The Guardian posted an interesting discussion between one of their podcasters and their arts writer who reviewed the film. Unfortunately I can’t find a transcript, but it was well worth the time to watch (and I don’t like podcasts). It’s 30 minutes (or less if you run it faster). They get into a lot of the questions and discussion points @Spice_Weasel raised above.
And here’s something that’s been on my mind and was touched on in the podcast linked above:
When Amanda and Nathan are having dinner with Billy and the discussion turns to lack of conjugal visits, Amanda suggests maybe Billy isn’t as good at sex as he thinks. It represents a pretty dramatic turning point in his behavior, and suddenly the mask comes off. He attacks Amanda about getting “dragged on X,” he proudly says he’s a Charlie Kirk fan, and he basically goes full misogynist tech bro.
So was that totally calculated on Amanda’s part? She’d previously said something about how, as a woman, maybe she could get more info from him, but this was not the approach I expected.
And if it was purposeful, was it all her or was that Nathan’s script? In a broader sense, how much of her screen time was genuine? When she comments on what’s happening, she becomes the audience’s proxy. It’s totally believable that she is genuinely reacting that way. It’s also believable that she’s playing a role that Nathan is directing. Fascinating stuff.
Good questions. I certainly came out of that thinking, “I like the cut of Amanda’s jib!”
But of course she’s a professional actress.
Also, it’s interesting the film never explores Amanda’s life. Does she have a husband? Kids? No one from her life appears on screen (nor is mentioned), apart from a farting horse.
Partly this is because they had to draw the line somewhere (it’s already three hours long — and nor do we learn anything about Nathan’s life), and partly because Amanda serves as a stand-in for the audience, sort of (as noted in the previous post).
Okay, I saw this today (first time I’ve ever been to a movie by myself!) and both of these posts resonated with me…I found myself becoming very conflicted late in the film on how much of it was scripted, beyond the reenactments. Paraphasing Troutman: is Seyfried being Seyfried, or playing Seyfried? I have no idea! But I know A24 is pushing a Best Actress nomination. In fact, they’re also pushing a Best Picture nomination, even though documentaries aren’t eligible. Are they doing a bit with that, winking at us? Who the fuck knows.
And like Quimby (I think) I went in 100% sure she was a con artist and came away thinking something else could be going on. But you can’t tell! The Abbot & Costello section was fascinating.
Actually, all of it was fascinating. Fielder’s sort of puzzled willingness to ask the question that has been prompted into your own head (“why did you pause?” “what passed into your head at that moment?”).
On thing I’d add: early in I realized music was being used to manipulate my feelings, in fact it’s almost non-stop in the film, and I was briefly annoyed. But as I started to question Fielder’s objectivity, I realized the music was there to cue what he was feeling and put it into my brain, and that this was not an objective ride.
Documentaries are not ineligible for Best Picture and they have specifically said that this film is eligible.
A doc has never been nominated before, but there is no rule saying that can’t happen.
Oh, I missed that docs are not ineligible (“they” I assume is pundits, I haven’t found a statement from the Academy). I think its odds of nomination are very high, then. I have no idea of its odds of toppling Odysseus, though.
Interestingly, the DGA does have a prohibitive rule and has said they can’t win the theatrical directors’ category, but there is a category for documentary directors.
I just watched it. I went to the theater for the first time since well before Covid because a few friends also wanted to go. I watched a couple of episodes of Felder’s tv series and hated it but I was still intrigued. I can’t add much beyond many of the excellent posts in this thread already. This is art at a genius level.
I highly recommend that people read @Dewey_Finn 's link while you can. It’s a great perspective.
Interesting to note that the only posters with a negative opinion of this film are those who have read the spoilers but haven’t seen it. If they ever do, they still won’t like it because they’ve read all the spoilers. It’s the scenes you don’t see coming that really make this film. When they cut to Nathan showing Amanda his doc footage, the audience lost their shit. Simply brilliant.
