The Sarkeesian Effect: Inside the World of Social Justice Warriors (2015) User Reviews

A Waste of Backer's Money and Trust in Owen/Aurini

[h-32413 · 1/10 · 27 September 2015]

If I could give it a 0/10, I would but unfortunately, I can't. The quality of cat videos on Youtube are made of higher production value than this documentary. I am going to ignore the drama surrounding this film and look at the documentary on its own merits or lack of it.

The introduction is awkward. Owen has stated this film is for people like his parents, who don't know anything about the controversy surrounding Anita or Social Justice Warriors or the scandal known as GamerGate. Given that the film is about 2.5 hours, he should have had ample time to explain those concepts. He is unable to properly explain GamerGate, Anita or SJWs and as a narrator, goes off on tangents and gives unnecessary information that should have been edited out.

The documentary should have been at most 1.5 hours, but because Owen couldn't provide even a moderately decent documentary, instead decided he could just make it longer. It's like what middle school and high school students do when it's midnight and their paper is due first period the next morning. They fill the paper up with useless information and opinions, without any structure or understanding of what the assignment objectives are.

Another flaw of this documentary is that the narrator/directors tried to insert themselves as "characters". As a documentary, it should have been unbiased, told from an objective viewpoint with facts laid out clearly and conclusions based off of facts. The Sarkeesian Effect fails entirely to do this. Not only does it not have any clear concise objectives, it fails to paint Anita as the terrible person she truly is. In fact, this documentary is so terrible that it highlights Anita as competent.

You can clearly tell that Owen and Aurini have failed to even study up on what makes a decent documentary. As a narrator, Owen drones on and on and it is the most boring, monotone voice. Not only that, but what is shown on screen usually has nothing to do with what Owen (the narrator) is stating at the time, giving the audience a strange sort of weird disconnect. After about 20 minutes, the documentary is no longer watchable. You'll have to force yourself to sit through it.

The shots in the film are strange and all put at different angles and heights. Elbows, shoes, feet all hanging into view from the sides. A random violin pillow propped right in the middle of nowhere. People who are being interviewed who are in no way dressed professionally, in no way who offer a viewpoint that helps the film or who don't even know that much about Anita or Social Justice Warriors. Strange screenshots of tweets, website texts, with no zoom....etc.

This documentary was given about $90,000 minimum from backers. Quite frankly, I'm not sure where that money went. It was probably wasted on personal luxury items for Owen Jordan and Davis Aurini since there is no way that $90,000 was pumped into this film. Not only that but Owen is trying to get more money through pay-per-view on Vimeo before even sending backers their promised copy of the film. This film has been a scam for the backers, who were expecting a moderately decent documentary on Anita Sarkeesian and GamerGate and have yet to receive even the tiniest bit of quality or respect from Owen or Aurini. Another failing of the director Owen Jordan, who refuses to take responsibility for this failed documentary or even take a look at legitimate criticism.

Poorly edited, scratchy audio, bizarre shots, unimportant and unnecessary interviews, a waste of $90,000, monotone narration, it's best that you don't waste your money or time on this documentary.

Absolute Crap

[mpless-97355 · 1/10 · 27 September 2015]

10 Reasons The Sarkeesian Effect is Absolute Crap 10. Absolutely *nobody* interviewed in the film has any connection to Anita Sarkeesian, and many of them say so outright in the final cut. The interviewees are YouTube MRAs, right-wing hacks, disbarred lawyers who hate video games, and women involved in the sex industry. Basically, Owen and Aurini interviewed the people they idolize, instead of anybody connected with Sarkeesian or the social justice movement. 9. The pieces of Jordan Owen's hands and feet intruding (and wobbling) in interview shots. 8. Karen Straughan is clearly drunk during her interview. 7. You can't hear the other two women who interviewed with Drunk Karen, because the only microphone was placed next to Straughan. 6. Owen's music is repetitive, overly loud, and *never* matches the footage you're watching. 5. The Wikipedia Edit-War interviews in the middle of the film is the most tedious thing I've ever fast-forwarded through. 4. Owen airbrushed his partner Aurini out of the entire film, including the credits, belying the premise that Sarkeesian is ethically bankrupt. 3. Random crap like pizza boxes and wires "decorate" various shots. One interviewee (Phil Mason) dressed his set with a 4.5 ft tall phallus. 2. The 2.5 hour runtime, which feels like 12.5 hours. 1. Jordan Owen's Rand-tastic rant at the end of the movie, complete with incongruous and obnoxiously loud space organ.

