1:50 - 56:50 -- F for Fake
56:50 - 1:47:10 -- Exit Through the Gift Shop
1:47:10 - 3:09:50 -- Catfish
3:09:50 - 3:14:21 -- Next Month/Outro
» Download MP3 (93 MB)
F for Fake (1973)Directed by: Orson Welles
Starring: Orson Welles, Oja Kodar, Elmyr de Hory, Clifford Irving
Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)Directed by: Banksy
Starring: Thierry Guetta, Banksy, Space Invader, Shepard Fairey
Catfish (2010)Directed by: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman
Starring: Melody C. Roscher, Ariel Schulman and Yaniv Schulman
14 comments:
Just finished listening to the F For Fake portion. My favorite moment in that movie is Welles' line, "On this planet -- crowded, computerized...being yourself (whatever that may be), and keeping yourself to yourself isn't easy." He said this in 19fucking73! Dude always knew what was coming down the pike.
OK, gonna listen to the rest now. A little constructive (I hope) criticism -- I think it's okay to mention what other films the topic film reminds you of. But when you start talking about what films THOSE films remind you of, that's going pretty far afield.
Sam
Great episode, particularly for everyone having such varied opinions on the films.
Having not yet seen Catfish, I can unobjectively absorb everyone's impressions without them conflicting. James' reaction is a surprise considering how often I've heard Jay lambaste the film in detail. Honestly the only reason I care to watch it is to see who's side I fall on.
By the way I expect a showcase of Matt's scatological comedy stylings next time he's on.
I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but never ever invite that girl on again. She sounds like a fucking idiot.
I agree with Kurt and think with respect to the Angela drawing scene Jay is interpreting it differently. I go into length about Catfish here:
http://www.rowthree.com/2010/10/22/catfish-why-the-hoax-is-probably-fake/#comments
On that particular issue:
"What I found in the interviews of Angela were not brow-beating ridicule from a camera-wielding Other but an unrehearsed, intimate and true expression of one person’s deepest sorrow. Loneliness is a universal emotion, and rather then see Angela as this carnival attraction I saw her as a bona-fide human being; her confessions may have made me wince but it came from a place of familiarity more than some imagined transgression. When Nev was sitting for her drawing, nothing about that scene felt devious or inauthentic to me. Far from the shit-eating grin of a sinister hipster that some have been describing in their reviews, I see Nev as an uncomfortable, young adult caught up in something he was not prepared to experience. In his book, Blink!, Malcolm Gladwell spoke of the persistence of snap judgment in our interpretation of the world around us, contrary to our best presumptions of impartiality. Maybe, instead of elaborately conceived deceptions, it is these micro-burst biases of perception that cause such diverging viewpoints on what took place in Catfish. It could be the slightest trigger: the all-too-bright glint of Nev’s teeth, an unspoken ‘hipster’ swagger or glimpse of shower-room chauvinism in the sexting scene."
Alas. The unnecessary lady-bashing tradition of The Movie Club podcast continues...
(To Clarify) Meaning in the comment section, not on the show.
furthermore On Catfish and the 20/20 segment... what isn't being appreciated here is chronology, that is a segment after the film has been made. It doesn't negate any sincerity that may occur during the film. What it says to me is they have an incredible story after the fact, they have the principle subjects signed off on using it to make a documentary, and the final deal breaker is getting permission to use the Facebook images of the chick in Vancouver. I think we can all agree that the film would not be nearly as effective or even work, if you didn't have a visual representation of who Nev was falling for. Is it the most scrupulous behavior to bring her to New York under false pretenses to get her permission? No, but it is business-savvy, and as people with a vested interest in getting their story out there, and yes, making money, they decided upon the best way to ensure success. This segment IS NOT part of the movie, and seems to have only been aired because 20/20 was doing a segment, and it became part of the promotion of the film after the fact.
I strongly believe that Jay is conflating events in a way that doesn't appreciate the potential logic of each event in situ, and using evidence out of sequence to justify doubts he has about the filmmakers. My post mentioned above goes into point by point detail about how, if you stretch it out, look at the timeline (vs. how it plays onscreen) it is well within the realm of believability.
Asking Angela's husband who he thinks they are is not NECESSARILY evidence that the filmmakers are trying to mock Angela. One, we don't know when in sequence that occurs with the footage, but also it is relevant for the storytelling to know his position on the matter. He has a fascinating presence onscreen, why wouldn't you interview him? And if you were going to interview him, and he agreed to be interviewed, what questions would you ask? Wouldn't part of that be how much do you understand why we have cameras pointed at you?
Last thing on Catfish:
Another conflation is this idea of shame on them for using a sick woman. First of all, I don't know of any evidence that prior to the day, or after that they knew Angela was schizophrenic. Watching the film I was not thinking that, and I am certain that even in the final notes before credits they don't mention it. She held her own in telling her plight in some of the footage. My take was that she was a socially stunted individual that was depressed. They were absorbing the information on her in real time, the cameras were rolling in real-time as they got to the bottom of who Angela was. Afterwards they apparently made their peace with one another, enough that she willingly gave permission for the documentary to be made. At some point in the decision-making process of what stays and what goes from the finished film, they decided, rightfully so, that it was important not only to give Angela's side of the story (and she gives a powerful confession of her sadness) but that she be treated like an adult and be represented as she was (talking about having cancer, and showing her husband's mislaid trust in her). She is not an innocent victim in this story. In the 20/20 segment she admits to doing wrong, she acknowledges it. So what is the conspiracy then, she is being paid to keep up a front?
So by Jay's logic does that mean the real Mark Whitacre from THE INFORMANT! is schizophrenic too because of the extent his lies go? Indulging into a fantasy life does not necessarily make you schizophrenic, that it came to light she was clinically so afterwards does make Angela fall in that category, but show me the evidence that the filmmakers would have known that? I would think she was so embarrassed on the day of the encounter that she would not bring up her illness on top of everything else... she seemed to be holding onto the fantasy as long as possible.
Again Marina was very painful to listen to. So far there has been no episode in which she had shown any knowledge in film or art in general. James doesn't matter much.
Other than that it was another great show. Great movie selection.
Looking forward to the next show.
Thanks.
Some good Movie Club Podcast pairings:
1. Seconds + Don't Look Now.
2. Hara-Kiri + Le Cercle Rouge
3. The Conformist + The Woman in the Dunes
4. Blow Up + The Conversation + Blow Out
great site, keep it up the good work.
Simple post but great expression of thoughts.. how do you do that? i think your a veteran blogger! am i right?
anyway I'm william
mind if I put a link back to you?
(clickable) ------> dinner jackets
Lady bashers are such cowards. Nothing insightful to say about the films, just sexist assholery. Interesting they can't even bother to put in their names. Simply "anonymous."
Ignorant pussies.
Post a Comment