CATFISH (2010) - no thread for this yet?

please make sure any and all Luna jokes are quality before posting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJfaz_w7-f8

really stoked on this-- be courteous abt spoilers please

ooo that looks good

release date is next weekend!

I know if I wait to see it I'm not going to enjoy it as much

I've been told that it is a completely fictitious ripoff of this article, despite it being marketed as a documentary of sorts.

i'm ok with it being fake. not reading that article though.

oh, looking at the URL i think I might have before? was there a thread on it?

I saw it last night and can't imagine how any part of it could've been fake. There are details you just wouldn't add if it were a fictional story. And while the big reveal isn't that surprising once you know to expect a reveal, there are so many layers to it that the movie is still gripping as a suspense thriller and fascinating as a psychological portrait.

I imagine the fact that it unfolds narratively is a big part of why some people suspect it of being a hoax: the filmmakers started making the movie before they knew what the movie would end up being about. But that doesn't seem that weird to me, since the filming did begin with a semi-interesting kernel, and the filmmakers seem like the kind of guys who just sit around filming each other for kicks.

Btw, trailer makes it seem like a horror movie or something, which it isn't at all.

And even when I say that it's "gripping as a suspense thriller," there's probably only about 15 minutes of the movie that really feels like what you'd imagine that phrase to suggest. But you're also a bit on edge and curious for longer than that.

Now: having read some of the objections to the truth of the film, I can see that the issue is not with what the filmmakers find -- which is assuredly not fabricated -- but with how surprising the reveal actually is to them, when they actually began to suspect the truth, etc. And to be honest, that does give me pause. But I don't know that it invalidates the film.

I'd love for more people to see this so I can talk about it spoilerishly.

there's speculation that the filmmakers kinda "knew" what they had on their hands when they started filming and maybe played some of it up (possibly around PLOTPOINTdiscovering the recording were false). which would mean that's it's true, but maybe like all documentaries it's hard to get distance from the filmmaker (esp when they're part of the story)?

the guy's naivete seems so fake (whether or not it ACTUALLY HAPPENED) even from the trailer, can't imagine how it feels plausible on screen.

why are all the critics saying "you'll never believe the final forty minutes" or when the SPOILERS (SPOILERS!!!) I've seen suggest that the final forty minutes pretty much sync up with every internet-romance horror story ever.

then again a lotta people loved when Super Size Me revealed eating a ton of fast food every day makes you sick

someone is gonna write a killer book called Pathological Behavior in the Age of the Internet and it's gonna be frightening + bizarre + awesome

you'll never believe what happened when we finally went to Nigeria to meet Prince Abakaliki

lol

why are all the critics saying "you'll never believe the final forty minutes" or when the SPOILERS (SPOILERS!!!) I've seen suggest that the final forty minutes pretty much sync up with every internet-romance horror story ever.

The Luna movie probably would have been more entertaining.

I am absolutely stunned that people really think this is a documentary. This isn't even well-acted!

The veracity (or lack thereof) of the film is def a part of its appeal, so it makes sense people would want to discuss whether or to what extent it's really a documentary.

there were people who believed in the Blair Witch Project (or pretended like *maybe it's true!* for the fun of it) and that was clearly lol-bogus.

This isn't even well-acted!

I haven't seen this yet, but tbh, that sounds like more of an endorsement to it being true.

uhhh so

i saw this movie and thought it was really really wonderful. exciting and well-made and of-the-moment, and with a kind of unobvious empathy. really wonderful.

my own perspective: it's clearly a real documentary, just what it seems, no "acting".

really underwhelmed and a little creeped out by this, and not in the way it was intended.

i have not seen this, though i have seen the trailer and know ~what happens~ (like it's hard to guess) and

a) i can't believe, just going on the events described, that it's not fake. YOU WOULD GOOGLE. at the very least! whether what they find is real or not, i don't know, but that coming as a shocker is some bs
b) if what they find is real, doesn't that make them total douches for exploiting it in this way? whether or not their reactions were real?

=> why i won't be seeing the full thing, because whatever is actually true, i don't feel like i want to give my money to this project.

super talented filmmakers (NY EXPORT OPUS JAZZ is maybe the best new thing I've seen this year)this isn't perfect, but it's very compelling.

*sort of vague spoiler?*
while the craft is definitely there, i don't think i like that they structure it around 'twists' or whatever--the best part is definitely post-twist, when it turns into a p remarkable character study

lex, i'm guessing you don't know exactly what happens (it's actually pretty believable and google wouldn't have solved most of it)

"'This isn't even well-acted!'

"I haven't seen this yet, but tbh, that sounds like more of an endorsement to it being true."

I didn't mean "they seem like amateurs who aren't acting -- I mean that even in the trailer, they are throwing in "best in my class at acting school" realism signifiers. You know?

just a general fyi:

the film was made by very cool, very smart NYC arthouse film dudes.

the trailer was made by brett ratner.

The trailer is hugely misleading.

SPOILER SPOILER ETCCCCC:

Regardless, what really bothered me about Catfish was the extensive filming of a mentally ill woman and the use of her "character" as a "plot twist," which they try to make us feel less queasy about through unconvincing it's-all-good aftertitles. And I found the first half pretty draggy, especially since the main dude was a huge drag to spend much time watching. (By the umpteenth appearance of Google Earth, we got the point.) Beyond anything else though, the obviousness really bothered me - like, really, we cant believe everything we see on the 'net? SHOCKER.

NY Esport: Opus Jazz looks really cool, though.

^^^simon h otm w/r/t why the premise of this film leaves a REALLY sour taste in the mouth, beyond is it real/fake (which is just duhhh for me). didn't she try to block it, too?

"lex, i'm guessing you don't know exactly what happens (it's actually pretty believable and google wouldn't have solved most of it)"

I don't think anyone's saying that the filmmakers knew "most of it", just that they clearly knew and would have known enough that the entire way they set up the film defies logic.

And I think the fact that they are pretending "they never knew what they were going to find out there" is just a way of trying to avoiding the accusations of exploiting this woman/her family. "We were just as shocked as everyone else that some people make fake Facebook accounts, but we just let the camera's roll!"

Yeah the "ignorance" and some of the stagings set off my (admittedly sensitive) BS detector.

no sign in sight of this being released here any time soon. really tempted to read spoilers

especially since the main dude was a huge drag to spend much time watching.

Lots of reviews I've read after seeing it have commented on how Nev and the filmmakers are annoying smug privileged NYC hipsters. Maybe I'm a hipster myself, but I didn't have this reaction, and I thought Nev was pretty charming if a bit callow.

