Lovers of cinematic catastrophe, rejoice!
Facing accusations of fraud, douchebaggery, and skull abandonment in the wake of a split with his estranged “filmmaking” partner Jordan Owen, the formerly bald film auteur Davis Aurini has released a 38-minute “Rough Draft Preview” of his version of The Sarkeesian effect.
I have not yet had a chance to watch the whole thing, but from the brief bits I have seen it more than lives up to the hype, if by “hype” you mean “the general consensus that Davis Aurini cannot possibly produce anything but poop.”
In the first 4 minutes alone, Aurini uses narration and music from Owen that he clearly doesn’t have permission to use; the rest of the footage is also “borrowed” from others, and the much ballyhooed “Animated Title Sequence” consists of the words “Animated Title Sequence” over a still image.
Watching this, it is important to remember that this film was not edited by a 5-year-old on a budget of one juice box, but by an actual adult human being who considers himself something of a filmmaking pro, with a budget in the tens of thousands of dollars.
So let’s watch this together. I will offer more extended notes once I’ve had a chance to stop giggling and digest the rest.
EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I finally made it all the way through and, wow, it’s even worse than I expected.
Where even to start? There’s no real narrative; none of this will make much sense to anyone who hasn’t been following the whole #Gamergate thing already.
The “argument,” when it’s not completely incoherent, is thoroughly dishonest and (when it comes to criticizing Sarkeesian’s actual videos) ridiculously petty. The film makes repeated assertions about Sarkeesian (that she’s a “bully,” that she wants to censor video games) without any evidence at all.
When we finally get around to the interviews — there is no original footage at all in the first 18 or so minutes of the “film” — the argument is simply laughable. Essentially, Davis says “SJWs claim to speak for women and minorities, so here’s a … WOMAN (dramatic pause) who disagrees!”
It’s not explained why they’re interviewing a sex worker, much less this particular woman. In fact, she made webcam videos parodying Sarkeesian, but this is never mentioned. (Also not mentioned: the fact that she’s the wife of the “mediator” involved in trying to get the film made.) Why is she talking about Gail Dines? Has Sarkeesian ever spoke in favor of censorship?
And then we get the “Honey Badgers” complaining about “damseling,” followed by Paul Elam … damseling. (What relevance he has to a discussion of Sarkeesian isn’t clear.) Then Alison Tieman damseling.
Oh, and then there’s Davis complaining that when Sarkeesian gets threats, she gets money from it! Never mind the $30,000 collected by AVFM last year ostensibly to pay for security. Or that the Owen and Aurini are basically living off of people’s hatred of Sarkeesian, as are a number of bloggers and youtubers .
Other, er, highlights:
- Terrible fonts (an Aurini trademark)
- That stupid grid of YouTube videos that Aurini uses when he’s got no actual filmed footage or stock photos or anything else to use for a visual
- The terrible sound, with volume changing radically from clip to clip
- Terrible lighting in many of the clips
- The lengthy segments with no visuals at all, just a black screen
- Various people shown without introductions or subtitles to explain who they are
- Even when people are identified, no real effort to explain why on earth they would be relevant
Probably not a good idea to include so much footage of Owen, given that he. you know, has publicly said that Aurini is a fraud who doesn’t have permission to use any of the film footage
It’s striking how much more professional the clips from Sarkeesian videos are when compared with everything Owen and Aurini filmed.
Now, obviously, this is a rough cut. Real filmmakers often make rough cuts missing elements from the final film — music, cgi special effects, etc.
But they generally don’t release these to the public in advance of the film’s release, because they generally look terrible. The footage they use to promote the films prior to release are designed to make the film in question look awesome, not to prove, yes we have some footage.
The only reason Aurini has to release this is to “prove” that he actually has been putting in some work on the “film.” But what it really shows is how little work he’s done. I mean, take a couple of hours and clean up the fucking audio a little. At least make sure the volume is consistent within shots and from clip to clip.
The “quality” here is less than the quality of many unprofessional youtube videos that are slapped together in a day.
Also, it’s kind of amazing that he had no original footage at all to use in the first 18 minutes. Did they film nothing but the interviews themselves? Not even some footage of, I dunno, someone watching YouTube or pretending to type something on their computer?
http://i.imgur.com/Z8YbKPG.gif
Look, the ANIMATED TITLE SEQUENCE is actually animated now!
(It’s a bad sign when the Cthulhu-esque nightmare that is Blingee is an improvement.)
They should have put some clips in from “633 Squadron”; like Lucas did for “Star Wars”.
Dear Scented F Chairs. That is hilarious! There are so many talented people here. I love the tail and the freaked-out cat.
davidknewton, you are a minor deity. I laughed until my sides burst.
@Chaos-Engineer
Thanks for that link – I had no idea airplay was a thing! I especially love this bit:
It’s almost like rather than rational people with a legitimate cause, ‘gators are whiny manbabies who are throwing a temper tantrum! Who would have guessed?
