Categories
#gamergate $MONEY$ dark enlightenment davis aurini drama kings dudes who look like anton lavey empathy deficit entitled babies evil SJWs gamebros gross incompetence irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA post contains jokes post contains sarcasm sarkeesian! schadenfreude

The first Sarkeesian Effect "teaser" is a MASTERPIECE of experimental film! Some notes from a BIG FAN

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

303 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
weirwoodtreehugger
10 years ago

I couldn’t watch more than a few seconds of it. It was too excruciating. But what, pray tell does someone’s college requirements have to do with Anita Sarkeesian? Is she that powerful that she’s controlling what colleges decide to make a required course?

sunnysombrera
10 years ago

Can someone please pay me to watch all of that video? Because I got 30 seconds in and didn’t continue because it’s so goddamn boring and IDGAF about what they have to say.

I’ll accept checks, transfers, hell even Bitcoin will do.

Jef Withonef
10 years ago

I have a question… who releases a six minute “teaser”? Holy moly guacamole the whole point of a teaser is that most of us can stand 30 seconds of ANYTHING.

slivarth
10 years ago

I have a horrible creepy feeling that this is actually the most edited video they will eventually produce.
It’s called ‘teaser’, so I assume that this is a montage of the raw material they’ve got so far. And the final outcome will be FOUR separate clips (less than 10 minutes each if we are lucky) of FOUR distinct static-shot interviews accompanied by adequate black white and red title cards.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

@Amatyultare

I had the same problem. At one point, one of the women was talking about “them” attacking her, and I couldn’t figure who “they” were. Another one with the same women had be scanning around for like five minutes before figuring out that the people who were trying to control her media assets were the Occupy movement.

So far, it just seems to be a collection of people who kinda don’t know a whole lot about what’s going on with gaming or social justice, don’t really care, but tend to believe the anti-SJ hype. What a stunning deconstruction of the SJ mindset.

Are they going to… I dunno… actually interview someone who holds the views they’re trying to analyze?

ej
ej
10 years ago

I started reading the comments on the video. There goes my productivity for the rest of the day. It’s hilarious. Someone even asked what they were doing with all the money and JO himself said later that they had already used all of October’s money on just this!

This was my favorite comment:

This makes me appreciate how well-made Anita’s videos are.

Bogdan Cvetkovic
10 years ago

Then he went off the rails, claiming comments made on the article proved men aren’t given due process because EVERYONE IN THE COMMENTS AGREES IT’S OK TO KILL MEN IN THEIR SLEEP. Dude. They’re fucking internet article comments. And we’re discussing people who physically assault women, not men in general. What was he so scared of?

Unless he assumed all men physically assault women. Wow, what a load misandry.

And that was a peek inside the profoundly insecure mind of a paranoid man. It was a wonderful lesson for me as it taught me paranoid men are often paranoid because they abuse and, on some level, know they can and will and deserve to face consequences for their actions.

If that’s true no wonder he confused all men with abusive men.

marinerachel
10 years ago

He was an emotional abuser himself, for sure. Admitted it in the beginning.

He’s one of those people who believes everyone believes everything women say so he’s certain women can kill anyone they please using the excuse “He abused me” and no questions will be asked.

Kevin K
Kevin K
10 years ago

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.

Voltaire David Futrelle

vaiyt
10 years ago

Justine Timberlake the Slavery Lady.

More of #gamergate’s delightful bedmates.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

@ej

This makes me appreciate how well-made Anita’s videos are.

Love it.

Did they seriously put all their money so far into this trailer? They weren’t making some behind-the-scenes stuff that they didn’t want to show yet? How the hell does it cost so much? I guess there’s the pay for the interviewees, but the sets were a cafe, someone’s front porch, and a living room of some sort, with footage that looks like it had no editing and sound that seemed like it was being picked up by the camera.

I suppose I do have a theory where the money went. They cast a wide net for interview subjects, but many of them didn’t say what the dudes wanted them to say, so they had to trash 80% of the footage until they found people who would call the SJ crowd parasites.

greyskye
greyskye
10 years ago

Serious question here, did the girl in the stripey top who’s name I couldn’t hear say she likes to think of herself as a street vegetable?

Nathan Hevenstone
10 years ago

Somehow I managed to make it about halfway through. Then I was done… and now I need a shower and a nap. I am rather amused that I can say that this is one of those very rare times when reading the YouTube comments is actually a good idea… clearly even the supporters are unimpressed.

