AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVIS AURINI AND JORDAN OWEN UPON THE RELEASE OF THEIR FIRST SARKEESIAN EFFECT TEASER
Hey guys, big fan here.
Just watched your Sarkeesian Effect teaser video. An outstanding job! Even though this is, I know, a rough and unfinished trailer using raw footage from the first couple of days of shooting, it’s clear that this film – this epic journey into journalism, if I might coin a phrase here (you can totally use it!) – will more than live up to your earlier work.
And that’s saying something, as I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ten-minute libertarian suit-wearing-ninja parkour dance fight film better than Davis’ “Lust in a Time of Heartburn.” And obviously – obviously – I’ve never seen such a gritty depiction of YouTube jackass despair as Jordan’s minimalist masterpiece “Dude Lying On Couch in Messy Apartment Complaining That People Aren’t Giving Him Enough Money.”
I just wanted to give you guys some “notes” on it, as I know it is still early in your process.
First off, the production values are a-maz-ing. I realize that after spending money on airfare, hotel rooms, rent, samurai swords, white turtleneck shirts, and whatnot that you probably only had about $25 left to make the actual film. Well let me tell you this: every Canadian penny of that $25 is there on the screen. It’s RIGHT THERE.
Second, SOUND. I will admit you’ve made a bit of an unorthodox choice here. Most documentary filmmakers obviously go for “clean” and “crisp” sound in which you “can actually make out what people are saying.”
But you guys! You zag when everyone else is zigging!
Not since Birdemic: Shock and Terror and, of course, Davis’ own “Lust in the Time of Carpark,” have I seen such an innovative use of sonic muddiness. You guys know that in real life you can’t always tell what other people are saying. Especially if you have a lot of wax in your ears. And fellas, listening to the interviews in your film I felt like I had a whole beehive’s worth of wax in my ears. And possibly a bee or two, though I think that might be a problem on my end.
Ok, I’ll be honest, that’s definitely a problem on my end. I might as well admit it: My apartment is full of bees.
Third, the CINEMATOGRAPHY. Again, the zigging and the zagging. In a time of cheap digital cameras, it is easier than ever for even the most incompetent filmmaker, or, say, any 14-year-old filming a friend lighting his farts, to achieve pristine image quality.
But, like David Lynch, who turned his back on the latest digital technology to make his confusing surrealistic masterpiece Inland Empire with a cheap, consumer grade standard definition digital camera, you have eschewed pristine picture quality in favor of well, let’s just say that it doesn’t look like trained professionals had anything to do with it.
I don’t know if that was what you were going for but if so, NAILED IT!
Oh, and I wouldn’t worry about the blurry white smudgy stuff in the edges of the shot in that Justine Tunney interview. NO ONE WILL NOTICE IT. Seriously, it’s like a five-minute static shot, why would anyone notice anything in the edges of the frames. Was that vaseline? I think Bob Guccione at Penthouse was known for his vaseline on the lens technique. You guys weren’t using the camera to film porn earlier in the day, were you? I kid! What a question! Of course you were.
Speaking of static shots, your choice to film most of the interviews as static two shots – another brave choice. Most people filming interviews would have given us closeups of each of the people in the interview, and cut back and forth, and thrown in some of what the snooty cinephiles call “reaction shots.” You guys boldly went for static shots of two people sitting in chairs.
And that time when you cut from one static shot of two people sitting in chairs to another static shot of the same two people sitting in the same chairs from a slightly different angle? YOU GUYS BLEW MY MIND WITH THAT ONE.
It was also super cool when you did one interview in one particular room with two chairs and followed that up with another interview in the same room with the same two chairs, almost as if you had booked the room for the day and were just running people through it without bothering to change anything up or even move the camera or anything.
That’s the kind of PURE FILMING EFFICIENCY that’s going to enable you to bring this masterpiece on budget. Like Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash used to say: REAL ARTISTS SHIP!
Some thoughts on the performances.
Jordan Owen was completely Jordan Owenish. I totally bought his character. Jordan, you are a MASTER of whatever it is that you do. Keep it up!