Oh, right:
I guess “everybody who’s remotely familiar with them.”
dat papyrus font tho
He also pulled some from The Dam Busters. At least he made the effort to re-shoot the bits. The model work in 633 is sometimes dodgy, and it would have been clearly noticeable, I think. /sarcasm
(Mosquito Squadron also helped itself to 633 Squadron.)
@Chris
He’s probably referring to(without actually explaining and thus revealing himself to be an ass) the Power+Prejudice theory, which does exist and does have subscribers. It’s not the most common school of thought, and it takes a very simplistic view of the theory to get “black people can’t be racist” out of. But he could probably nutpick someone making that case.
And he’d still be more in the wrong than that person.
You had me at “rough draft preview”… 🙂
Bernardo, you owe me a new keyboard; I snorted tea everywhere when I read your comment.
Unfortunately, I actually can (sort of, as it’s not exactly the same thing), having been told specifically by a feminist that “you can’t be sexist towards men or racist towards white people”. Pretty upsetting stuff, since she was making such claims to deny me my own experiences and feelings and basically gaslighting me but I digress.
It’s strange how Aurini lays out these 4 points of lying and manipulation he claims Anita to be doing, while it seems his entire documentary is doing exactly those 4 things. Also, he’ll show a snippet of one of her videos as an example of these offenses but then he’ll remove any and all surrounding footage that might have provided important context, which would show that she’s actually NOT doing what Aurini is accusing her of doing.
As people have pointed out before the big documentary no-no of not focusing solely on the interviewee and how you shouldn’t have the interviewer on camera (if you can help it), I’d like to offer up another documentary no-no these guys are guilty of: During his interviews, Jordan Owen keeps going “Mm-hm, yeah, yeah, sure”. You’re supposed to remain completely quiet while the interviewee is talking because you want their audio to be clean and clear so you can use it in other places, as needed. It’s also bad form for Aurini to have laughed off-camera, during the Jack Thompson interview.
I think the biggest issue, though? The one that renders the entire documentary fundamentally broken? I think it’s Jason Miller who says Anita believes video games cause sexism. Not only is that not her stance but she never said those words, ever.
I was curious about what the supporters of this project were saying so I actually went to the video on YouTube, not just the embedded video here.
I got distracted before I could even get to the comment because this was the preroll advertizement.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5mb5gsk4w1rul0hko1_250.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/846e0bf1dda31205e2d8c497f07e08c6/tumblr_inline_mrgejghyyN1qz4rgp.gif
I watched the whole thing (OK, I didn’t watch it so much as listen to it); forgive me if I’m missing anything, but here’s my sense of it:
The rebuttals for Sarkeesian’s videos ignore her actual arguments, working instead off the (false) notion that Sarkeesian is basically trying to indict specific games for all-around sexism and then defending the merits of those particular games. Of course, he never mentions that those games are just a few of the hundreds Sarkeesian has discussed in the context of analyzing widespread conventions (and then, in a dazzling bit of cognitive dissonance, he accuses Sarkeesian of ‘cherry-picking’ her arguments). This general tactic is so common in GamerGate videos that it’s become kind of – well, you know – a trope.
The rest of it is basically the sort of bog-standard complaining about progressives/’SJW’s that you get on any right-leaning message board, all presented without any credible evidence, of course. A lot of the folks interviewed here seem to feel that people are perpetually ‘silenced’ by progressives (well, ‘SJW’s), and GamerGate is never described as anything other than a “controversial consumer revolt;” with all the talk of ‘silencing,’ no one mentions that GamerGate was – more than anything – an attempt to use intimidation and threats to actively silence a handful of critics and game developers.
Basically, this project is shaping up to be exactly what it’s seemed like all along: a bad YouTube rant but with more talking heads.
That said, I do think there’s a point to be made about the ways privileged, self-righteous lefties sometimes try to speak over or in place of people who are actually marginalized; like, when middle-class activists claim to know what working-class people truly need, and then can’t understand when actual working-class people disagree with their aims… This is a topic worth exploring but, well, not by these guys.
Okay, I haven’t gotten far in, but for the people who are refusing to watch it, but are still curious, I’ve laid out some notable quotes for people to mull over.
“Her characterization of games and gamers as purulent, puerile, juvenile losers that are probably violent sex criminals in the making.”
“They call themselves…THE SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT.”
He calls Sarkeesian attractive which made me gag so I didn’t want to go back to the actual quote, but he says she was recruited for getting rid of the upstart video gaming industry.
“In it [Saul Alinsky] laid out the strategy in [Rules for Radicals] which political radicals could bait, subvert and seize control of the establishment. His work has been citizen as the handbook for achieving political power without taking political responsibility. Alinsky advocated relying up emotions in one’s followers, offering them deceptively simple solutions to complex problems, attacking individuals rather than ideas, and creating a mob to force the establishment into negotiation. Rules for Radical is the handbook for the present day social justice movement.”