SPOILER: All of her photos were from the neck up and at a downward angle because she was kinda fat.

love how the guys immediately respond with that "oh so Nev's Marlon Brando and I'm the best writer ever!" when people ask if the film is fake. To be fair, it does suggest they may well be the kind of narcissistic idiots who would chronicle one side of a web romance on film for months before googling the other.

The fourfour review of this was perfect.

http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/2010/09/catfishbullshit.html

Another thing I'd like to address: the first thing I heard about this movie was that it was a documentary produced by the guy who did Capturing the Friedmans and that it was best if you knew nothing about it before you saw it. Later, I happened to glance at a single-sentence synopsis: (POSSIBLE SPOILER) guy goes to Michigan to visit an 8-year-old girl he's met on MySpace. But I deliberately avoided reading anything else, and so that's all I knew about it going in. (Because of the inaccurate "MySpace" bit, I thought maybe it was a movie about a pedophile.)

While eagerly waiting for the movie to open, I wondered if I was a sucker for buying into the film's secretive marketing campaign. Because if I had decided to investigate the movie's background and reviews, there's a chance I wouldn't be as interested in it. Now that I've seen the movie, though, I'm really glad that I knew so little, since my opinions weren't colored by anyone else's. It bums me out that people are judging this movie on the trailer and their assumptions about what the movie is about. I'm not denying there may be ethical issues at play here, but I do think it's worth seeing first.

I read the fourfour review yesterday and thought Rich had some good points but was bummed out by his massive cynicism.

It's kinda fitting this movie would appeal most to the people who want to know the least coming in.

you might not end up enjoying Catfish, it's bullshit to pile on the movie before you've seen it.

as for whether or not it's "real" - felt real to me. sometimes that's enough.

SPOILERS

the extensive filming of a mentally ill woman and the use of her "character" as a "plot twist," which they try to make us feel less queasy about through unconvincing it's-all-good aftertitles.

maybe your viewing was coloured by the PR machine? i hadn't seen the trailer etc before going, and the "twist" didn't feel like a "twist" -- just like a corner turned in the film. certainly not the heart/essence of the movie; just what happened in it.

i think "mental illness" is a stretch and not material to the ethics of the film. i thought the film's last section was, at least in part, a sensitive, humane, partial character portrait of Angela. an honest, unusual view of this "kind" of person: the perspective of three dudes who stumble into her, and then negotiate that in two (or three) different ways.

I found the first half pretty draggy, especially since the main dude was a huge drag to spend much time watching. (By the umpteenth appearance of Google Earth, we got the point.)

Fair enough. I disagree!

Beyond anything else though, the obviousness really bothered me - like, really, we cant believe everything we see on the 'net? SHOCKER.

But the film really, really wasn't about this. It's like the filmmakers agreed with you, and so didn't dwell on the internet lies! angle. Instead, it just seemed like a film about the new kinds of relationships we have, mediated by the internet; and about the fact of strange people, who we encounter in new ways; and trying to deal with these strange situations in non-douchebag ways [and not necessarily succeeding]; and just about the fact of walking through the turns and corners that life sometimes gives you. in other words, durr, about life or something. not about "the internet". this sounds banal, but it gets to the heart of why i liked hte movie so much. like the best documentaries, its subject-matter seemed to gesture toward and extend past literal "topic".

for me the most important line of the film is when Henry says in the car, after they've arrived, "i don't want to hurt this family", and the conversation they have about that. this, besides the character judgments we all make with our own radar, is the biggest response to the cynical (wrong) AO Scott reading.

as for Fourfour's take - uh, i just don't see what he's seeing. Nev seems like a naive, pompous weirdo, that's all. one of the things i like about the film is that Nev sorta turns out looking the worst (dumb, self-absorbed, condescending) in the whole movie; and the filmmakers are ok with being an accessory to that.

"and trying to deal with these strange situations in non-douchebag ways"

Like filming them!

yes but: trying

it's hard shit to figure out, sometimes. and the film seems to accept they might not be making the right choices.

that all the subjects signed off on the film makes the ethics of the "filming" not v conflicted, to me.

Does the lady in the movie strike you as being mentally fit to sign a consent form, Sean?

Sure she does.

She does to me. Really, she mostly just seems lonely and depressed. She has an active fantasy life, but she's also very much aware that it's fantasy.

...and is also depicted as a pathological liar, even when confronted in person. Does that seem like average lonely-person behavior?

(IE cancer shit)

as for Fourfour's take - uh, i just don't see what he's seeing. Nev seems like a naive, pompous weirdo, that's all. one of the things i like about the film is that Nev sorta turns out looking the worst (dumb, self-absorbed, condescending) in the whole movie; and the filmmakers are ok with being an accessory to that.

First you say they had the best of intentions dealing with the family, then you say the filmmakers didn't mind being accessories to a "naive, pompous weirdo" as he engaged in a months-long internet relationship no one bothered to investigate. If the film crew were neither knowingly exploiting the internet abusers on the other side of the computer screen, or the filmmaker's idiot brother, then it really is amazing everyone involved hasn't lost their money to Prince Abakaliki yet.

hearing all the complaints about this movie dismissed as "cynical" is taking me back to the Lost finale.

What other people are calling cynical I see as common sense. Maybe that's just a sign of my coldhearted cynicism.

First you say they had the best of intentions dealing with the family, then you say the filmmakers didn't mind being accessories to a "naive, pompous weirdo" as he engaged in a months-long internet relationship no one bothered to investigate.

They're his friends!

Such a friendly thing to do.

Making movies about my friends where they come off badly is one of those all time classy things to do.

There's no way in hell that Henry and Rel would describe Nev as a "naive pompous weirdo," so y'all can stop arguing about it.

Sean mostly otm.

...and is also depicted as a pathological liar, even when confronted in person. Does that seem like average lonely-person behavior?

No, but nor does it seem like a disorder that would incapacitate someone from signing a release.

"I find my brother fascinating. I think he's wildly cinematic, so I film him all the time. He's wound so tightly — like a young DeNiro, every cell in his body reacts. When I point the camera at him, I don't know if he's going to talk to me or hit me. And I always have a camera on me." (Rel)

I thought he was like a young Brando...

^Actually, that whole interview is very useful:
http://www.7x7.com/arts/filmmakers-unravel-mystery-catfish

(Spoilers, obv.)

