WEBVTT 00:00:01.099 --> 00:00:04.960 Imagine spending months or maybe even years rallying 00:00:04.960 --> 00:00:06.799 your entire family, just cashing in literally 00:00:06.799 --> 00:00:08.980 every favor you have to shoot a 91 -minute feature 00:00:08.980 --> 00:00:11.240 film. Right, pulling all the stops. Exactly. 00:00:11.619 --> 00:00:14.679 And it's a film about a con artist who is just 00:00:14.679 --> 00:00:17.780 desperate for cash. So you secure distribution, 00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:20.059 you get the poster printed, and the theatrical 00:00:20.059 --> 00:00:22.440 release date finally arrives in July of the year 00:00:22.440 --> 00:00:25.820 2000. A huge moment for any film. Huge. But then, 00:00:26.399 --> 00:00:28.879 your real world box office yield is, get this, 00:00:29.600 --> 00:00:33.200 $9 ,287. Oh, wow. Yeah, literally the price of 00:00:33.200 --> 00:00:36.549 a used Honda Civic. So, welcome to your custom 00:00:36.549 --> 00:00:39.710 -tailored deep dive. Our mission today is to 00:00:39.710 --> 00:00:42.409 examine a very specific artifact from the turn 00:00:42.409 --> 00:00:44.329 of the millennium. It really is a fascinating 00:00:44.329 --> 00:00:47.009 little time capsule. It is. We are looking at 00:00:47.009 --> 00:00:50.369 a 2000 American drama film called Spent, and 00:00:50.369 --> 00:00:52.590 that's stylized with a dollar sign for the S. 00:00:52.630 --> 00:00:54.869 Of course it is. Very Y2K. Very. We're looking 00:00:54.869 --> 00:00:57.729 at a $9 ,000 tragedy that, you know, actually 00:00:57.729 --> 00:00:59.909 tells a much larger story. And we're working 00:00:59.909 --> 00:01:02.049 primarily from a Wikipedia page about the film 00:01:02.049 --> 00:01:04.640 that is, well, it's incredibly sparse. Yeah, 00:01:04.700 --> 00:01:06.680 it's classified as a stub. It's just sitting 00:01:06.680 --> 00:01:08.799 quietly on a server, waiting for someone to care 00:01:08.799 --> 00:01:10.920 enough to fill in the blanks. Right. But if you 00:01:10.920 --> 00:01:13.239 know how to read between the lines of those sparse 00:01:13.239 --> 00:01:16.359 facts, you uncover this really fascinating narrative. 00:01:16.439 --> 00:01:19.260 It's about ambition, the actual mechanics of 00:01:19.260 --> 00:01:21.739 independent art, and that brutal collision between 00:01:21.739 --> 00:01:25.019 a creator's vision and the free market. OK, let's 00:01:25.019 --> 00:01:27.760 unpack this. Because the central irony of our 00:01:27.760 --> 00:01:31.980 deep dive today is I mean, it's almost too perfect 00:01:31.980 --> 00:01:34.459 to be fiction. It really is. We are looking at 00:01:34.459 --> 00:01:37.280 a fully realized hour and a half long film where 00:01:37.280 --> 00:01:40.500 the entire premise is this relentless desperate 00:01:40.500 --> 00:01:43.000 hustle for cash. The plot is literally about 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:45.439 a man conning people for money to pay off his 00:01:45.439 --> 00:01:47.859 mounting debts. And the universe rewarded that 00:01:47.859 --> 00:01:50.060 narrative with a theatrical gross that wouldn't 00:01:50.060 --> 00:01:52.640 even cover like the catering budget for a modern 00:01:52.640 --> 00:01:55.500 TV pilot. Exactly. It's so ironic. So let's talk 00:01:55.500 --> 00:01:57.480 about what was actually being sold to audiences 00:01:57.480 --> 00:02:00.700 back in July of 2000. Well, the premise itself 00:02:00.700 --> 00:02:03.459 is a master class in turn of the century