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?
Oh good, another dude ‘splaining to us how we’re using the word wrong. Just what we needed.
OH LOOK, another white dude has come in here to mansplain/whitesplain racism/sexism to us!
My apologies to our regular Robert, you are far nicer than this Robert.
There seems to be a narrative forming to blame Owen for “destroying” The Sarkeesian Effect. http://mattforney.com/matt-forney-show-jordan-owen/
Yes, but how much power does realhistory have to threaten your physical safety? How much do they insert themselves into your daily interactions?
By the way, I’m a professional writer too. Words only have meaning as long as people agree on what the meaning is, and (on this blog at least), people agree that while discrimination and prejudice can be universal, racism and sexism are institutional in nature.
@John
I’m sorry to hear you had hurtful experiences, but I want to ask you a question. Why do you find it so important to label the experiences you had as sexism rather than an example of some individual women’s prejudice against men? What does that achieve?
If we do label them as sexism, we conflate your individual experiences of prejudice – and it sucks that you had them – with the daily, systemic prejudice *backed by power* that is experienced by people in marginalized groups.
These are not equivalent things, and it’s crucial to have different vocabulary to discuss two very different concepts. Hence the distinction between sexism and prejudice or bias.
Lindy West is good on this: http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy
I’m sorry, but as a professional writer, you don’t know shit, because the terms “racism” and “sexism” we use are defined by social sciences, people who actually study society and the people within them. Your dictionary doesn’t carry EVERY term for EVERY science in it.
It’s like using the dictionary definition of theory to decry evolutionary theory.
@PI
No, it really was my bad. My first paragraph was bad. I flailed, and it came across as judgmental. I should have edited myself better.
@Katz
@Katz
I understood you. I really was just tangentially lamenting the fact that the problem you describe has made it so hard to seriously discuss her videos. At least it has for me, personally. And I’ve wanted to see serious discourse on the topic for a long time.
On another tangent:
I remember when I was watching one of her videos, and she brought up the city elf origin story in Dragon Age, I had this sort of knee-jerk reaction: “but I liked that story.” Besides, I still remember how pathetically grateful I was when I first picked up Baldur’s Gate and was able to, you know, create a character for myself to play who was a woman, so it made me feel a little defensive of Bioware.
But then logic took over, and I moved on to “but whether or not the trope is sometimes used with varying degrees of effectiveness doesn’t mean that the story doesn’t thematically fit into the trope” and “relying on this trope for this story doesn’t mean Bioware never did anything right regarding gender.”
Unfortunately, most people I’ve seen trying to criticize her work on the Internet (even those who might seem to be doing so in good faith) never seem to move past those types of knee-jerk reactions to some detail and get to her actual points. They somehow manage to think they have invalidated her entire argument. And I think some are derailing on purpose, while others are simply clueless. But either way, they aren’t bringing up points that are really pertinent or worthy of discussion (not to mention that they all raise the same four or five points, ad infinitum—like the tired Hitman argument so well-refuted here by indifferentsky and Mike). So I suppose all of this is by way of repeating that I understand why no one wants to engage with them.
As an aside, WRT mansplaining and whitesplaining I feel that the mansplainer/whitesplainer is talking AT me rather than TO me. A small distinction, but it seems important.
PI
thats a big part of the problem – white men say, “I dont see it, it doesnt happen to me, therefore discrimination doesn’t exist anymore.”
Nevermind that the experienced of women / people of color / LGBTQ people AND official data analysis AND myriad scientific studies prove that, say, roughly 50 years of voting rights for black people doesnt erase racism instantly.
Yeah…it always feels like they’re just typing to read their own words, and not really paying any attention to anything that’s being said in reply.
@Sarah
It’s more like talking DOWN, like they have to explain things to a child that doesn’t get it because they think we’re dumb.
@Our visiting professional writer who is oh-so-concerned with the misuse of words
The OED identifies the chief uses of the suffix -ism as
From “-ism, suffix.” OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 20 November 2014, quoted in full at http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/209392/what-is-the-history-and-meaning-of-the-suffix-ism.
All of this suggests systemic characteristics of collectives, lending far more support to the power+prejudice theory than the some-mean-women-hate-men theory.
Quoth the sealion…
Four parts? That will be at least three too many. Why don’t they just admit they have NOTHING? Because it’s painfully clear just from reading the summaries posted here that it’s not gonna be worth watching even in its completed form, whenever that may be.
And, rough cut or not, I can’t bring myself to watch this because it will be half an hour and change that I will never get back. And I’d rather still have an appetite for my supper, kthx.
More and more, it’s looking like Davis Aurini is either a film-school dropout (probably couldn’t bear to work under a feeeemale instructor) or a flunkee (which I’d surmise is the case, given how bad-amateurish just the descriptions alone are making him sound.) The man can’t put anything together without tripping over his own damn scrotum. They want $15,000 a month…for this? Money can’t buy professionalism, buckos.
Four parts or one (or preferably, none), this is going to be a turkey. And, unlike Plan 9 From Outer Space, it won’t be a cult favorite for being so bad it’s weirdly good.
because white men are raised their entire lives to believe they are supposed to be the Boss, because they are superior. Our kids cartoons could have women and maybe a person of color in them, but only if at least one white man is the leader, and that is still the formula.
Sorry if I made anyone angry. Wasn’t even trying. I never said anything that happened to me was equal to or even greater than anyone’s lifetime of unfair treatment and oppression. Why would I?
I’ve heard the “mansplaining” term before a few times but have only had it directed at me once (I guess twice, now). “Whitesplaining”? That’s a new one for me. I sincerely swear, I wasn’t trying to tell anyone they’re wrong in their beliefs, I was simply wanting to better explain myself. That’s all.
