You know, the docu-douche does make some good points, about the usefulness to the victims of an investigation into Huff's perspective. As long as it isn't, again, some maudlin morally-relativistic pseudo-psychoanalytical bullshit. And as long as it seeks and incorporates the victims' perspective, which it doesn't seem to give enough of a shit to do. "I got me my two tokens, oh and I knew someone too (but definitely not in a super close way), so fuck everyone else, let's roll." That's what makes the docu-douche stink of bad intentions. I mean, Birth of a Nation was useful in its own way, to those seeking to understand KKK depravity, decades later usually. In the meantime, at the time, didn't it result in a spike in KKK membership, dignify the fuckers? How happy were the Southern blacks about Griffith exploring the perspective of those murdering devils? Wasn't, uh, Griffith a racist and any usefulness of the movie to the cause of justice purely accidental and despite its director's wishes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation
Have you ever seen BIRTH OF A NATION? It's the most racist movie ever made. But the fact that the film presents the world from the perspective of the KKK is the most elucidating and original thing about it. It really made me see what was going on through the minds of Southern bigots after the Civil War — they felt like they were being victimized by the freed slaves, and that the actions of the KKK amounted to vigilante heroism. Of course, they were Southern bigots. They were assholes. But seeing how they viewed the world around them is extremely helpful. I would love to see a film that depicts Bin Laden's world-view. And if I was going to make that film to show the world from his perspective, I would not allow myself to be chained to portraying Bin Laden only in a way in which the most grief-stricken of his victims approved. It would be antithetical to the whole concept.
Dooooooooooosh-baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag. Clueless.
As a public figure who committed what became a part of history, with extensive documentation (The Panel Report on the Capitol Hill Shooting) on public record describing that night in step by step detail, I have the legal rights to tell his story. That much has been sorted out with a lawyer.
Egotistical narcissistic douchebag without a clue.
Can't wait to read that report, I bet it's a doozy.
I think emotions run too high on this subject for people to be rational — again, the reason why I avoided contacting family members of the victims earlier and asking for permission. Much of my material, as I said is, taken directly out of my own life, so I feel entitled to it.
How about even just asking for input, you fucking douche?
Words cannot describe how fucking loathesome his attitude and approach is.
Perhaps this douche is no ordinary douche, but a genuine sociopath.
However, I am making this film because I believe the perspective I am portraying has never been adequately presented yet in our culture.
Uhhh, except for umpteen other mass-shooting-mindset movies made by superior filmmakers?
Out of deference to the families, I am fictionalizing Kyle's victims to the point that they are totally unrecognizable (changing genders, ages, races, everything.) That's as much concession as I can make. The film is about Kyle Huff.
Did the families ask for that? If so, maybe a bad call. If not -- and why should anyone believe this douche consulted with families about specific concessions -- then he is not only glorifying the murderer, but narratively negating the identities of the victim, wiping out the identities ("totally unrecognizable") of those whose bodies were wiped out by the murderer. So, essentially, he is fulfilling the role of "accessory to murder after the fact", maybe also guilty of obstructing justice. He is a real piece of shit. Makes me even wonder a tiny bit just how tangential his relationship to the event was.
I know this email sounds testy, but hopefully its length is an indication of how much I respect you and your email and that I wanted to respond fully. You have a right to your perspective and I look forward to further discussions with you or other intelligent people like yourself on this topic.
We have to face this. It's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Great, he abuses a perfectly-sensible and ethical general point of view disclaimer, too, one I share.
So, now I have even more reason to despise his fucking rotten soul.
But do you really think the world would be better off if I did not make this film?
In my view, the alternative to what I am doing is letting this issue lie forgotten by the populus at large.
False dichotomy, asshole. You unconscionable dick.
Make a different film about it.
One person supposedly personally-connected voiced support, with this excerpt:
I personally think that the filmmaker's interest in trying to explore what might cause "a sick man who was welcomed with open arms by a special and incredibly open group of people, and returned that welcome with bullets" is both highly precedented and legitimate.
Funny, Jagger Gravning doesn't seem to think it's highly precedented.
Because, of course, none of the precedents were made by Jagger Gravning, a precedent unto himself.
