I don't see this so called resemblance in material. Jonathan Caouette is an acclaimed filmmaker. Chris Crocker is some kid who videotapes himself and puts it online. What makes people think that they are similar. I don't see anything big that they have in common. What are people talking about?
"It's easy to win an argument when you know that you're right."
Well did you see the 14 year old version of himself crying in the the camera while portraying a woman? That was pretty much exactly like the stuff Chris Crocker does. They appear seperated at birth to me.
shareI saw TARNATION, but Johnathan was just playing different characters in those videos. He isn't really much like that. Chris Crocker, on the other hand, appears to be very much like that. That's why I don't see how somebody could compare John to Chris if John is just playing different characters.
"It's easy to win an argument when you know that you're right."
Also, keep in mind that even though this is the 21st century, people are still under the impression that all gay people are the same. I've known Jon since 1988 and I have to say he's turned out to be one of the least gay gay men I have ever known. We also have a son, so I guess I have a tiny bit more bias than most.
You are correct, Monkeybone, in your observation that Jon was "playing a character" at age twelve. Chris Crocker is absolutely serious and if he is playing a character, he's a little twisted for thinking that the general public will pick up on it.
Also, Isn't Chris, like, 20 or something? Not so much a prodigy as he would like to think. Apparently, he wasn't even interesting enough to be invited back to the Jimmy Kimmel Show, and he LOVES to make fun of people.
"Zeal without knowledge is a runaway horse."
What you said about Chris Crocker and what he does was exactly what I was thinking. It just seems to me that so many people see Jonathan Caouette in TARNATION and then somehow think that it's just like Chris Crocker when Chris Crocker just videotapes himself as he usually is. They aren't even doing the same sort of thing. Chris Crocker just shows off the ways he can be really melodramatic and outgoing and Jonathan Caouette was just playing female characters with different characteristics such as that Hilary Laura Lu woman who killed her abusive husband. He clearly isn't anything like that. The only other person I know of that doesn't see any sort of relation of the two people is my dad, who found the film to be incredible, and when I told him that people were comparing them he looked at that Chris Crocker kid's videos online and just didn't see it either.
"It's easy to win an argument when you know that you're right."
Both are extremely self-absorbed, narcissistic, borderline psychopathic twits. The main difference I see between the two of them is the issue of talent: Jonathan has marginal talent as an editor, while Crocker is completely devoid of having any semblance of any kind of redeeming value in him.
shareFYI. Jonathan's talent in editing is way above marginal. How good are you? What was the last thing you brilliantly edited? Post it so we can see how your talent overshadows everyone else's.
shareI thought of Crocker several times throughout the film. Not only him, but also a couple of friends of mine (gay as well). I think the work Chris does is absolutely amazing, my favourite is the one he's playing a cursing child. I think his teenage videos are superior to Cauoette's. Cauoette seems more self aware but manages to put it to good use with this documentary, I cried a lot indeed. I thought it was a really good take on gay teenage sensitivity, very universal in that regards so I'm a little upset you seem to try to separate him from other gay teenagers, such as Chris. Because he's successfull? What? Also 'he's the least gay gay man you know'? After such a beautiful film where he documents such a strong connection to his mother, you just wanna make it clear he's no sissy or related to anything female? God forbid.
Way to miss a point.
When I said he was the least gay gay man I know, I was referring to his personal nature. He doesn't speak with a lilt or a lisp. He doesn't wear rainbow clothing. He appreciates women, especially his mother and the mother of his child. He will tell you himself that he really dislikes most of the gay population. The more fake they are, the more they turn his stomach.
BTW, he's in his thirties. He's not a teenager.
I know he's not a teenager, what I meant is that between Caouette's and Crocker's teenage videos, the work done by Chris is superior.
shareProbably because it's scripted. Crocker definitely writes, or at least plans what he shoots in short 20 minute spots.
Jonathan captured most of the action as it happened, statring in 1982 and continuing to only about a year ago.
I keep offering all kinds of reasons why these two are nothing like one another and you keep arguing the point. Makes me wonder if you know these guys personally and have an inside scoop that most of us are unaware of. Since I DO know Jonathan, I will venture to say that you are basing your belief on pure conjecture.
Jonathan was using a handheld Super-8 film camera. His lighting rig consisted of a work light and whatever overhead fixtures or lamps were available in the space.
Crocker has a very expensive digital video camera and appears to have someone who comes in and sets the lighting for him.
If you know a little about film, you realize from this description that Jonathan did well with what he had to do his thing. It is also evident that Crocker looks good because it's easier now to get a good quality video with home equipment. That's all this boils down to. Crocker knew whose couch to pose on for his fifteen minutes.
This thread seems to be veering out of control. You think I want to say he's no sissy or related to anything female. That's what you got out of my comment. I'm fine with that, even though it's nowhere near what I was trying to convey. I'm trying to say that he and I are close friends and I know all of the facts. People who say things here on these boards are basing their writings on pure conjecture. I'm offering a little insight without giving him away completely.
share