HJ: “We knew it seemed too good to be true, and when we started receiving the paintings, we suspected it was some kind of financial scam. But our suspicions were responded to in a very smart way. Whenever we began to question Angela’s stories, she volunteered answers without us having to ask. Plus, Nev was able to explain everything away. He wanted it to be true so badly that he overlooked any red flags that popped up.”

NS: “Angela sent us a check for $500, part of the prize money Abby won in an art contest. We told her it wasn’t necessary, but she insisted – she said we deserved a portion of the credit. So we stopped thinking it was a scam.”

is this mentioned in the movie?

I don't think so.

Another interview (and more SPOILERS, natch:

SR: The fact that you’re very technologically savvy, I think is another reason why people are very confused about this movie. “How could this possibly be real? Three technologically savvy guys like this, how could you let yourself get strung along for so long?” In retrospect, did you see these warning signs that made you think, “How did I get tricked?”

HJ: Well, I don’t think we would have known what to look for in the beginning. Because, Nev did Google a few things I think, but he didn’t find anything. It wasn’t until the songs [from the Vail, Colorado scene] – we decided to search lyrics for the song – and it was really just because we thought it was so good that we were like, “Maybe we should start a record label and sign these people. They’re amazing.” This has got to be a cover, or is this a poem? So we searched the lyrics and then that’s when it all started.

Also like, in the beginning, I can’t emphasize enough how background this was in our lives. We had a million other projects going on, and it was just this thing; and it was really Nev’s thing.

NS: And I really wasn’t sharing that much of it with them. For the most part, the e-mails that you see me reading and the phone calls that I have, that’s all that they saw. The depth of the interaction and the extent of it was much more personal for me. And now of course for me looking back, it seems ridiculous that I was strung along for as long as I was. And it’s been a great lesson in sort of understanding why you allow yourself to, or convince yourself of something that you want — and the power of flattery and the fantasy and the escape element in all of us, in that we want something that doesn’t make sense or is unobtainable.

SR: That’s interesting, because I was wondering as I was watching this movie, “Here’s this good looking guy in New York City. He’s very personable. There’s probably two million women in New York City that he could potentially have romantic relationships with.”

AS: Wow.

[Laughter]

SR: Well, not two million, I mean, he’s not Wilt Chamberlain.

[Laughter ]

SR: But there’s options, you know? And yet there’s this woman that purely exists in cyberspace in Ishpheming, Michigan – and I’m from Michigan, so I know the U.P. man, and there’s nothing going on up there – and I just think, “What draws you to this online relationship?”

NS: I think you’re right, I am very good looking.

[Laughter]

NS: No, no, I’m totally joking. No, you’re right, I had been living in New York City as an eligible young guy and had dated girls and had some good and some bad relationships, as everyone does, but for the most part I guess I was at a point in my life where I felt like, okay, I’d like to get to the next level with a woman. I’d like to feel a really deep connection with someone, as I think everybody does, and I hadn’t found that in New York City. And so, when something came along that was so different and so unusual that I thought, “Maybe that’s why. Maybe I haven’t been looking in the right place.” Maybe there’s something so organic and genuine about this family that it will sort of take me out of this world that hasn’t worked, in regards specifically to the perfect girl, and I’ll find it somewhere else where I would least expect. And that does seem to be the appeal of long-distance relationships I think.

Too bad they (apparently) left this soul-searching and acknowledgment of initial skepticism out of the damn movie

Did you see the damn movie?

am I wrong to trust you?

And I haven't seen the movie because it sounds (depending on how much you believe) like faux-idiocy, the exploitation of idiocy, or across-the-board idiocy. And none of the things people claim ARE in the movie sound that interesting in and of themselves.

These interviews make it pretty clear that they didn't really do a whole lot of filming in the early stages and that much of Nev's relationship with Megan wasn't even privy to Rel and Henry. Given the way they chose to structure the film -- as an as-it-happens narrative -- it's not surprising that that stuff got left out. Perhaps if they'd decided to do a conventional talking-head documentary (they admit to having considered this seriously enough to have actually shot interview footage), those concerns would've been more foregrounded.

Whether they had good reason to create a narrative that makes them look stupider than they now claim to be (and again, I'm trusting your memory that they didn't acknowledge any initial skepticism on their part or the details that stifled it), that still sounds like "faux-idiotic" to me.

why are we arguing about this if you haven't seen the film?

CP: How much footage did you shoot?

ARIEL: Over 200 hours, most of it taking place in the last week [when we were in Michigan]. The first eight months, like I said, were just background. We had no idea we had such a complex story. So, maybe just an hour, two hours from the first months and then more than 200 from the last week.

because I'm curious why people liked it despite the crappy qualities that seem self-evident.

xpost

AVC: Would you have assembled it any differently if you had known that it would be questioned? Is there anything more you would have put in, or set up, or left out?

AS: That’s a good question.

HJ: That is a good question. [Pause.]

NS: Well, you guys at one point did shoot interviews, and started editing it like a documentary that you would expect, the talking heads and stuff. That was their initial instinct.

HJ: I think we had a cut, that if people saw it, no one would question the validity of it, but it wasn’t as good of a movie.

Well I suppose that's slightly less ridiculous to say than "we had a cut that was better than what you saw, but no one would believe it."

"We had a finale written that explained all the questions we raised in Lost, but it wasn't as good as having everybody hug in heaven."

AVC: You said in another piece that Angela told you Abby won a painting award, and wanted to send you some of the money as a thank you for your advice. And you said no, but she sent you $500. Henry said he couldn’t believe that didn’t go into the film. Why didn’t it?

HJ: We really went back and forth about that, about whether we should put it in the film, and ultimately it just sort of fell into this bin of things that are much more interesting after you’ve seen the movie. Because in the beginning of the relationship, it’s like “Okay, whatever,” but after you’ve seen the film, there’s all these things from the beginning that are totally fascinating, and we felt like it shouldn’t be one of those movies where it goes back and forth in time too much, and that we really just needed to get quickly to the real climax of their online relationship, which was falling in love. So we had to kind of cut a lot of things, details like that from the beginning.

I guess if your big reveal is 'People Lie On The Internet' I guess it's unwise to admit you know it already.

uh but guy, listen, this "real vs fake" stuff isn't at the heart of the experience of the movie that they made. remember? the one you'd uh see if you uh saw the movie?

it's perfectly easy to understand how a talking-head cut of this movie, where "no one would question the validity...", might not be nearly as good as the thing they made.

I guess if your big reveal is 'People Lie On The Internet'

THIS IS NOT "THE BIG REVEAL".

