Dear Website Reader,

So, in case you were wondering, I really do get angry
e-mails, as well as a lot of very positive correspondence. It's an extremely surreal experience, getting mail from strangers, and I'm not sure I'd recommend it. However, there are some diamonds in the rough, so I thought I'd share these interesting letters with all of you, along with my responses. As I get mail that meets the standards of interesting correspondence, I'll continue to post them here... I hope you enjoy them as much as I do.

- Nick

 

Our Current Letter is from Michael! Read on below!

Check back frequently for new letters!

First off, thank you for writing. Contrary to your expectations, I do read most of the mail I get (dodging the spam as much as possible) and try to reply where it's appropriate. If I got a lot of mail this probably wouldn't be the case, but as it stands I am still essentially a backwater filmmaker and very very few people actually write me. I really do appreciate your writing me, and although it's difficult to express nuance in text, I assure I am genuinely interested in your perspective. The most valuable feedback one can get is the feedback that you wouldn't necessarily want to hear.

And, of course, no one wants to hear "I didn't like your film!" But I think it's important to listen and learn from the criticism of others. Certainly we have already listened and learned a lot from making and presenting Fandom, and now that more people are seeing it we are getting more feedback.

"...why are you encouraging and taking advantage of their weakened state of mind and trust?"

I suppose that where you and I differ is that I don't see the interviewees as disturbed, sick, or in anyway 'damaged goods.' When we first started looking for interviewees I can tell you quite earnestly that we were contacted by people who I did feel were sick, disturbed or worse –and I avoided interviewing them for many reasons, not least of which is because I didn't want to make light of them or their particular issues. I picked people who were very normal, very together, very nice, and (I think) sane. Having met all of them, I can say that they're all exactly that - normal, together, nice, and (I think) sane.

They are different from most people, but they're not sick. I have to say that I am surprised that you would get that impression, and I have to say you're the first to bring it to my attention. I'm not trying to imply that you're wrong for forming such an opinion –simply that you're the first to bring it to my attention. On the other side of things a great many people have told me that they really empathized with the interviewees, many find them relatable, and I know I do.

I didn't make this movie, which is part documentary and part fiction, in an empathy vacuum. I myself have been a "fan," and I myself have been caught up in it. While I was never a Natalie Portman fan, I knew (and know) quite a lot of them and that is how I learned about all the websites, chat-boards, etc... My friends who are Natalie Portman fans have all seen the film, and I don't think any of them saw the interviewees portrayed in a bad light.

So, like I said, I suppose where we differ is that I don't think these people have serious problems. I think that we as a people tend to assume that anyone different in a significant way is somehow ill, or crazy. I myself am a very strange person, in many respects, and I know that a lot of my eccentricities would seem insane to people. I can't apologize for them, and wouldn't.

Gordon:

In this film there are two characters that I consider crazy, disturbed, or otherwise unstable.

One is the character of John, the interviewee from San Francisco. John is in fact an extremely talented actor and a good friend of mine, and his portrayal is a fictional one. He is credited at the end with the other actors.

The only other really disturbed and crazy character in the movie is Gordon Coleman, and he is in fact a work of fiction as well. Gordon Coleman is based on a lot of real people, including the very extreme cases listed at the beginning of the film. It's also worth noting that Gordon is based partially on me. I'm not a big fan of sweaters, and I never learned how to knit (something I regret), but I have a lot of the same character traits (to a lesser degree) - and that's why I was fascinated with telling his story.

The interviewees, in my mind, are a stark contrast against Gordon. Each of them is able to look at their own 'fandom' and say, essentially, "yes, at one point I was way too into Natalie Portman." Gordon is not, except possibly at the end when his obsession has played out beyond his grasp. This is a crucial difference. While each of the interviewees has insight into their own fascination, Gordon does not. While each of the interviewees can find humor in their fandom, Gordon cannot. I had hoped this contrast was clear, and most of the time when people talk to me about the movie they see it. But I realized very early in filmmaking that I could not be all things to all people, and neither could my work.

"...leave the exploitation to the scum in the news media."

Michael, after reading your letter I was glad to see at the end something we agree upon, and I think that if we were to shift our respective perspectives but a small amount we would be looking at the very same thing from the very same place. In many ways I think your use of the word "exploitation" is apt. Having said that, I don't think that any of the real interviewees were exploited, but this movie is very much about exploitation.