Then begins the interviews with token people to demonstrate how SJW are assholes because there’s only three of every downtrodden minority in the world and if one of them has a problem with those darn SJW, you KNOW they just aren’t any good. I’m taking a break at this point because I need to regain some IQ points.
I swear, so much of this just abandons context. Context can often be the most important thing in a given situation. At one point, Karen from the Honey Badgers talks about “A guy kicks a dog, he’s an asshole. A guy hits a woman, he’s a douche bag.” It’s not always so cut and dry. What are the circumstances surrounding these examples? Is the dog rabid and trying to eat a little boy’s face? Is the woman wielding a knife and going after an innocent bystander who is just trying to defend themselves from serious injury or possibly death?
While it is generally preferred that one should try to avoid an escalation towards violence as much as humanly possible, it can’t always be helped and is sometimes the only thing left to diffuse a situation. The folks making the documentary and the people within it have no concept of nuance. They accuse Anita of calling men scum, therefore justifying her being called scum right back, except that’s not what she said or meant. Even if she had said and meant that very thing, throwing it back at her is very playground and childish and doesn’t actually solve the problem.
If these two were more savvy I might think this was their actual last ditch face-saving strategy.
Like, they know the project is a horrible failure, so they stage a public break-up, release this crap–which is exactly as bad as it would have been anyway, but now they can each tell their “supporters” that it would have been awesome if only the other one hadn’t stolen the animated title sequence (heh).
Okay, never mind. I’m not watching anymore. I am getting a headache and I’m pretty sure there’s blood dripping out of my ears.
*looks down at right-wing racist talking point bingo card*
BINGO!
“Her characterization of games and gamers as purulent, puerile, juvenile losers that are probably violent sex criminals in the making.”
Okay, projection much? I seem to recall a video where Aurini and Matt Forney explicitly declare gamers to be fat, ugly losers in their parents’ basement, or something. Also, if you’re going to claim your documentary is fact-based, maybe DON’T apply the word “probably” to anything you THINK someone else said about something.
He makes all these claims about Anita but there’s (so far) NO footage to back it up. I mean, if McIntosh says the Zelda games for the CDi “don’t count” because it’s a system almost no one had or remembers, that’s VALID. Showing Feminist Frequency using footage of a Mario game from the CDi doesn’t invalidate ANYTHING. There’s NO context for the Mario clip! Correlation does not equal causation, Davis! 🙁
Because one single game with a female protagonist means that games aren’t sexist, silly!
http://s.mlkshk-cdn.com/r/3ZZ4
Oh boy. We’re going to have this discussion. This is getting its own post for teal deering.
The rest of your post was pretty spot on, but this is making me side-eye you a bit. I’m going to assume you’re here in good faith though based on your posting history, and I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
John, I hate to tell you this, but that feminist was right. You cannot be sexist towards men or racist against white people.
Racism and sexism are simple formulas: Privilege plus power. Men and/or white people have both privilege and power over women and/or people of color.
(I am going to ask you at this time to not immediately go to the dictionary because it’s written by white people as well, and thus, written for white people.)
There are no systems implemented in our society that actively keep white people or men down. Men and white people are in a place of privilege. Society is not actively trying to keep them in a place of oppression through things like rape culture or systematic racism in the police force.
Does this instantly make them bad people? No. What makes them bad people is if they take advantage of their privilege and use that to reinforce the sexism/racism that is already in the system, instead of helping to stop it by checking their own behaviors and speaking up where the voices of the oppressed either cannot or will not be heard.
You can discriminate or be prejudiced against men or white people (and that is bad, under certain circumstances), but you cannot be sexist/racist against them.
I understand that it’s hard to confront your own privilege. I’ve had to do it myself on the white people front and on the cisgendered front. I understand that you don’t want to think of yourself as a “bad person”, and that your feelings are valid. That’s just a human trait.
However, you have to understand that when you say things like “This is sexist towards men!” or “This is racist towards white people!”, you’re putting your feelings above the feelings of oppressed people, and demanding that they put aside any feelings they might have about being oppressed and cater to yours to make sure you don’t feel bad about being who you are, while you neglect your responsibility to sort your own feelings out and treat other human beings with respect.
It’s not your fault you were born white or male, however, just like women and people of color, you have to accept the consequences of being born that way.
Reading comprehension, boy! “You can’t be racist towards white people” is not the same statement as “Black people can’t be racist!”
Oops, ninja’d.
Anitafan…
You’re a scholar and you still couldn’t come up with anything better than “waaah! Hitman!”. I am …unconvinced.
Actually, Katz, that’s something that I didn’t address.
Black people can still be racist, and women can still be sexist. Just not towards white people and/or men.
Black people can have internalized racism, or racism towards other people of color.
Women can have internalized sexism, or sexism towards people of other genders (transgendered, non-binary, agendered, or genderfluid people.)
So, thanks for bringing that up! 😀