Catfish

[matt35mm]

Those look like cat eyes to me.

[socketlevel]

oh true just dilated. i thought they looked human.

[bigperm]

I saw this last night, shook me up, I really enjoyed it. I had seen the trailer, but I echo the thoughts of avoiding everything. Completely worth it.

[socketlevel]

I saw this last night, shook me up, I really enjoyed it. I had seen the trailer, but I echo the thoughts of avoiding everything. Completely worth it.

how did you see it? DL or in the theatre?

[RegularKarate]

I saw this at a sneak screening last night.

FUCK THAT TRAILER!  DO NOT WATCH THAT TRAILER!!!

Spoilers for those who have seen it:

Did anyone else think this might be fake?  I went up and down throughout the first hour or so, but felt if it were fake, it would have been more.... "exciting" in the end.  There were details that seemed too specific and random to be made up, but the titular speech seemed really out-of-place and forced.

It's a good movie though.  Go see it, but don't watch that trailer (and if you already did, welcome to the disappointment club)

[Ghostboy]

SPOILERS MAYBE

A lot of critics were asking that after Sundance. My feeling is that it's not fake at all, in the grand scheme of things, but that certain elements - such as the camera ALWAYS being on at the right time in the first half - might have been slightly staged and/or re-enacted. Also, the naivete of the main guy feels like it might have been slightly exaggerated. Maybe I just listened to the Truman Show soundtrack too many times in the late 90s, but it seems hard to mistake Phillip Glass for anyone who's not Phillip Glass.

[modage]

I wish I knew less about this.  Even having the film previously ruined for me and ruined further by reading skepticism as to whether or not it's been staged it was still good.  The minutes leading up to the reveal are extremely suspenseful and everything that happens between there and the end made up for the bits earlier on where you could see the filmmakers kinda intentionally pushing forward for the sake of the film.  Don't read this/anything and just see it, then we'll talk.

[matt35mm]

I saw this with Ravi and then spent the night playing boardgames and chattin' about films/love/life.  Good movie; good times!

SWIPE DIS ASS SHIT

I had the exact same feelings as RK while watching the film.  At this point, I just have to tell myself that it doesn't matter whether it's all real or all fake or part staged or anything of that sort.  It's a good movie regardless.  I was ultimately relieved that it didn't have some ridiculous twist, which might have called the whole thing out as bullshit.  While it's not a movie that will really stick with me or give me much to ponder about (it doesn't really bring anything new to the table regarding the topic of online relationships with strangers), it is effective as hell while watching it.  Talk about a movie that makes you want to know what happens next!

Side note: The Truman Show piece of music is clearly called Truman Sleeps, and "Megan" was trying to pass it off as a cover, not as an original piece.  It's not necessarily naive to think that someone would/could do that (although that, along with being able to cover any song on guitar within 20 minutes, is something to be suspicious about).

We were asked to fill out a massive form before and after the movie, detailing our age and various habits and how we heard about the film and what we thought, etc.  Felt like a psychology experiment (before the movie, Ravi and I joked that the whole Catfish thing was an experiment and there really was no film).  They really are putting a lot of effort into figuring exactly how to build buzz for the film.  And it's working--the show was sold out and the film did great business on 12 screens, and fools like me will be telling friends about it.

[Ravi]

^ Matt, never let me roll the dice in any game.

I didn't know anything about this film going into it.  I watch trailers in the theater though I hardly seek them out online.




HIGHLIGHT FOR SPOILERS





A quote from this Austin Chronicle interview with Yaniv Schulman, Ariel Schulman, and Henry Joost was interesting to me:

NEV: For me, it's the idea that we use the Internet to connect, of course, and more specifically, we use it to make friends. ... But you can't necessarily call them and say, "Hey, let's go get dinner and see a movie." So how much is someone really your friend – the new definition of the word "friend"? That's a little troubling. ...

How much should you emotionally invest in a friendship or romance when you haven't met the person?  To Nev, the connection he had with "Megan" was real, but she was really Angela.  So what does that connection mean if the person at the other end wasn't who he thought it was?  How do you know if the connection you have is with a real person or an idea of a person that doesn't exist?  People sometimes misrepresent themselves and misperceive other people in relationships that start out face-to-face as well.

The post that "Alex" made on Nev's wall about her sending him a song and he not even having time to call her.  That "I doubt you even appreciate it" line.  Angela was using this Alex character as an outlet for her negative feelings for Nev.  She doesn't have the right to take him to task for not paying her enough attention when she's enacting this lie, but she's not a totally rational person in the first place.

The people I've met from internet forums have mostly been pretty cool.  I like to think I have a healthy balance of openness and skepticism about meeting people I've first talked to online.  Its something I've had to deal with while trying online dating.  For the most part its pretty easy to tell the profiles of actual people apart from the fake profiles set up.  Why they set these profiles up I'm not sure, they get taken down quickly anyways.  I've met about 4 or 5 girls from it, none of whom misrepresented themselves on their profiles (or if they did they should win Oscars), though I gather from the site's forum it does happen.  If anything, it shows that however people connect, their strengths and insecurities always reveal themselves.