financial 00:02:03.459 --> 00:02:06.099 anxiety. The source describes the plot in this 00:02:06.099 --> 00:02:09.259 one brutal, efficient sentence. I love how blunt 00:02:09.259 --> 00:02:12.060 it is. Right. It says an unemployed actor uses 00:02:12.060 --> 00:02:14.979 his skills to con everyone he knows into lending 00:02:14.979 --> 00:02:18.120 or giving him money to pay off his debts. So 00:02:18.120 --> 00:02:20.099 we have this protagonist named Max, and he's 00:02:20.099 --> 00:02:23.439 played by Jason London. And his literal profession 00:02:23.439 --> 00:02:26.360 is the art of deception. I mean, he is trained 00:02:26.360 --> 00:02:29.419 to manufacture reality. It's like he's using 00:02:29.419 --> 00:02:32.039 the Stanislavski method for survival instead 00:02:32.039 --> 00:02:34.800 of a stage play. Oh, that's a great way to put 00:02:34.800 --> 00:02:37.080 it. You know, like he isn't putting on a costume 00:02:37.080 --> 00:02:40.009 and getting on a stage to entertain. paying ticket 00:02:40.009 --> 00:02:42.930 holders, he's weaponizing his theatrical training 00:02:42.930 --> 00:02:45.469 against his own social circle. He's looking at 00:02:45.469 --> 00:02:48.250 his friends, his family, his acquaintances, and 00:02:48.250 --> 00:02:50.430 treating them like this captive audience that 00:02:50.430 --> 00:02:52.789 he can pickpocket. Which is super dark. And I 00:02:52.789 --> 00:02:54.330 actually have to push back on this premise from 00:02:54.330 --> 00:02:56.590 a purely storytelling perspective. OK, leave 00:02:56.590 --> 00:02:59.930 it on me. You are asking a viewer to sit in a 00:02:59.930 --> 00:03:02.909 dark theater for 91 minutes and follow a guy 00:03:02.909 --> 00:03:06.330 whose primary motivation is financially draining 00:03:06.330 --> 00:03:08.780 the people who trust him. Right? Isn't a plot 00:03:08.780 --> 00:03:12.360 about an actor essentially acting to steal money 00:03:12.360 --> 00:03:15.240 from his own friends almost too cynical for a 00:03:15.240 --> 00:03:17.240 general audience to connect with? Well, what's 00:03:17.240 --> 00:03:19.500 fascinating here is the psychological mechanism 00:03:19.500 --> 00:03:22.719 behind that cynicism. You view it as a barrier 00:03:22.719 --> 00:03:25.400 to audience connection, but consider the cultural 00:03:25.400 --> 00:03:27.740 landscape of the year 2000. Oh, right. The dot 00:03:27.740 --> 00:03:30.000 com bubble. Exactly. The bubble was bursting. 00:03:30.460 --> 00:03:33.219 The illusion of infinite easy capital was just 00:03:33.219 --> 00:03:35.889 evaporating overnight. So Max isn't just some 00:03:35.889 --> 00:03:38.330 unlikable guy. He's a product of his time. He 00:03:38.330 --> 00:03:40.849 is a direct reflection of a society that was 00:03:40.849 --> 00:03:43.949 waking up to massive personal debt. The film 00:03:43.949 --> 00:03:46.590 really explores the dark side of social capital. 00:03:47.050 --> 00:03:49.389 When traditional avenues of finance -like banks 00:03:49.389 --> 00:03:52.169 or credit cards cut you off, what's left? You 00:03:52.169 --> 00:03:54.110 have to commodify your relationship. Precisely. 00:03:54.250 --> 00:03:56.930 Max looks at his phone book not as a list of 00:03:56.930 --> 00:03:59.169 loved ones, but as a ledger of potential loan 00:03:59.169 --> 00:04:01.969 officers. He leverages his social standing to 00:04:01.969 --> 00:04:04.969 extract capital, which requires a highly sophisticated 00:04:04.969 --> 00:04:07.069 performance. I mean, he has to perform contrition. 