But Davis, you sly dog, I should have figured that someone who looks like a budget version of Anton LaVey would have some tricks up his sleeve! Or should I say “his white turtleneck?” Yes, that’s my way of saying that the costuming was PER-FEC-TION. Not every Anton LaVey impersonator can pull off a shiny suit and white turtleneck but, wow! That’s all I can say: Wow!
As for the performance itself, again some counterintuitive choices here. Most interviewers try to react to their interview subjects a little in an attempt to show “empathy.” Your decision to instead sit stock still and stare relentlessly at your interview subjects was a little jarring – but a good kind of jarring. That’s how you get the good stuff out of your interview subjects! And murder suspects. Stare them into submission!
One of my cats has a similar technique when she wants food, or attention, or, well, let’s just say she’s gotten me to confess to a couple of murders, if you know what I mean, and what I mean is NO I DIDN’T MURDER ANYONE WHY DID I EVEN SAY THAT, CRAP, HOW QUICK CAN I PACK, IS THERE GAS IN THE CAR?
Also I think it was a good idea to mix up the sitting and staring stuff with that whole “erupting into unnatural and exaggerated laughter” schtick. Totally sold your character as some sort of primitive cyborg trying to pass as a human.
Also, amazing prop work with that disposable coffee cup. You gripped it so hard I really BELIEVED that if you let go of it you would have flown off into space — you know, like George Clooney in Gravity. Oh, whoops, SPOILER ALERT.
This is how good your film is: I’m comparing it to freaking GRAVITY. I’m comparing it to freaking Davis Aurini’s “Lust in the Timer of Clambake.”
Oh, and the foley work was spot on as well. That … sound that happens at about 6:10 in? You know, the thing where it sounded like someone was dragging a large rock over cement just out of shot, or maybe like you had swallowed your microphone and your stomach was having troubl edigesting it? That sound is going to haunt me for weeks. I don’t even want to know how you did that. Sometimes mysteries are best left unsolved.
Anyway, outstanding job. I really can’t say anything about any of what your interview subjects were saying, or even remember any of their names except for Justine Timberlake the Slavery Lady. I think it was a combination of that wax-in-ears sound quality and their complete inability to say anything interesting in response to your stupid questions.
But with everything else going on in this film – the static shots, the white turtlenecks, that white stuff at the edge of the shot in that one interview that NO ONE WILL NOTICE, I PROMISE THEY WON’T EVEN SEE IT … well, anyway, with all that going on in the film no one is even going to care what any of your incredibly boring interview subjects said or who they are or why on earth you decided this was a good subject for a documentary or why you even thought you were remotely capable of making an actual professional quality film.
Anyway, I’m sure all of the people who gave you literally thousands of dollars of their own money because they assumed you might actually come up with something that looked vaguely professional will be very proud of you.
I’m assuming, of course, that your final film will be about 4 minutes long, and that half of it will be libertarian suit-wearing-ninja parkour dance fighting to the sounds of Yakety Sax. If not, yeah, no one is going to be able to sit through this crap.
In other words LOVE IT!
Sincerely,
Your Biggest Fan
Sure thing @emilygoddess. Sorry for the length, but I’ve basically run through the whole video here.
Throughout her video, Anita refers to female sex workers as ‘prostituted women’, a phrase that sex workers often ask people to stop using because it removes our agency. However, the few times she referred to male sex workers she used the preferred term of sex worker. This gendered difference is problematic, because it removes agency from women specifically, and treats female sex workers as inherently victimized.
She calls the trope she is addressing ‘non-playable sex objects’ and includes all sex worker depictions as inherently part of this trope, thus directly objectifying sex workers herself. I do agree that NPC sex workers can be problematically objectified, but Anita’s first comment on sexual women you can interact with being ‘sexual objects to use and abuse’ without any clarification that she was referring only to game pieces rather than all sex workers is, again, problematic. The context is a video about tropes in games, yes, but she treats sex worker NPCs differently than other merchant NPCs in a way that mirrors real life prejudices towards sex workers and treats sex work as inherently objectifying.