haha oh wow

[internetomatic · 1/10 · 25 September 2015]

The production values are a joke. The sound quality is terrible. The message is glib, asinine, and poorly researched. None of the people they interviewed had any idea about video games. They even interviewed an avowed racist about his views on "communists and homosexuals" and their evil agenda (lol). What does this have to do with Sarkeesian? Who knows! Better toss it in anyway. I mean, one of the creators of the movie is a white nationalist, so it's not surprising he'd give time to a guy like that.

There is nothing of any value in this movie. It's anti-intellectual pap that totally ignores decades, if not centuries, of academic scholarship in favor of a rambling, incoherent diatribe. None of it is worth your time.

This will show Social Justice Warriors!

[ordenjowen · 1/10 · 26 September 2015]

As a GamerGate supporter, I couldn't care less about Anita Sarkeesian. That's why I backed The Sarkeesian Effect, so other smart people will understand how little I actually care.

Viewers are engaged with mediocre editing and clever tricks like the magical hand that appears and disappears on the corner of the screen. But honestly these distractions are what makes the movie fun! Because we already know the content is true.

Please notice how we have a woman, several women in fact, who agree with us. We even have a black man. This means even though we often act sexist and racist on twitter, and even though we fund the neonazi and pedophile meeting place 8chan, we are actually very nice people. And if you don't believe us, we may laugh at you, and then somebody might post your address on 8chan and somebody will tell the cops you're building a bomb.

But if you are okay with us, we will be your friends. Minorities who are okay with patrolling "not your shield" are readily accepted!

Anyway, great movie. It gets #1 rating from me.

Flawed, yet useful, look at the backstory and chronology of Anita Sarkeesian's work

[aiken-2 · 8/10 · 4 August 2019]

[Disclosure, part 1: I've been a professional game developer since the Super Nintendo days, and I've worked in nearly every genre of gaming, along with some time spent in the publishing and platform areas.]

[Disclosure, part 2: I agree that the way women have historically been portrayed in games, among other media, has been very lacking in both representation and compassion, and that this really needed to be addressed for the games industry to move towards a level playing field with solid ethics.]

The flaw in this movie, which is not a fatal flaw, but certainly a limiting factor, is that its research is based entirely in confirmation bias.There are few, if any, nods towards the assorted upsides that have come of having attention focused on some of the more insidious aspects of the industry and much of its historical treatment of female characters.

However, information gathered while energized by confirmation bias isn't inherently suspect; its issue is just that it lacks potential counterpoints. One can still watch this movie and disregard the creator's clear bias, taking in only the information that was gathered while discarding the narrator's analyses and opinions. We have our own minds; we can do independent research to supplement what's in the film, using its leads as a springboard into a deeper pool of discovery.

Because of this usefulness, I do recommend the film. Whether or not you agree with the core tenets of feminism and gaming, you can certainly go through this movie and come out the other side knowing more about what's actually going on, and whether or not you can trust people like this, even if they purport to be fighting for a cause you believe in.

My personal opinion, held somewhat loosely before watching the film and much more firmly after, is that Anita and FF have existed largely for the benefit and glorification of Anita, and that any good done in their name is somewhat coincidental. I find her to be disingenuous, and not someone I would trust to have my back when the chips are down. She may have done some good along the way, but I suspect she's done even more damage overall by associating all of her own flaws and failings with the cause and making it lose the credibility it needs.

Whichever side of the GG battle you were on, you probably ought to watch this with an objective eye. If she's your enemy, you'll probably just feel smug, but if she's been your ally, you might start to wonder if you really want this kind of ally. Personally, I'd say you don't. There must be someone, someone more earnest, who could do it better.