ARGUABLE, THERE IS NO "BIG REVEAL" IN THIS MOVIE, DESPITE WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD.

i mean there's a moment where you get some answers, but it's not (again!) what the film hinges on. except if i guess uh you believe the Universal marketing campaign?

eg the title, the mysterious CATFISH, has nothing the fuck to do with "the truth that is discovered!!!" but instead about understanding/interpreting the thing that life has offered up

argh why am i getting lured into this argument

i dunno, I might be too cynical to enjoy what you're calling the "heart of the experience of the movie", which seems to be faux-idiots accepting they've been swindled by mentally troubled people or something.

and sean, while I agree there's no big reveal in the movie (in the sense that it sounds twistless and obvious, with only the specific details of What's Behind The Curtain being up for grabs), the film was obv designed to be one for some people, or else it wouldn't be advertised as such. You just got some warm feelings from the film despite it's lack.

I think there's definitely a reveal of sorts, but it should surprise no one, and it's not what makes the movie worthwhile, even if it does lend the movie some dramatic excitement.

did you guys like Me & You & Everyone We Know? It sounds kinda similar "heart of the experience"-wise.

the film was obv designed to be one for some people, or else it wouldn't be advertised as such.

Again, this is why I'm really glad I never saw any of the advertising for the movie.

SR: It sounds sort of melodramatic to talk about it in those terms, but when you’re watching the movie you get a sense that there’s real danger afoot, and I think that’s what’s so appealing, or at least it’s one of the things that appealed to me. It’s also something that I think is a point of contention, though, because the marketing for this movie – I don’t know how much you guys have been involved…

HJ: Very, very little.

AS: More than zero, but…

SR: Because you look at the poster that says “Don’t tell anyone what it is.” Obviously there’s a big twist and there’s a reveal that comes out during the course of the movie.

NS: When we saw the marketing strategy, we were definitely shocked. And I, at least for me, I was upset. I didn’t like the idea of this story, this thing that happened to me, being sensationalized. It felt like there was enough of an experience that people would see it and have a reaction. And I didn’t want to mislead them into seeing it for some other reason. But what I started to understand is that it’s hard to get people to spend hard-earned money to see something instead of something else if they don’t have any reason to. And you can’t just tell someone, “See it, it’s good.”

So, they came up with a campaign that’s striking, and kind of alarming in some ways, and very intriguing. It highlighted one aspect of the film, there are many other aspects of the film. You know, they’re trying to put people in the theater. So, if it gets people into the theater…for the most part what’s been so rewarding is that very few people have come out upset that it wasn’t some scary Blair Witch Project 3. They are actually in fact moved and kind of happy because they were expecting a movie like many others that they’ve seen, and in fact they’re getting something totally new and very emotional, and their reactions to it have been really amazing.

did you guys like Me & You & Everyone We Know? It sounds kinda similar "heart of the experience"-wise.

Not really, it was too cloying.

Actually, I just looked up to see what I said about Me and You at the time: I thought it was "sweet and funny" but found Miranda July's character annoying and felt like it didn't really leave me with anything.

what's up with the wes anderson font in the trailer

You mean the Vampire Weekend font?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futura_%28typeface%29

Oh man, is that what Futura is known as now? That's depressing.

Or maybe I just think it's depressing because this movie was a bummer & I have leftover mood. These guys were as *nice* as possible at forcing a middle-aged liar with a tough life and overactive/unoriginal imagination to tell the truth, but why? Why do that? When it was so obvious she was lying, why force a confessional? (The cynical part of me says "for an extra 20 minutes to make it into a feature length film.") The whole thing left me feeling uneasy and sad.

i saw this and maybe it was just me or the weekend i saw it or this particular time in my life but i LOVED this movie

sure
* it would have been kinder to NOT make this movie and
* this woman is going through some HARD TIMES, but

seeing her, and how she continued to carry on with the "megan's in rehab" ruse, makes me think that she didn't mind the idea of being in this movie.

i didn't get the feeling (strong or weak) that she was being horribly exploited at all

however:

* really? that guy fell for "megan", a person completely devoid of actual personality and prone to using "babe" all the time? really?
* that said, some people like drama, and i wouldn't underestimate nev's need for a little drama (lest we judge angela for the same thing)

also i didn't find her "mentally ill" at all

she seemed like a woman with a LOT of mental energy who has never, in her life, found somewhere appropriate to put it
some people simplify this by saying that people like angela have "an overactive imagination" but that's insulting too. she seems to have gone over the edge that most of us see and back away from. maybe she has never been otherwise engaged; i don't know anything about her history at all.

i'm not saying she's faultless, just that she's not mentally ill or a total monster weirdo.

ok, she is a total weirdo, i'll give you that

I just saw this tonight and I have never felt so ashamed, awful and depressed after watching a movie. Sorry if this comes off as rather pious but I think there should be a way to warn people who still have any shred of compassion left for other human beings that they should not contribute to this exercise by spending time and money on watching it. It's not merely a matter of being a good or bad movie - it is obviously a fascinating story, but trades so heavily on the genuine misery of others in order to create its effect that I am shocked anyone could "enjoy" it.

In my opinion at least, the woman is *clearly* mentally ill, deeply frustrated and severely depressed, hating herself to the point of imagining herself out of her own life. The film needs for her actions to be extreme in order to justify the (genuinely suspenseful, but still...) middle section but the lengths to which she goes only reflect the depths of her sadness. It left a really nasty taste in my mouth.

See also: that horrible Dear Zachary movie

Don't sully Dear Zachary in the name of slagging off this crappy movie.

lol

i'm not going to defend this movie anymore because tbh i don't really like it all that much (tho i certainly like some parts of it), but it's certainly better than dear zachary

I love Dear Zachary. The things that make it amateurish and obvious are what endear it to me.

You "love" Dear Zachary?

I do!

re:Catfish - the way the movie framed "desperate delusional homely Midwestern amateur painter with mentally disabled children" against "puppyishly handsome photographer/filmmakers from Manhattan" was also pretty grim.

xp - hooray!

re:Catfish - the way the movie framed "desperate delusional homely Midwestern amateur painter with mentally disabled children" against "puppyishly handsome photographer/filmmakers from Manhattan" was also pretty grim.

i can see where you're coming from, but i think this is a kneejerk criticism
what makes you think she's "mentally ill" as opposed to just "desperate delusional etc" ?
i don't think anyone ends up looking good or virtuous in this movie, and that's part of why i like it

i agree that the focus on the twins was a bit much

How on earth is that a "kneejerk criticism"? The film is about a woman with terrible self-image problems, unfulfilled artistic ambitions and a difficult family life being "exposed" by comparatively successful good-looking young urbanites who seem to have little regard for what it feels like to negotiate any real emotional hardship. I have no idea how you can watch the film and get around that.