I also find it problematic that she affords no difference between characters who are sex workers consenting to sexualization and other sexual NPC women who are faced with non-consensual voyeurism by the PC. The implications of peaking in on a woman changing are very different from paying a woman for a service she’s offered. This ties into her seeing all sex work as objectifying, as she doesn’t differentiate between characters who consent to sexual situations and those who do not, even though in the real world one is (mostly) legal and one is (mostly) not.
The GTA5 grope mechanic is super problematic though, and I’m glad Anita brought it up. Conditioning people to think that non-consensual touch is okay with sex workers, and worse will be rewarded, is disgusting. Sex workers can say no to anyone or anything they want, and in real life sexually assaulting one will not get you a reward but instead will get you put on a client blacklist shared between workers. I wish real life violence towards sex workers also resulted in police intervention, but unfortunately most legal climates around sex work actively discourage sex workers from reporting, plus the regular issues of women reporting sexual violence to police. I would like sex worker intercommunication to be a mechanic in games at some point, perhaps like a faction system.
I will point out that she is correct in pointing out the racist way that sex workers of colour are treated in games, especially exotification and sexual tourism. Again, though, she calls these women ‘prostituted’ and diminishes agency without discussing any notion of consent. She could have also discussed the fact that one character does turn you down but then the problematic idea of ‘freebies’ pops up in her dialogue, though I do realize the time constraints and the necessity of not going off on tangents.
Anita does make some good points about violence against sex workers and the lack of diversity in female characters in comparison to male ones. I do agree that for sex work to be considered consensual in-game there have to be a variety of other options depicted. However, she also claims a spillover of violence from sex workers to other women. This sort of point is often used to blame sexual women for inviting violence against themselves and other women, or is used to imply that sexual women aren’t worth helping in and of themselves but we should help them because doing so helps ‘good’ women. I’m pretty sure Anita doesn’t mean to imply the latter, but it’s hard to tell if she’s implying the former given the lack of time spent on this point. She does discuss victim blaming as negative, but given her slightly wide definition of objectification that includes consenting sex workers, it does read as if sex workers are somewhat to blame for violence against women because we are depictions of (self-) objectified women.
Anita says that games could be used to explore ‘genuine’ sexuality or “authentic consensual intimacy”, but not if there’s transaction involved. This others the sexuality of sex workers and their clients. Sex work should be present in games, just in better ways, and perhaps with more variety than just street workers, poor brothel workers, and strippers. Anita claims that sex work frames female sexuality as something we do for others rather for ourselves, and while some depictions of sex work certainly does so, sex work itself does not. For many of us it is doing something we’ve got the skills at to be worth paying. My clients pay me, not to do something I dislike, but for my specific skills and expertise, my time and expenses, my discretion, and for consensual expression of desires that they may not be able to express through typical dating scenarios (because consent). They can come to me with their kink that they know I’m into and knowledgeable about rather than play their luck in the dating arena (though many also date if able to because they do want love and companionship beyond what I could ever provide).
There are also positive examples of sex work in games that were referenced in clips but not discussed as such by Anita (possibly for time). The clip of the Asari dancer is positive as Sheppard is able to tip her. This is different from many games, as you cannot assault the worker to get your money back. You choose to pay useful money for no reward other than to RP Sheppard as an appreciative and decent client, which demonstrates sex work as exchange rather than as entitlement. The Consort (also from Mass Effect) is a great example of sex work as well. She also discusses hiring sex workers in Assassin’s Creed to distract guards. They are allies, not objects, choosing to use their sexuality and charms to help the Assassins fight the Templars. These women also teach Ezio some of his Assassin skills at the beginning, showing that these women’s skills are at times more useful than straight fighting. In AC2, Ezio’s sister is at the head of their organization, which also encourages you to think of these women as actors instead of as props.