00:04:07.469 --> 00:04:09.949 He has to perform reliability. Right. And he 00:04:09.949 --> 00:04:12.430 has to perform the illusion that the money will 00:04:12.430 --> 00:04:15.189 absolutely be paid back. Right. He is essentially 00:04:15.189 --> 00:04:18.449 method acting as a responsible adult. Yeah. The 00:04:18.449 --> 00:04:21.470 cynicism is the entire point. The creators poured 00:04:21.470 --> 00:04:23.980 their time and resources into a narrative. about 00:04:23.980 --> 00:04:26.839 a desperate hustle to clear debts. Which mirrors 00:04:26.839 --> 00:04:29.920 their own situation, probably. Exactly. Think 00:04:29.920 --> 00:04:32.399 about how often the themes a creator focuses 00:04:32.399 --> 00:04:35.759 on inadvertently mirror the project's real -world 00:04:35.759 --> 00:04:39.319 reality. The film itself functions almost as 00:04:39.319 --> 00:04:41.839 a desperate plea for capital from the public. 00:04:42.170 --> 00:04:44.709 A pre that ultimately resulted in less than $10 00:04:44.709 --> 00:04:48.149 ,000. Sadly, yes. Which really opens up a completely 00:04:48.149 --> 00:04:50.589 different line of inquiry regarding the financial 00:04:50.589 --> 00:04:53.029 reality behind the camera. Oh, absolutely. Because 00:04:53.029 --> 00:04:55.750 if the box office is that low, the budget couldn't 00:04:55.750 --> 00:04:58.610 have been colossal, right? But independent filmmaking 00:04:58.610 --> 00:05:01.709 is not just a theoretical exercise. You need 00:05:01.709 --> 00:05:05.100 physical film stock. which was incredibly expensive 00:05:05.100 --> 00:05:07.560 in the year 2000. Oh, massively expensive. It's 00:05:07.560 --> 00:05:09.680 not like shooting on a digital phone today. Right. 00:05:09.680 --> 00:05:12.620 You need camera rentals, lighting setups, location 00:05:12.620 --> 00:05:14.819 permits, and a whole crew to operate all of it. 00:05:15.800 --> 00:05:18.439 So I look closely at the crew and cast list provided 00:05:18.439 --> 00:05:21.480 in our source, and a very distinct pattern emerges. 00:05:22.079 --> 00:05:24.199 Regarding how this movie actually willed itself 00:05:24.199 --> 00:05:27.480 into existence. Yes. Because here's where it 00:05:27.480 --> 00:05:30.740 gets really interesting. The core creative team 00:05:30.740 --> 00:05:34.129 is essentially a closed loop. We have Gil Cates 00:05:34.129 --> 00:05:37.290 Jr. doing an unbelievable amount of heavy lifting 00:05:37.290 --> 00:05:40.149 here. The auteur of the project, basically. Completely. 00:05:40.430 --> 00:05:42.089 According to the record, he is the director, 00:05:42.250 --> 00:05:45.230 he is the sole writer, and he is one of the producers, 00:05:45.649 --> 00:05:48.230 alongside Jordan Summers and Ronna Joy Glickman. 00:05:48.769 --> 00:05:50.870 Okay, so he's wearing three major hats right 00:05:50.870 --> 00:05:53.810 there. But it goes deeper. The name Cates completely 00:05:53.810 --> 00:05:56.129 dominates the infrastructure of this film. So 00:05:56.129 --> 00:05:58.689 Gil Cates Jr. wrote... directed and produced 00:05:58.689 --> 00:06:01.750 it. Then the film editing is handled by Jonathan 00:06:01.750 --> 00:06:03.910 Cates. Keeping the post -production in the family. 00:06:04.149 --> 00:06:06.810 Exactly. And then you scan down to the cast list. 00:06:07.569 --> 00:06:09.709 Among the professional working actors, you find 00:06:09.709 --> 00:06:11.750 Gilbert Cates acting as a character named Mr. 00:06:12.029 --> 00:06:14.389 Walsh. Oh, wow. Yeah, acting right alongside 00:06:14.389 --> 00:06:17.069 veteran actress Barbara Berry as Mrs. Walsh. 