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?
I started a thread at The Sarkeesian Effect’s IMDB page announcing the Rough Draft Preview. And I linked it to this post.
I hope that’s OK.
Ok I have to know:
Could anyone tell me what the fuck is r/CoonTown and r/Gasthekikes?
Those subs names have been thrown around a lot this past week but for the live of me I’m not going into reddit to find for myself
Just commenting to say that chaos-engineer left a link to a site called sjpairplay dot com (approx.) that Malwarebytes identifies as a malicious.
To clarify, I said what I said because one of the people interviewed in the video said something to the effect of, “You cannot criticize video games for objectifying women because that is the same thing as saying that all sex workers are brainwashed children”.
So while there are some similarities between an objectified female video game character and a porn star or other sex worker, the sex worker is still an actual human being (whether people think of them that way or not) living a real life that they have real opinions about and are making real decisions about, and we need to keep those things in mind when we criticize sex work.
Fictional characters cannot make decisions. The “decision” of a fictional character to do one thing or the other is not real. Criticizing the actions of a fictional character is not the same as criticizing the actions of a real human being.
@deniseeliza
Yeah, I know. I was just doing a grumpy joke stuff, IDK, taking the piss out of assholes who are defending sexily clad characters as if they chose to dress their way. The ONLY reason they defend them is because they want to objectify them and shit. They’ll defend the VIDEO GAME CHARACTER’S right to dress as sexy as they want above an actual human being because they don’t want their fap material to disappear, because sexily clad women in games are pretty much a more accepted form of porn to these assholes.
Which is why they try to defend them and shit, IDK what I’m saying. IGNORE ME.
I kind of doubt that but alright. 🙂
Someone earlier in this thread argued against that formula. I’d have to agree with them, as I find this a very exclusionary and narrow definition that just doesn’t seem to support the experiences I’ve had in my own life. I don’t know, it feels like we’re splitting hairs here, having a semantics argument and for what? So a group of people can tell one guy his experiences don’t count, that they aren’t valid?
To be fair, I’m sure no one here is actively doing that, with the intention of being mean and dismissive (at least I sincerely hope not). Point is, I can’t help but feel hurt. I mean, okay, I’ve only just recently shown up here and have but a few posts under my belt so it’s safe to say you folks don’t really know me. I understand I’ve yet to establish credibility. These things take time but why, then should it be assumed I don’t know what I’m talking about? Granted, I’ve given no context regarding my suggestions of being on the receiving end of sexism and racism but that’s kind of my point. There IS NO CONTEXT, so why paint me in such a negative space? All I wanted to do was contribute to the discussion by sharing something from my life.
I should clarify that such incidents ARE fairly recent. Like, almost two months old so it’s all still pretty raw. At this time, I have two people in my corner who “listened and believed”, as they say. One, is a global organizer for Equality Now. The other, is my Mother, who died of Cancer one week after these particular incidents occurred. It’s not my intention to manipulate through sympathy, I just want to give you all a better understanding of my present state and where I’m coming from.
So, yeah. Two people, so far. Two people who believe that what I experienced was in fact sexism and racism and that it is indeed possible for women and/or people of color to be sexist and/or racist towards a white guy.
I guess that will just have to be enough. That’s okay. With my Mother gone, I’m very much used to being alone, lately.
But hey, no hard feelings, everyone. I’m perfectly happy with agreeing to disagree. Cool? 🙂
I know that, which is why I said as much in my post. Also, please don’t call me boy, like that. I’m 36 years old.
Here’s a snippet of Prof Skull’s blather at “3: Manipulated Evidence” at 12:18:
Sarkeesian herself enjoys many of these games, recognizes their entertainment value and never sees gamers’ enthusiasm as a moral failing. She said this over and over but this remains a key Gamer Gator talking pointing. Since Aurini has watched Sarkeesian videos he has no excuse to grotesquely misrepresent what she says about video games to this ridiculous degree.
Aurini seems to lack even a rudimentary understanding of the role of a media critic, who criticize the media itself, it’s makers, the commercial industry and the culture it exists in. Also, his smug douchebaggy tone is insufferable and makes my brain sad.
As David points out, filmmakers don’t release terrible lengthy rough cuts to the general public. Professional indie filmmakers use private rough cut screenings to get helpful feedback and get a better sense of where their film needs to go.
If Aurini wanted to show key backers and supporters this footage he could post it privately on Vimeo and provided them with a password protected link. However, he’s completely incompetent, totally unprofessional, seemingly has no filmmaker friends, and has no idea how to make a full length documentary so he did this instead.
