This Was Made By Folks From A Place Called The Internet

It's fair to say one should make sure all his facts are in line before making a claim like this, so I made sure to do so before posting. You're absolutely right that I can't be sure, but I'm still reasonably certain. I read up a lot more than I should have on something so patently silly.

In the articles I read, especially the NY Times one, James Nguyen seems extremely self-aware. When he crashed the Sundance film festival in a car covered in feathers with the title of the film misspelled, it reeked of a publicity stunt. Also, the tagline "Why Did The Eagles Attacked?" sounds too much like a Lolcats caption. He's not in any way language deficient or deluded in some interviews, yet in others he plays this up for seemingly comic effect. The cast, like Whitney Moore who got what she wanted in the form of a gig at Victoria's Secret, is extremely intelligent and admits to being constantly aware of exactly what they were making.

I also saw the film after hearing only a little buzz. I'm a huge MST/film failure junkie. In the first five minutes, with the broken record sound track looping over 5 minutes of someone driving, I thought it was self-conscious in its awfulness. I've always thought of these as "Paradox Jokes". The joke is that the scene is taking too long to go nowhere and set to gratingly awful music, but the very nature of the joke makes it too irritating to sit through. This continues in the scenes immediately following like in the diner. The audio keeps cutting in and out, some audio layers too soft and the others too loud. And then on and on.

Finally, the endorsement from Tim & Eric who are known for this sort of "meta-humor" is fishy. Eric had this to say at the L.A. premiere: "What they really care about,” Mr. Wareheim said, “is that they’re going to be recognized and people are going to watch it, and people are going to talk about it, even if it’s bashing them. They’re just happy to eat the meal that was provided to them.”

Hence my accusation of a self-aware, prepackaged "The Room" knockoff.

Have you seen James Nguyen's previous motion picture, 'Julie & Jack'? It's pretty much the first half of 'Birdemic' stretched over 90 minutes, and it's riddled with similar technical issues. 'Birdemic''s bird effects, however, are ludicrous enough that I do often question their authenticity, but coupled with the stoic seriousness of James Nguyen, I can't be sure. However, I am strongly of the belief that 'Birdemic''s intent was pure, and have been since I first saw it at Sundance '09.

The incompetence level of something like 'Birdemic' is hard for a lot of people to grasp because they don't have any basis for comparison. Movies like 'Birdemic' are made all the time, all over the world, and 99% of them never see distribution, let alone get 'Birdemic''s level of exposure. Films like 'The Room' and 'Troll 2', for all their faults, are obviously well-made: the creative aspect is totally insane, but they LOOK like actual movies, which is easier for a mass audience to swallow. But for something like 'Birdemic' or 'After Last Season', the production value is so implausibly low that, for someone who doesn't predominantly watch or work on low-budget films, they're likely going to call shenanigans. Ours is a cynical generation, 'tis.

I somewhat have a basis for comparison, because a few years ago I used to work the acquisitions desk at Troma Entertainment...every day we'd get a stack of DVDs in the mail of zero-budget films looking to be picked up for distribution, and I'd have to watch them. Like you said, with enough experience, you get to be able to immediately tell the difference between intentional and unintentional mediocrity, which is good, because I personally frown upon the concept of the former. Genuine incompetence is ALWAYS more entertaining, and genuine earnesty is ALWAYS more admirable. I've not only seen all the mistakes in 'Birdemic' done before in serious films, I've seen them done far worse. I recall one film where the sound was so awful, literally all of the dialogue was inaudible. Same with a film whose awful lighting almost made the whole film pitch black. Those elements certainly aren't played for laughs. Why send it out in the hopes of getting it distributed? Was the director THAT determined? Did they not have enough money to fix it in post? Perhaps they were expecting a distribution company to pay to fix it? There are a lot of factors to consider.

Hell, I recently saw a film called 'Pocket Ninjas', filmed in 1994, which probably has the worst editing and cinematography I've ever seen: the 180 degree rule was constantly broken, frames from other scenes would slip into cuts and I seriously believe some scenes are placed in the wrong order, and it's *depressingly* un-ironic. The point is, these things somehow happen. When I saw 'Birdemic', I could immediately sense its honesty, and though the bird scenes are a bit much, your theory that it started out as a serious film but then came to glorify its limitations makes a lot of sense.

Damn, I talk way too much.

In short, wait for 'Birdemic 2' and compare. Whatever legitimate naivete was present in the original will be absolutely abolished in part 2, as there's no doubt they're going to go down the "intentionally bad" route and capitalize on what made the first so successful.