00:06:17.490 --> 00:06:19.810 And just to complete the circle, Gil Cates Jr. 00:06:20.149 --> 00:06:21.889 also gave himself an acting credit in the film. 00:06:21.980 --> 00:06:23.860 Well, if we connect this to the bigger picture, 00:06:24.079 --> 00:06:26.360 this really forces us to examine the profound 00:06:26.360 --> 00:06:28.759 parallel between the plot of the movie and the 00:06:28.759 --> 00:06:30.959 actual making of the movie. Oh, I see where you're 00:06:30.959 --> 00:06:33.180 going with this. Right. Max, the protagonist, 00:06:33.759 --> 00:06:35.540 exploits his social circle to get what he wants. 00:06:35.800 --> 00:06:38.279 In the real world, independent filmmaking, especially 00:06:38.279 --> 00:06:40.959 on a micro budget. operates on a very similar, 00:06:41.100 --> 00:06:43.920 albeit socially accepted, mechanism. That is 00:06:43.920 --> 00:06:46.579 such a good point. You cannot afford to pay top 00:06:46.579 --> 00:06:49.720 -tier market rates for a seasoned editor to sit 00:06:49.720 --> 00:06:52.699 in a dark room for three months splicing physical 00:06:52.699 --> 00:06:55.360 film. So what do you do? You leverage familial 00:06:55.360 --> 00:06:57.879 loyalty. Exactly. You convince Jonathan Cates 00:06:57.879 --> 00:07:01.120 to do it? You need a reliable actor for a supporting 00:07:01.120 --> 00:07:03.500 role, but your casting budget is completely tapped 00:07:03.500 --> 00:07:06.220 out. You call Gilbert Cates. So you are basically 00:07:06.220 --> 00:07:08.680 saying that micro -budget filmmaking is its own 00:07:08.680 --> 00:07:12.019 form of an artful con. In a way, yeah. You're 00:07:12.019 --> 00:07:14.579 selling a vision of a completed, distributed 00:07:14.579 --> 00:07:17.180 feature film to your family and friends, and 00:07:17.180 --> 00:07:19.019 you're convincing them to work for a fraction 00:07:19.019 --> 00:07:22.439 of their worth, or even for free, all on the 00:07:22.439 --> 00:07:24.360 promise of the final product. It requires an 00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:26.939 immense amount of social capital. For you listening, 00:07:27.160 --> 00:07:29.379 just consider the sheer force of will required 00:07:29.379 --> 00:07:31.939 to mobilize your relatives for a 91 -minute project 00:07:31.939 --> 00:07:34.819 like this. It's staggering. Editing a feature 00:07:34.819 --> 00:07:37.379 film in the year 2000 was a grueling technical 00:07:37.379 --> 00:07:41.100 process. It meant making thousands of micro -decisions 00:07:41.100 --> 00:07:44.100 to shape Gil Kate's junior's vision. Getting 00:07:44.100 --> 00:07:46.600 your family to rally behind a passion project 00:07:46.600 --> 00:07:49.319 of this scale is a massive undertaking. And to 00:07:49.319 --> 00:07:52.579 their credit, it wasn't just a home movie. It 00:07:52.579 --> 00:07:55.420 eventually secured distribution by Regent Entertainment. 00:07:55.629 --> 00:07:58.089 That distribution deal is the critical linchpin 00:07:58.089 --> 00:08:00.149 here. Regent Entertainment picking this up means 00:08:00.149 --> 00:08:02.970 there were actual contracts, legal agreements, 00:08:03.509 --> 00:08:05.769 and theatrical bookings. Right. A distributor 00:08:05.769 --> 00:08:08.050 doesn't just hand out theatrical releases out 00:08:08.050 --> 00:08:09.930 of the goodness of their heart. Never. They look 00:08:09.930 --> 00:08:11.629 at the package, they look at the poster, and 00:08:11.629 --> 00:08:14.230 a poster needs recognizable names to convince 00:08:14.230 --> 00:08:17.250 a theater manager to give up a screen for a weekend. 