I don't think there's any difference between being "mentally ill", depressed and delusional. I actually got an icky feeling that maybe the twins were almost being used to suggest that to be truly ill you have to be staring into space and smacking yourself on the head. Angela doesn't need to be speaking in tongues or stroking kitchen knives to be sick. Depression is a reality for millions of everyday people and she is just one of these, not a "character" in a "movie" as I suspect many people who enjoyed Catfish would like her to be. She was simply unfortunate enough to end up communicating with people like the nefarious and callous Schulman brothers.

"i don't think anyone ends up looking good or virtuous in this movie, and that's part of why i like it"
That's cool but if this is true I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm one of these weirdos that chooses not to spend time with people whom I find unpleasant or whose problems are none of my business.

hey, i'm sorry that sounded so heated. it was really late and i was a little drnuk

what i meant was this:

* i find the whole "angela is being victimized by these repulsive hipsters" argument kind of simple. she did not need to agree to be in this movie, and aside from the focus on the twins and the fact that it exists at all, i think it was pretty humane in its treatment of her.

* the fact that i like this movie is based less on the meta aspects and more of an interest in what people do to adapt to unpleasant or undesirable conditions. it's not about being "my business" or whatever, although i appreciate that anyone is allowing me to see this side of themselves. i'm not at all playing her suffering for larfs or enjoying it; i'm just interested in it. i don't think that makes me a weirdo either. and if i'm a weirdo, i guess i have to live with that.

I'd love for more people to see this so I can talk about it spoilerishly.

― jaymc, Sunday, September 26, 2010 5:29 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark

spoilerishly is a nice word

my friend knows this guy, in the movie. he's hot.

like, real hot.

hey that is my name

really!!? nice

i hope you do not mind my using it

it is a little weird, esp in this thread

but it's not mine alone, so hey whatever

I'm actually really surprised Adam saw this movie.

I needed a break from work, Sarah chose and it was that or the Social Network. The only other movie I have seen in a popcorn theater this year (I think!) was Scott Pilgrim, which suffice to say, was not perfect but better than Catfish.

the social network is very good. you probably should have seen that.

i am 3/4 of the way through this and waiting for the rest of it to load but:

- imo the exploitation can run both ways: this isn't a simple case of two ppl striking up an online friendship and then one of those ppl putting forth a persona different from their irl persona... i mean, creating what is practically a cast of characters is pretty creepy. 'megan' mined a lot of personal info from nev by playing that character. that seems pretty exploitative to me.

- angela is definitely delusional; i feel like most ppl perpetuating such a scam would have slammed the door in the faces of those two guys and denied everything, but she just went with it, as if there wasn't really any question that she may have misled them. she really doesn't seem worried about being 'outed'.

- stories like this do bum me out but for different reasons than others on this thread: online relationships have such a stigma attached to them already, and since that's how i met my husband i feel pretty sensitive to the issue (esp. bc so many ppl assumed he was almost certainly some breed of scam artist/axe murderer/sociopath). plenty of ppl get scammed by other ppl they ~didn't~ meet online.

i actually do admire how gentle he was with how he confronted her, but it seemed to make her feel like what she had done was inconsequential... she almost seems to think the whole thing is funny, she doesn't seem particularly embarrassed.

yeah these guys were totally gentle and very fair about the whole thing. don't know where adam is coming from on this one.

dude really? you don't see how this is at all at least a little weird? this is a 'gentle and fair' doc? fuck this movie.

i totally sympathize with this woman - i mean, obv her life is extremely tough but.... she did actually choose the circumstances she is in, to a certain degree. those two boys aren't her biological children, and it was clear the situation she was getting into when she hooked up with vince.

by the end of the film, i definitely got a clear sense that she was pretty happy to be in it - there wasn't any hesitation on her part.

yeah, if you take it at face value, this movie was totally off. nev and his friends should have turned round and gone back home after they'd 'confronted' angela and discovered the truth. as if they should have even confronted her at all: only reason they did was they had a vested interest in the form of their movie. and then when they do get to the bottom of it all they stick around for a few days, confront her 8/9 year old daughter and her friend for a confession etc just so they can flesh out the details, logistics and motivations of the whole charade.

see, i just don't see anything inherently immoral about that: they're filmmakers, looking for a break; they get a whiff that this might be ~something~; they pursue it; it ~is~ something. of course they had a vested interest.

I think ultimately why I didn't like this movie is it features pretty heavily a compulsive liar, and lying like crazy like that is something I've never once been able to handle in a person. It has always made me nuts. Like she was pretty much of a decent lady until she starts saying stuff like "this might be the last time you see my hair because I have uterine cancer." Argh! Why? Why say that if it isn't true? That's a pretty big lie.

is this available on dvd or on demand yet?

"I think ultimately why I didn't like this movie is it features pretty heavily a compulsive liar..."

and that's not counting the filmmakers!

i have encountered so many compulsive liars that at this point, i find them sort of fascinating. they're always so calm. i've had several as students and you would not believe the stuff they tried to get me to believe, stuff i could confirm was patently false. stuff they refused to back away from even when i confronted them about it. it's a real life-coping strategy, albeit a totally pathological one.

as if they should have even confronted her at all: only reason they did was they had a vested interest in the form of their movie.

well, that and the fact that this woman deceived one of them for almost a year.

sometimes you just have to write it off as a bad debt tho, I understand why they drove all that way (putting aside the issue that they now had a film to complete) but I thought it was a bit much when they hung out as long as they did.

i think aimee gonzalez has a real right to be angry here; not only was her life mined by angela, but nev & co exploited her too. she had nothing to do with this whole charade, yet we all know her face. that would piss me off something fierce.

Didn't she show up at Sundance?

if she did, maybe she's trying to make the best of a bad situation or sthg -- she was an aspiring model, right?

she is a model who thanked in the credits and presumably interviewed.

"I am a part of that new movie that just came out called "Catfish" if you haven't seen it I highly recommend it!"