I would like to hear Anita’s expanded thoughts on this topic and perhaps her having a discussion with sex worker activists about whorephobia, with the hopes that she becomes an ally for us the way she is for several other marginalized groups. While not necessarily directly relevant to her main focus critiquing game tropes, tropes against real life women do tend to bleed into game stories. She also hasn’t addressed ableism in games yet, and I’d love her feminism to expand in that realm as well. At the very least, she might have misstepped in her analysis, but she started the conversation 🙂
@Jo
I’m sorry if that word is triggering for you or anyone else. I’ve tried to cut back on it just in case, but now that I’ve been asked not to use it I won’t. This blog and its comments had a trigger warning attached so I figured it’d be fine, but I was clearly wrong. I myself have c-PTSD so I (sort of) understand.
As far as Antia not being sex worker-pobic because of her addressing violence towards sex worker characters in games, I agree with you. That is not the bit that was sex worker-phobic, but her attitude towards agency and sex worker objectification is certainly problematic. If you don’t want to listen to me due to concluding that I am a troll, that is your prerogative, but I’d encourage you to listen to the voices of sex workers elsewhere when we discuss our oppression the way you should hopefully be listening to people of colour about racism or trans* people about transphobia.
Anita probably uses the term “prostituted women” instead of “sex worker” since it’s the former term is what many exited survivors of prostitution want people to use, and latter isn’t.
From http://spaceinternational.ie
” (…)by framing prostitution as ‘Sex Work’, obscures the very nature of prostitution itself. Prostitution is abusive and exploitative sexual violence against humans, most often women and girls, carried out by other humans, usually grown men, who are in positions of relative social, racial and financial privilege to the human beings whom they buy for sexual use and abuse.
For arguments sake, a small minority of the worlds prostituted population might be said to be choosing it; however the vast majority of those in prostitution are there as a function of lack of choice. “
@jo
Yeah, no. You can keep trying to argue with a sex worker about sex work without actually doing any research all you want. The fact that this SPACE place advocates the Nordic model is a problem and warning sign. I could go into detail about why the Nordic model is awful, but you’re not going to listen to me. I’m a sex worker. I’ve been exploited. I started doing sex work because I’m poor and disabled. But sure, I’m a troll and I bet you know more about this than those of us who work in the industry. I’m only the one who will have to choose between my job or going to the police under the Nordic model, unlike in any other profession. I’m just someone who got forced out of my own brothel because co-management was transphobic and ableist and I couldn’t go to the labour board because brothels (ie working together inside) is illegal.
To the rest of the board here, I’ll continue to be (what I feel is) reasonable, but I will not tolerate outsiders pretending to be experts in my profession or throwing rescue industry bull at me.
You seriously expect us, including the exited women here, to respect your authoritay? Nope.
Okay, hiding from some other threads for a bit because I was probably oversensitive to a really bad joke that wasn’t made to be awful but it has bad connotations in my head and I’m not dealing so well. I’ll probably have to poke my head over there and apologize later, but not dealing right now…
Azura, you’ve made me really, really curious.
From what I’ve heard and read, the nordic model has been the most effective at reducing crime against sex workers and legalizing their work, so that they can go to the authorities, as opposed to straight legalization in Germany or continued illegalness (in the US, almost everywhere).
What model do you think is best for making a safe workplace for sex workers?
What are the priorities any model should have, and in what order?
I’m curious, and not as informed as I ought to be…
Legit hoping that the top priority would be making sure the work is safe and not coercive…
contrapangloss,
The Nordic Model is the best way to end the demand. The demand – men seeing girls and women as objects they’re entitled to buy, the entitlement to “sex”, is the problem.
The law makes buying sex illegal. It punishes the punters but it’s not illegal to be the seller. The sellers can call to the police without being arrested themselves if a punter is violent.
This model has led to changes in attitudes, less trafficking and less prostitution in general in Sweden.
http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/Nordic_Model_EN.pdf
The Nordic model doesn’t reduce sex work or crime against sex workers. There have been no proper statistical studies out of Sweden demonstrating that is the case. It, at most, relocates sex workers, drives us out of sight, and reduces reports made to the police.
