Title gore
The article also has basically nothing to it.
Are we seeing the same article? This one consists entirely of handpicked examples of what the headline describes.
It is a short article regurgitating what 2 ex-Theranos employees said to to a different publication. It doesn’t really provide any insight into anything.
A lot of movie news article titles are like this. The day fedi supports titles with bold and italics will be great.
This article sucks
Spoilers for anyone who hasn’t seen it…
Tap for spoiler
No shit??? Nathan grappling with the unexplainable draw he has to her is literally part of the story.
I saw it two weeks ago so it’s not fresh on my mind but doesn’t it literally end with Amanda calling him out as he struggles to make sense of it.
But to say he fell for it is a bit hyperbolic. He was obviously drawn in but he’s extremely suspicious for the entire film. Their first interview includes him telling her he thinks it’s a PR stunt.
They don’t come right out and give a conclusion but it’s obvious he doesn’t believe her.
I think the theme is more along the lines of, he knows intellectually that Elizabeth is lying but she triggers authentic emotions of trust and sympathy. He’s smart enough to not let his emotional reaction override his intellect but he’s fascinated at the cognitive dissonance.
It’s similar in style to The Rehearsal, he shows you how Elizabeth can manipulate people by example instead of just talking about it
Exactly that. He’s undeniably drawn to her but doesn’t really fall for it.
I mean, these people did buy her lies, so clearly they are not so good at figuring out what to believe.
I am referring specifically to the quote which says he fell for it
Yes, that’s what I mean. The people saying he fell for it aren’t exactly good at reading people.
The number of people who don’t understand the film is truly staggering. We need to fund education in this country for better media literacy if nothing else.
I’m curious what you think the film was trying to tell, since I’ve heard multiple opinions
I agree but I think it’s understandable to not understand the nuance here. Most documentaries go in with a point to make and this one did not.
She looks like Zuck with a wig. Fortunately her con was less successful than his.
Dang, I can’t unsee it lol. Straight up gender swapped zuck. It’s mostly the soulless liar’s eyes that do it
So her coworkers don’t understand satire and don’t realize Nathan was playing a character
If it’s a satire what is it satirizing? If Fielder is playing a character and is a subject of the film why is it billed as an actual documentary instead of a mockumentary?
The only explanation thing I can think of is that the character he’s playing falls for Holmes’ bullshit, while he didn’t actually fall for it.
Use a search engine. Sorry you had to work for her.
Alright I searched for “Is you can see everything satire” and “what does you can see everything satirize” and came up with nothing. Any other suggestions?
It is satirizing documentaries themselves in how they are never truly objective, the documenter will always have biases and agendas so the documentary will never be objective. The character Nathan is playing is Nathan Fielder, the documentarian. The character is personifying what I previously said, his character is getting caught up in the bullshit of Holmes. It’s not billed as a mockumentary because it’s Nathan Fielder, his whole career is messing with people. I haven’t even seen it billed as any other genre than “Husband”. The movie is a comedy. There is plenty of information out there on it so maybe you just need to use a search engine better.
good lord
Like wise
That’s ironic considering the director’s past(not Nathan the other one).
Is it really that hard for you dumb asses to just look this stuff up? Jfc you guys are dumb
Nathan Fielder fans want you to believe he is some 1000iq anime character. He fell for it lol.
You seem like you fall for the scripted events of Housewives easily
I’ve seen a lot of Nathan Fielder’s work from Nathan for You, The Rehearsal, and even The Curse. This is like the one time I’ve seen him not play a character or satirize anything.
Well…you’re wrong? Idk what to tell you.
https://youtu.be/6gn0QeqYMr4?is=Uo6Izy3SqyiqLgPv
The way Fielder himself explains it in this video says otherwise
You’re getting whooshed. They’re dedicated to the kayfabe. Think about how the theme of it was “she’s playing a character”
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but what i read was that he wasn’t supposed to be on camera at all, and it just kinda happened, because they kept talking to him directly