I’m on the fence about this one. After hearing how good it is, but with no real understanding what it’s about, I checked out the wiki page, and now have read the opinions here. Btw, I don’t really consider them “spoilers” because this doesn’t sound like a plot driven sort of thing, so I don’t feel like anything has been given away.
Did everyone here know the story it’s based on well? I know her name, the company’s name, and that she bilked people for a lot of money involving medical testing (correct?). Is it important to be familiar with all the details? Also, can someone sum up why they like it? Like, is it funny? If so, is it funny in a Borat sort of way? I’m a little familiar Fielder and like him well enough, but is he the biggest reason you like it?
With so much praise from all you discerning peeps, I’m inclined to see it but it is long and my movie budget is small. I guess I’m just trying to understand what to expect.
A lot of this film subverts audience expectations about how a documentary is supposed to work, and yes, that moment got a whoa from our audience, as did several others.
It’s hard to stop thinking about this film, and I guess I’m going to have to see it again.
Yeah, I’m also considering seeing it, based on the rave reviews here. It still doesn’t sound like the type of movie i generally enjoy, but a really good X can be worth it even if I’m not generally into X.
I’m very familiar with the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos, but have never heard of Nathan Fielder before.
This was the first thing I said to my companion after we’d seen the film.
But I like your positive take on the purpose of this.
This is exactly why I saw it and I am glad that I did.
At this point I feel compelled to point out again that, in my opinion, Fielder is liar. Or at best, a fool. This is based on his show The Rehearsal, and the nonsensical misinformation he put out concerning aviation. Here’s the thread I started last year.
This is one of my main posts about what he did:
All this to say, I think everybody should take Fielder’s film with a huge grain of salt based on his past record.
That’s actually one of the key themes of the movie.
Meanwhile, the NYT reporter talks about the famous “they’re playing a character I created” quote. I appreciate her transparency and believe her.
About That Contested Elizabeth Holmes Quote to The Times - The New York Times
Everyone should take everything he does with a huge grain of salt, that’s literally the point of Nathan Fielder. To provoke the viewer into questioning their assumptions about what is true.
I mean, I haven’t seen the aviation episode yet, so there may be some nuance I’m missing. But there’s a scene earlier in the Rehearsal in which, to simulate a rapidly growing garden, the crew buys vegetables at the grocery store and dumps them into the earth. Literally they dig a hole and pour in a bag of onions. Fielder then “harvests” these vegetables with the UPC sticker still on them. You may as well complain he misrepresented farming.
Certainly the show doesn’t present itself as something to be taken at face value.
Having seen three or four episodes now of the Rehearsal, I did not expect it to be so funny. But still making great points.
I knew very little about the story in advance which may even have added to its meaning for me, as I was willing to entertain a lot of different possibilities about what happened. Then to read the actual accounts later, as I’m doing now, makes me question what I saw in the film again, and I want to see it again now that I know.
I was barely interested in Elizabeth Holmes, I just find Fielder fascinating. He is the biggest reason I like it.
It’s not cringe humor. Some parts of it are very funny, but this film has serious artistic merit. I loved it because of what it made me feel and how it’s still making me think.
The New York Times reports (gift link) that the film might receive a best picture nomination but perhaps not a best documentary feature nomination because it’s “unconventional.”
Critics say the documentary branch is hesitant to reward films that have experienced commercial success. They point to what they view as a bias against films that feature celebrities or are directed by well-known filmmakers. And if you have won before, it’s unlikely you will win again, regardless of how acclaimed your film has been.
I knew about as much as you did.
My prior experience with Nathan Fielder is in watching The Rehearsal. While the second season caught the public’s attention both because of explicitly engaging with neurodivergency/autism as well as the kind of wildness of Fielder’s becoming a pilot, both seasons were explorations of the same themes, as this movie is.
