do with it, leaving it in the mailbox.
I THOUGHT THE MOVIE WAS SPECTACULAR…I DON’T THINK IT WAS SO MUCH ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS REAL OR NOT, BUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH. SOCIAL MEDIA AND HOW FAST IT CAN GET OUT OF HAND AND LEAD PEOPLE ASTRAY.
LINDA
I enjoyed the movie. The movie is so well done I rarely questioned the legitimacy of the movie while watching it. The postcard scene was the only point where I can honestly say I was extremely doubtful of the movie. Regardless, it is an entertaining watch and highlights a subject untouched by the media spotlight.
The debate over this film will likely continue though. If the film is established as a fake, there will be a lot of controversy over just how ethical the film is.
Oh I agree with you completely, especially that last bit. As I mentioned in my post, I just *default* to assume that it is real, because the alternative implies that this marketing/film company threw conventional ethics out the window.
I have to mention that after watching the screening I was fortunate enough to meet the filmmakers who were all very nice, energetic and excited about their upcoming release. When I asked them if they are worried that no one will believe it is real, they almost seemed surprised. They didn’t seem thrilled that their movie was being marketed as a horror movie, but felt confident that everyone would assume its legitimacy…
I just saw the movie last night in our Criminal Justice class. I believe it was real, nothing fake about it. I think Angela has a multiple personality disorder. She comes right out and says, the characters are the things that she wanted to pursue in life. She ‘s not right. Any opinions let me know. Could be a good psych paper!!!!!!!
Woah, criminal justice class? Facebook is a platform that would essentially allow anyone (who wanted to) to do something like Angela did. I agree, from a psych perspective it would be an interesting case study/paper. What is more interesting is the fact that this just happens to be one of (presumably) many cases in which this kind of thing happened. Thanks for stopping by!
Thanks for replying Ian. It was a good movie, and I am sure this happens to people everyday. Thanks, Linda
This needs to be foeolwld by Big Trouble In Little China, because Jack Burton told you so.