Oh Boy! Another Edition of Films I've Watched Lately, Some of Which I Loved Greatly

400 Blows

Dr. Strangelove (1964) Kubrick. I watched this for the first time in several years after listening to TCM’s Stanley Kubrick podcast episode about the making of the movie. There’s a lot to admire about the picture. Its wit, its relevance to the times it was made, performances from Sterling Hayden, George C Scott and Peter Sellers (well, two out of three of them). However Kubrick tended to ask for two kinds of performances from his actors: the over the top and the understated. Two good examples of the latter can be seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon. Examples of the former can be seen in Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove. However I’m always bothered by Sellers’ portrayal of the title character. It’s silly. Watching the Dr. Strangelove trying to reign in an out of control arm is tedious. Meanwhile Sellers is brilliant in his other roles: Captain Mandrake and the US president. I also the ridiculous character names distracting. I refer here to Jack Ripper, Colonel Bat Guano and Major T. J. 'King' Kong. Come on. Dr. Strangelove would have worked better as a satire than it does as a farce.

Dracula (193) Browning Freund. Of all the classic horror films of the early 1930s that Universal Pictures cranked out this one — along with the first two iterations of the Frankenstein films — is the gold standard. Poor Bela Lugosi was so damn good as the count that no one could ever see him as anything else. Directors Tod Browning and Karl Freund did a masterful job of creating mood in a film that could only ever have been in black and white. In subsequent years vampires movies have been done to death (pun not intended but welcomed) and many, maybe most of such films, have been wastes of celluloid. Once a classic gets made other films of the same type are going to suffer in comparison. Dracula is no longer scary, but it is a really entertaining watch.

The Exorcist (1973) Friendkin. I first saw this movie right after it was released in theaters. To say that there was a buzz around it would be like saying that Trumpy makes the news a lot. I saw it with two friends who were a couple. After the movie they invited me to stay at their house that night as my roommates were out of town. I unhesitatingly accepted. The Exorcist had scared the hell out of me. Later I read the book and that scared me even more. Once again there was a weekend in which my two housemates were out of town. I slept in the living room with the lights on. I bought a Christian cross on a chain to wear around my neck to ward off the demonic possession. I kept that cross for another thirty years (I’m not a Christian). Oh by the way, the movie is excellent. Lee J Cobb as the cop is particularly memorable — as is all the insanity that goes on in the poor girl’s bedroom. I enjoyed my latest viewing. The Exorcist no longer has the shock value it once did but one can admire the film making. Films about demonic possession — many based on or sequels to The Exorcist — have proliferated ever since. Originality was never a strong suit of Hollywood. Anyway my latest viewing didn’t scare me. I’m a big boy now.

Lolita (1962) Kubrick. Another film that I watched because it was the subject of the Kubrick podcast. My verdict: they should have waited another seven or eight years before making it. The Production Code was still stifling artistic freedom, meaning this film was watered down to such an extent that it lost the punch of the novel entirely. A later version was made in the late nineties starring Jeremy Irons that was much better. Lolita was surprisingly long for a film that didn’t have a lot going on it. The inability to have sex or nudity or make Humbert’s intention explicit rendered it meaningless. Also Sue Lyon was also disappointing as Lolita or as a Lolita. 

Man-Proof (1938) Thorpe. I was taken in by the cast: Myrna Loy, Franchot Tone, Rosalind Russell, Walter Pidgeon. Also I thought it was a comedy. It very much wasn’t. Pure sappy melodrama. The star power was wasted in a film in which the director, Richard Thorpe, had his actors hit their marks and read their lines but seemed otherwise disinterested in the whole endeavor. Frankly it’s the type of movie you forget about in a few days and it’s been a few days since I’ve seen it so….

The 400 Blows (1959) Truffaut. It never disappoints. A film that, no matter how well you know it, you enjoy more with each viewing and find something new to admire. I particularly enjoy watching Truffaut's portrayal of the world the characters inhabited. I confess that at times I have a hard time with Antoine, in part because of my experience as a school teacher. I do sympathize with him, however. But I sympathize with everyone in the film. It's a picture in which no one has found permanent happiness; all they get is moments. It’s not as pessimistic a film as it may seem on the surface being more observant than judgmental. Indeed all it really asks us is to watch the characters. Young Antoine, his cheating mother, his hapless father, his eternally frustrated teacher and even some of his friends make for interesting viewing.

