Archive for the 'documentaries' Category

Mocking the mockers: The ambiguity of a Youtube video

“This is too clever to have been done by creationists.”

I thought this while watching a nearly four minute Youtube video called “Beware the Believers” depicting a rapping Richard Dawkins and headband-wearing Christopher Hitchens. After a brief prologue in which an animated Dawkins introduces an audience to a “glorious age, the age of the machine,” it launches into biting lyrics that tear into the “appeal to authority” arguments often employed during evolution-versus-intelligent design debates. The cast of this music video is comprised of prominent atheists and scientists ranging from Charles Darwin to anthropologist Eugenie Scott, and if there’s one thing this lyrical group wants to convey to you, it’s that Dawkins “is smarter than you, he has a science degree.”
expelled richard dawkins
At surface level, the video is targeting the atheists and scientists it depicts. Creationists and religious apologists have long complained of the supposed elitism of prominent atheists, and here is a two-dimensional rendition of the alleged snobbery. With non-believers constantly using the word “irrational” to describe religious belief, it’s not too far-fetched to think the religious would strike back at the very university degrees that give many of these scientists their stature.

But seen another way, the video is mocking those very believers. The characters appearing in the piece are literally cut-out, enlarged heads bobbling to-and-fro over dancing real bodies — they’re essentially caricatures. Viewed in this light, the video is riffing on the often-bizarre paranoia of creationists who think “Big Science” is actively trying to suppress scientists who don’t subscribe to some kind of mainstream scientific doctrine, e.g. evolutionary theory. Given that a new documentary touting this very thesis, Expelled, was soon to be released, the video seemed an appropriate way to address this play-the-victim assertion.

The fact that the video was of unknown origin (the username of the person who uploaded it didn’t give any clue) further enhanced the ambiguity of its message. Perhaps because of this almost-perfect balance, the piece was widely linked across the web, making its way onto a number of extremely popular sites. Rather than being offended by the video, much of the online atheist community embraced it. As one Digg user put it, “Whether you’re a person of science, a person of faith or a mix of the two I think we can all agree that this is one catchy song. Kudos to the guy who made this, it’s hilarious.”

As the video spread, its origin remained a mystery. Many of those who viewed it — including me — thought it was too well written to have been created by the people behind Expelled. After all, movie critics have already eviscerated the film for its lack of originality, boring use of stock footage and overall failed attempts at humor. Clearly something as sharp and well-written as this couldn’t come from a Ben Stein cohort.

Well, it turns out we were wrong — somewhat.

PZ Myers, a biology professor and vocal atheist who appears in “Beware the Believers,” received an email this week from a man named Michael Edmondson who outed himself as one of the creators. “The intent of the video has been questioned a lot,” he wrote. “…I suppose the answer is that I tried to make something that was funny to me and It’s not really meant to convince anyone of anything.”
pz myers christopher hitchens expelled
Edmondson is a 27-year-old film school graduate living in Vancouver. He previously worked creating marketing videos for Electronic Arts but left the company in 2004 to start Float On Films and do work on the side as a photographer providing artwork for the hospitality industry. From late last summer until the end of last week, he had done contractual work for Premise Media, the producers for Expelled. He has a visual effects credit in the documentary and was one of the main players behind the Youtube video.

I interviewed Edmondson this week and asked him how “Beware the Believers” came about. “Originally it was a six minute piece to be used within the film Expelled,” he told me. “It told the story of the ‘rise of the Machine’ (darwinism). When I had arrived the script was already written having passed through three sets of hands of writers directly or loosely connected to the film…In the editing room for Expelled the production team decided the film had taken a different direction in tone than expected and that the unfinished animation no longer fit the film.”

It was the producers who decided to shift the video online and make it a separate entity, with the hopes of it becoming a “viral piece,” as Edmondson put it. A person named Matt Chandler was brought in to write the lyrics. “Matt and I each wrote a version of the lyrics,” he said. “My version was the requested 90 seconds and well received. Matt’s was five minutes long but very layered and smart so we went with Matt’s and trimmed it to three minutes.”

To save time, he set up a blue screen in his kitchen and performed the dancing rather than animating the bodies of each character. It took him over seven months to complete, “worked on intermittently between other projects and tasks.”

