“Playing with Fire” – A Reaction NOT a Review

This will be a new thing of mine: I don’t do reviews, I do reactions.  If you want a book report on the film then read someone else’s blog.  No nerds here.  Hahaha. 

So let’s get to the FI documentary of the century, what did I think? 

For all the hype, for all the grand expectations from the FI bloggers portrayed in the film, “Playing with Fire” fizzled out into disappointment. 

It pains me to type this. 

Scott and Taylor seem like such great and likeable people in the film and from all of the podcast interviews I’ve listened to.  They were fellow SoCal residents in Coronado – a place I have frequented regularly and hold dear in my heart.  Plus, Travis Shakespeare was driven by his own FI journey for this creative project that was a 2-3 year labor of love for all involved. 

I thought I was going to love this film.  By all the hype spewing out into the FI universe I was convinced there was no way I couldn’t love it.  I even wished I could love it so bad when I was watching it. 

But I just don’t get it?  I don’t understand what people are seeing and I am missing?  This didn’t feel like a FI documentary.  What it felt like was a well-produced, choreographed and dramatized movie.  If I was looking for entertainment then that would be great, but I was looking for an introduction to FI that could be a conversation starter.  Yet what I saw was a film that left me scratching my head with more questions than answers. 

Let’s start with the positives. 

It was a beautiful film to watch.  Period.  The dialogue flowed, the shots were great and visually appealing.  I have no issues with the quality and production of this documentary.  It was top notch. 

Where the Rieckens lost me, was the content. 

One of the tenets in teaching and educating about FI, is the transparency of how you are funding/saving for that goal. 

Question # 1:  Why was the elephant in the room never addressed – that elephant being the film itself is a for profit business enterprise? 

I think this one flaw ruined the entire movie for me. 

I watch Scott quit his job onscreen and he talks about Taylor being the only breadwinner working, yet Scott has a job – he’s filming this documentary?  I’m sitting in a theatre that I just paid $50 to watch this movie with my wife (which isn’t cheap, these aren’t $10 tickets, they’re $25 a pop), wondering the whole time, when will they talk about the film as a side hustle and the income it will produce?  This isn’t a for-free educational documentary that they are sharing from the kindness of their hearts.  It’s a key cog that will help fund their FI journey yet this fact is entirely ignored in the documentary. 

If you aren’t clear on your motives, others following in your footsteps might be misled. 

Question #2:  Were their FI choices authentic, or staged for a Hollywood ending? 

And I don’t know, maybe I’m alone in this, but this film felt like a conflict of interest to me.  If you are making a documentary, about yourself, that you know you are going to try to profit from, then don’t you make the content as entertaining and dramatic as possible?  So did they pick all of these extreme decisions to move out of their city and live with their parents for the sake of entertainment, or is this a real FI journey? 

I don’t know? Maybe everything was real.  But something just didn’t seem to pass the eye test on first glance. 

Inconsistencies and sudden change are fine in your FI journey, if you explain them. 

Question #3:  How are the Rieckens jet setting from coast to coast to interview all of these FI stars when they moved in with their parents to save money? 

Sometimes 2+2 doesn’t = 4, and that’s the case here for me.  It seems inconsistent that the Rieckens make all of these extreme decisions to save money, yet they’re traveling across the country from coast to coast to interview all of these FI celebrities and attend FINCON (which seemed like a random ass choice to include in the movie). 

It was these scripted inconsistencies that I found misleading and kept distracting me from their story.  I think this also plays into the first question about addressing the film for the business that it is.  They are spending all of this money to conduct these interviews, yet they never acknowledge or mention that it is for a future cashflow project.  Why not lay out their reasoning and explain what the hell they are doing so the audience knows what is going on? 

Not every sentence needs to end in an exclamation point. 

Question #4:  Why the extreme decisions? 

I might be a little biased here since I live in a high cost of living area, but you don’t need to move home with your parents to save for a down payment to buy a house in a different state.  You can do it like most FI people do it, gradually.  I live in LA, I have spent a ton of time in Coronado.  I feel that this film stereotypes high cost of living areas.  They could have stayed in Coronado and made different decisions if they really wanted to stay.  There are plenty of FI people in high cost of living cities across the US making it work. 

Also, what is up with the Bend decision?  I have family who live in this city and have also spent a lot of time there myself.  Bend is not one of the most affordable cities to retire in the US.  It ranks in the top 10 places to retire every year for its outdoor beauty and is a prime tourist destination.  Yes, it is cheaper than Coronado, but you are still paying high taxes and it’s not the best bang for your buck if geo-arbitrage is your goal. 

When the crowd mentality gains momentum, it’s a struggle to fight back against the current. 

Question #5:  Why does everyone in the FI community keep saying show this to your friends and family, this is a great FIRE conversation starter? 

No.  If I am going to start a FIRE discussion, this is the last movie I want to show them.  I know right away what their reaction will be – fuck that shit, I’m not moving back in with my parents living this life of deprivation and depression.  These people look stressed out and unhappy as hell. 

Which is true, they did.  Because that’s what happens when you make extreme decisions and cross over into deprivation.  If you want to help people improve their lives, then you suggest small changes to them.  Divisive examples don’t make people change.  It’s small baby steps and slight improvements that get people to alter their habits and try new things. 

Sometimes when you are too deep into something, you lose perspective. 

Question #6:  What was up with ChooseFI’s insane promotion of this movie? 

I had to ask this one.  I’ve been streaming ChooseFI recently and they went NUTS on this film’s promotion – I’m talking cuckoo for Coco Puffs nuts.  Their support was beyond uncanny.  So my first inclination is to ask, were they getting paid to promote this film?  If not, what the fuck was going on?  Were they just so enthralled with being in a movie?  Man, this one was wild, so I had to ask. 

And don’t get me wrong, I love those guys, but this was too much. 

Why does it feel like taboo to write anything negative about this documentary?  When everyone is drinking the cool-aid, this is when I start to get really nervous. 

It might seem like it’s easy for me to sit behind a computer and pick this movie apart, but that’s not my goal.  This is just how I feel. 

I’ve watched this film three times now.  I first saw it two months ago in the theatre, but didn’t want to write anything at that time because I was so disappointed but the online reviews were raving about it.  I thought I must have missed something and began questioning myself, leading me to wait until I could watch it again to really assess it. 

But upon the second viewing, and third, I was left with the same dissatisfied feeling.  And what really crystalized it for me was my wife’s reaction.  We are both very different people – I am a natural saver and she is a natural spender – yet upon all viewings she had a very emotional reaction and questioned just like me how the Rieckens were portraying their FI journey on film. 

So I knew I wasn’t alone, and it was time to put pen to paper. 

Maybe the film just wasn’t what I was expecting, but it doesn’t change my frustration.  Regardless, I wish the documentary the best and hope Scott and Taylor find continued FI happiness in Bend, OR. 

But if you want to introduce FI as a conversation starter, I wouldn’t start here.  I’d begin with a good blog post or podcast to ease them in.  No need to scare them financially shitless from the start. 

So am I way off?  Do I have no clue what I’m talking about?  Shoot some holes in all of my points above.  I’d love the feedback. 

But be careful… play with fire and you might get burnt… ahahahahaha! 

-Q-FI