00:08:17.550 --> 00:08:19.850 which perfectly explains the rest of the ensemble 00:08:19.850 --> 00:08:21.949 they managed to assemble outside of the Cates 00:08:21.949 --> 00:08:23.870 family tree. Yeah, because they actually pulled 00:08:23.870 --> 00:08:26.730 together a remarkably robust cast. They have 00:08:26.730 --> 00:08:29.889 Jason London carrying the film as Max, obviously. 00:08:30.050 --> 00:08:32.129 Who was pretty well known at the time. Definitely. 00:08:32.409 --> 00:08:34.769 Then you have Charlie Sprattling playing Brigette. 00:08:35.029 --> 00:08:37.429 Phil Lewis is in there as Doug. Oh, Phil Lewis, 00:08:37.470 --> 00:08:41.129 he's great. Yeah. Rainn Phoenix steps in as Kimberly. 00:08:41.990 --> 00:08:44.570 Then you have Aaron Bowe, James Parks, Richmond 00:08:44.570 --> 00:08:47.730 Arquette, and Kayla Dopkin. That is a very solid 00:08:47.730 --> 00:08:50.830 indie ensemble. It really is. And they even hired 00:08:50.830 --> 00:08:53.070 established professionals for the technical elements. 00:08:53.769 --> 00:08:56.230 Robert D. Tomer handled the cinematography, and 00:08:56.230 --> 00:08:58.289 they got Stan Ridgway to compose the original 00:08:58.289 --> 00:09:01.350 music. Stan Ridgway? Wow. Right. So you have 00:09:01.350 --> 00:09:03.789 an entire village of working professionals showing 00:09:03.789 --> 00:09:07.210 up to a set to bring Gil Cates Jr.'s highly cynical 00:09:07.210 --> 00:09:09.429 script to life. We really need to look at the 00:09:09.429 --> 00:09:11.889 mechanics of why working actors and technical 00:09:11.889 --> 00:09:13.889 professionals agree to these projects. Because 00:09:13.889 --> 00:09:16.399 it's clearly not for the money. Definitely not. 00:09:16.759 --> 00:09:19.559 In the early 2000s, the indie film boom of the 00:09:19.559 --> 00:09:23.000 90s was still casting a really long shadow. Actors 00:09:23.000 --> 00:09:25.600 like Phil Lewis or Rainn Phoenix often take these 00:09:25.600 --> 00:09:27.720 roles not for the paycheck, because there likely 00:09:27.720 --> 00:09:29.820 isn't a substantial one, but for the creative 00:09:29.820 --> 00:09:31.759 leverage. That makes sense. Independent films 00:09:31.759 --> 00:09:34.179 offer actors a chance to play against type, or 00:09:34.179 --> 00:09:36.419 to secure a lead or prominent supporting role 00:09:36.419 --> 00:09:38.460 that the big studio systems might deny them. 00:09:38.940 --> 00:09:40.980 Or, you know, simply to stay creatively active 00:09:40.980 --> 00:09:43.460 between larger, more commercial gigs. So they 00:09:43.460 --> 00:09:46.779 are trading their established market value. for 00:09:46.779 --> 00:09:49.480 creative freedom. Exactly. They are essentially 00:09:49.480 --> 00:09:53.120 investing their own brand equity into Gil Kate's 00:09:53.120 --> 00:09:55.519 Junior's vision, hoping the final product will 00:09:55.519 --> 00:09:58.000 amplify their own careers down the line. And 00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:00.340 the same goes for the crew. The cinematographer 00:10:00.340 --> 00:10:03.019 is building a reel. The composers experimenting 00:10:03.019 --> 00:10:05.899 with new soundscapes. Everyone is using the film 00:10:05.899 --> 00:10:08.100 as a vehicle for their own professional momentum. 