Catfish (12A.)
Directed by Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman.
Starring Yaniv Schulman. 87 mins.
As it finishes this documentary leaves audiences pondering a big question: is it something or nothing? It’s certainly not boring and it entertains by offering up a fair serving of intrigue, insight and humour. But it left me feeling a little bit Um and a little but Ah, a little bit So and a little bit What.
Since its Sundance premiere at the start of the year many have doubted the integrity of the project, suggesting it was faked, mainly because the premise seems so highly contrived. Joost and Ariel Schulman are film makers who share an office with Ariel’s brother Yaniv, a photographer. One day he receives a painting made of a photo he’d had published. The painting is by a 7 year old girl called Abby. He then becomes entangled in an online Facebook relationship with her and her mother and eventually her rather hot elder sister called Megan.
All this is enough to persuade the two guys across the office to suddenly start filming because there might be a movie in it. And you think why, why would they think there was a film in it? Anyway, it turns out they were right. After a little research they discover that all is not what it seems so they decide to head off to a small town to find out the truth behind this family and get their big break in showbusiness.
I wont say here what it is they find but I will say that the sudden certainty that gripped me 20 minutes in that Abby’s family was a front for a Neo Nazis group, used to lure young Jewish lads out of New York into sticks and into some terrible trap proved way off the mark.
This is both a relief and a disappointment because what they do find is not particularly dramatic. And though I wouldn’t say the film is faked you do suspect the film makers of being wilfully obtuse at times and of contriving ambiguities where perhaps none exist.
This they have done very effectively as people have been reading all kinds of things into a film whose big discovery is - Big Spoiler - the equivalent of somebody exaggerating in a lonely hearts ad. Many people are quietly desperate and that desperation can push then to some quite absurd lengths. Is that any different from the desperation of those who will feed off any scrap of available humanity in the hope of shaping it into an audience pleasing feature?
Catfish (12A.)
Directed by Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman.
Starring Yaniv Schulman. 87 mins.
As it finishes this documentary leaves audiences pondering a big question: is it something or nothing? It’s certainly not boring and it entertains by offering up a fair serving of intrigue, insight and humour. But it left me feeling a little bit Um and a little but Ah, a little bit So and a little bit What.
Since its Sundance premiere at the start of the year many have doubted the integrity of the project, suggesting it was faked, mainly because the premise seems so highly contrived. Joost and Ariel Schulman are film makers who share an office with Ariel’s brother Yaniv, a photographer. One day he receives a painting made of a photo he’d had published. The painting is by a 7 year old girl called Abby. He then becomes entangled in an online Facebook relationship with her and her mother and eventually her rather hot elder sister called Megan.
All this is enough to persuade the two guys across the office to suddenly start filming because there might be a movie in it. And you think why, why would they think there was a film in it? Anyway, it turns out they were right. After a little research they discover that all is not what it seems so they decide to head off to a small town to find out the truth behind this family and get their big break in showbusiness.
I wont say here what it is they find but I will say that the sudden certainty that gripped me 20 minutes in that Abby’s family was a front for a Neo Nazis group, used to lure young Jewish lads out of New York into sticks and into some terrible trap proved way off the mark.
This is both a relief and a disappointment because what they do find is not particularly dramatic. And though I wouldn’t say the film is faked you do suspect the film makers of being wilfully obtuse at times and of contriving ambiguities where perhaps none exist.
This they have done very effectively as people have been reading all kinds of things into a film whose big discovery is - Big Spoiler - the equivalent of somebody exaggerating in a lonely hearts ad. Many people are quietly desperate and that desperation can push then to some quite absurd lengths. Is that any different from the desperation of those who will feed off any scrap of available humanity in the hope of shaping it into an audience pleasing feature?
