We all believe that documentaries convey us the truth; sometimes a hidden shocking truth and sometimes just a beautiful and miraculous truth concerning the nature. Through such truth, in the mist of information described in documentaries, we seek pleasure, knowledge, and most important of all, morals.
However, WHAT IF THE DOCUMENTARY IS NOT ENTIRELY TRUE?? Does it give hamful effects to people??
The producers of the documentary 'Catfish', Yaniv Schulman and his filmmaker brother Henry, claim that the documentary is a complete truth, without any forms of manipulation of the truth. Nobody can rebut the claim for there is a possibility; the only problem is that the possibility seems to be quite low. It should be a remarkable coincidence...
Dubious factor comes directly from the first. When Yaniv mentions "she seems to be very pretty and talented YET", it sounds as if he knows the whole story and is trying to dramatize it. In addition, why would any filmmaker start making a documentary with so plain story like a photographer meeting a girl who has interest in drawing pictures through social network sites? Does it have anything special to be sold to public? As well, documentaries need motives and goals.... What are they here?? To portray how the plain people become friends?? There comes a reasonable doubt!!
With all due respect to such doubts however, I cannot agree upon the thought that this documentary ultimately does more harm than good.
First clear and obvious reason is that the main figures featuring in this film did benefit a lot by making this film. Yaniv was awarded a very honorable prize and became a celebrity. Angela opened her art gallery and many people are buying them. What a WIN-WIN documentary!!
Some people argue that it gives indirect harm to Abby or facebook company. I do concede that Abby may feel ashamed of her mother. However, Abby didnot instantaneously show any signs of being ashamed, and for Angela is not ashamed of her conducts, she would be able to tell Abby about what she felt, what she had in mind and she would be able to sufficiently excuse herself. In the matter of facebook company, I think the documentary played its genuine role here: warning people of the possible harm of social network sites. For this incident is very rare undoubtedly, the documentary is actually benefiting the Facebook company that the number of future identity crime victims will be lessened. Also, for the users, since they would be very cautious and careful in using facebook, it would raise their sense of safety.
After all, I really enjoyed the documentary, and no matter if it is completely true or forged to some degree, the documentary is not harming the society as some critics argue. Hope the fascinating plot does more good than harm to the society~!
Possible Debate Motions are
1. THBT documentary should be filmed upon only the truth
2. THBT social network sites should ban the creation of multi-accounts (some people- involving some teachers in KMLA make two accounts; one for students and one for private acquaintances)
3. THBT Yaniv is a victim in the documentary
Hahaha - motion number two has its reasons.: ) But I do agree - Facebook should buckle down and seek to become a more mature environment for "making the world a smaller place." I disagree with you on the point that the film will cause "fakers" to stop being fake. If anything, I think it actually shows people how easy it is to dupe people who "want to believe." If I want to sell something to men, why not have a pretty face on a social networking site mention it to them? Angela merely wanted an escape (with the possibility of selling art), and I think there are many more out there like her, which is why Catfish is becoming an actual TV show.
답글삭제Good post and I'm glad you liked the film. I wanted to try something different in class and I think the film works as a good discussion.