In the Nordic model, if someone assaults me I have two options. I can stay quiet and continue working as normal, or I can go to the police. If I go to the police, they will know I am a sex worker. As my job is necessarily attached to ‘crime’ now, the police have a vested interest in arresting all my clients, whether they assault me or not. I am now basically entrapment for clients that come see me, and many will not. I’d lose my livelihood. Thus, I will not go to the police. This may account for the reduced reporting of violence in Sweden. I also find it pretty insulting that the person who beats me will be treated no differently to the client who pays me and treats me with respect. I also doubt that I would feel safe reporting non-consensual activity to the police in this case, and I severely doubt a client witnessing such would risk outing themselves and risking arrest.
Here in Canada, we are facing a modified Nordic model that not only includes criminalizing clients, but also reinstates the laws banning working together, working indoors, hiring staff, and communicating. Those laws were all struck down by our highest court because they were found to violate Charter rights guaranteeing safety and security of the person. Laws regulating a legal activity are not allowed to cause undo harm or prevent risk-management.
Making sex work illegal is most definitely not the answer. Criminalizing workers or trafficking victims is not at all a good idea. The ideal legal structure would encourage sex workers, clients, and others to report trafficking or exploitation, would support those coerced into sex work, but would allow those who want to work to do so in as harm-free an environment as possible. Decriminalization where sex work is pushed into ghettoized red light districts also doesn’t work so well. The model in New Zealand looks promising. It is based on a labour rights perspective. Obviously those being exploited, like those in the garment or agriculture industries, are not having their rights respected. I’d like sex workers to be able to go to the labour board. I’d like people to be able to leave the profession when and if they choose with no stigma attached to them because of sex work or trafficking. I’d like no pressure to stay OR to leave. I’d like there never to be a story about a sex worker having to escape a ‘rescue centre’ again. I’d like there never to be another Robert Pickton that gets away with killing sex workers because we are worth less than ‘good’ girls.
I don’t see ‘demand’ as a problem. I see abuse and disrespect of the right to consent as the problem. I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to seek a sex professional. Hell, in fetish contexts I’d prefer they pay to see an expert, whether sex worker or just a proficient teacher from the kink community. Too many people trying bondage and things with no idea about safety! I do agree that seeing women as objects is problematic, but that can be solved without hurting and killing sex workers in the process.
And @thebewilderness, I don’t expect you to respect my authoritah. I do hope decent people respect my right to choose what to do with my own body and under what conditions.
You know what would be awesome though? If sex workers and trafficking survivors could stop fighting and actually find a solution that works for both parties. Exited people are not morally infallible, and I’m sick of people trying to put me out of work. I could go back to working retail while training for career, but I’d much rather make $500 in 2 hours than in 2 weeks. I’m disabled, so it’s not like I really have better options right now. Besides, I like my job. Why should I have to leave?
If my clients respect my consent, negotiate in good faith, and never ever do something I’ve not previously okayed, why are they being thrown under the bus? My clients have been widowers, new to town and looking for comfort after a death in the family, disabled and trying to navigate what sex means for them, socially awkward and looking for guidance, newly divorced men trying to relearn how to date, couples trying to learn about each others fantasies, women who have trouble finding other women, women who are kinky and want to learn in a safe environment. Yes, female clients. Totally evil perverted punters that should be thrown in jail for objectifying me. Oh, and ‘clients’ who actually treat me badly or espouse entitlement to my body? They don’t get to finish their hour, let alone come back. And I keep their money as an asshat tax.
I wonder what it would be like, making food service illegal. I mean, people feel entitled to have people cook for them! It devalues home cooking! And workers are often exploited, working there only due to financial coercion, face poverty and wage theft, are screamed at by customers with no ability to make it stop…
I’m sorry, when did this thread become about sex work? I’m sure there’s a million other blogs you can wank on.
So much fail here.
Look, if you’re choosing sex work, yay, great, but understand you’re about as far from oppressed as you can get and still remain in this reality.
