all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 5 days ago (8 children)

This article sucks

Spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen it...

Tap for spoilerNo 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    I mean, these people did buy her lies, so clearly they are not so good at figuring out what to believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 5 days ago (4 children)
  • [–] 18 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    The article also has basically nothing to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child)

    Are we seeing the same article? This one consists entirely of handpicked examples of what the headline describes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    She looks like Zuck with a wig. Fortunately her con was less successful than his.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (16 children)

    So her coworkers don’t understand satire and don’t realize Nathan was playing a character

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 days ago (8 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

    Use a search engine. Sorry you had to work for her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 days ago (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (3 children)

    Well…you’re wrong? Idk what to tell you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments