·edited·1 reply
BigSkinnyOn second watch, the shots of him and Elizabeth in the water are interesting. Double meaning ofc with her potentially getting her under his spell. I need to remember where it’s placed. I’d wager it’s in moments of potential delusion from Nathan. It def happens when Amanda is pressing him at the end.
I’ve seen it twice now and yes that moment is where Amanda confronts him at the end is where the shot of them on the ocean is revealed.
I’m not sure what to believe about everything to do with how Nathan feels about Elizabeth. I do buy that he genuinely decided at some point in this films production that him and Lance weren’t interested in like making it a hit piece (clearly— stating the obvious here). I don’t buy the idea that there is anything there though beyond just platonic compassion, at most. I wish we could get a behind the scene look and answers into like… how much of the sexual tension was in the room VS how much of it is in the edit.
If you’ve seen Finding Frances you’d know Nathan has hammed up the “being in love” with a subject before… but this time it’s so much different than finding Frances, I think this one is waaaay more nuanced and ambiguous and “real”… again not that I think this is a romantic love or anything like this. Like Seyfried said “it’s just complicated”
I can’t stop thinking about this
·1 replyNunTheWiserI’ve seen it twice now and yes that moment is where Amanda confronts him at the end is where the shot of them on the ocean is revealed.
I’m not sure what to believe about everything to do with how Nathan feels about Elizabeth. I do buy that he genuinely decided at some point in this films production that him and Lance weren’t interested in like making it a hit piece (clearly— stating the obvious here). I don’t buy the idea that there is anything there though beyond just platonic compassion, at most. I wish we could get a behind the scene look and answers into like… how much of the sexual tension was in the room VS how much of it is in the edit.
If you’ve seen Finding Frances you’d know Nathan has hammed up the “being in love” with a subject before… but this time it’s so much different than finding Frances, I think this one is waaaay more nuanced and ambiguous and “real”… again not that I think this is a romantic love or anything like this. Like Seyfried said “it’s just complicated”
I’m not sure where people are getting the sexual tension from? I didn’t see that at all. Nathan seems completely fascinated and wants to solve this mystery, but I didn’t see sexual tension. Idk, it’s fascinating Amanda said he wasn’t being objective. I think she was trying to snap herself out of it as well. You could see Amanda feeling very guilty about how she portrayed Liz and about Liz being away from her family, and then you see her get defensive over her performance once Liz shows anger towards what the show was doing to her in jail.
This movie is so fascinating, I still can’t wrap my head around it
holy s***….yeah this is the one… i still can’t fully wrap my head around this but i really do feel like i watched a masterpiece.
Kr0niic ☘️Scrolling her twitter is now the weirdest s*** ever holy s***. I can’t believe it lmfao. That is literally insane
You can see everything in this thread, but not with all these spoiler tags
·1 replynevalostmy dad wanna see this with me but we got s*** to do this weekend and he works next weekend meaning I can’t see until Halloween
officially going wednesday on his off day
·2 repliesSaladI’m not sure where people are getting the sexual tension from? I didn’t see that at all. Nathan seems completely fascinated and wants to solve this mystery, but I didn’t see sexual tension. Idk, it’s fascinating Amanda said he wasn’t being objective. I think she was trying to snap herself out of it as well. You could see Amanda feeling very guilty about how she portrayed Liz and about Liz being away from her family, and then you see her get defensive over her performance once Liz shows anger towards what the show was doing to her in jail.
This movie is so fascinating, I still can’t wrap my head around it
I definitely saw sexual tension
- ·5 repliesOscar Winner
I definitely saw sexual tension
Idk how tf y’all are seeing that
- ·edited
We’re talking breathtaking 250mm zoom lenses. You’d normally see these at sporting events.
The subjects would have no idea just how intimate these shots were going to be.- Low apertures giving creamy bokeh that separates the faces from the scene.
- Distinctive vintage color grading by Damien Vandercruyssen that makes Elizabeth’s sharp blue eyes pop off the screen. It also makes everyone look a little bit evil. Nathan’s grey hairs seem to really pop.