00:10:08.360 --> 00:10:10.639 Right. And all of that momentum, all of those 00:10:10.639 --> 00:10:13.200 early mornings on set, the complex lighting setups, 00:10:13.399 --> 00:10:16.779 the audio mixing, the musical cues written specifically 00:10:16.779 --> 00:10:19.500 to match the emotional beats of Max deceiving 00:10:19.500 --> 00:10:21.759 his friends. All of that human effort. All of 00:10:21.759 --> 00:10:24.000 it barrels toward the inevitable collision with 00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:25.879 the public market and the critical establishment. 00:10:26.019 --> 00:10:28.139 Which brings us to the harsh reality of the data 00:10:28.139 --> 00:10:30.059 we have from Metacritic. Brace yourself. The 00:10:30.059 --> 00:10:33.539 film received a score of 34 out of 100. And that 00:10:33.539 --> 00:10:36.480 metric is synthesized from exactly eight critical 00:10:36.480 --> 00:10:39.779 reviews. Just eight. Just eight. The consensus 00:10:39.779 --> 00:10:42.879 is classified simply as generally unfavorable. 00:10:43.460 --> 00:10:46.399 34 out of 100. I mean, that is a brutal assessment 00:10:46.399 --> 00:10:49.919 of years of human effort. A score of 34 from 00:10:49.919 --> 00:10:52.659 a mere eight critics really reveals a specific 00:10:52.659 --> 00:10:54.980 kind of failure in the distribution mechanism. 00:10:55.500 --> 00:10:57.600 It suggests the film didn't just receive poor 00:10:57.600 --> 00:11:00.259 reviews, it barely made a ripple in the cultural 00:11:00.259 --> 00:11:03.539 consciousness. It just came and went. Yeah, Regent 00:11:03.539 --> 00:11:05.440 Entertainment managed to get it in front of a 00:11:05.440 --> 00:11:08.059 handful of reviewers, but the critical establishment 00:11:08.059 --> 00:11:11.320 entirely rejected the vision. So what does this 00:11:11.320 --> 00:11:14.639 all mean for the film's identity? I look at the 00:11:14.639 --> 00:11:17.899 stylization of the title itself. The source specifically 00:11:17.899 --> 00:11:20.799 notes it is stylized as spent with a dollar sign 00:11:20.799 --> 00:11:23.480 instead of an S. The infamous dollar sign. Right. 00:11:23.639 --> 00:11:25.419 And I look at that and wonder about the intent. 00:11:25.940 --> 00:11:28.399 Is that dollar sign a calculated attempt to tap 00:11:28.399 --> 00:11:31.299 into the edgy anti -corporate aesthetic of the 00:11:31.299 --> 00:11:34.820 Y2K era? Or is it just a glaringly heavy -handed 00:11:34.820 --> 00:11:37.320 reminder of the film's central themes of debt 00:11:37.320 --> 00:11:39.480 and money? Well, I think this raises an important 00:11:39.480 --> 00:11:41.500 question about how we evaluate the artifacts 00:11:41.500 --> 00:11:44.019 of our recent past. How so? The dollar sign in 00:11:44.019 --> 00:11:46.580 spent functions as a blatant time stamp. It is 00:11:46.580 --> 00:11:49.080 aggressive, it is overtly commercial, and it 00:11:49.080 --> 00:11:51.620 completely lacks subtlety. Which perfectly mirrors 00:11:51.620 --> 00:11:54.519 the cultural anxieties of the year 2000. Exactly. 00:11:54.620 --> 00:11:56.720 But the broader question is how we measure the 00:11:56.720 --> 00:11:59.620 inherent value of the art itself. Is the value 00:11:59.620 --> 00:12:02.740 of those 91 minutes strictly tied to that $9 00:12:02.740 --> 00:12:05.799 ,287 box office return? It's a tough question. 