Unprecedented douchebaggery, more like it. This is too easy. Shooting douches in a barrel.
More importantly, though:
What if it was more than just one sick dude randomly turning on ravers?
This person nails it:
I personally know Jagger Gravning. I have worked with him on several projects. I'm familiar with his award winning (ahem) work (ahem). And I can honestly say that nobody has anything to worry about. His film -- and it will be finished, I do believe -- will go nowhere. It will be ham fisted, entered into SIFF, rejected, will likely play at STIFF, then be lambasted and ultimately ignored. Because he is a talentless hack. His protestations of, "I knew one of the victims... we weren't super close, but..." ring as hollow as a white kid from the suburbs pretending that it's okay to sling racial epithets around because, "I have a black friend."
And then there is this epic response:
Let me begin by going a bit off topic... I'm Jason's dad and I invited exclusively the Stranger, one of their reporters and their photographer to attend my son's funeral on the shore of Puget Sound. I set one condition only and that was for me to be provided a copy of all of the photographs taken during the ceremony and gathering. I received nothing. I wrote to the reporter and to the editor seeking their cooperation in obtaining the many photos, but never received a reply from either. I thought I had made the right decision to allow this one alternative media to share with me my most profoundly private of moments, but now I know that I was wrong to have allowed the Stranger this unique privilege. Had they honored our agreement I would of course feel much differently.
back on topic:
As I commented on the Capitol Hill Blog, I encourage all donors to request the filmmaker return to them their donations and for all others to please not provide this man funding to make this film.
He says it would be from Kyle Huff's perspective, but that is an impossibility, as Mr. Huff kept no journal.
"But I appreciate what you are communicating, that that is what some people are hearing on some level, but the fact is that I am simply making a film from Huff's perspective."
No, that's not at all true. You are fantasizing what you believe Huff's perspective to be. As you've said, you'll be interjecting your experiences wherever it suits you, so this cannot be called a documentary. Call it what you will but it will be your own particular murder fantasy, a fiction based upon the experience of someone not present at the scene that fateful morning, and conjecture on your part about Huff's state of mind.
"In a conversation Wednesday night, Gravning told CHS he's aware his project will be controversial but that his intention is to make a film that documents Huff's spiraling depression, withdrawal and eventual fixation with the people he killed. "If there is a backlash, I think it's misplaced," Gravning said. "I'm literally trying to make a film about what happened with Kyle Huff."
No one knows why Huff did what he did. No one can ever know because it is unknowable. He, as if on cue, took that information to the grave with him. There is absolutely no information at all that demonstrates Kyle Huff suffered from any sort of mental illness or depression... None.
The Dr. Death panel report is a fraud perpetrated by him at the expense of city taxpayers.
It is unfortunate that Gravning has made private his YouTube video, but perhaps you've seen it? One where he harasses someone he owes money to and finally repays them the money soaked in a container filled with his urine, surely one of his best bits yet, don't you think?
While no one there caught on, we here are sure to note: "as if on cue"
Another comment notes:
This must have been the most happening party full of the most popular people in Seattle, 'cause I've met literally DOZENS of people who were invited to that party, but who did not attend,and another couple of dozens of people who didn't seem to know the victims, but were good, dear friends nonetheless.
Cap Hill = high school after a fatal car crash kills a student.
Perhaps this was the deeper goal? The devastation of the liveliest most-enlightened sub-community in one of the hippest, most influential cities in the country? Timed days before said sub-culture was about to be granted a license to wave its potentially-world-changing freak flag high, in peace?
WTF, Dan!? Chris!? Bethany!? Dominic!? Somebody at the Stranger!? Can you please get on that?
@53, 59 -- Yeah, no kidding. That's awful and needs to be corrected immediately.
I'm going to assume, sadly, that it was not?
p.s. In this thread, for every post until his deal is sorted through, I'm posting two words at the end.
James Winn.
p.p.s. Board, fellow members: HELP WANTED.
One of us lost a child in a suspicious mass-shooting.
Up until now, this board has averted its eyes.
Out of respect? Perhaps. But...
Time to wake up, pitch in.
NOW.