*who was

just thinking about nev rolling around in his bed and giggling about his stupid sexy texts to/from megan/angela/aimee
gah, that's embarrassing for everyone involved

this sort of thing is not up my alley for the reasons admrl gets into. kinda reminds me of this la weekly story, actually (in which a vv disturbed woman does something admittedly pretty awful and gets hardsonned by a hollywood screenwriter and his friends in a manner that causes them to lose the moral high ground.)

i suppose the thing is that this woman could (should?) have continued to live her life anonymously and without being known as this crazy person by everyone who goes to see this movie. now the filmmakers can go out and give interviews and shake their heads and just talk "sensitively" about this subject and this woman, whose entire life is now defined by her (what i believe to be) mental illness as portrayed on film. it kinda weirds me out to say the least, tbh.

I met Luna back in the nascent days of the Internet, when we were both on ILX, regular contributors to a message board devoted to bickering.

i dunno, she really seemed into the idea of being part of the movie. my only problem with this film is: she has a daughter who is now 11 or 12, and it's her who will really pay the price. imo they should never have named the town that family lives in, or revealed their surnames.

this movie was buuuuuuuuullllllllllssssshhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttt

lol

some people don't like internet fakery exposed

If someone made a documentary every time this happened, how many Catfishes would we have? 10,000s? 100,000s?

hey y'all should track down FORBIDDEN LIE$. But don't read a synopsis beforehand.

(i don't think it inspired Ke$ha but who knows)

really weird that they try to pass this off as a documentary. agree with a lot of the crit above but still found it compelling.

ctrl + f "tramp stamp"

otm. thread = failure.

it's not like I don't understand why this is, but it's weird to me that people can suspend so much disbelief to become emotionally involved in fictional movies, but when it comes to documentaries, it's all about what's real or not real, with no willingness to suspend disbelief at all

like you're willing to trick yourself into believing that something that's blatantly false is true, but not that something that's purportedly true is true

The filmmakers kind of brought that upon themselves, iirc. They'd been better served leaving the question open.

the filmmakers explanation of events is totally reasonable

Reasonable does not = 100% true.

question about the movie:

(SPOILERS)

When they're receiving songs from Megan, there's a bit that really confused me. They start by requesting songs for her to cover, which she does in like 20 mins then sends to them. So they receive Tenessee Stud or whatever, hurray. Then they get the second one (downfall?) and they start acting surprised that it's a cover? So did they not request that as a song they already knew? They quickly go on to google the lyrics (why?) and find out it's not only a cover but just a mp3 of someone else performing it, but there's definitely a bit in between where they seem put out that it's a cover, not an original song. This didn't make sense to me? weren't they requesting it by title?

Tennessee Stud they requested

the other ones I think were just posted on her Myspace profile or something, as examples of her music

watched this last night, didn't like it much - mostly down to the main guy being one majorly unlikeable smarmy tosspot

first 20 mins seemed superfake too, like once they realised this woman was a fraud they went back and recreated all those early scenes. all v mean-spirited too, like "lets track this bitch down and humiliate her!" which soon became this heartfelt tale of forgiveness and honesty that really didn't ring true.

they're filmmakers, looking for a break; they get a whiff that this might be ~something~; they pursue it

this is part of the problem for me, how they pursued it with such naked greedy ambition - their only concern is getting this film - their big break - made, couldn't give a fuck about damaging this family. classy move to quiz an 8 yr old girl about her family, nice work trustafarian twats

oh and the comments on the fourfour blog are full of people saying how nev punched a girl in the face at school and only got expelled after student uproar (his mum was on the board). obviously not nice to repeat unfounded internet rumour but hey, not exactly dealing with the most considerate guys in town so screw it

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/04/catfish-doc-inspires-new-mtv-reality-series/?hpt=Sbin

anyone see this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO05RfHO_4s

http://i.imgur.com/i5Gqy.png

...didn't like it much - mostly down to the main guy being one majorly unlikeable smarmy tosspot

first 20 mins seemed superfake too, like once they realised this woman was a fraud they went back and recreated all those early scenes. all v mean-spirited too, like "lets track this bitch down and humiliate her!" which soon became this heartfelt tale of forgiveness and honesty that really didn't ring true.

NI otm

This may well be the worst 'documentary' I have ever seen. I am shocked that anyone likes it. It's a piece of crap no matter what way you look at it. If it's real, which it isn't, then it's a sickening exercise in exploiting a disturbed person for a cheap dramatic 'twist'. And if it's fake, which it is, then it has no merit as a work of fiction, being artless, crude, tedious, and containing no real insight into anything.

well i loved it!

i enjoyed it too. though i didn't know the big twist, the "don't learn anything before you see it stuff" had me second-guessing everthing so much that the big twist was no twist.

the marketing was p stupid in retrospect but also prob more succesful than any other strategy they could have used.

also lol @ documentary in exploitation shocker

some people don't like internet fakery exposed

― buzza, Friday, October 22, 2010

also lol @ documentary in exploitation shocker
this topic interests me, esp wrt verite

is there a general rolling documentary thread?

thought this one was more crassly exploitative than most, and that the self-obsessed "star" documentarians were repulsive jerks

did enjoy watching it all unfold though

agreed.

is there a general rolling documentary thread?

RIP Tape Store.

The 2010 documentary film "Catfish" becomes an MTV reality show on Nov. 12 with "Catfish: The TV Show."

In the movie, filmmaker Yaniv “Nev” Schulman documented his own trip to meet his online crush; in the TV series, he and Max Joseph train their cameras on other people who meet in person for the first time after falling in love online.

"This is not a gotcha show," promised Chris Linn, MTV head of programming.

"It's been a really positive experience for the people we shot and if they're not pleased, we're prepared to deal with that," said executive producer Tom Forman.

Schulman and Joseph are not aware of whether the folks who are about to meet will be pleased or if one is lying about his or her appearance.

"I do not want to know anything because I stink at acting," Schulman said. "If you want proof 'Catfish' was real, put me in an audition room and watch me fall apart. I can't pretend; I'm really bad at it. ... We're discovering as it happens to us. We're telling a documentary in narrative form."

"We've also run into love stories," Forman said. "These are not all stories of deception."

One critic asked, smartly, why people who meet online don't just Skype with one another before meeting in person.

"If you leave Los Angeles and New York City, you don’t find people with high speed Internet connections and laptops with webcams as hard as that is to believe, I'm seeing it," Schulman said. "Or if Skype is an option, they find a way to avoid using it because they are hiding their identity in some way."

Schulman's dismissal of flyover country as Skype-less did not go over well with critics (he later apologized). But based on clips, it looks like "Catfish" may focus on people in lower economic classes where access to such technology is not as widespread.

