Thanks for embedding the first episode. I am consistently and predictably underwhelmed by the aesthetic, writing, and directorial capabilities of Mr. Swanberg. I can’t wait until this brand of kitchen sink American “naturalism” is dethroned by the next trend, a trend, I hope, that is born from the minds of people who don’t totally disregard artistic acumen for the sake of “realness,” or whatever it is that this stuff is supposed to stand in for. The work of Mr. Swanberg, once you take away all the blather and hype, is exactly what it pretends to be, i.e., underehearsed improvisational exercises filmed without even a modicum of nuance or imagination. Kudos to Swanberg and his group of friends for having the drive and desire to put on a show, but I’m afraid that’s all they have, which, sadly, seems to be enough to convince lovers of novelty that what they are seeing is the Next of anything, when, in fact, it is nothing more than another truckload of glorified home movies that, stripped of their context, will date horribly. That these movies and shows and webcasts reify the notion that indeed, “anyone can do it,” I’m afraid they also highlight the fact that while, yes, anyone can do it, not just anyone can do it well. My only hope for Swanberg and company is that they get the opportunity to continue making movies in hopes that one day they will learn how to make movies, but I’m not so sure that this is axiomatic, viz. the career of John Waters, another backyard auteur, who, over the course of almost 40 years, has only gotten slightly better as a filmmaker while improving exponentially as a promoter/marketer/brand manager. I suspect the same fate for Swanberg et al, and if, in the end, that’s what secures them a place in cinema history, well, I guess it’s better than nothing.

You know what?
I thought it was quite funny. While everyone else is bitterly squabbling about the authenticity of the detective work (I wonder if I were to find out the panhandling in The Gold Rush was less than authentic if I would cease to think it was funny), or it’s inability to present tracking-shots that rival Children of Men, I’ll sit back and enjoy my pleasant, charming 10 minute diversion each week. (and I don’t want to give the impression I found it artless either). Thanks spout!

it was great. Holds the same standards of style and writing of a great television show but with the honesty of human character that swanberg is best known for doing. I’m happy to witness a story between brilliantly discovered human moments without the worry of “whats supposed to be” or “this is a film” mindset. Art exists because it does. There is no rule book, no standard and nothing that says “a movie is this:” and to think that one could “learn to make a movie” is just outrageous. There is nothing to be learned, there is no definition and though I don’t even think swanberg breaks as many molds as he is accused of, I think its great that he has expressed his freedom to do so.

Great Show! Much anticipated in my house hold. Excellent work! I can’t wait for next week.
Screw the networks, I recommend spout.

The point that the “take a lesson from David Mamet” person was trying to make is simply that Swanberg perhaps should spend just a little time just finding out the BASIC details of something that has a specific set of rules. In a work that is so refreshingly “real”, the lack of reality in that aspect was distracting to me as well.

Call me crazy but I’m pretty sure he was not really there to deliver a subpeona, but merely using that as a ruse to get some cold, hard facts. You know, like a detective.

Great point. i hope this is the case. i guess we will see.