In mid-August, we published, in this space, a short film by Cinematheque Films (an art school under the direction of Tim Barrus) called "Tilting at Windmills." On August 28th, someone called "Drako" posted a comment to Eavan O'Callaghan's discussion with Barrus and Mary Scriver, pointing out that "Tilting at Windmills" is near-identical to the video for Gorillaz's song "El Mañana." Scriver dropped Barrus an e-mail, and he replied:
I have not seen it but this is a "thing" when you are 1.) dealing with adolescent boys who are on the Internet, and 2.) they do have permission to cut and paste, and 3.) that is often the point. The construction of a video is complicated. Sometimes a kid might be simply working color. Or he might simply be working sound. It depends. The digital act allows students to take materials and use them as teaching tools (otherwise how do they learn this stuff) and I do make it very clear (and frankly I don't monitor everything because it would be impossible but they have permission to do this, because they are students (I think I make that clear, do I not) they use icons, they reshape them, it may be small, but they have to begin somewhere, to understand how to use the tools; I am aware some stuff is more fair use than others — and I tell them that if it's ever a problem — take the thing down. I didn't go through everything (like YouTube — it would be impossible) and say to Jonathan only stick to these or these because I can't tell them that as they are learning how to manipulate images one is of more value than another. It is all manipulation because that is what film and photography is. Yes, if they were professionals selling this stuff it would be different. But they're not. They're students and they copy to learn how to do and they will take one thing (like music) and juxtapose it against something else that is perhaps different and may be less or more fitting. But how do they understand the relationships of these things — sound to light — if they can't play with the materials. The digital act says they can and it's fair use. As long as they are students and they are. I don't call them anything but that. If you want to post this email — feel free. These things are tools. They become more and more original the more experience they have. Some of them are very young and they're experimenting. I always go to the example of students sketching at the Louvre. Even if they're borrowing something in fair use for a student, they are restructuring it somewhere. Or how do they learn what works. They're manipulating it somewhere. The whole thing with what is allowed on the Internet is so misunderstood. Maybe they're manipulating the words or the hue or the music or the dialogue or the graphics. They learn by doing. I just can't defend it every minute of every day. I tell them: play with it and see what you can do. These are teaching instruments in an educational entity. I am almost sorry I let them get into this and I am not going to allow them to defend themselves in this. For one thing, they're swamped. Do art students borrow and change images. I think sometimes they do. Warhol's soup cans. But I can't get into a froth over it (with them or anyone) because that is all I would do. If they borrowed something, it was not in evil intent. It was to learn how to put sound to an image or an image to sound or how to change a color or how to do a million things.
From any other person, the above statement would be sufficient, and the issue would be considered closed. Of course, Tim Barrus is not any other person.
From 1998 to 2006, Barrus, a one-time writer of sadomasochistic gay literature, was Nasdijj, a Navajo who wrote autobiographical novels. In 2006, LA Weekly accurately determined and publicized the fact that Nasdijj was not a separate entity, but a pseudonym of Barrus. This was around the time that James Frey was exposed as fictionalizing his own memoir, and that JT LeRoy was determined to be not a twentysomething street kid, but an educated woman named Laura Albert born in 1965. Frey was publicly eviscerated; Albert's deception was largely laughed off. We suggest that this is because Albert's audience is largely literate, and understands that fiction has inherent value, whereas Frey's audience is almost exclusively gossips whose primarily literary interest is to enjoy the scintillation of condemnation.
In Barrus' case, there is the additional issue that he is a white man who pretended to be a Navajo. This is nontrivial, and both his critics and defenders make valid points on this issue. It's a sideline to our interest, though. Our concern is that, although we at Unlikely feel no antipathy towards made-up autobiography, it's only natural that Frey, Albert, and Barrus have all lost a great deal of credibility. Specifically: it has been alleged that Cinematheque Films does not exist, and that Barrus has created a fictitious boarding school for at-risk boys and conducted massive amounts of cinematographic plagiarism in this school's name.
It is important to remember that the creation of JT LeRoy, the creation of Nasdijj, and the exaggerations of Frey were not illegal. This situation is different. Cinematheque Films, as an educational institution, is permitted wider use of "fair use" clauses in Copyright laws than Tim Barrus, the individual. Furthermore, many of Cinematheque Films' videos include identifiable children. Sometimes these children are in sexually suggestive situations. If Barrus is making the whole thing up, he's doing so without apparent financial benefit, and taking a huge legal risk.
Barrus' critics have presented evidence of lying on Barrus' part in the comment stream of our text article on Cinematheque Films. Check it out for yourself, but the evidence of the nonexistence of Cinematheque Films strikes us as inconclusive. Nonetheless, we thank Drako for bringing the Gorillaz video to our attention. Shortly after writing his above statement, Barrus watched the Gorillaz video, and he, Scriver, Jeffrey Spahr-Summers and I unanimously agreed that "Tilting at Windmills" is too derivative, and that it should be pulled from the site.
Jeffrey and I also feel that we should speak on the difference between believing something and alleging something. Our mission statement says:
Since we have no fact-checkers, we have to take the writer's responsibility to be accurate very seriously. If we have reason to believe that a writer is deliberately misrepresenting facts on this web site, he or she will be permanently barred and publicly discussed.
This statement, however, is under a section on "journalistic standards." It is not applicable to our conception of art, which includes performance art, fiction, and satire. We have an account by Gregory Whitehead that appears under our political essays; its fictitious nature is intended to be revealed by the end of the "essay." We have published the works of "Delphine LeCompte", who consistently claims her hyperactive montages of getting assfucked by crossbows are nonfiction. We do not intend to research these claims. The blogs of Cinematheque Films contain inconsistencies. Taking Barrus at his word, it would be surprising if they did not. If these inconsistencies are taken as proof that Cinematheque Films does not exist, that is the right of the reader. If the reader believes that the situation necessitates contacting law enforcement, that is also the reader's right. We question, though, the usefulness of alleging the nonexistence of these boys anywhere Barrus' name appears on the Internet. Because if these boys exist, to spend one's time stalking their activities shows an extraordinary disregard for their health and safety.
— Jonathan Penton
Cinematheque Films is a student organization in Paris, France. For a detailed discussion of how they work and how they made this film, check out Eavan O'Callaghan's conversation with Tim Barrus and Mary Scriver.