I'll probably have more thoughts later.

[MacGuffin]

The woman behind 'Catfish's' mystery
Ethical issues arise after she leads documentary filmmakers on a strange odyssey.
By Amy Kaufman, Los Angeles Times

Maintaining privacy in the digital age is no easy feat — particularly if you are the subject of a movie.

And yet Angela Wesselman-Pierce, the woman who holds the key to the mystery at the center of "Catfish," has remained a quiet enigma for more than eight months since the movie became a sensation at the Sundance Film Festival. She's avoided requests for interviews about the film, which is being marketed as a documentary thriller and has taken in more than $1.6 million at the box office since its Sept. 17 release by Universal. Some locals in her small Michigan town say they've never heard of her, much less seen her.

Meanwhile, the film's protagonist, 26-year-old Nev Schulman, a New York City-based photographer, has been heavily promoting the movie made by his brother, Ariel, and friend Henry Joost. Given that the film presents him as an endearing — if perhaps somewhat naïve — goofball who stumbles into a complicated online relationship, that may not be surprising. But Wesselman-Pierce comes off in a far more questionable light.

"Catfish" raises a number of incisive questions about social media, privacy and identity in the era of Facebook and Google. But it also presents some of its own about the ethics of documentary filmmaking: Are the filmmakers exploiting Wesselman-Pierce and taking advantage of a woman who didn't realize what she was getting into? Or do they have the artistic license (or even duty) to share her bizarre story?

That story, as it is unveiled in the film, begins after one of Schulman's photographs appears in a newspaper and he receives a painting in the mail from an 8-year-old art prodigy named Abby, who lives in Michigan. The painting is based on his photo, and Schulman is impressed with it. He begins a friendship with the girl via telephone, e-mail and Facebook. As Abby sends Schulman more artwork, he learns more about her family — especially Abby's 19-year-old sister, Megan.

Ariel Schulman and Joost record Nev Schulman's blossoming online romance with Megan. Over the course of eight months, the two share intimate phone calls, text messages and photographs. Eventually, Schulman decides to pay her a surprise visit.

The Schulman brothers and Joost pile into a car with their cameras and head to Ishpeming, a town of fewer than 7,000 in the remote Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Those who haven't seen "Catfish" and want to maintain the film's suspense might want to stop reading here. But those who have seen the movie know that the guys from New York quickly learn that things in Ishpeming are not as they seemed online.

Enter Wesselman-Pierce, a middle-aged married woman who was actually the one corresponding with Schulman all along — taking on multiple Facebook personalities, posting fake pictures online, and affecting a higher-pitched, sexy voice on the telephone. Wesselman-Pierce does really have a daughter named Abby, but the girl doesn't paint; Wesselman-Pierce has been sending Schulman her artwork. Wesselman-Pierce's family members — including her husband and her two disabled stepsons — have been unaware of her online relationship.

The filmmakers catch Wesselman-Pierce on camera telling other lies, including when she says she has cancer.

So it's perplexing that she would agree to be a part of a documentary that would expose all of these things — potentially damaging her reputation and embarrassing her and her family.

When reached at her home in Michigan via telephone recently, Wesselman-Pierce refused to discuss "Catfish." "I told you I wasn't interested. Do not call here again," she said, before quickly hanging up for the second time. (But she recently granted her first interview with the ABC news magazine program "20/20," which will air Friday.)

"Catfish" has yet to screen at the one cinema in Ishpeming or at either of the two theaters in nearby Marquette, and many locals said they were not aware of the film. "No, I ain't heard nothing about it," said Paul Bedpedio, one of Wesselman-Pierce's neighbors.

But some locals smell something fishy with "Catfish." At Jack's Tee Pee Bar, which is down the street from her home, one patron who answered the establishment's telephone said he questioned the documentary's authenticity — even though he had not seen it.

"It doesn't hold water," said the man, Derek, who declined to give his last name. "I've lived here my whole life, 47 years, and I've never heard of her and never seen her. You have to understand where we live, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan — it seems far-fetched that this so-called person would be from here."

Cindy Mack, who lives near Wesselman-Pierce and is the director of the Ishpeming Carnegie Public Library, said she often sees the "Catfish" subject walking with her disabled son in the morning.

"I've never spoken to her, but they seem like a normal family, and her daughter Abby is a very normal, polite young girl," Mack said. "I don't know her as an artist, though. Some local artists heard about the movie and really had no idea who she was. She's not an active member of the community."