- An aspect ratio of 4:3 instead of the usual 1.85:1 seen in most movie theaters. the result is that faces fully fill the screen. (I found the resulting letterboxing to be annoying, but I get the art of it).
- ·2 repliesSalad
Idk how tf y’all are seeing that
Yeah I didn’t see sexual tension at all. I saw an experienced manipulator potentially using emotional pulls and sympathy baits with her kids to soften her past with Nathan. I think she has actual love for her children ofc, but it is a tool she may be using, I also think Nathan doesn’t hate her. He recognizes the humanity in the small moments with her kids and if it was her tactic I think it worked. Maybe she’s a master master manipulator in all this and it’s all a facade, but right now I lean to what I said above. I don’t see sexual tension at all though
- Salad
Idk how tf y’all are seeing that
I mean first and foremost I am a h\*\*\*\* pervert
- Oscar Winner
I definitely saw sexual tension
there was definitely some tension when they went swimming together don’t know how folks are missing that
- BigSkinny
Yeah I didn’t see sexual tension at all. I saw an experienced manipulator potentially using emotional pulls and sympathy baits with her kids to soften her past with Nathan. I think she has actual love for her children ofc, but it is a tool she may be using, I also think Nathan doesn’t hate her. He recognizes the humanity in the small moments with her kids and if it was her tactic I think it worked. Maybe she’s a master master manipulator in all this and it’s all a facade, but right now I lean to what I said above. I don’t see sexual tension at all though
it could be this too
Man I cannot get the Seyfried sequences out of my head. I found I had to keep reminding myself in that dinner scene that this was a documentary and not a narrative feature. S\*\*\* felt like a psychological thriller. This MF Billy starting to threaten people who’ve wronged him with his power and Amanda calling dead Charlie Kirk a f\*\*\*ing p\*\*\*\*… I’m sitting there like Jesus Christ this s\*\*\* is COOKING
- ·4 replies
x.com/jarredgeller/status/2111961703437234200?s=61
People seem to believe that Amanda’s scenes are faithful re-enactments of real moments and dialogue between Nathan and Liz.
This is a wild miss.
Amanda is not Liz. This is made clear throughout the whole film. Nathan likely made up every scene and line of dialogue himself. It is fiction, like the Hulu series. There is nothing in the second half of the movie that you can trust.
Nathan makes it a point that he can never show you or let you hear his conversations with Liz once she goes to jail. You are relying and trusting him completely that these conversations between him and Liz actually happened and that he is retelling them accurately. He lays it on pretty thick that this would be a stupid thing to trust him on. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But, at the same time, maybe he is?? stewing in that uncertainty is intentional.
I’m not even sure Billy ever asked for the money. When Nathan confronts him on it in his office, there are some editing tricks to suggest that Billy’s answers don’t correspond to Nathan’s questions. At one point Billy is drinking a Celsius and soon after is drinking a Spindrift. This is meant to signal that you can’t even trust the film when there aren’t re-enactments.
I didn’t think this was a hot take but I’ve seen so much commentary about things Liz said that were actually said by Amanda. And people treat Amanda’s scenes as if it was Liz herself. This is the most obvious “con” in the film.
They made it clear Amanda is not Liz. The motif of putting words in Liz’s mouth is there throughout the whole film and heavily showcased in the second half.
In short, don’t believe Amanda’s re-enactments are accurate quotes from Liz. In fact, I wouldn’t even believe any of these scenes or moments even happened, at least not in any way close to the way they are portrayed.
Amanda played a character that Nathan wrote. Whether or not any of it is true is an open question but these scenes are DEFINITELY not meant to be accepted at face value.
Transcript of the tweet is in the spoilers. This film is such a rich landscape to explore. I have to think on the above idea some more. What do yall think?
- ·1 replyBigSkinny
https://x.com/jarredgeller/status/2111961703437234200?s=61
People seem to believe that Amanda’s scenes are faithful re-enactments of real moments and dialogue between Nathan and Liz.