The Candidate (1972) Ritchie. One of the great films about politics ever made and maybe the best about political campaigns. Robert Redford was made to order to play the candidate. He looks the part of the young, brash, liberal outsider waging a seemingly hopeless campaign against a longtime establishment senator who is a campaign veteran. It’s all there. The stresses of campaigning, the candidate as a product being sold to the public. The tremendous pressure to get endorsements. The repetition of messages. The underhanded tricks. The vagaries of audiences. The little mistakes and deviations that can cost votes. The savvy political and media advisors (Peter Boyle and Allen Garfield who are both excellent). It’s a surprisingly entertaining film. Credit director Michael Ritchie for the film’s pacing and editing and Redford for his being — again — more than just a pretty face.

The Trouble With Harry (1955) Hitchcock. I love this movie. It is in my top ten Hitchcock films of all time. A dark comedy in an incredibly beautiful New England autumn village. Fall foliage joins John Forsythe (was he ever better?), Shirley MacLaine (aside from The Apartment, was she ever ever better?) Mildred Natwick, Edmund Gwenn and Jerry Mathers (but not as the Beaver) in a perfectly cast picture. I suppose the central story around the dead body that everyone seems to stumble upon (in some cases literally) and many have a relationship to — or think they do — can seem a little preposterous. Nothing wrong with that. There’s a central mystery to the movie, but I always forget what we ultimately learn. Why? Because the joy is not in unlocking a mystery but hanging out with this eccentric group of people. What a delight.

Its the Third Edition of Texts to My Wife, These May Seem Fake but I Assure You....

I'm sure regular readers of this blog (I'm looking at you Gilgamesh O’Hara of Fernley, Nevada) will remember that on two previous occasions I’ve posted actual texts that I’ve sent my beloved wife. Ever since people have been begging for more (or they’ve been begging me to stop — one of the two). So because of/despite your pleas, here is a third edition. These are a bit unusual and you may find yourself questioning if they are real, but that’s half of the fun.

Oops, almost started a thermo nuclear war. I’ll tell you about it when I get home.

I’ll be home late and it’s not because I’m having an affair with a swimsuit model, it’s for a perfectly understandable reason that I forgot.

The badger is loose in the parlor again. Dealing with it.

Be sure to pick up some orca steaks when you stop at the store.

I’ll be home suspiciously late and it’s not because I stopped at an orgy.

Investing our money in a company that makes rotary cell phones.

Saw a samurai decapitate a bus passenger for not giving up his seat to an elderly woman. Fine with it.

Going whaling this weekend. You cool with that?

Did not stop at a sorority house to “mess around” I went to…uh, a lecture. Yeah, that’s it, a lecture, or a poetry reading whichever one you believe.

The brown acid that is circulating... is not specifically too good. It is suggested that you do stay away from that. Of course it's your own trip, so be my guest; but be advised there is a warning on that one.

Leaving the house now, don’t want to be late for the exorcism.

Don’t forget to pick up my lederhosen from the cleaners.

Sorry about burning down the house, if it’s any consolation I saved a bunch of my stuff.

I’m out for a walk and not stopping at the sexy divorcée’s house for any hanky panky (unless she’s home).

I’ll meet you at the seance.

The aliens who abducted us the other day came back. Wanted to know where they could get some good Szechuan. I directed them to O’Malley’s pub just to mess with ‘em.

Have you had any luck diffusing the bomb in our basement? Try to hurry, I need to use the bathroom.

The travel agent called back, doesn’t recommend vacationing in Iran.

Our neighbor, Gorman, lost his leg in a car accident. I’m going to help him look for it.

I know you saw me kissing the gorgeous blonde who lives across the street but there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation that I haven’t had time to think of yet.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions -- The Difficulties of Having a Choice

You can drive yourself nuts thinking about all the things you could have done differently in your life. You can make yourself miserable thinking about all the missed opportunities. Besieged by what ifs. Haunted by if only. Tormented by what you could have said, what you should have said. Why you overreacted to this but let that go. 