Which brings me to the nagging question about the video’s origin: Was the creator — Edmondson — sympathetic to the Expelled thesis (that intelligent design is a legitimate theory and should be taught in the classroom), or was this a fly-by paid-for-hire production? To make matters even more confusing, at nearly the same time he outed himself Edmondson released a “sequel” to “Beware the Believers” in which Ben Stein is wearing a shirt that has the words “Poe’s Law” written on it. For those not familiar with it, Poe’s Law states that it is impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism without it being interchangeable with the real thing.

But which “fundamentalists” are being parodied here, the intelligent design proponents or the scientists?
expelled ben stein
I tried to get a reading on Edmondson’s leanings on this matter, asking him if he was sympathetic to Expelled’s cause. “The video wasn’t just meant to be funny. I think it has something to say,” he replied. “It was meant to spark debate and bring attention to the issue…What I meant was that the animation was not intended to convince people of anything. I hope no one over five years old learns really important things about the world through the song and dance of cartoon characters. In the second video there appears the text ‘In Vitro Vertas.’ It means ‘the truth is in the test tube.’ I think that is a true statement for this issue. If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science. I think the film has a viewpoint that has the right to be heard.”

I pressed further, asking if the “Poe’s Law” written on Stein’s shirt meant that he was intentionally mocking the intelligent design promoters. “No… but yes,” he said. “Like many things we included in the videos what you see has everything to do with what you bring to it and can be interpreted a few different ways. A person’s world view colours how they see the world and these animations. We knew some people would see it that way. The animations make fun of everyone.”

Myers, who’s featured in both “Beware the Believers” and Expelled, seemed to agree with this notion, calling the video “equal opportunity mockery.”

“It’s a video that used wit and humor and irreverence and knowledge of contemporary attitudes that earned the attention given to it, no matter what view point it might have been pushing,” he told me in an interview this week.

I asked the biology professor about the possibility that Edmondson had crossed enemy lines to help out the Expelled people (it should be noted that I asked this question before I had been able to interview Edmondson). After all, many of Myers’s blog commenters had accused Edmondson of being just as guilty as the Expelled creators because he had helped out in the marketing.

“Most people don’t see the ‘enemy lines as sharply as an educated scientist or an ignorant creationist would,” Myers said. “To most people, the lines are pretty blurry and uncertain (although a little more education in biology would certainly help open their eyes), and the battle isn’t as clearly laid out as the actual participants see it. It seems to me that Edmondson is an artist who is playing around right on that boundary, and not so much an active transgressor.”

Besides, he said, the video “was an absolutely horrible piece of marketing.”

“It wouldn’t be a draw to Expelled’s target audience, nor would it persuade critics to go see the movie,” he explained. “The Expelled producers wasted their money on it, if they thought they were getting a marketing tool. I hope Edmondson got paid a LOT of the creationists’ money.”

Sadly, when I asked Edmondson how much he got paid to produce the video, it was the one question he neglected to answer.

Science blogger gets banned from creationist documentary screening

Man, this is too good. PZ Myers, science blogger for Pharyngula, tried to go to a screening for the documentary narrated by creationist-flack Ben Stein, Expelled. It’s a film that makes arguments in favor of the pseudo-science known as Intelligent Design.

Anyway, Myers was quickly spotted in line by one of the filmmakers and told by a policeman that he had to leave the premises immediately or get arrested.

But the most ironic thing about the whole incident? HE WAS STANDING NEXT TO RICHARD DAWKINS, WHO WALKED FREELY INTO THE FILM.

Read the entire account over here.

Some Monday links

Here are some media-related links for your perusal:

1. I’m posting this one just for the headline: Gay Porn Twins Arrested for Robbery Spree

2. Here’s a brilliant smack-down of Ben Stein’s silly documentary arguing against evolution. The best part is the retelling of how the movie reviewer was invited to the screening and then showed up after they tried to take away his invitation.

3. Well, I was as surprised as any to see that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was dating the Canadian hot female version of Godhatesfags leader Fred Phelps. But before I even got a chance to post about it, they broke up and their online cyber sex leaked onto the internets.

4. Amazon was among the first to create a “if you bought this item you might also like this item” feature. Netflix has taken it to a whole new level by creating a contest with a million dollar prize for the person or team that improves its recommendation system by 10%. Though many of those in the lead are mathematicians, a retired psychologist may take home the prize.