There is a website that purports to be Wesselman-Pierce's, on which her artwork is listed for sale. This week, $1,500 original pastel paintings depicting scenes from "Catfish" were listed, and three of four were marked as sold out by midday Monday. But Nikke Nason, Marquette's arts administration director, said that Wesselman-Pierce's name was not recognized by the president of the Lake Superior Art Assn. and that she has never exhibited at the City of Marquette Arts and Culture Center.

The "Catfish" filmmakers maintain that Wesselman-Pierce is happy with the film. She decided not attend Sundance in January, Nev Schulman said, because it was too difficult to travel with her disabled son. She only recently decided that she wanted to be a part of a "20/20" segment, but Schulman said he was not sure what she would say in the interview.

"I think she's probably had a lot of people who want to talk to her and I don't know how much she's comfortable with talking," Schulman said. "Look, she's expressive. She has a voice, and she wants to be heard. ... Obviously, I completely understand her feelings of — not remorse, but in some ways, embarrassment that this is how her chance at being heard has come about. She told ["20/20"] her side of the story, and I think gave insight as to where she was in her life that will help people sympathize with her and see what was at the root of all of this."

Schulman said he believes that, in a way, Wesselman-Pierce wanted to be found out, which is why she allowed herself to be filmed and why she signed a consent agreement so readily. On the first night that he, his brother and Joost met Wesselman-Pierce, they took her out to dinner and informed her that they had been filming Schulman's side of the story for months and wanted her to be a part of the movie as well.

"We were all sitting across the table, kicking each other's ankles saying, 'You tell her, you tell her,' " Schulman recalled. "And when we did tell her, she immediately said, 'Absolutely, that sounds great.' We had a really informal general release [form] that we always keep in our camera bags, and she signed it."

When the filmmaking team found out "Catfish" had been accepted to Sundance, it became "very clear that Angela needed to be more involved," Schulman said. The release she had signed, he explained, wasn't "good enough, so a very thorough" one was drawn up. Schulman said the filmmakers paid for a lawyer to represent Wesselman-Pierce and her husband to make sure they fully understood what the film entailed.

Ultimately, the film may end up benefiting Wesselman-Pierce and her art career, Schulman said.

"I'm hoping this can really kick start her career locally, because there is a very strong art community with a lot of galleries and shows and fairs where she lives. I think she's got a real opportunity to change her life and, in some ways, rewind the clock," he said.

"Looking back," he added, "I think her agreeing to be a part of the film really speaks to her desire to come clean — because this was exhausting, this online life she was living was so time consuming and intense."

[RegularKarate]

many locals said they were not aware of the film. "No, I ain't heard nothing about it," said Paul Bedpedio, one of Wesselman-Pierce's neighbors.

Love this quote and the guy who calls her a "so-called person", claiming she doesn't exist followed by a lady from the library who says she sees her all the time.  I want to move to this town.

[Stefen]

Oh man, this was really, really good. I'm still thinking about it so I know it's going to stick with me for awhile. Can't wait until more of you have seen it so we can start discussing it. I gotta agree with Matt that whether it's real or not, it's just a good movie. I NEVER watched the trailer and I think I'm better off for it, but...

SPOILER

Because I never saw the trailer but kept reading the warnings here, I was thinking there was going to be sort of sinister twist involving death, murder and mayhem but there wasn't any of that and I'm glad because it was a better film for it. It never jumped the shark.

A question I have that maybe some of you who have seen this can answer is how come his postcards are found in the mailbox with instructions to be sent back to sender. Shouldn't they have already reached him?

[jerome]

SPOILER

wow. absolutely riveting throughout. i had seen the trailer and i did also expect some sinister/mysterious twist (and by extension a more fictitious turn of events), so the last half hour or so really took me off guard. this was really good indeed.

[polkablues]

OBLIGATORY SPOILER WARNING (THOUGH IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT READING A SINGLE WORD OF THIS THREAD)


I actually made it until I was able to see the movie without getting spoiled!  This might be the first time that's happened since Sixth Sense.

Anyway, I will continue the long string of comments about how good the movie was and how much I spent the first half thinking it was fake.  When they got to the farm in the middle of the night and were peering into the stables I was convinced that the twist was going to be that it wasn't a documentary at all and would suddenly become a balls-to-the-wall horror flick from that point on.  As it is, I'm sure there's a whole lot of restaging throughout the early parts of the movie (the whole section where they're "discovering" that Megan's music is all from other sources stands out; these guys just aren't good enough actors to sell me the idea that it was happening as we were seeing it).  I'm even open to the idea that they figured out very early on what was happening and strung it along for the sake of making the movie.  But from the moment they got to the house, there is nothing fake about it.  Angela Wesselman is possibly the realest human being I have ever seen on film.  No screenwriter in the world could invent that character, and no actor could play her.

[JG]

A couple of weeks ago, I was playing a pick-up game with the brother from the movie, but I was having a bad game so I didn't think it a good time to ask him, YO HOW MUCH OF YOUR MOVIE WAS REAL?