Unexpectedly good, the addendum "for what it is" quite unnecessary

[kiddo1-1 · 8/10 · 17 September 2015]

It's a sad side effect of all the drama surrounding this production that the only people left who are still willing to give this movie a watch are now the tiny handful of its most stubbornly dedicated backers, together with the people it criticizes and the friends of Owen's former business partner, both of the latter groups being driven solely by the desire to rip it apart in order to have a few cheap laughs. Everyone else is either too busy pretending this project never happened, or actively distancing themselves from it. And it's a shame, because despite the impossible odds, this is a pretty good flick.

Let me make myself perfectly clear: I didn't donate to TSE Patreon, in fact the entire idea of filming a documentary rebutting Sarkeesian seemed incredibly redundant. The hyping and bravado displayed by both creators was honestly cringe worthy, especially considering the fact that neither of them had ever made even a remotely decent movie and, judging from their previous work, didn't seem at all capable to handle a project of such seriousness and ambition. Add the repeated public falling outs, the budgetary restrictions, or the horrendous quality of the raw footage, and the end result seemed clear: the movie will be nothing but another YouTube video consisted of a series of poorly shot and barely related interviews repeating what everybody already knows, with amateurishly constructed arguments and no additional value, and thus will only serve to stroke the ego of people who have always agreed with its basic premise and are willing to delude themselves into thinking that this isn't crap both as a critique, and as a filmmaking venture. Imagine then my surprise when I press the play button and see that the movie is none of these things.

First things first, the atrocious raw footage has been, with the use of a few neat visual tricks, transformed from embarrassing unwatchable train wreck into something that doesn't really stand out all that much and, believe it or not, sometimes looks like quite a charming quirk – it's hard to believe that one of the accusations levied against Owen was that he knows nothing about editing. The laughable goal to "make this movie for our parents" has shockingly been achieved without the film seeming didactic or repetitive, and Owen's voice-over presents a clear, easy to follow timeline of events and ideas, all skillfully intercut with the raw footage enriching them with many new insights and much interesting information. The progression of arguments is logical, something the rough draft completely lacked. Owen explains Sarkeesian's background, the growing rift between media and consumers and how exactly it led to GamerGate, the origins of social justice warriors and their go-to MO, the connection between Sarkeesian, sex-positive feminism and the idea behind NotYourShield (again, the rough draft mucked this up), and why Sarkeesian of all people returned into the spotlight during GamerGate, a controversy which at first glance has absolutely nothing to do with her. Barring a few moments at the very end the movie is mercifully free of armchair psychology, and the end ties everything up in a way I don't think has been done before, turning The Sarkeesian Effect into an unexpectedly touching and occasionally funny story with a happy ending where the underdog wins, the princess known as gaming is saved, and the villain gets laughed out of the building. Now that's what I call a play on tropes.

Not to completely blow Owen's trumpet, the time devoted to several of the interviewees seems way disproportionate to what they have to say, certain technical issues remain (e.g. Cathy Young is virtually unintelligible), the animated sequences ARE kinda ugly (though the idea to animate the Anita snuff fanfic certainly must be appreciated), and the last 30 minutes are devoted solely to the ending(s), one of which takes a form of imitating the style of Ayn Rand – nothing against Rand per se, it was just strange to hear her talk through Jordan's mouth.

Overall, this is a remarkable achievement and nothing to be ashamed of. So if it means anything, Jordan, you knocked this one out of the park.

Not good, but not bad

[abush-81614 · 6/10 · 26 January 2016]

Having just discovered moral crusader Anita Sarkeesian, I rejoiced that someone made a full length movie about her. Interesting topic, but somehow this movie fell short. I can't put my finger on it, but the film seemed to alternate between mildly interesting parts and tad boring parts. I applaud the intent of the filmmakers as we need to create exposes on Anita Sarkeesian. I also appreciate some of the valid and thoughtful critiques of leftism in general and the contemporary social justice warriors in particular. The reflections on the nature of art got me thinking. I found the constant "First World Problems" criticism insincere as surely the filmmakers aren't saying that to increase gratitude in the world, but to attack Anita Sarkeesian and other social justice warriors. Overall, I deem the film not good, but not bad.

Low quality, but the only response blatant media bias.

[Viperbane · 7/10 · 25 November 2015]

Let's get the obvious out of the way. This project (Disclaimer: I had no part in funding or promoting this film in any way) had a great premise, but drama and inexperience of the two main producers greatly reduced the quality of this film.

