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
vbillings
10 years ago

Ah no! I didn’t get to see the teaser! I was at work. I’m so disappointed…

girlscientist
girlscientist
10 years ago

Unrelated, but this:

http://time.com/14250/man-who-avoided-child-support-by-faking-bankruptcy-gets-17-years/

I wonder how MRAs are going to react to this news, considering how much they *hate* child support.

Viscaria
Viscaria
10 years ago

@Kevin K, didn’t the Amazing Atheist have some video where he criticized Sarkeesian for “censorship” when she turned comments off on her videos? I eagerly await his sure-to-be-scathing response to these guys turning the video private. Any day now, I’m sure.

vbillings
10 years ago

@marinerachel
“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.”

I felt this so hard. (TW: rape) A guy friend of mine who I used to respect was pulling this “not all men” rape apologist crap with me, and when we had some one-on-one time later, I talked with him about my personal experiences with some men, and he told me he had sex with a drunk girl once who “is now telling her friends I raped her and it really hurts.” Which is when I realized that most rape apologists and the like are so sensitive because we’re describing them when we speak out against assault and misogyny. Plus, apparently he’s the victim in this story.

slivarth
10 years ago

@Wetherby – they could have got away even with a semi-decent camera and some really basic knowledge on sound recording and then kick it up a notch with some post-production. If there was any pre-planning involved, of course. I think they skipped that part and just went with ‘let’s record everything from a tripod and see where it’ll get us’.

indifferentsky
10 years ago

Well, some of this is obviously going to be fun. hehehehehheh

Wetherby
Wetherby
10 years ago

@Wetherby – they could have got away even with a semi-decent camera and some really basic knowledge on sound recording and then kick it up a notch with some post-production. If there was any pre-planning involved, of course. I think they skipped that part and just went with ‘let’s record everything from a tripod and see where it’ll get us’.

It’s the sound that’s really crucial. Fuck up the sound in a primarily talking-heads piece, and no amount of post-production sleight of hand can cover that up. When I shot my first solo video (in the past, I’d used a separate camera operator at least), I was so paranoid about getting the sound right that the visuals weren’t as polished as they could have been – but it ultimately didn’t matter because the sound recording was so crystal clear that I could hide my mistakes with still photos, film clips and other visual material.

tinyorc
10 years ago

AND added a 20-minute — TWENTY MINUTE — explanation about the “production values of the highlight reel.

HAHAHAHAHA. Twenty solid minutes of rambling excuses about that piece of shit.

I really enjoy that the commenters were so critical about the quality of the, uh, “highlight reel”. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised … it would make sense that if YouTube regulars are united by any one set of values, it’s production values!

My favourite comment was this one – ostensibly supportive but hilariously passive aggressive:

Thankfully this reminded me to update my contribution after the “one time $10” thing

Cannot wait to see this polished up with tight shots and constructive editing :D

tinyorc
10 years ago

Hahahaha, also this on the new twenty minutes of whining.

Does anyone know if Anita knows about this documentary and what her stated opinion is? I can imagine she will either whine and turn this documentary into a huge hit or try to ignore it and hope it gets shoved under the rug. If someone can get her to acknowledge it it could greatly benefit you guys!

PLEASE NOTICE US ANITA PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NOTICE US

indifferentsky
10 years ago

I saw that comment, too. “Hope it gets shoved under the rug.” Yes, I’m sure their arguments are a huge threat. Supposedly it’s about this effect of her showing women’s roles in video games ruining people’s lives because that’s “political correctness” and “political correctness” has ruined people’s lives.

You’d have to have no reasoning skills to follow that… oh wait…

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

Love the “whine about it and turn this documentary into a huge hit.” Yes, because the presence of whining is what drove the funding Anita got, so obviously it would work for these dudes too.

Kevin K
Kevin K
10 years ago

Oh no. You can’t sweep a steaming pile of shit under the rug. It’ll still smell, and there will be a big lump.

tinyorc
10 years ago

The teaser is still on Aurini’s channel for those who missed it’s glorious debut!

tinyorc
10 years ago

*its. Go to bed, tinyorc.

I CAN’T I’M STILL LAUGHING TOO MUCH.

vbillings
10 years ago

Oh man, Aurini’s responses to the negative comments though:
“The cameras are recording at 1920×1080, giving us room to play with zoom-ins, as well as the ability to cover up ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’ by cutting.”

It’s just… that’s not how it works. Not if you want a quality tight shot. And any good editor can cut around “ums” and “ahs” without a wide shot if they know what they’re doing.

Robert
Robert
10 years ago

I’m not going to watch this – I prefer the Firecat.

Although it does sound like a good candidate for Bad Lipreading Theatre.

Kevin K
Kevin K
10 years ago

So, let me guess…this guy basically has no experience or expertise whatsoever in video recording, other than static web-cam-type YouTube videos, right? Either that or we’ve found the other thing that he failed at (besides being a decent human being) — film school.

leftwingfox
10 years ago

Holy crap… a 20 minute explanation reel for a 6 minute teaser/highlight reel. I’m assuming that $150,000 kickstarter budget didn’t include an editor.

strivingally
10 years ago

Gosh, anybody who’s ever watched Jay Smooth @ Ill Doctrine or the earlier episodes of This Week In Blackness could give these guys a schooling in how to produce watchable, engaging content with next-to-no budget.

1) Make sure the sound is crystal clear.
2) Use post-prod to play with graphics and cut shots so you’re not just stuck with raw footage that’s boring as hell.
3) Be funny/self-deprecating. Nothing is less engaging/more creepy than watching someone being terribly earnest at a camera with little else to focus on or to illustrate your points. And I love the points everybody’s made above about interview footage needing to be a little more dynamic and less, well, clunky.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

Yeah, 1920×1080 is nowhere near enough to support zoom-ins. That’s 1080p resolution on it’s own. To get a zoom in on one of the shots of the guy interviewee and get the upper body portrait I’m used to seeing in documentaries, it looks like the resolution would get knocked down to around 480p. The changes in resolution would be super noticeable.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

Oh wow. The little x in 1920×1080 was automatically changed to a different glyph. I’ve never noticed that before!

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
10 years ago

When I say liberal I’m talking socialist man cuz I am impervious to the meaning of words.
Criminy! What interesting and articulate people they chose to interview.

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
10 years ago

Is a street intellectual someone who thinks with their intellect about what they see on the street?

strivingally
10 years ago

@bewilderness:

I think they’re going for “street smarts”? Like, this person considers that when it comes to being savvy about the world, they have quite an education?

Possibly? It’s hard to tell. What with the general lack of clarity about, well, anything from Owen/Davis.

mistyful
mistyful
10 years ago

I’m surprised they let the woman on the porch (Stephanie?) wear those earrings, considering that many of these guys view Anita Sarkeesian’s similar earrings as evidence of her slut status. Wouldn’t want to muddy the message, after all.

Whatever that is.