00:12:06.039 --> 00:12:08.480 Is its worth entirely negated by the opinions 00:12:08.480 --> 00:12:10.799 of eight specific critics who happened to watch 00:12:10.799 --> 00:12:13.539 a screener in the summer of 2000? Well, if we 00:12:13.539 --> 00:12:16.399 use capitalism as the only metric, The value 00:12:16.399 --> 00:12:18.559 is virtually zero. I mean, it was a financial 00:12:18.559 --> 00:12:21.279 sinkhole. But using purely capitalistic metrics 00:12:21.279 --> 00:12:23.820 to measure art fundamentally misunderstands the 00:12:23.820 --> 00:12:26.340 function of media. That's very true. Yes. From 00:12:26.340 --> 00:12:28.700 a financial standpoint, the market rejected it. 00:12:29.399 --> 00:12:31.519 But consider the captured human endeavor we've 00:12:31.519 --> 00:12:33.759 been talking about. Jason London embodied the 00:12:33.759 --> 00:12:36.740 anxiety of a generation drowning in debt. Robert 00:12:36.740 --> 00:12:39.419 D. Tomer solved hundreds of logistical puzzles 00:12:39.419 --> 00:12:42.120 to frame and light every single scene. And Stan 00:12:42.120 --> 00:12:44.519 Ridgway composed music from thin air to score 00:12:44.519 --> 00:12:47.620 it. Exactly. You have an indelible 91 minute 00:12:47.620 --> 00:12:49.980 record of human beings trying to articulate something 00:12:49.980 --> 00:12:52.779 about their specific moment in time. Most independent 00:12:52.779 --> 00:12:55.639 projects never see a theater. Most fail to secure 00:12:55.639 --> 00:12:58.080 a distributor. Just getting it made is a miracle. 00:12:58.440 --> 00:13:02.220 The fact that Spent exists at all, that it navigated 00:13:02.220 --> 00:13:04.259 the gauntlet of production and distribution to 00:13:04.259 --> 00:13:06.679 leave a permanent footprint, gives it historical 00:13:06.679 --> 00:13:09.179 value regardless of its critical reception. It's 00:13:09.179 --> 00:13:12.080 like a fossil of early internet era financial 00:13:12.080 --> 00:13:14.990 dread. And what strikes me most is the contrast 00:13:14.990 --> 00:13:16.889 between the permanence of the digital record 00:13:16.889 --> 00:13:19.289 and the emptiness of the actual page we are looking 00:13:19.289 --> 00:13:22.509 at. The Wikipedia stub. Yeah. Wikipedia literally 00:13:22.509 --> 00:13:24.769 categorizes it with a tag at the bottom that 00:13:24.769 --> 00:13:29.350 reads, 2000s drama film stubs. It actively solicits 00:13:29.350 --> 00:13:32.009 the reader saying, you can help Wikipedia by 00:13:32.009 --> 00:13:34.210 adding missing information. It's begging for 00:13:34.210 --> 00:13:36.669 context. Right. It preserves the skeleton, the 00:13:36.669 --> 00:13:38.970 Cates family credits, the Metacritic score, the 00:13:38.970 --> 00:13:43.440 $9 ,287 box office. actual soul of the film, 00:13:43.759 --> 00:13:46.340 the experience of watching it, is entirely absent 00:13:46.340 --> 00:13:48.399 from the collective digital memory. It functions 00:13:48.399 --> 00:13:50.440 like an abandoned building on the digital frontier. 00:13:50.700 --> 00:13:52.779 The architecture is visible. We can see how the 00:13:52.779 --> 00:13:54.580 Cates family built it. We can see the actors 00:13:54.580 --> 00:13:57.360 who populated it. And we can see the exact dollar 00:13:57.360 --> 00:13:59.899 amount it took to bankrupt the enterprise. But 00:13:59.899 --> 00:14:02.840 the interior is dark. Beautifully put, yes. So 00:14:02.840 --> 00:14:05.539 let's recap this journey we've taken today. We 00:14:05.539 --> 00:14:08.299 started with just a few lines of text about a 00:14:08.299 --> 00:14:10.419 forgotten indie drama from the turn of the century. 