Please stop yelling at me. I promise, there’s no malicious intent in my words. I have thoughts on a subject. You and others have different thoughts on that same subject. I don’t feel like we have to collectively agree or disagree on this issue. As I said before, I’m perfectly happy with agreeing to disagree. I really meant it.
It feels (at least to me) like I’m getting a fallacy of relative privation and while I don’t particularly care for that (I prefer not to practice such things in discussions), to each their own.
Again, I’m sorry for sharing and I’m sorry for upsetting folks. That’s not my bag. Now can we please move on and get back to talking about what really matters, this absurd, bullshit documentary?
@John Pavlich
You don’t get to “agree to disagree” because you are literally going against science with what you considered sexism. It’s like calling a child growing up “evolution”. Read up on social sciences before you start misusing terms.
I find it so annoying when mansplainers claim that not calling their experiences “sexism” is downplaying or dismissing their experience.
They’re obviously parroting words they hear from others without giving them the necessary thought.
But what really gets me is they are in fact downplaying and dismissing everyone elses’s experiences by conflating an isolated, unrelated incident with the result of a whole system of violence.
I find it interesting though, how they so desperately need to define their alleged experiences as racism and sexism.
It’s like they came in crying “WHAT? There’s THIS ONE type of violence WOMEN experience and they say I don’t? THE HELL I DON’T!! Let me mansplain…”
They just can’t seem to get over the fact that they cannot be victims of a certain specific form of violence.
And they can’t because that violence “belongs” to “lesser people” according to their sexist, racist worldview, therefore it’s the Mansplainer’s right to rearrange the terms in such a way that doesn’t hurt their feeling.
They can kindly fuck off, I don’t think the first one was here in good faith to begin with, what with mixing “black people can’t be racist” with “there is no racism against white people”.
Almost like he was looking for a reason to cry us male tears.
Ah, gotcha. we were just talking about slightly different things. (I too wish it were possible to seriously discus the pros and cons of her videos without it turning into a huge Thing.)
I felt the same way one time when she mentioned Bioshock Infinite. It’s really easy to get hung up on “That can’t be right, I liked that game!” and lose track of the fact that it’s only one small element of a big franchise and she’s not criticizing the whole damn thing.
@John
Thanks for the apology.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here use the fallacy of relative privation. Nobody’s Dear Muslima-ing you and claiming prejudice doesn’t matter because its not as bad as racism or sexism.
Again, I ask: why is it so important to label your experiences as sexism rather than prejudice? If you’re not trying to claim that they were of ‘equal or greater harm’, then what’s the problem with using language that clearly distinguishes between two different things?
Also, it’s easy to ‘agree to disagree’ when you’re on top of the fucking heap. The conflation of prejudice with sexism/racism contributes to continuation of sexism and racism. People subject to systemic oppression tend to get a bit cranky about that.
John, we’re not angry, we’re tired of people trying to explain away the things we go through and try to say that the minor injustices they’ve faced every so often are the same thing as what we go through every day.
Though, I’m personally a little miffed that you tried to turn this around and claim I (and others) were trying to say your experiences weren’t valid because we said it wasn’t sexism/racism, when I pointed it out that your experiences don’t count as sexism/racism.
However, this isn’t a “fallacy of relative privation”. This is us going “Your experiences with prejudice and/or discrimination are not equal to sexism and racism.”
It’s not just “Our problems are bigger than yours in this area!” It’s “Your problems don’t fit into the same category as ours, but are still bad.”
I don’t mind that you shared, I minded that you tried to conflate your few experiences with being discriminated against with years of systematic oppression, and then tried to insist that’s what they are with a side of guilt-tripping. Intention isn’t magical dude.
However, you seem like you’re sincerely sorry (sort of, you’re still trying to paint this as a matter of differing opinions when it’s really not), and you’ve been posting here in good faith, so I’m willing to drop it. Let’s not do this again.
Some guys are so used to getting everything that they get mad when other people have anything they don’t. Including bad things.
It’s like when white boys insist that “creepy” is a slur as bad as the N-word. “How come you get slurs so nasty no one is allowed to say them and I don’t? I want a slur too!”
@Paradoxical
I don’t even think he explained what his problems were. He just said he had incidents. Or did I miss something?
No, he just said he had incidents. Had he shared what those incidents were, I wouldn’t have minded, as long as he didn’t follow up with “See? Sexism/racism!”
@katz
I call it the how-come-not-everything-is-about-me syndrome.
“Privilege” pretty much sums it up, but then “privilege” is another of those words who upset the privileged…
@Everyone else
I see I late posted and John apologized, and I’m willing to drop it now if there’s no more doubling down.
Look, John… I’m going to keep this short because I understand that you’re still grieving for your mother, but here it goes anyway.
You think that you’re just asking us to validate your experiences, but you’re not; you’re also asking us to ignore our own. To put aside, to use myself as a random example here, thirty years of pushing through systemic misogyny, homophobia and ableism on a daily basis – including child abuse, rape and gay-bashings – because you just feel that “Reverse racism” and “Reverse sexism” are things, important things, facts be damned.
Yes, your experiences matter, and I’m truly sorry they happened. Prejudice and discrimination are never right, and you’re well within your rights to be upset by them. But your experiences aren’t the be-all and end-all and they don’t speak to any sort of overarching problem. Quite the contrary. There are over seven billion people out there, and if you’ve only had to deal with two or three unrelated incidents, then you’ve really had a pretty damn good run so far. That’s why you’re getting pushback.
Well, that and the passive-aggressive self-martyring. That’s never a good look. =P