This is a wild miss.
Amanda is not Liz. This is made clear throughout the whole film. Nathan likely made up every scene and line of dialogue himself. It is fiction, like the Hulu series. There is nothing in the second half of the movie that you can trust.
Nathan makes it a point that he can never show you or let you hear his conversations with Liz once she goes to jail. You are relying and trusting him completely that these conversations between him and Liz actually happened and that he is retelling them accurately. He lays it on pretty thick that this would be a stupid thing to trust him on. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But, at the same time, maybe he is?? stewing in that uncertainty is intentional.
I’m not even sure Billy ever asked for the money. When Nathan confronts him on it in his office, there are some editing tricks to suggest that Billy’s answers don’t correspond to Nathan’s questions. At one point Billy is drinking a Celsius and soon after is drinking a Spindrift. This is meant to signal that you can’t even trust the film when there aren’t re-enactments.
I didn’t think this was a hot take but I’ve seen so much commentary about things Liz said that were actually said by Amanda. And people treat Amanda’s scenes as if it was Liz herself. This is the most obvious “con” in the film.
They made it clear Amanda is not Liz. The motif of putting words in Liz’s mouth is there throughout the whole film and heavily showcased in the second half.
In short, don’t believe Amanda’s re-enactments are accurate quotes from Liz. In fact, I wouldn’t even believe any of these scenes or moments even happened, at least not in any way close to the way they are portrayed.
Amanda played a character that Nathan wrote. Whether or not any of it is true is an open question but these scenes are DEFINITELY not meant to be accepted at face value.
Transcript of the tweet is in the spoilers. This film is such a rich landscape to explore. I have to think on the above idea some more. What do yall think?
I think it’s naive to assume there is zero artifice in the films presentation but I think to assume that 100% of the re-enactments must be total fiction is probably a little unreasonable too. One thing I keep thinking about is how the film spends the entire second half interrogating the idea that Billy is a villain, but in the end, they kind of go easy on him imo. Like maybe I’m totally off with that, cause don’t get me wrong, he looks like a f\*\*\*ing a\*\*\*\*\*\*. They’re cutting between shots of him sitting in the darkness with caged snakes lurking. But in the end… Nathan kind of is like “but you know what…. They really do love eachother and this people are just f\*\*\*ing weird”. They close the film out with text that informs the audience that Billy’s seemingly most heinous decision is something he ended up changing his mind on. I’m rambling, all this to say, we will never know and it makes for endlessly fascinating discussion.
Chicago pathological liars and scammers make this lady look like an angel
- BigSkinny
https://x.com/jarredgeller/status/2111961703437234200?s=61
People seem to believe that Amanda’s scenes are faithful re-enactments of real moments and dialogue between Nathan and Liz.
This is a wild miss.
Amanda is not Liz. This is made clear throughout the whole film. Nathan likely made up every scene and line of dialogue himself. It is fiction, like the Hulu series. There is nothing in the second half of the movie that you can trust.
Nathan makes it a point that he can never show you or let you hear his conversations with Liz once she goes to jail. You are relying and trusting him completely that these conversations between him and Liz actually happened and that he is retelling them accurately. He lays it on pretty thick that this would be a stupid thing to trust him on. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But, at the same time, maybe he is?? stewing in that uncertainty is intentional.
I’m not even sure Billy ever asked for the money. When Nathan confronts him on it in his office, there are some editing tricks to suggest that Billy’s answers don’t correspond to Nathan’s questions. At one point Billy is drinking a Celsius and soon after is drinking a Spindrift. This is meant to signal that you can’t even trust the film when there aren’t re-enactments.
I didn’t think this was a hot take but I’ve seen so much commentary about things Liz said that were actually said by Amanda. And people treat Amanda’s scenes as if it was Liz herself. This is the most obvious “con” in the film.
They made it clear Amanda is not Liz. The motif of putting words in Liz’s mouth is there throughout the whole film and heavily showcased in the second half.