Damn, is there going to be more crapola in the threads?
Azura Rose, read the room. You’re pushing your line, which is obviously disagreed with by commenters here, who are also tired of threads turning into sex work/BDSM/ pet issues of one commenter. Give it a rest, and consider that disagreeing with you, one person, about issues doesn’t make anyone any sort of ‘phobe.
Someone -asked- me to clarify. I’m allowed to answer questions, am I not? But, yes, I feel that this blog, despite having articles I sort of enjoyed, is probably not the place for an actual activist. I really need to learn to stay out of comment sections.
And no, I’m not as far from oppressed as I can get. I may be white, Canadian, cisgendered, and relatively thin, but I’m also queer, poly, multiply disabled (physical and mental), poor, pagan/Luciferian, and a sex worker. Intersectionality, try it.
@kittehserf no. I’m going to try very hard to never comment here again, since people are clearly withdrawing consent for my presence left and right and flinging insults at me to boot. I honestly just wanted to comment on this one post, mainly in agreement, and move on. I’m clearly intruding, so I’m going to get with the moving on part. And I never called anyone in here a phobe. I and the vast majority of sex worker advocates have sad so of Anita and of Gamer Gate trolls.
As for reading the room, when it was people reading me as a troll, I wanted to clarify. When one person was being snarky and two others were asking for clarifying comments, I went with the majority. Now several people clearly don’t want me here, I’m gone.
We mock misogyny here. So sorry your agenda wasn’t met with the response you felt it deserved. Bye.
I hope you realize how awful you just made the people on your side of this debate look.
You know diddly squat about what activism people here have done, and have probably been doing longer than you’ve been alive in some cases. Take your smugness and go, please do.
You called Anita Sarkeesian and others ‘phobes. They’re included in my statement.
Having read carefully all of Azura Rose’s comments and comments from others, and having thought it over for a few days, I have to say that my opinion of sex work is unchanged, which is to say that I’m still not on the legalization bus. I really don’t think that the food service = sex work analogy does pro-legalization people any favors when they use it, and it just boggles my mind that anyone would think it’s a good point to bring up.
“I wonder what it would be like, making taxi service illegal. I mean, people feel entitled to have people drive for them! It devalues people driving themselves places! And workers are often exploited, working there only due to financial coercion, face poverty and wage theft, are screamed at by customers with no ability to make it stop…”
See, just because I can make an analogy doesn’t mean the analogy is a good one.
Yeah, women aren’t food, people really shouldn’t be compared to food.
It reminds me of this quote from this article about the legal brothels in Germany, where one of the German men compares buying a woman with buying a pizza.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/sex-and-the-cities-20140310-34i3a.html
Everyone needs to eat, but men won’t die if they don’t get to sexually use a random woman’s body.
Regardless of what MRAs, punters or those in the sex industry say…
So, I started to listen to the director’s commentary video above, until I got to the part where he says that, obviously, if you’re talking to a woman, you can’t be sexist; it’s impossible. And now I can’t find my eyeballs, because they rolled right out of my head.
@ jo – that article was horrifying.
@grumpy – It is 🙁 Perhaps I should have put a content warning before linking. But it shows what the reality of legalized buying of sex is.
@Unimaginative – I wonder if they think that shouting at, I mean, debating with women online counts too?
@Unimaginative,
@jo:
The “director’s commentary” linked by ddan is a joke, created to mock the MRAs. Like all good satire, it is hard to tell the difference, but the description on YouTube is “Spoof-de-doof-doof-doof”.
For the actual opinion of the person speaking in the video, watch this:
It’s a tad long-winded, but he reaches this point:
@Periwinkle, thank god. A minute portion of my faith in humanity has been restored. Thank you for that.
That thing where Azura attempted to set herself up as the official voice of sex workers as a group and just kind of brushed off all the other sex workers who don’t agree with her as if they’re irrelevant? That was not an acceptable thing, and Azura, if you’re still reading, don’t think we didn’t notice you doing it.