Who's the Real Catfish?

(This is a quite different online fraud than the one described within Catfish. Although it is obvious that these kinds of frauds have to be punished - because they created tangible losses - what about Angela's case?)


The powers of online anonymity are truly dazzling. It only takes a "slip" of your fingers to increase your height from 179 cm to 185, or suddenly pass five birthdays so that you're old enough to do anything. It only takes a few clicks to innocently save a picture of a glamorous somebody that you've never seen before, and somehow fit his or her face onto yours. The problem, and yet ironically also the benefits, of today's Internet is the fact that its users can hide behind any mask they choose. People can create any name, characteristic, and identity, to make a new "version" of themselves. And the catch phrase is, nobody can ever know - at least, if they don't try. The unwritten rule for internet, especially social network sites, is that such identities, whether true or false, are trusted to a certain extent. You don't really go around questioning the authenticity of a Facebook friend that you've just made and never met.



The film Catfish is an exact "violation" of this rule. Its filmmakers, with growing suspicions of an online relationship with prodigy painter Abby and her charming sister Meghan, go on to uncover their true identity - their mother Angela, who has been the real force of communication behind her two daughters. Or rather than an "uncovering," it's more of a "witch hunt," for various points do hint that Niv and his brother actually knew about the whole deal before their in-film realization. (For one thing, they Due to its questionable processes, despite the filmmakers' claim that this is "100% real," Catfish has raised much controversy. In fact, we can ask ourselves two questions about this film:



First, were the filmmakers of Catfish too harsh within their production of the documentary? Although it wasn't explicitly stated within the film, Niv and the others certainly violated certain rights that Angela had. One certainly doesn't go barging into others' homes under the pretense of "visiting," all the while shoving a camera in the person's face. But that is what happened. And even if Niv was "gentle" in his visit and stay with Angela, she still looks genuinely surprised, awkward, and even hurt, with her situation if not with Niv himself. Yes, Niv might have been emotionally hurt, surprised, or creeped out with Angela's actions as well. But if he had been truly concerned, he would have left it at telling Angela off online or merely breaking off all relationships with her whatsoever. Yet he chose to make a film.

Moreover, even if Angela did get her fifteen minutes of fame through the film - after all, her site that sells her paintings seems to be doing pretty well - that still does not fully count for Niv's actions. Is the humiliation outweighed by the fame gained by her paintings? Even though her painting career might have been uplifted (a step closer to her more idealistic life) and her paintings might have gained more meaning in them (loneliness of the common woman), the fact that Angela gained wounds within this process still stands.



Second, what about the film industry in general? Can certain rights be given up or violated in order to create a magnificient work? Even though today's filmmaking laws and rules prevent people from violating rights, cases like Catfish still occur. Even though such pieces might embody a theme of society and bring on it attention and concern, Catfish did not achieve that; rather, it brought about more witch hunts. Niv does not seem concerned about bringing care and concern to the lonely people like Angela through his film; rather, he seems more intent on drawing out the "creepiness" of oneline anonymity more than anything. Art, made from humanity, should try to express and, at times, endorse humanity - not hurt it. All the benefits that could have been made, even at the expense of questionable methods, were lost.



While Catfish might be an interesting and attractive film, there is still no doubt that it raises quite a few harms. Not only were Angela Pierce's rights violated, but the message that was spread by the film can also be considered harmful. It is true that false identities on the web are somewhat disturbing, sometimes even sinister. But the phenomenon that is occuring on certain forums and the Catfish Like page on Facebook - people who report certain people as being a fake and request others to "go to their profile pages and leave a comment saying they're fake" - seems equally bad. All they are focused on is the witch hunts. Perhaps they feel snobbish relief within their own authencity, the fact that they are genuinely what they are, and proud of it. Or perhaps they feel a perverse sort of satisfaction in the fact that they are not lonely enough to decorate their lives with fallen feathers. What if Niv had been an unattractive man in the suburbs or Nowhere, USA, instead of a charming young man in New York, and Angela had been a world-famous dancer...? Who would have been the real lonely one, and would the two people still have felt the same about each others' situations? Even without the what-if's, we are faced with an odd situation. Angela created a false Facebook account, but Niv created a false documentary that was viewed by thousands of people. The question still stands: who's the real catfish here?



MOTIONS



THW enforce real name identification systems for social network sites.
THB some rights can be given up for the sake of the arts.
THW ban films that have used questionable methods (//offensive methods) in their production.

ddd