Catfish 2010~ Charity and Exploitation

Article contains no major spoilers. 

I will be honest in saying that if this film ever does turn out to be a hoax I will be crushed.  Although the reality of their documentary is largely argued, I choose to believe that this is in fact a documentary.  That being said, Documentary isn’t an all knowing and equal perspective.  Just like any of our individual perspectives, the camera is just that, another pair of eyes and interpretation.  This is where the idea of exploitation and charity becomes an issue in documentary.  The ability to fully analyze, to perceive all perspectives, and to give an accurate representation without bias is something only God can do.  But because of the power film has on the viewer, it is important that the filmmakers do not abuse their opportunities to shape their films.  The Documentary, Catfish (2010) is an excellent example of a conscious effort to tread this line between exploitation and charity carefully. 

What are the sorts of things that cause us to exploit people and circumstances in our films?  When we have some sort of power or authority over a person we tend to indulge.  Youtube is full of parents exploiting their children’s cute or embarrassing moments for “hits.” The co-directors of Catfish, Ariel (Rel) Schulman and Henry Joost center their film on their close friend and/or brother, Nev.  Their familial relationship with Nev gives them much more access.  The directors very much behave like brothers and buddies in their interactions with Nev rather than as directors.  They don’t give Nev much privacy and they are very pushy towards him to keep him going.  In the scene when Nev starts to feel suspicious about his online girlfriend, Megan, Nev becomes upset with Henry and Ariel and asks for privacy and the discontinuance of the film.  It was no longer the adorable and innocent plot he had signed up for.   To continue with the project would mean that Nev would be forced to be publically and completely vulnerable.   Realizing that their story was getting interesting, Rel and Henry used their relationship with Nev against him and guilting Nev into continuing because he owed them.  As the film plays out Nev has completely revealed himself.  Rel and Henry capture on film Nev’s most emotionally taxing and humiliating experiences.  Nev, however, slowly becomes a part of the proactive power behind the film.  It is hard to tell how much of Rel and Henry’s persuasion was backed by a genuine belief that the project could help both Nev and viewers learn from the story and how much was shear giddiness at having stumbled upon an awesome plot line.

Catfish demonstrates incredible charity in the films production as well.  In the Q&A, Nev thanks their editor for choosing to be so sympathetic towards his “character.”  While all of the footage in the film was true angles and moments from Nev, there were also a lot of angst and frustration that was also filmed of him that did not make the cut.  The film could have easily been cut to make Nev look like a brat who deserved what he got. 

The thing that really sets Catfish apart from other films is its charity shown towards the film’s “villain.”  This was choice that was shown in the film.  They wanted to make their stance perfectly clear in their film.  In this scene they talked about how they wanted to figure out the truth, wanted to provide opportunities for that and that this was not going to be an attack or an insensitive confrontation.  They stay true to that.  They were sensitive in their approach and after it was all out, they gave the offending character a chance to say whatever they wanted.  They very much had a voice in the film.  While the crew did not condone their actions, they didn’t condemn them either.  This choice gave a very unique thing to happen that is not typical of a story about exploitation.  People who do bad things are bad people.  However, Catfish allowed for there to be good to be sought out as well.

They gave a sympathetic ear to an undeserving voice.  Without that foreign effort, their experience and their film would have had little to redeem it from the bitter situation that it was.