5. Apparently the title “Washington Post Media Critic” is a code phrase that means right-wing blogger.

6. You know you’ve read one of these NY Times articles. The journalist points out a “growing trend” that you didn’t know existed. Sometimes it just gets ridiculous.

7. Blogging is good for your social life.

And then finally, posted without comment:

stephen colbert magic

Why the mainstream media loves Michael Moore

I was watching the excellent movie Sicko last night and it got me thinking about the mainstream media’s rush to debunk everything Moore does. He makes for an easy target, a way for them to prove they’re not biased. How could they be liberally slanted? They just spent five minutes attacking his documentary, after all. If they spend time attacking him, then maybe conservatives would think that they were “balanced” after all.

Read about the hit job CNN performed on Moore the other day.

A documentary about obsessive video game players

The King of Kong is a new documentary about two grown men who fight it out for the world record for the arcade version of Donkey Kong. Yes, this sounds awesome. A youtube trailer for the movie can be found below:

via pajiba

***

Related posts:
1. Awesome statue
2. Supersize Me filmmaker makes fun of retarded people
3. Interview with PSP Hacks

Google markets anti-Sicko ads to HMOs?

Google to HMOs: pay us and we’ll defuse “Sicko”

Google’s “Health Advertising Team” is trying to sell the health industry on buying ads to be shown opposite searches for “Sicko.” The idea is to counter Michael Moore’s amazing, enraging, must-see indictment of the health industry’s grip on American society by running ads over search results for Sicko.

***

Related posts: The hardships of starting and owning a brothel, Our Cultural Learnings from Borat, Interview with Nehring the Edge, Google’s employees transported to work in their own buses, How to make $50 million in online advertising revenue

Interview with Brian Flemming, director of The God Who Wasn’t There

brian flemming director

Brian Flemming is a film director, a playwright, and an outspoken atheist. In 2005, he released the controversial documentary, The God Who Wasn’t There, a film not just arguing that Jesus wasn’t God, but that Jesus the man never existed at all. He’s also the creator of the faux documentary, Nothing So Strange,and the musical, Bat Boy.

Last year, Flemming developed the Blasphemy Challenge, which called on atheists to upload videos to YouTube where they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Flemming has a blog where he talks about atheism, film, and politics and a variety of other things as well.

Simon Owens: In the past year, we’ve seen a huge surge of atheists in the media. We have everything from The God Delusion to Letter to a Christian Nation to your documentary, The God Who Wasn’t There. Does this mean that atheists are finally banding together as activists, or that the public is becoming more open to hearing the atheist point of view? Or both?

Brian Flemming: The number of atheists is growing, we’re getting more vocal, and as evidence rises that religion is doing harm to our culture, people are more receptive to a godless point of view. In fact, many people who don’t identify as atheists actually are atheists, in that they live their lives as if there is no supreme being. They may obey the rule that says it is rude to publicly reveal one’s atheism (as it implicitly criticizes theists), but they’re essentially atheists.

The visibility of atheists isn’t much of a surprise to me. I think we’ll see the United States head down the same road as the countries of Europe — which over the past several decades have become not only strongly secular but also specifically atheistic. When religion is openly discussed on a fair playing field, it never wins. It simply can’t be defended on rational grounds. Barring a development such as a great disaster, which could be exploited to empower totalitarian ideologies like Christianity, we’re headed for atheism as a default point of view.

This development is, of course, a very good thing for the United States. There is a correlation between standard of living and atheism — the more atheistic a country is, the healthier it is, in terms of overall lifespan, overall wealth, access to health care, stillbirth rate, children living with two parents and many other measures. Even within the United States, the people doing the worst by these measures are in the Bible Belt. The most religious communities in the U.S., for example, have the highest divorce rate.

As atheism increases, we’ll see others benefit as well. In terms of giving to the less fortunate, the highest rate of giving to other countries occurs in the most atheistic countries.

As facts like these make it into the mainstream conversation, I think we’ll hear a lot more positive things about atheism — and a lot more wonder at how so many of us once believed that Jesus would soon come down from the sky and save us.