In short, don’t believe Amanda’s re-enactments are accurate quotes from Liz. In fact, I wouldn’t even believe any of these scenes or moments even happened, at least not in any way close to the way they are portrayed.
Amanda played a character that Nathan wrote. Whether or not any of it is true is an open question but these scenes are DEFINITELY not meant to be accepted at face value.
Transcript of the tweet is in the spoilers. This film is such a rich landscape to explore. I have to think on the above idea some more. What do yall think?
Big skinny the realest nigga man saves me from typing a lot
- BigSkinny
https://x.com/jarredgeller/status/2111961703437234200?s=61
People seem to believe that Amanda’s scenes are faithful re-enactments of real moments and dialogue between Nathan and Liz.
This is a wild miss.
Amanda is not Liz. This is made clear throughout the whole film. Nathan likely made up every scene and line of dialogue himself. It is fiction, like the Hulu series. There is nothing in the second half of the movie that you can trust.
Nathan makes it a point that he can never show you or let you hear his conversations with Liz once she goes to jail. You are relying and trusting him completely that these conversations between him and Liz actually happened and that he is retelling them accurately. He lays it on pretty thick that this would be a stupid thing to trust him on. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But, at the same time, maybe he is?? stewing in that uncertainty is intentional.
I’m not even sure Billy ever asked for the money. When Nathan confronts him on it in his office, there are some editing tricks to suggest that Billy’s answers don’t correspond to Nathan’s questions. At one point Billy is drinking a Celsius and soon after is drinking a Spindrift. This is meant to signal that you can’t even trust the film when there aren’t re-enactments.
I didn’t think this was a hot take but I’ve seen so much commentary about things Liz said that were actually said by Amanda. And people treat Amanda’s scenes as if it was Liz herself. This is the most obvious “con” in the film.
They made it clear Amanda is not Liz. The motif of putting words in Liz’s mouth is there throughout the whole film and heavily showcased in the second half.
In short, don’t believe Amanda’s re-enactments are accurate quotes from Liz. In fact, I wouldn’t even believe any of these scenes or moments even happened, at least not in any way close to the way they are portrayed.
Amanda played a character that Nathan wrote. Whether or not any of it is true is an open question but these scenes are DEFINITELY not meant to be accepted at face value.
Transcript of the tweet is in the spoilers. This film is such a rich landscape to explore. I have to think on the above idea some more. What do yall think?
going off of that tweet, i believe that nathan believes that liz was playing the manipulative theranos boss character the whole first half of the film, so it would make sense for him to reenact that same character for amanda to play in the second half in some kind of sick push/pull relationship
·3 repliesNunTheWiserI think it’s naive to assume there is zero artifice in the films presentation but I think to assume that 100% of the re-enactments must be total fiction is probably a little unreasonable too. One thing I keep thinking about is how the film spends the entire second half interrogating the idea that Billy is a villain, but in the end, they kind of go easy on him imo. Like maybe I’m totally off with that, cause don’t get me wrong, he looks like a f\*\*\*ing a\*\*\*\*\*\*. They’re cutting between shots of him sitting in the darkness with caged snakes lurking. But in the end… Nathan kind of is like “but you know what…. They really do love eachother and this people are just f\*\*\*ing weird”. They close the film out with text that informs the audience that Billy’s seemingly most heinous decision is something he ended up changing his mind on. I’m rambling, all this to say, we will never know and it makes for endlessly fascinating discussion.
If Billy was really evil then Nathan wouldn’t really be that shocked that Amanda seyfried wants to break them up . He sees their love and believes in it . He is jealous of it . He craves that sense of belonging of someone who loves you with all your demons
They do what leads to the best product it’s important to remember that
·1 replyHaroldsChickenIf Billy was really evil then Nathan wouldn’t really be that shocked that Amanda seyfried wants to break them up . He sees their love and believes in it . He is jealous of it . He craves that sense of belonging of someone who loves you with all your demons
why would nathan be jealous of billy lol, if anything billy was the insecure one, trying to prove his masculinity to nathan any chance he gets