this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2026
82 points (89.4% liked)

movies

4094 readers
325 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deHaga@feddit.uk 68 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] NoForwadSlashS@piefed.social 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The article also has basically nothing to it.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] NoForwadSlashS@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 6 points 2 days ago

A lot of movie news article titles are like this. The day fedi supports titles with bold and italics will be great.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (3 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.

[–] engagewithzorp@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Exactly that. He's undeniably drawn to her but doesn't really fall for it.

[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I am referring specifically to the quote which says he fell for it

[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 5 points 2 days ago

Yes, that's what I mean. The people saying he fell for it aren't exactly good at reading people.

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 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.

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

I'm curious what you think the film was trying to tell, since I've heard multiple opinions

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] moonshadow@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

Dang, I can't unsee it lol. Straight up gender swapped zuck. It's mostly the soulless liar's eyes that do it

[–] Amuro_eat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 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?

[–] StabbingSky@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nathan Fielder fans want you to believe he is some 1000iq anime character. He fell for it lol.

[–] Amuro_eat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago

You seem like you fall for the scripted events of Housewives easily

[–] Guncle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 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.

[–] Amuro_eat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] Guncle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://youtu.be/6gn0QeqYMr4?is=Uo6Izy3SqyiqLgPv

The way Fielder himself explains it in this video says otherwise

[–] Amuro_eat@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 days ago

You’re getting whooshed. They’re dedicated to the kayfabe. Think about how the theme of it was “she’s playing a character”

[–] FatVegan@leminal.space 1 points 2 days ago

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