The video quality is, mildly put, poor. You'll find Troma films from the 1980's with greater image quality.

The audio is absolutely terrible, it is quite amazing that they failed the audio with the budget they had available - speaking as someone that have filmed plenty of YouTube videos outdoors and indoors, I know first hand that even a budget microphone and a little bit of knowledge produces a much better end result than this.

My only real complaint is towards the end where a longer narrative part jump cuts numerous times between an animated clip and Anita Sarkeesian talking about something.

The rest of the framing, camera angles and editing are mistakes commonly made by people new to the production of video making.

The same goes for the audio levels, but as the captured audio from the interviews are of such low quality from the start, it is not a good place to compare it with the background music that on some few occasions do steal focus.

My final critique is regarding the length of this film, it needed not be anywhere near the 2 hours and 36 minutes it is - It can easily be shortened by 1 hour if not even more.

The message of the film, however one sided it is, is a necessary one - it counters a blatant media bias.

(In case you are still oblivious to what is going on - Media (mostly, but not exclusively limited to games media) openly thinks of and behave towards gamers as "loser virgins living in their mothers basements and that they are unwashed, smelly as well as ugly with no prospect of ever leaving home or finding a girlfriend, they were also born with white skin so they are the privileged class in the western world with all the power, with which they are violently oppressing and physically preventing women and minorities from ever being allowed to play even the smallest video game on any kind of console or computer".

That sounds quite absurd does it not? Even if gamers were just trying to keep women out of gaming and that was the entire message, then gamers have done an embarrassingly poor job since 53% of gamers are women in 2015 according to these very same journalists and media outlets.

It should be made clear that Sarkeesian, the "journalists" mentioned in this film, Quinn etc. have no interest in talking or debating this, hence the lack of their "side" in this documentary, their motives are purely financial and their fan base will quickly turn on them if they step out of line, but that is too much to go in depth here. Further, there is no denying the facts that the games media had been on a crusade spewing hatred on gamers, it earns clicks to their websites which in turn increases their ad revenue.

To elaborate briefly; There is nothing stopping you from becoming a gamer, despite these journalists attempt to claim there is. Girls and ethnic minorities have played video games since the start in the 1970's with the rest of us, but the main games media have tried for more than a decade to obscure this fact, which is where the #NotYourShield came from - These gamers simply wanted media to stop talking on their behalf, especially since all media said was pure nonsense and contained more fiction than the actual games themselves. It is this mistake that journalists made when they decided to "kill the gamers" in 2014.

Gamers, long used to being mocked and ridiculed, finally said "No." Games Media realised it had finally gone too far with its overbearing and often bullying tactics tried to back pedal, only to find themselves up against their very own audience of gamers who were fed up and demanded accountability from these "journalists".

Instead of owning up to their mistake, journalists doubled down, started attacking the gamers instead branding them as misogynists and openly declaring war on its own audience culminating in an embarrassing episode on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (Season 16 Episode 14 Title: Intimidation Game) that made a cringe worthy episode grabbing details from the very headlines produced by these journalists and showed them how reality would have looked like if what they proclaimed was even remotely true.

Since the coordinated "attack" on gamers in 2014, gamers proved just how meticulous, dedicated and determined they are about their passion for gaming and have unearthed substantial amounts of quite embarrassing details regarding these "main figures" from Anita Sarkeesians early day trying to "teleseminar" her way to some quick money and fortune, to Zoe Quinns colourful past and the slew of so called "journalists" and their misdeeds.

This is what this film tried to capture and to some decent length succeeded with. It was definitely not value for money spent making the film and the price charged on the video website is not on par with its overall quality. To the credit of the producers, they did do a good job of letting people previously ignored or even actively blocked by the media speak, for that alone the price of the rental is worth while.

However as with any film or documentary telling you only one side, you should always do your own research, for this particular title you'll find that it is factually accurate, but being constantly attacked with "bad" identity politic labels, even reviews here on IMDb states that so and so is "racist/homophobic/misogynistic" - These labels do not counter any of the facts, arguments or events that took place or were presented within this film.