Time bends in on you. That day forty years ago is so clear in your mind. Yesterday is a blur. Was that really already ten years ago? Has it really been two years since I saw….? Why do I remember that stupid conversation from the sixth grade? Why does that one remark from thirty years ago still sting? Did that really happen? Was it as I remember it or have I exaggerated it in the retellings? 

Choices. That’s what life’s really about. Did you make the right ones? Are you making the right ones? Do you have enough of them? It seems at times too many. It can be dangerous to have a lot of choices because so many are the wrong ones. For that matter two choices could be one too many because that extra one leads to disaster.

If we’re lucky we face a lot of choices. The enslaved have fewer. The desperately poor don’t have many. Neither do the permanently crippled. Choices are for the healthy, the free, the solvent. A lot of choices come when we’re young, often when we’re ill-equipped to make them. Sometimes we make choices when we don’t need to. It can be hard to stay the course. Doing something else, another direction, the grass on the other side, the bright shiny new thing, all are temptations. As the song goes, we don’t know what we got till it’s gone. Truth. We’re fine. But see something else and….

The worst choices are the ones made on impulse. I’ve made plenty of those. So many regrettable ones. So many things that sounded good at the time.

All this is maddening. There is no guide, no rule book, no syllabus for life. You can get something along those lines if you follow a religion but then you’re being fed all manner of mythology, unreal expectations and sometimes you have unnatural strictures placed on your actions. Religion gives you easy answers but they’re often the wrong ones and put demands on you.

So it’s hard. Parents can guide us. That can be good, bad or have decidedly mixed results. The best parenting requires clear boundaries but also opportunities for young people to learn to make their own decisions.

Decision-making, choices really start hitting you in college. What should I major in? What classes will I take? Should I date this person? Should I go to the party or study? Who are my new friends? Should I change my major? Should I drop this class? Should I do an internship? Where? What’ll I do this weekend?

For most young people going to college means freedom. Not everyone is ready for it. I remember my freshman year (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth) and how different the maturity levels of my fellow newbies were. Some had cars, had been in relationships and were experts on drugs. Others were virgins, couldn’t drive and had never been high. Some were all in on academics on day one and others were all in on getting high on day one. We came from all over the state. There were students from small logging towns, from Orange County, from poor neighborhoods of San Francisco, from Bay Area suburbs, from valley towns, from beach towns and me from radical Berkeley, a veteran of campus demonstrations who believed he hailed from the center of the known universe.

Who you associated with and how you got along was not easy to navigate. Choices. Adding to the complexity were girls, most of whom had entered or were entering womanhood. Some were shy, some sophisticated. She was clearly a virgin, she was clearly not. Who could tell about her, her and her. She was out of my league. She still had braces. She was too tall. She was funny but weird. She was pretty but uninteresting. She didn’t seem to like me. She did.

I was on the soccer team. Long hard practices. Being part of a team. Suddenly competing with players as good as I was. Some were — I had to admit, better (not much). It was a lot.

I made choices in my first few years of college that affected the rest of my life. Some were good. Some I still suffer for. Like I said at the beginning, you can drive yourself nuts thinking about this stuff. It’s best not to. Living in the moment is the wise thing to do. Talk about easier said than done.

The Vulnerability of Enthusiasm

When you tell a person about your deep love for something or someone, you make yourself vulnerable. Anyone who has said the first, “I love you,” in a relationship knows what I’m talking about.

I recently wrote an email to a friend extolling the new documentary You Can See Everything — which I wrote about here last week. I told him how meaningful it was to me and how I couldn’t stop thinking about it. I included a link to my blog post. I reckoned that he was well aware of the movie but may not have been motivated to see it and that my praise of it would inspire him to check it out.

It turned out that he had seen it. He told me, very clearly and in considerable detail, what he thought. Evidently he had wanted to see a different movie. He felt that the filmmakers had left Elizabeth Holmes off too easily. I found the film's ambiguity exhilarating, while he found it troubling.

It’s not as if we saw two different films; we saw the same film through different lenses. 