"I do not want to know anything because I stink at acting," Schulman said. "If you want proof 'Catfish' was real, put me in an audition room and watch me fall apart. I can't pretend; I'm really bad at it. ... We're discovering as it happens to us. We're telling a documentary in narrative form."

#notmarlonbrando

will watch

marlon rando

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=562JYytqPas

man this tv show

dish

it's really fucking good imo

i like it too. smart pickup by mtv in the hip hop squares era

although i was thinking it might be better as a half hour show that cuts out the part where they reverse google image search the guy and skip to the coming clean

i saw it too -- and i also thought it was pretty good! at least the one episode i saw -- a sweet and very gullible exotic dancer thought that her beau was going to marry her and also had a hot body, but it turns out he is chubby, has 4 kids, and is living with his brother. they turned out to be friends though, and were extremely civil to each other. no jerry springer theatrics at all. they broke the news to her gently and did all of the research she should have done before she committed herself emotionally to being in a relationship. it was borderline educational!

I am addicted to this show.

i passively watched one with my wife and yeah, i'm scared i'm going to keep up. i can't decide if the hosts are idiots or creeps or both. definitely curious about some of the detail fudging (esp when nev is calling to set up a meeting instead of the people who've been talking for a year?) but when a woman went out to meet a dude turned out to be a romantic rival in a slinky dress, who then said "why do we do what we do?" when asked for her motive? hard to resist.

should be "to meet a dude who turned out"

i can't decide if the hosts are idiots or creeps or both.

I agree, they are probably the weak link in the program. My heart did break for the 600 pound dude who had been chatting with a girl for over 10 years online but had been afraid to show her recent pictures in case she rejected him. She was definitely disgusted with him and did reject him, but tried covering it up in a very unconvincing manner.

yeah i mean the best moments are just the solitary instants when theyre finally standing around outside w/e rundown house & theres the .001% chance something crazy and dramatic will happen and we think it might, really, but of course its usu just someone ashamed of their body & generally insecure

well there's the one where the girl had created two fake profiles just to exact revenge on another girl who had once been involved w/ her boyfriend

i know, that girl is prob the 1 that i felt the worst for

The last episode was pretty heartwarming! I needed something that gave me some hope for humanity after the last week or so.

this TV show is on some shit

the hosts are such fucking assholes but the subject matter is so good that its still worth watching

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suuM0Pk9lOo

i burned through all 10 episodes in three days

god in episode 10 when the two dudes meet its like several glorious and uninterrupted minutes with zero Nev/Max at all. the whole show should be like that. '

Nev and Max should be incarcerated and this show should be cut from 60mins down to 30 and be hosted by Chris Hansen.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2013/04/12-1/akb48-dating-scam-bilked-fans-out-of-2-million

The Bow Wow episode of this show is basically the most tense hour of TV all year. This show is psychotically compelling

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2014/05/14/mtvs-catfish-isnt-just-fun-and-mind-games-anymore

Stay tuned if you’d like to have your faith in humanity shattered and/or restored.

I think I can handle this show again.

http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/catfishs-nev-schulman-punched-a-girl-in-college.html

Ken Schneck, the former Sarah Lawrence administrator, added, "All I can say on the record, as the former Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, is that he was a condescending, entitled, reprehensible tool. :)"

Because he was in another student’s MFA dance project, Schulman was allowed to return to campus for the performance, but was not allowed back to complete his degree, according to three students.

angel haze shd be on this show permanently

there are too often like giant unasked questions of the person they're helping, like last ep the girl being "catfished" was like oh they were so supportive of me during my MISCARRIAGE……this internet person whom the girl had never met irl and considered herself to be in a real relationship w/??.……and it never was questioned at all

idk maybe i shd stop watching entertainment meant for tweens

you should not stop, catfish is unapologetically amazing

it is entertaining/infuriating for sure, just 20 yr olds making excuses for terrible decisions + behavior

"she said she was having an operation the same day as my midterms"

and she said she wanted you to come to the hospital?

"yes" (text shown on screen of I want u to be there im scared or w/e)

Q never asked in any form - did you just ask her which hospital

"so I called every hospital in the area & there was no one by that name, etc etc and I didn't take my midterms and had to drop out of school" O_O

you can't expect all people to have the same ability to navigate through life's challenges
that's why i feel so sad when i watch this show. people want to believe so badly.

Stopped watching when guests got to join nev on his umpteenth trip to ask someone clearly troubled why they were exploiting someone for emotional support and then goad the two into interacting for the cameras, just not the same without max

did max's EDM movie come out yet

in 2 weeks

i wonder if i ever would have gotten into this show if the first one i saw didn't involve the catfisher being a romantic nemesis throwing a single rose down at the catfished. that was a good doorway in.

my second favorite moment was probably when nev threw a catfisher's cellphone in the sea.

funny re-reading my posts about the first movie (which i'll probably never see). def seems now that nev is pretty clueless - from what i hear he's left out of a lot of the decision making and is almost like a willing participant in his own Truman Show, pushed along on adventures by producers. Max's motivations seem a little more ambiguous.

Max is a legit terrible person

speaking of people who really want to believe, i just watched the ep with Lauren (TX single mom) and Dylan (Maryland bro) and can't stop thinking about how desperately she wanted to believe and how she was not at all put off by the fact that her beloved was such a chicken

here is an update about them and The Mysterious LaVourne http://www.theashleysrealityroundup.com/2013/08/20/catfish-couple-lauren-derek-where-are-they-now/

reminds me, I wanted to post abt the one w the medium talking to the deceased father????

yeah that one was similar -- really impressionable young girl who lost her mom early (and wow, the circumstances)

the one with felipe was another standout

i've been binging on this since we got paid-hulu and i'm addicted. but there is some seriously dodgy shit going on

e.g. the tiana + james ep - they never have a friend come along with the victim to meet the catfisher, and this **one time** they do, the catfisher turns out to be the friend's baby-daddy??? what a coincidence!

e.g. the one with the wrestler dude and the hot girl wrestler he was into - turns out, SHE wrote in first to the show, but they told her it would make a better story if it was the other way round?!

e.g. the chicago dude who was into the CLEARLY a porn star girl who turned out to be a vigilante against cheaters - those two dudes are friends IRL!

and holy shit @ the cyberbully ep - i looked up that girl tracey armah and she's a lunatic. her fb page is revealing pics/vids with statuses like 'it feels amazing to be raped'. jesus christ.