@John Pavlich
Racism, sexism, ableism, etc. aren’t incidents. They are a constant pressure, everyday, boring down on the person being affected day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year for a lifetime. It’s every day knowing the world considers you less than human, that everyone like you is considered less because of the color of their skin or their genitals or their illness or their sexual orientation. It’s EVERY DAY having insults rained on you and people like you just because you aren’t what society considers the default human, the right human, the correct human.
Racism, sexism, whatever is NEVER an “incident”. It’s everyday of your LIFE.
Ah, that’s much more understandable. My bad.
Also, quotation marks ate my entire comment.
Phew, just finished watching it, though did play a little facebook scrabble on the side, given there’s very little to look at on the screen.
I do not understand why Aurini has put this out there. Owen just put up a short video announcing the premier, and while it’s amateurishly done, at least he’s encouraging people to come and buy tickets for the film, while Aurini just posted a crap version of the film for free. Is Aurini willfully trying to sabotage the project just to get one over on Owen?
As others have described in better detail, the film is full of irrelevancies, they only interview one game developer?? Surely all their interviews should have been with people involved in the gaming community, not this disparate, anti-feminist rabble.
And just basic presentation? Why is a mumbling Karen Straughan the only one filmed with a drink in her hand (which appears to get confiscated later). And what is that caught in Owen’s hair during the exchange with Jim Goad (writer for Taki Mag, wow), a dead leaf?
Just so much lame. It’s not even so bad it’s funny, it’s so bad it’s bad.
If this video were my first encounter with feminist frequency, I would come away on her side.
Good Grief, they could not have made their own argument look stupider if thet were actually trying to promote Anita.
“This game isnt sexist because some other games are different. This character isnt sexist because a woman designed her, and women cant be sexist. She only made a few videos but got a lot of hate.” Listen to yourself!!
I’m just watching Aurini’s defence of his actions, in a video that is almost as long as the Sarkeesian draft:
What a gaslighting gasbag that guy is.
John, I think the main point they’re trying to make (someone please correct if I’m stating it wrong) is that while it does hurt to be discriminated against (I’ve been discriminated against once or twice as a white person), the hurt of one or two occasions nowhere near adds up to a lifetime of discrimination. You don’t *expect* discrimination when you interact with other people. You don’t have to constantly be on guard for discrimination. When you know how utterly exhausting it is to protect yourself in every social interaction ever, then you know what racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. are. When you physically fear for your own safety on a day-to-day basis because of your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc., then you’ll know how harmful institutionalized hatred can be.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone on this blog believes *anyone* deserves to be discriminated against. Most of us know what that’s like, in one capacity or another.
You’re right. I don’t hate telling you this, because you doubled the fuck down and attempted to whitesplain and mansplain shit to me.
One, no one in this thread argued against this formula except for you. Trust me, I’ve been keeping an eye on this thread and I went back to double check. Nada. Just you.
It’s not a “narrow definition”, it just doesn’t apply to you as a white man. It doesn’t exclude anyone but people in positions of privilege and power. I.e. White, cisgendered men. As it should be.
It’s not splitting hairs, its you trying to include yourself where you do not belong in order to try and make yourself seem less privileged. Which you are not.
Your experiences are valid, but, as I said earlier, they are either examples of prejudice or discrimination. NOT RACISM OR SEXISM BECAUSE YOU ARE PRIVILEGED IN THOSE CATEGORIES.
Because you are in a position of power and privilege (white man), no one can be sexist or racist to you. You have power in the categories of race and gender, everyone else is considered to be lesser than you by society in the pecking order. You are sitting at the top of the heap.
They can discriminate against you or they can be prejudiced against you, but they are not being RACIST or SEXIST, because if it was a woman or a person of color, you have privilege and power over them.
Which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt in my last post and tried my best to patiently explain why you were wrong.
We’re not “excluding” you because of your gender or your race, because as I said earlier, that doesn’t automagically make you a bad person, but we aren’t going to put up with this “reverse racism/sexism” nonsense either.
And no, I don’t know you, but I did give you the benefit of the doubt. And you’re turning around and demanding to be included where you don’t belong.
Because you straight up tried to apply racism/sexism to yourself as a white man?
Context doesn’t matter. Those incidents don’t matter. What we’re discussing here is you stating people have been racist and sexist to you as a white man.
I told you that’s impossible because you have white and male privilege. You are now attempting to whitesplain/mansplain to me why I’m not right and trying to guilt me into saying otherwise. It will not work.