00:14:10.519 --> 00:14:13.879 A very unassuming source. And from that, we uncovered 00:14:13.879 --> 00:14:17.120 a project directed, written, and produced by 00:14:17.120 --> 00:14:19.899 Gilkate's junior, heavily supported by the physical 00:14:19.899 --> 00:14:22.480 and emotional labor of his own family in the 00:14:22.480 --> 00:14:25.460 editing bay and on screen. A true family business. 00:14:25.759 --> 00:14:28.120 They successfully recruited a village of working 00:14:28.120 --> 00:14:31.059 actors and technicians to tell a deeply cynical 00:14:31.059 --> 00:14:34.259 method acting story about a desperate man conning 00:14:34.259 --> 00:14:36.789 his own friends to escape his debts. And after 00:14:36.789 --> 00:14:39.210 all of that immense logistical maneuvering and 00:14:39.210 --> 00:14:41.549 human effort, the film collided with the free 00:14:41.549 --> 00:14:44.850 market, resulting in a 34 on Metacritic and a 00:14:44.850 --> 00:14:47.389 box office total that barely pays for a used 00:14:47.389 --> 00:14:50.149 car. The takeaway for you as a consumer of culture 00:14:50.149 --> 00:14:52.830 is to really reevaluate the media you quickly 00:14:52.830 --> 00:14:55.289 scroll past. The next time you see a title with 00:14:55.289 --> 00:14:57.610 a terrible rating or some quirky stylization 00:14:57.610 --> 00:14:59.850 like a dollar sign, just pause. Look at the credits. 00:15:00.009 --> 00:15:03.009 Yes. Look for the shared last names that hint 00:15:03.009 --> 00:15:05.649 at a family pulling favors. Look at the working 00:15:05.649 --> 00:15:07.889 actors who lent their credibility to an unknown 00:15:07.889 --> 00:15:10.370 director's vision. There is so much hidden effort 00:15:10.370 --> 00:15:14.309 there. Recognize the massive, incredibly messy 00:15:14.309 --> 00:15:16.830 human coordination required to bring even the 00:15:16.830 --> 00:15:19.289 most critically panned project into existence. 00:15:19.889 --> 00:15:22.830 It is never just a statistic on a database. It 00:15:22.830 --> 00:15:26.210 is a profound story of people desperately trying 00:15:26.210 --> 00:15:28.490 to leave a mark on their culture. It really takes 00:15:28.490 --> 00:15:31.809 an irrational amount of bravery to manifest something 00:15:31.809 --> 00:15:34.399 from nothing. especially knowing the world might 00:15:34.399 --> 00:15:36.139 ultimately decide it's only worth a few thousand 00:15:36.139 --> 00:15:38.559 dollars. Absolutely. And that brings us to the 00:15:38.559 --> 00:15:40.460 end of our time today, but I want to leave you 00:15:40.460 --> 00:15:42.960 with a final lingering thought to explore on 00:15:42.960 --> 00:15:45.700 your own. Something to mull over. Consider that 00:15:45.700 --> 00:15:48.059 Wikipedia page sitting on a server right now. 00:15:48.250 --> 00:15:51.190 If a feature film is willed into existence by 00:15:51.190 --> 00:15:53.990 the sheer force of a family's loyalty, features 00:15:53.990 --> 00:15:56.590 an ensemble cast pouring their professional equity 00:15:56.590 --> 00:15:59.330 into a script, and manages to secure physical 00:15:59.330 --> 00:16:02.330 distribution to theaters, does its ultimate failure 00:16:02.330 --> 00:16:05.549 at the box office define its legacy? It's a heavy 00:16:05.549 --> 00:16:08.210 question. Or is the true half -life of a passion 00:16:08.210 --> 00:16:10.929 project measured by its ability to survive as 00:16:10.929 --> 00:16:13.529 a digital stub, waiting patiently in the dark 00:16:13.529 --> 00:16:16.190 to be rediscovered and finally understood decades 00:16:16.190 --> 00:16:18.870 later by someone exactly like you? Until next 00:16:18.870 --> 00:16:20.429 time, keep diving deep.