David Byron, author, owner of NVF Magazine, and filmmaker has just released the trailer for his new documentary Hot and Horrifying, featuring women who work and live in the horror industry - to go along with a book release of the same title.
If it looks slightly similar to the documentary by Reyna Young about the exact same topic entitled Welcome to my Darkside - well, that's because it is. Except Byron's film's title seems to suggest a slightly more, er, sex-oriented film and may be for a different audience - one that just wants to look at hot chicks.
We're going to have PMS, get our panties in a bunch, and start being humorless feminists again in a second (yes, fellows, I have heard it all) but all I really want to say is this: If the film is about women, why aren't they getting the credit they deserve?
The women involved are all great and gorgeous actresses, (the trailer shows Devanny Pinn, Brooke Lewis, Tara Cardinal) and there seem to be some writers (? not sure, no one is given a name credit on the trailer), but the quality of the content and the cinematography will be glaringly inconsistent because each woman was asked to film and send in her own footage. That's right, Byron didn't shoot them himself, the women shot their own interviews. And they aren't being given credit as directors (an issue we also have with Young's film.) In fact, he didn't even give them specific guidelines on what to talk about or do - he just said something to the extent of 'shoot yourself doing something, include some sexy stuff, and then send it to me'. How do I know? Because I was asked to participate in this project, as were several close actress friends of mine. I also was interviewed in his book Queens of Scream, which was created the same way as the book version of Hot and Horrifying.
Not because I'm a fucking uptight old feminist bitch do I complain (though clearly one could make an argument for all of those things), but because I don't think its right to ask people to submit free footage of themselves, in sexy or suggestive settings some of the time, for free when they receive no director or producer credit and no compensation for their appearance as 'sex symbols' to sell the movie. I think there's nothing wrong with being in a documentary, or being hot in a film, but if the guy making it is using your sex to sell that film - Baby, you oughtta be getting paid. Or you oughtta be getting credit for the camera work, art direction, and writing that you took the time to create to be a part of the movie. That's what irks me.
Also, I think this is just a sexy fun-time movie masquerading as a documentary about women working in horror. A movie about women working in horror is bound to cost more and be far more boring than this.
Incidentally, Byron's accompanying book Hot and Horrifying consists of cut and paste interviews that were emailed to each woman and emailed back, largely unedited before publishing, just like Byron's previous book on women in horror Queens of Scream; a minimal amount of work for Byron for both the book and the film with maximum creative credit. Not so cool.
Don't get me wrong - Byron isn't a bad person. He's just trying to write a book without writing a book and make a documentary without shooting any film, and because we're dealing with actresses and women it hasn't occurred to him or to his publishers that this may not be ethical or respectful, or even indicative of a consistent end product.
Check out the new trailer for Hot and Horrifying and judge for yourself:
I can't fucking stand this new mode of documentary filmmaking where the subjects FILM THEMSELVES and someone else cobbles it together- or WOW, makes an "unedited" film. It's shitty on SO many levels, starting with yes, the fact that someone is taking credit for being the "director" when the subjects are directing themselves. Then add to that the fact that the women have to, you know pay for their own fucking postage to mail in tapes OR spend time and effort converting and uploading files. Top it all off with the disparate sound and light levels in each clip and you've got a shitty documentary. Dreadful.
I understand that people participate in these films to get their names out there, to get exposure...but they're really being taken advantage of at the same time.
__________________
Final Girl is my business and my business is good.
Well, I have to agree the title is playing up the titillation angle, but I'm thinking this film is trying to sell itself to the fanboys out there who think the only thing women do in horror is get naked and are stalked by slashers.
*heavy sigh*
The trailer makes it look like some kind of video publicity packet, and a rather boring one at that. The longest clip (in which the dubbing was off), of the actress gushing out her thanks to the production company and the director for making the film, really annoyed me to no end.
And having the "interviews" being written and directed by the subjects is a terrible way to make a documentary. I suspect this movie is just a bunch of rambling sequences, with no cohesive thread or point of view, about how the women who sent clips in love being in horror films, love their fans and other such nonsense.
That's why you can't rely on random clips without a set series of questions. An interviewer is needed not only to focus the discussion and shape the "story" or "plot" of the documentary, but also keep things on track.
I don't know about giving the ladies directing credit, but the idea of making a documentary in this fashion feels cheap, disrespectful and unethical. Primarily to the women in the film, but also to the fans who would watch it.
1KW, you make some very good points, and I am glad you make them. Having opposing opinions next to mine makes this site seem more intellectual and the comments become part of the overall article itself rather than just commentary on an existing piece.
I think I may be irked because I was asked to participate, and when I was, I was irked that someone would ask me to do all that work (camera-getting, art direction, scene writing, etc.) and then just 'submit' it to him, and he would get the overall credit. I felt like I was being asked to work really hard to be in a piece that promoted him as a filmmaker, when in fact, the women are really 'making' the film.