Okay, one, as Pandapool said, racism and sexism aren’t isolated “incidents”, they are constant. They occur all the time. There is no “off” switch. Sexism and racism are CONSTANT.
Women have to constantly be on guard for men who will attack them, men who will abuse them, and will have to defend themselves no matter their life choices from all sides, because everything is our fault, because men say so.
People of color have to constantly be on guard and calm when dealing with police, they have to forsake their culture in order to get work, they have to constantly deal with white people treating them like vicious criminals, or some other gross stereotype.
You as a white man have no idea what it is like to live our lives. Stop pretending like you do.
A few incidents “recently” do not equal a lifetime of unfair treatment and oppression. Knock your “poor pitiful me” bullshit off.
Two people is NOT enough.
You can sit there and believe in “reverse sexism/racism” all you want, but in the meantime, women and people of color are out there experiencing actual sexism and racism, and you’re trying to play it off like you know how it feels when you so obviously do not.
Fuck off with your bullshit. I have officially lost my patience with you.
Also, Look, I fucking LOVE, obsessively LOVE Fallout, but it is a game that is primarily about murder for fun, even IF you play as a “good guy”
QFT
John,
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that whatever you experienced was prejudice. But it’s not the equivalent of experiencing sexism as a woman or experiencing racism as a person of color. The benefits you’ve gotten throughout your life as a white man outweigh the harm of whatever this incident was. I guarantee it.
I literally fell asleep during the Jack Thompson interview and woke up after the video was finished.
This is what these two bozos promised in their planning video:
The stooges congratulating Aurini on YouTube have forgotten what the original premise was. All I saw was regurgitated talking points (Hitman?? Argh!) and irrelevant filler interviews. Ground-breaking investigative journalism, my ass.
Of all the cringeworthy production mistakes, the worst was the overexposed clip of Alison Tieman talking into her computer cam.
@SFHC
I howled at your animation. 😀 Good job!
Seriously tired of privileged white men coming in and demanding that we cater to their hurt feels because they think it’s the exact same thing as the systematic oppression that women/people of color/LGBTQA+ face every single day.
Simple test to see if you are a victim of racial, sexist, or another type of oppression:
– Have people of your race/sex ever been deprived of voting rights or enslaved on that basis alone?
Alternatively:
Has your gender expression / sexuality ever been outright illegal, even punishable by death?
If you answered no, check your privilege and give actually oppressed people the “benefit of the doubt”.
I’m sorry, but as a professional writer, the meaning of words matter a great deal to me, and people keep misusing “sexism” and “racism.”
“Sexism” involves a judgement made towards a person, usually a value judgement of some sort, based on one’s sex. It is NOT based on the whether the person making the judgement has power.
Likewise, “racism” involves a judgement made towards a person, usually a value judgement of some sort, based on one’s race. It, too, is NOT based on whether somebody is in a position of power.
Both of these can manifest in a number of different ways – discrimination occurs when somebody uses a position of power to place somebody in a disadvantage based on racism or sexism. Sometimes, “racism” and “sexism” are used as catch-alls for this discrimination, and of course there are a number of shades of grey. You don’t tend to have a group in power discriminate against their own based on racism or sexism, but that is not a hard-and-fast rule.
So, yes, you CAN have people being racist towards white people (for example, there’s a Afro-centric history website called Realhistorywww that has an article literally declaring that white people are defective albino blacks, along with articles laying claim to civilizations from China to the Olmecs as being black civilizations), and you can have people being sexist towards men (for example, men frequently face discrimination in family court custody hearings based on their gender).
The problem with declaring that racism or sexism is based on power – besides the fact that the claim is wrong to begin with – is that it excuses racism and sexism so long as it is against a group that is perceived to have power (and if you want to see why that’s dangerous, take a good look at antisemitism, where a frequent complaint is that Jews have too much power). Racism and sexism are never okay, PERIOD – it doesn’t matter who is doing it, it’s still wrong.
That’s a good test, KL, but I think it’s still a little too simple. :/
Maybe we should add on stuff like “Have you been taught all your life that the police are to be treated with the utmost respect or they will shoot you?” or “Have you been told that your clothing was inappropriate and “distracting” to [people of some gender] because your [article of clothing] was slightly above your knees or showed off your shoulders/arms?”
Something a tad more recent. >.>
word meanings change over time. It IS a fair point that there is a dictionary and colloquial definition of sexism & racism that can include personal prejudices against white men. But when oppressed and marginalized people decide to change those definitions to be more precise, white men can suck it up. Im also a pro writer.