IFC.com logo

The rise and fall of Caveh Zahedi.

Caveh Zahedi. Well, hardly. But as recent web rumblings indicate, one of the hazards of putting yourself out there on the internet is that people may cease to find you charming.

David Poland in today's Hot Button:

I became familiarized with the filmmaker via his blog on indieWIRE, which didn't help him any, I have to say.

Before I had a chance to watch the film, I got to scroll through a debate Mr. Zahedi decided to carry on with Nathan Lee, who reviewed his film in the New York Times with brevity and, what I would later learn, was a completely appropriate degree of inattention.

And at his blog All These Wonderful Things, filmmaker AJ Schnack posted a lengthy analysis of the Cuban-Caveh situation that sparked a discussion in the comments and eventually a response from Zahedi himself, which Schnack then reposted along with a response. From the first post:

Proponents of day-and-date keep assuring us of its inevitability, but despite the viability of some political documentaries, there's yet to be a breakout day-and-date success story, particularly on the narrative side. In fact, nearly all signs point to the flaws inherent to the concept. Perhaps the breakthrough is just one film away, perhaps the breakthrough will never come. Perhaps, as [Sony Classics' Tom] Bernard describes, it's the worst thing to happen to indie film since the screener ban.

Maybe Zahedi is an indie-world hero. Maybe he really is a David caught between two Goliaths. Maybe he just knows a good hook when he sees one. Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see if his very public battle translates to some degree of success for a film and a distribution chain that he has already embraced.

The biggest question this situation raises in our mind is how beneficial it is for a filmmaker to be as public a figure as the internet so readily allows. In our heart of purist hearts we'd love it if every filmmaker were an interviewphobic recluse living in a log cabin in British Columbia, just because we'd rather not know about them in context of their film — once completed, we love the idea that a film should float free, unhampered by its creators' publicly stated intentions. Of course, that's ridiculous — in real life indie filmmakers need to hustle all they can to get their film noticed, whether this means press junkets or one-on-ones, passing flyers out in the streets of Sundance, selling their own DVDs on the web (but no longer?), staging in-costume battles in front the of Austin Convention Center, podcasting about their process and their personal lives, blogging, or, perhaps, seizing the moment and a juicy media hook. But there comes a point where the filmmaker and the film become too closely linked in one's mind — though given the autobiographical nature of "I Am A Sex Addict," maybe there's no such thing.

+ April 17, 2006 (The Hot Button)
+ Caveh, Cuban & Day and Date: "The Worst Thing to Happen to Indie Film..." (All These Wonderful Things)
+ Caveh Zahedi Responds
(All These Wonderful Things)

Comments

(Required)
(Required, not displayed)

Wow, Alison, one blogger's a bit fed up, another expresses a little healthy skepticism, and suddenly it's the fall of Caveh?

I haven't seen the film yet (plan to this week), but Caveh's blog does exactly what film blogging is supposed to do. Get some attention for his film and give him a platform to rant. If folks are tired of his self-absorption (um, not like they haven't been warned), they really aren't being arm-twisted into reading it.

Oh, it's such an overly inflammatory headline; I'd just seen "Stoked: The Rise and Fall of Gator" and the phrase was stuck in my head.

Congratulations on the Full Frame screening, Doug.

Zahedi's blog has worked well for him, and, as you point out, it only reflects the tone of the film. But having a platform to rant and promote one's film is one thing — I suppose I just find it unbefitting for any filmmaker to attempt to engage his or her critics the way Zahedi has. If someone doesn't get your film, well, that's an inevitable hazard of offering it up for public opinion.

Still, though — getting a New Yorker review! Not too shabby for such an indie, whatever your opinion of Anthony Lane.

Ray Pride has a great post on this topic and on the idea of "blog suicide" at Movie City Indie.

I'm just kind of in awe of Caveh's honesty. I realize it might be counter-productive for most other bloggers, including myself (since I happen to be in the middle of sifting through several SIMPLY FABULOUS distribution scenarios). For Caveh, though, I think it's part and parcel of his shtick. And, man, does it work. To engage with the Times critic about his review on his blog, it just doesn't happen!

The idea that it's "unbefitting for any filmmaker to engage his or her critics" strikes me as reactionary. Filmmakers make films in order to engage with the world. Critics are part of the world. To attempt to posit obsolete distinctions between "art" and "life" strikes me as both backwards and naive. My films are precisely about collapsing the distinctions between "art" and "life." I'm not blogging in order to get people to find me "charming." I'm trying to be transparent and honest. It's part of a larger artistic project, and a blog strikes me as just as viable a medium as a film or a conversation.

Contributors

Vadim Rizov
Contributing Writer

Vadim Rizov

Stephen Saito
Assistant Editor

Stephen Saito

Email UsE-mail us at ifcblog (at) ifctv.com

ADVERTISEMENT

Categories

We have updated our Privacy Policy. Please click here for details.