I also found the title beyond stupid and I told him he should think about changing it to something less ... stupid. I guess he ignored my suggestion.
He did provide general guidelines like 'Talk about stuff about you, and also try to be a little sexy' (paraphrasing exact same meaning of his words) which I think is weird. It's a documentary, and shouldn't that show actuality (I mean, unless you're Michael Moore) instead of contrived sexuality?
I got the impression that he wanted it to be like one of those fake Playboy documentaries you see late at night (I mean, I have 'heard' of them, er) where they have a girl bouncing on her bed, being sexy, making PB&J sandwiches, then dancing while putting on her underwear... you know.
I just wish that the women in the film had just shot their own segments and then released them on their OWN sites or their own Youtube account, or whatever, and gotten the same amount of promotion/attention, with far more control, since it isn't really going to benefit any of them to be in a 'David Byron' film.
On a whole other note, I agree with Bigmac and think it is a really bad, untalented, disrespectful to the audience and actors, way to make a documentary. It isn't as if the women were on the space station and this was the only way to get an interview with them. This is a quickie, cheapie way to make one and it will make the people who appeared in it look bad rather than good. That's my opinion. And that's why I didn't want to be in it.
__________________
"Another great thing about being 70,000 light years away from the nearest Starfleet vessel is that once we finally get back to Earth, we can makeup bullshit stories. Off the top of my head: 'We met Amelia Earhart,' 'We singlehandedly eliminated most of the Borg fleet' or 'Paris and I turned into giant pink lizards and mated.'"
Considering your accurate words regarding David Byron (David Boyer - real name/David Byron/David "Doc" Byron/Doc Byron/Iron Dave/Jerry Burnett/Leo Wolfe), I thought you might like to see him coming 'into the light.'
He stole "Electrocuting the Clowns" from Ferrel "Rick" Moore, among others stories from other authors , and this "clown" is now claiming to be Leo Wolfe.
Wow. There's a much bigger story here. Thanks for posting!!!!
__________________
"Another great thing about being 70,000 light years away from the nearest Starfleet vessel is that once we finally get back to Earth, we can makeup bullshit stories. Off the top of my head: 'We met Amelia Earhart,' 'We singlehandedly eliminated most of the Borg fleet' or 'Paris and I turned into giant pink lizards and mated.'"
The first I'd heard of these types of documentaries was the Life In A Day project produced by Ridley Scott. Sadly, I only learned of it a few days ahead of the day the films were supposed to be made. I had worked out what I was going to do and a buddy was putting up the few hundred dollars needed to rent a camera for a day as well as operating the camera. Not being involved with the local independent film industry though I could not procure a camera in time despite living in Chicago. I thought that was going to be the easiest part. I thought it was a good opportunity for someone like me with absolutely no experience whatsoever. Not saying that this particular one is.
__________________
This is not a dream... not a dream. We are using your brain's electrical system as a receiver. We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year one, nine, nine, nine. You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing. Our technology has not developed a transmitter strong enough to reach your conscious state of awareness, but this is not a dream. You are seeing what is actually occurring for the purpose of causality violation.
David Boyer/David Byron has really messed up now. It looks like he stole artwork from an Activision game and used it for the cover of his book "Crimson Screams."
That dude is so making the rounds, I just saw a post at the Horror Writer's Association website and they were talking about him there and all the crap he is doing.
HWA has recently been informed of several acts of plagiarism regarding works on our 2008 and 2010 Stoker recommendations lists. The works in question are three recommendations received in 2008 for the short story "Electrocuting the Clowns", credited to "Doc Byron", and a recommendation for the 2010 anthology CRIMSON SCREAMS, edited by "David Byron". The publisher of CRIMSON SCREAMS, Sam's Dot, has pulled the anthology from release following allegations of plagiarized art; and the short story "Electrocuting the Clowns" is actually by Ferrel Moore. HWA has removed these recommendations from record.
__________________
"I hurt" - Karen Cooper "Night Of The Living Dead"
I can't fucking stand this new mode of documentary filmmaking where the subjects FILM THEMSELVES and someone else cobbles it together- or WOW, makes an "unedited" film. It's shitty on SO many levels, starting with yes, the fact that someone is taking credit for being the "director" when the subjects are directing themselves. Then add to that the fact that the women have to, you know pay for their own fucking postage to mail in tapes OR spend time and effort converting and uploading files. Top it all off with the disparate sound and light levels in each clip and you've got a shitty documentary. Dreadful.
I understand that people participate in these films to get their names out there, to get exposure...but they're really being taken advantage of at the same time.
Final Girl is my business and my business is good.