really sad about the couple who died 2 yrs apart ;_;

lol @ this guy thinking hes talking to katy perry ep, & his still like "double-checking" @ the end

omg that guy
what a character
if i found out that the whole thing was acting, he would be the best actor ever
unfortunately, i don't think that's the case
esp when they brought his brother in? my god. i also liked how he went from 1000 on max's confidence in katy perry scale of 1-10 to a 1 ;-/

unfortunately for him, not for us -- how hard must it be to go through life as that guy? i felt for him.

yea i hope hes ok

omg the one last night about shelly -- haunting
the story left me wondering a lot about "the texas woman" -- are they done with this investigation? the last word as they drove down the desolate canadian road seemed like the end but i feel like there is a lot of info we are not getting (in spite of all the info we got)

i just can't stop thinking about shelly and her teeth and the whole thing

yea otm lord her teeth

def compelling but its p messy of the paris girl to raise this, I don't think shelly is gonna do anything ever again & absolutely not to paris or birdman

i read that paris recently married don mclean!??!
72 year old don "american pie" mclean!?!?
http://previously.tv/catfish/catfish-gets-in-way-over-its-head-by-moonlighting-in-ex-offender-re-entry/

shelly was way more sympathetic than they had made her out to be

and the mysterious "texas woman" has yet to have anything to say about this
i imagine her like the OG catfish lady

shelly dropped out of school in 6th grade (to take care of her mom delia) and had never seen a dentist or a doctor

sorry -- paris is merely ENGAGED to don mclean
shelly reminds me how much human misery is on the planet :(
a lot

it does seem odd to chase down a catfish that's already revealed. i'm not sure how i feel abt that.

paris said "I bet my life" she [shelly] would catfish again

nev and max obvs have a belief that they have investigative & psychological magic they can employ to persuade people to stop catfishing, but instead in this ep they just explained a situation (a complicated one, multiple times) and then showed us some extreme human misery.

paris didn't seem to fully understand shelly's perspective, which doesn't surprise me, but the story did seem to sympathize with her (esp since she was already featured as someone whose pictures were stolen for catfishing in another episode)

in general i think this show is more helpful than harmful, and that divide is not a b/w dichotomy, but this episode did leave me wondering what the point was other than to rehash this story that seems to have already reached its conclusion. they aren't usually into sensationalizing misery (even when it's really really obvious) and this time i can't help but think that kind of happened. it made me sad.

This episode was so so bleak. I really felt for Shelly even though what she did was clearly terrible.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/hook-line-and-sinker/542748/

the one with the wrestler dude and the hot girl wrestler he was into - turns out, SHE wrote in first to the show, but they told her it would make a better story if it was the other way round?!

this is how every episode works, apparently. the producers/MTV puts out an ad saying "are you misrepresenting your identity in an online relationship? do you want to come clean?" etc. everyone is contact in advance and arranged by the producers. nev and max, however, are thrown in blind so all their sleuthing is genuine

this show is incredible

I think I’ve watched every episode — Catfish is my emotional reality junk entertainment of choice.

Did you know there are SIXTY (60!) EPISODES in S8???

I’m on 47.

I saw it last night and can't imagine how any part of it could've been fake. There are details you just wouldn't add if it were a fictional story. And while the big reveal isn't that surprising once you know to expect a reveal, there are so many layers to it that the movie is still gripping as a suspense thriller and fascinating as a psychological portrait.

I imagine the fact that it unfolds narratively is a big part of why some people suspect it of being a hoax: the filmmakers started making the movie before they knew what the movie would end up being about. But that doesn't seem that weird to me, since the filming did begin with a semi-interesting kernel, and the filmmakers seem like the kind of guys who just sit around filming each other for kicks.

― jaymc, Sunday, September 26, 2010 8:25 AM (eleven years ago) bookmarkflaglink

Oh, sweet summer child...

Ok I just discovered this week that there is a Catfish:Mexico (1 season 2018) and it’s on Hulu. If you check the boxes of being conversant in Spanish and a fan of Catfish (the program) like me, this is an exhilarating discovery. I’m on ep 2, super enjoying watching Catfish en español y host Chapu who looks like Nev and (acc to the internet) is gay. The sidekick (Badalt) is innocuous so far.

There is also a Catfish: Colombia! Two seasons!

i finally just watched this movie. unlike upthread when the movie was new, not casting aspersions on authenticity, but in all earnestness, were reverse photo searches not available yet? serious question because by the time I learned about them they had been a thing for a while.

usually first thing I do if I get any message from a stranger (besides decline the request), so I can alert whomever they're stealing from.

the stolen music thing was pretty hilarious.

"no, she can't be faking, how did she find a cover of that song so fast", knows Youtube exists....

Has anyone else listened to podcast SWEET BOBBY?? It’s like a 6 hour ep of Catfish and I gobbled it up. I was worried it would be overly familiar ground but as usual each story is both similar to others (via features of catfishing/emotional manipulation) and unique in its own way.

Im back! Has anyone listened to Beth’s Dead?? Some interesting things to talk about re podcasting, public personas, and cat fishing.

They speak to an expert from Australia who breaks down the various forms of Internet deception in a clear and coherent way. For that I’m grateful; the full arc of the story itself? Idk

I haven’t listened to the latest episode yet but: something just doesn’t quite feel right. Like, when they spoke to him, he sounded totally sincere, and all his reasons etc made sense… but idk the intensity of the initial catfishing, the thought that went into the writing, all the compounding of lies… it just didn’t match with the guy they spoke to??

He is a masterful manipulator. All he had to do was google Monica and see what her soft spot/s were and it worked! It worked for the other two as well. I was shocked at their credulity tbh. Throughout. I thought maybe the husband would stand up (given that the correspondence happened without his knowledge) but he dismissed his feelings as paranoia.or claimed to.

If you haven’t listened to ep 10 yet please note the parallels between the four pillars of online deception (namely Machiavellianism) and the ease with which they justify their own. Idk what’s going on w these people but emotionally astute they are not.

Im so glad someone else listened to this!!

I just finished the latest ep and…. Yeah. This is very weird. Considering how life changing the catfishing was for them, how badly it affected them, I’m pretty shocked at their complete turnaround and naïveté, and the whole sort of “kumbaya”-ism of how they wrapped it up. At one point, Monica says something about how you should IGNORE your instincts, because they were wrong about it being the dad etc, and I was gobsmacked. Like, first of all, never ignore your instincts, and second, that had nothing to do with instincts?!? It was an assumption made on facts.

Also: comparing their podcast to The Mystery Show?!? Wild.