Jan. 7 - I Win at the Internet
Aside from the long-awaited comic post, Slacker-Central's front page has been largely devoid of any sort of epic Internet controversy. However, I've learned that some entertainment comes from where you least expect it.
Last semester, I was in a class on documentary film. One of the assignments was to write a paper and viewing guide on a particular film covered in class. I chose to write on Loose Change, a low-budget, Internet-exclusive, agitprop documentary asserting that the United States government was behind the attacks on September 11th. Let's highlight some of its claims:
- The Pentagon was hit by a missile.
- Flight 93 was redirected to Cleveland, where its passengers were removed and cell phone calls professionally fabricated.
- The Twin Towers fell as the result of a controlled implosion to mask the transfer of $167 billion of gold.
These claims were researched by a Neo-Nazi, compiled by a self-aggrandizing jackass, and believed by morons.
Despite my strong opinions on the film, I thought I wrote a fairly even-handed and academic essay about Loose Change's manipulative use of mise-en-scene (a fancy word for "visual choices"). The papers and viewing guides were published online, and the final stipulation of the assignment was to post the links on various forums and websites of interest.
I decided to post it on the Loose Change's official forums.
The thread went up on December 16th with little interest. One member came in to point out that all seven papers on Loose Change were decidedly negative (with is typical when critiquing a shitty movie) and I responded with a rather tepid and fair-minded appeal towards discussion.
This is when it got interesting.
Tepidity and fair-mindedness went out the window when, on December 24th, Dylan Avery--the director, editor and narrator of this hideous atrocity of a film--decided to voice his opinion on the papers:
"invented information"? "mis-en-scene"? LIGHTING? you guys are in way over your heads...
mise-en-scene?
look man, throwing around fancy film school terms does NOT make you an authority on the matter.
i have a question. what have YOU kids done? it's easy to throw insults and ad hominem attacks, but your guides fall very short on actually tackling the evidence presented.
Okay, so much for a rational discussion on his methods. It appears that it was, as the kids say, "on." It isn't often that I get to flamewar with an Internet "celebrity" of such magnitude, so I couldn't pass up this early Christmas present. I responded in kind:
What have I done? Was a viewing guide and essay not enough for you? You want me to hold your hand through the process? I promise not to use big words like "mise-en-scene" (it's okay, you can use "ad hominem" all you want. How about "reductio ad absurdum"? Or "semper ubi sub ubi"?). I guess I'm not worthy of an opinion unless I cobble together copyrighted material and sell it online for personal gain.
ZING! That's like seven Internet points for me.
The director's the douche bag in this picture. No, the other one. No, the one on the right. There you go.
LC forum member Starbelly decided to defend Loose Change and its Golden-God creator:
All the film school credentials, certificates and jargon boasted by these type of people count for nothing in the real world. How many of you will achieve anything on the scale of Loose Change? I'd put 10 bucks on none.
Regardless you agree with the information or not. Show a little respect where respect is due.
A solid argument. It was an unexpected tactic to attack the boasting of my "film school credentials" and "certificates," considering I have none and never did anything of the sort. I skipped that one and respond to his second plea:
Soooo if something is marginally popular on the Internet, I am obligated to respect it? In that case, I'll go ahead and respect Tubgirl, Goatse, and Lemon Party. A bunch of people clicked on those links, therefore it is a respectable form of artistic expression.
Another Internet point for me. By this time in the argument, I think it's Nick: 10, Dylan Avery and the Klu Klux Krazies: 8.
LOOK GUYS IT'S BLUE! THAT'S MEANS THE GOVERNMENT DID IT!
Avery caught wind of my biting retort, and brought out the big guns:
you're almost banned, smart-ass. keep it up.
i never "deliberately misled" my audience. i made a movie, on my laptop, in my spare time, and people started liking it. now, it's insanely popular for some reason, and I now have to tolerate snotty little college know-it-alls such as yourself who believe they actually know who I am.
end, of, story.
Oh my! So many commas! They must hand those out when you're so "insanely popular" on the Internet. I better watch my back, as well as my nose, since it's apparently getting very snotty.
I'm not even three years younger than you. I don't think you're in a position to lord over me just because your movie has gotten some attention. That's like William Hung getting a superiority complex because he made an album.
end; of? story!
Nick: 14. KKKrazies: 9.
Result: I win at the Internet.
Overall, the thread is massively entertaining. I only included the highlights, but there are a number of little gems that went under the radar. I invite you to read the entire thing to get the full brunt of its idiocy.
Oh, and happy New Year.
Posted by Nick Nobel