Up until a week or two before shooting I didn't think I would be standing outside of the car screaming at Gordon to get back in, threatening him, making him feel obligated to complete his journey. In fact I was terribly embarrassed about doing it - I am a very shy person and screaming at someone at a (mostly) empty rest stop is really not in my makeup. The idea for that scene came to me when a friend had put on a television show, I forget exactly what it was, but it was something along the lines of "Elimidate." I had never seen this show before, and quickly realized that I was horrified by it. Although it was edited well, and shot well, it was essentially just two or three people (photogenic people) thrust into a situation where they would be forced to come into conflict with one another. Three girls competing for one guy, getting cattier by the minute, and all of it was the television equivalent of putting bugs in a jar and shaking it. It was the definition of exploitation. I wondered what the producer was doing off-camera, if he was secretly happy to see these people so hateful towards one another because he knew it would make 'good television.'

And I realized that's what my film was all about. In looking at Gordon I didn't see someone who would go across the country to hurt the object of his affection, but I did see someone who could be influenced by an unethical producer and driven to extremes.

Fandom is, in my mind, more about the way that media attention affects people than anything else. Gordon isn't crazy enough to kill his obsession, he might be close but ultimately even with the pressure of the camera crew he turned away from that. But certainly the camera crew in the movie exploited Gordon and it was that exploitation that drove him to his breaking point. That exploitation, however, is fictional. It is important to show it because it is vital that people see how damaging it is.

I personally see Fandom as a critique and satire of reality television and exploitive media. Looking at the coverage of Hurricane Katrina certainly gives us a good glimpse of how exploitive and sensationalistic the mainstream press can be. Look at most (most, not all) reality shows, what you see is exploitive situations with photogenic people. The main difference is that these shows try to hide how exploitive they are, whereas Fandom goes out of the way to showcase it. It is, after all, all about exploitation.

As far as my own character goes, please don't make any presumptions. I'm not trying to make a fast buck, and I'm not trying to make it in Hollywood. In fact I live in Greenville, and I used to work at the very same yarn shop as Gordon. I like living here, and wouldn't dream of moving. As far as fast bucks go... well.. we finished editing Fandom roughly two years ago... so any money we make from it is far from fast. And, to date, it has not made me a dime, or even a penny. Actually I have, so far, seen a 0% return on investment, and I'm not complaining. The distribution deal won't make me any money until after enough money has been made to pay off the actor's deferred salaries, and it's my hope that they will be paid soon because they deserve that money and more - they deserve recognition for their performances. I really don't care if I make any money with Fandom - I never intended to in the first place, I only ever shot it as an experiment. The reason it is in distribution is because people wanted it in distribution, and it's a piece of work I am proud of. It's not my best work, I'll say that candidly, but it's a representation of my abilities at the time I shot it. More than any potential monetary gain I stand to reap, Fandom has profited me with a great wealth of experience, and that is what I wanted in the first place.

I only make movies because I enjoy doing it.

Well, Michael, as you can probably tell from the time I've invested in replying to your e-mail, I am far from famous. I am not writing this from beneath a pile of fan mail that has been dumped atop me by an inconsiderate postman. So, in that regard you can rest easy - Fandom is still a safely obscure movie. For that matter, I myself am very glad to be mostly obscure. The very limited amount of correspondence I receive from people who've seen the movie is easy to manage, and I try to reply to people with the same thoughtfulness that they put into their own letter. Of course it feels good to get letters from people who loved the movie, and of course it hurts to read mail from people who didn't like it. As much as I wish that I could make a movie that all people could love, I know it isn't possible. And Fandom isn't really a very lovable film to begin with - it's a critical look at how media, and audiences, inflict great evil on their subjects. It's a dark message, and I think it rests uneasily with most people - I know it does with me - because it implies we all bear responsibility for the stryfe caused and inflamed by media exploitation.

I really am glad you wrote - your perspective is a valuable one to me. I hope that after reading my response you will re-evaluate the film and maybe see it in a different light. If I could ask you one favor it would be to watch it again and look at those interviewees carefully. To be honest I think that you just might like them a little more if you looked for something to like. I only say that because I like them a lot, and I don't see them as "troubled people," and I don't find it "disturbing that these people were out in the world." I'm glad they're out there, and I have a lot more empathy for them than one might imagine. People with quirks, eccentricities, flaws, and hang-ups are what make life interesting.

I'm sorry I my film didn't appeal more to you, I'm sorry it didn't better communicate my intentions, but ultimately that's the only thing I can apologize for.

- Nick Tucker