Fielder’s core questions include (but are not limited to) things like: What is truth? How do we recognize it? When do different degrees of truth matter and when do they not? How do we engage with each other honestly? When is truth harmful? Is objectivity possible? When two people experience something differently, which is true? What is rationality and how much can we trust that anyone is acting rationally?
He doesn’t wrap these questions in fictitious stories or grand metaphor at arms length like a writer of fiction might, but engages in these questions by placing people, along with himself, in scenarios he has created that exist to push against these questions. And it invites us to question our role as audience.
You Can See Everything is similar work with a similar focus. I’d say it is less “cringey” (a criticism I don’t fully agree with) than parts of The Rehearsal, in part because we go into the movie being unsympathetic to the subjects, but otherwise is a variation on a theme of Fielder’s work.
Why do I like it?
Because I’m the guy who wants to talk about how every actor or celebrity we see on a podcast/interview/social media as ‘themselves’ is still giving a specific version of themselves for public consumption and profit. It’s hard to truly know anyone, even those close to us, yet we are willing to fully invest emotionally in the goodness of Amy Poehler because of a role she played on TV once (no shade to Amy Poehler).
Because I believe we live in an era where our selves are being completely subsumed by presentational/marketable/curated doppelgangers of our own creation so completely and insidiously that we often can’t tell the difference. Am I human or am I muppet or am I an influencer or am I turning my personal relationships into vectors to give free advertising to corporate brands because connecting over what we buy is the only way I know how to connect?
Because I think we are encouraged to participate in society in ways that dehumanize us piece by piece until we turn into vaguely empty and nostalgic consumption machines. We don’t know what it means to be real anymore, and we long for connection and contentment that can only be achieved using tools we have surrendered and are being held out of reach.
Fielder is one of the few people I’m aware of making art that jumps in and says “I know that reality has been weirded, and is lonely, and I am inside of it too. What is it like to be a person today? And by the way, don’t forget that the ‘truths’ I’m showing you actually took a lot of planning, set-up, and decision making. So take my word, but also, I’m making things up as much as the next guy. Don’t forget that.”
I watch his work and feel like he’s asking questions out loud that I ask in my head, but it feels like no one else cares about or believes they’re important. I look at his work and think, “here’s someone who sees the world a bit like me.” And it feels so refreshing.
(Bo Burnham’s Inside was another work that touched on some of the same themes, albeit very differently than Fielder).
tl;dr - in a world of art where artists say “trust me to deliver the message”, it’s such a release to have an artist who says “don’t trust me”, not because he wants to lie, but because he wants to remind us that everyone creates their own situational truths all the time.
Phenomenal post. Thank you.
(I also adore Inside.)
I couldn’t help but think of the first/last time I got burned for thinking I understood someone better than I did, which was my affinity for comedian/podcaster Chris Hardwick. I’m not the kind of person who forms celebrity attachments, but I always thought of him, as the him he presented himself to be, as me in a male body. Everything he said felt so relatable.
I’m not saying the allegations against him must necessarily be true, but it’s clear from the resulting backlash that there were parts of himself he was concealing from his fans. So you can’t really know.
Heck, you can’t really know about anyone.
Anyway this film is almost the reverse. It starts with an unlikable person and entertains the idea that there are parts of her we don’t see, that might even make her more sympathetic. And I want to be clear, the film isn’t saying she is sympathetic, I don’t think it’s trying to make her sympathetic, I think it’s simulating the effect she has on people in general. Having learned more about Theranos, I’ve read she often had this effect of confusing people and making them doubt themselves even when they were clearly in the moral right. I don’t know exactly what was going on in Fielder’s head but I do think she knocked him off balance and I think his emotional responses in the film are genuine.
But I have no real reason for believing that other than it’s my preferred narrative. I like him and I think I understand his work. I think, I feel… that amidst the intentional artifice of Fielder’s work is something very genuine and relatable.
I could be wrong , though. And that’s the whole point.
Thanks, @Eonwe and @Spice_Weasel. Hopefully I’ll get to see it while it’s still in theaters.