Simon Owens: In our last interview in early 2006, you indicated that Bush’s greatest talent was “manipulating the American people with fear.” Do you think that talent has subsided at all?

Brian Flemming: Yes. He really only had that one trick, and its effectiveness is reaching its expiration date. As the man said, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Simon Owens: More importantly, will that talent strengthen again if there were another terrorist attack on American soil, or will Americans be more wary next time?

Brian Flemming: I really don’t know. It is very hard to predict reactions like that. I would expect that the Bush Administration would certainly try to exploit any new attack to further increase Bush’s dictatorship powers, but people are certainly a lot more aware of Bush’s basic character now, and they don’t like it.

Simon Owens: I’ve noticed a growing trend in documentaries where the documentarian becomes a narrator in the story, while old-school film-makers like Errol Morris hardly speak at all in their documenaries. Do you think today’s documentarians are becoming too intrusive on their work? Which style is more unbiased?

Brian Flemming: I think we’re seeing the language of the documentary expand, and that’s a good thing. But the old guard will always gripe and complain. Errol Morris himself was undeservedly rebuked by the establishment for using re-creations in “The Thin Blue Line,” which is the best documentary ever made.

As it becomes easier and easier to make a documentary (and that possibility now extends as far as the lower-middle class) we’re going to hear a lot more voices that are unhampered by establishment rules — one of which is that a documentary should be “unbiased.” There’s a place for the kind of documentary that imitates newsmagazine segments, but there are also many other ways to make a documentary.

I personally don’t mind if a documentarian “intrudes” on the movie — so long as that documentarian has a strong point of view that is worth my attention or has some essential role in the action of the film. I’ve never heard anyone complain about nonfiction writers of books or magazine articles who use the word “I” — if that first- person point of view is justified by the material. Text nonfiction runs the gamut from sterile schoolbook prose to intimate personal essay. There’s no reason that video nonfiction can’t do the same thing.

Simon Owens: Do you think the “blasphemy project” is an effective way for atheists to come out of the closet?

Brian Flemming: The Blasphemy Challenge has certainly encouraged quite a few godless folks to unequivocally state that they aren’t afraid of Satan. I think it’s hilarious that this is actually a controversial statement to make — as if Satan were not a purely mythological character. The Blasphemy Challenge is radical compared to how we normally talk about superstitions such as Christianity, but it shouldn’t be. It should always be acceptable to declare one’s independence from Bronze Age myths. In fact, it shouldn’t really be news at all.

Simon Owens: Does the internet provide an outlet that atheists wouldn’t normally have?

Brian Flemming: Yes. It is hard to imagine a project like the Blasphemy Challenge without a site like YouTube to organize it. It’s amazing how easy it is for the participants in the challenge to communicate their views using video. Not too long ago, this ability was tightly held by corporations who controlled access to the extremely expensive equipment needed for TV broadcast. Now, a webcam is as cheap as $20.

Given that religion in the United States is a strongly intimidating force on media outlets, the internet is the perfect medium to express an atheistic message. Religion has created a rule in our culture that says religious beliefs are the sole beliefs that cannot be critically examined — one is allowed to state the most outlandish conclusions under the banner of religion, and it is considered rude to question those conclusions in the way one would question any others. Mainstream media outlets largely follow this rule. They praise the emperor’s new clothes.

Since atheists are essentially pointing out a naked emperor, it’s great that we have the internet to get around the special exemption that religion has declared for itself.

Simon Owens: As an atheist, do you view all religion with equal disdain? Are there any religions you dislike more than others?

Brian Flemming: I don’t see much difference between the beliefs of, say, Scientologists, and those of Christians. The space-alien theology of L. Ron Hubbard is no more or less ridiculous than the flying-dead-man theology of the Holy Bible.

Simon Owens: What is the future of atheist activism? What specific issues should atheists focus on first?

Brian Flemming: I think we’ll see many different atheists concentrate on many different messages. Declared atheists tend to be independent-minded folk with strong points of view, so we’re never going to gather under a single banner. Which makes sense — we don’t see organizations of “a-Clausians” (people who don’t believe in Santa Claus), as that group is filled with far too many sub-groups. Since atheism is merely a rational default position with regard to a certain brand of mythology, we shouldn’t expect a great deal of ideological unity within this group.