I remember back when I was part of the YouTube atheist community… I am ashamed to admit that I was a fan of Jordan Owen, just like I was a fan of Thunderf00t. But this was back when VenomFangX was first coming onto the scene, so… maybe an excuse?

Naw. I was just an idiot…

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

Lol… I never saw this on their patreon page before.

What is Social Justice?

Based upon the works of the philosopher John Rawls, Social Justice focuses upon achieving equality of outcome, rather than equitable treatment. Rather than focusing on things which are easily measured and quantifiable (Contract Law, Property Law, et cetera), Rawl’s Social Justice emphasizes the importance of subjective feelings; dignity, self-worth, and self-actualization. In practice this results in a suppression of Liberty to attempt to achieve a chimerical Equality.

They sure know their stuff.

MaudeLL
10 years ago

The problem is that they had that $25 in pennies, as to survive the upcoming libertocalypse without detection. Now, since Canada has gotten rid of its penny, they could online buy stuff from penny collectors. The interviewees? All avid penny collectors.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

I mean, I learned about Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance in school, and it is nothing like these dudes present it. The info from wikipedia directly contradicts their description. Plus, while I personally am a huge fan of what I know of his philosophy, Rawls is not even close to the be-all end-all of social justice.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

Ok, one more spammy comment. From the patreon page again, what are their goals?

The documentary will start with, but not be limited to, the eponymous Anita Sarkeesian, the face of Feminist Frequency, and one of the most well-known voices of Social Justice. By analyzing the specifics of her methodology, we will create a framework which allows the audience to identify the actions of other profiteers; by exposing the unethical behaviour behind all of these people, we will demonstrate the inevitable thugishness of Social Justice, an ideology which exploits the very victims it claims to represent.

Now look back at the footage they’ve given so far. Can’t you feel the analysis? The framework building? I sure can.

vaiyt
10 years ago

Equality of opportunity is one of Rawls’ basic tenets of social justice. The assholes can’t even represent their cherry-picked opponent honestly.

SittieKitty
10 years ago

Haha, they spent all the money so far on this? If this is all they got with all that money… doesn’t it kind of support the idea that Anita needed so much more to make her videos watchable? Beyond the frankly ridiculous notions of … well, everything they’ve done/said/spent.

vaiyt
10 years ago

The documentary will start with, but not be limited to, the eponymous Anita Sarkeesian, the face of Feminist Frequency, and one of the most well-known voices of Social Justice.

They don’t seem to perceive that Anita’s relevance is almost entirely due to their obsession with her.

ernsthot
ernsthot
10 years ago

Q: Why is the lighting so crappy?
A: They used gaslighting.

weirwoodtreehugger
10 years ago

The anti social justice people lie to themselves and others and claim that there already is equal opportunity. Then they can point to the unequal outcomes that exist and say “see, this is how it’s supposed to be! If you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, you’d be as successful as straight white able bodied, cis middle class and wealthy men are! SJWs are just trying to control outcomes and that’s not fair to you bootstrapping white dudes who earned everything you have with no help from culture biases! Marxism! Gamergate! Benghazi!”

Wetherby
Wetherby
10 years ago

The sound quality is mesmerisingly terrible – how did they get the second clip to do that? Did they place the microphone in a bucket of water just off camera?

I’m guessing that they were relying on the camera’s built-in mic (about as basic as rookie errors get), but the bizarre thing here is that I shot a couple of interviews last week where I miked up the interviewees with a professional-quality tie-clip mike and recorded the sound with a separate digital recorder. You know, the way it’s supposed to be done.

At the same time, I also recorded a guide track through the camera’s own mic, in order to make it easy to sync up the picture and high-quality recording – and because this guide track had no function beyond that, it didn’t matter how crappy it sounded.

But despite me making absolutely no effort with the guide track recording besides switching it on in the first place, it still sounded conspicuously better than what they’ve managed to produce.

Wetherby
Wetherby
10 years ago

I’m just reading the YouTube comments. They’re serious about trying to get a theatrical release?

Dear God.

contrapangloss
10 years ago

For half those interveiws… did they seriously just sneak into the lobby of a cheap hotel?

The yellow lighting, the obvious cord, the derelict desk, the overly big red chairs…