His comments told me that he missed what I found so remarkable about You Can See Everything: the filmmakers didn't try to tell us what to think about Elizabeth Holmes. They trusted us to come to our own conclusions. She most certainly DOES NOT come off sympathetically, as my friend suggested. He seemed to want Fielder and Oppenheim to re-litigate the case against her. But we already know what she did: She committed fraud on an epic scale. We get it.

The film gave me space to observe and think for myself.

I had a singular viewing experience. You Can See Everything confounded and fascinated me, giving me questions to ponder. What more could you want from a film?

But the main thing I’m left with from his email is this: I don't like the idea of a person eviscerating something that I've just said represented a meaningful experience for me.

I was sharing an experience that had genuinely moved me. I told him I'd seen the most amazing film I’ve encountered in many years, that I couldn't stop thinking about it, and that I’d written a blog post about it. That's personal.

My friend was certainly entitled to disagree with my interpretation. But what bothered me was the extent to which his response concentrated on dismantling something I’d just enthusiastically praised. Why do that?

Recently another friend raved to me about a movie that I thought was terrible. I simply told him that I didn’t share his enthusiasm for the film but was glad he enjoyed it. Why rain on his parade?

My Values: A Blog Post Inspired by Therapy Homework

On Wednesday my therapist gave me homework. One assignment was to track my moods and their ups and downs. The other was to write down my values. Well I find that I'm rather propped of what I wrote. (Now if I could only live up to them.) May I suggest that you write down yours too? (I flatter myself that I have readers -- a reader.) It's an exercise that gets you thinking about who you are, what you care about and how you'd like to see the world.

My Values

Self determination: the notion that people should have power over their own lives.

Equality: the belief that we are all equal, there are no inherently superior people.

Freedom from prejudice: no one should be judged negatively because of their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, sexual identity or skin color.

Honesty is integral to a healthy life: honesty with others is important, honesty with oneself is essential.

Love and loyalty: the capacity to love whether it be romantic love, the love of a friend or family member is essential to emotional health. Loyalty is love practiced.

Cooperation over competition: Working together, serving the greater good should be an individual goal as well as society’s.

Accountability: holding yourself accountable for your actions and holding others accountable for their actions that impact you or others.

Humor: it is the best medicine. It can provide insight, relief and a cure for ills. To have and to use it is a sign of intelligence.

Thoughtfulness: considering how your actions affect others.

Being and appreciating creativity: humans are unique in their capacity to imagine and create art. This should be nurtured and appreciated. A strong inner life is enhanced by a lot of various art forms.

Self examination: Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. He was right. Self reflection is critical to personal growth and responsibility.

Play hard, have fun: Fun is the best thing to have, go out and have it (just make sure your fun is not negatively impacting anyone else). And do it with gusto.

Getting Psyched For Halloween? Me Neither, Anyway Here's a Repeat of a Repeated Post on Recommended Halloween Films

The Exorcist (1973) or a White House cabinet meeting

This first paragraph was written in what is now 2026. It is to introduce a post that last appeared on these pages in 2021, aka the dawn of time. As you'll see that post from five years ago was a re-run of one from eleven years prior to that which means we're going all the way back to 2010, the time before motorized vehicles, the telegraph and batshit crazy presidents. You will probably figure out then that there are no recent horror films here. That's in large part because I don't tend to see first-run horror much anymore, mostly because virtually all of them-- and here I employ a technical term -- suck. Enough of that. The next paragraph you read -- should you decide to continue -- hails from half a decade past. Enjoy.

During the first three years of this blog, I presented, at this time of year, a list of recommended Halloween films. The last one appeared in 2010.  A fourth iteration of the post seems way overdue. So here then is a reprinting of the post from eleven years ago.

It is my pleasure to bring to you my third annual Halloween appropriate films post. Last year I added a few films. This year I've nothing to add, so comprehensive were my first two posts. The paragraph below is from last year's post.

Last October I wrote a widely acclaimed post with recommended Halloween season films for your viewing pleasure. As a service to my readers (both of us) I am reproducing that post in toto below. As an added bonus I am suggesting a half dozen other Halloween appropriate films that you may enjoy, all good for scare, a laugh or at least your amusement. Within this post you'll find films that feature isolated castles, terrifying ghosts, hideous monsters, strange apparitions, mysterious powers, blood curdling screams and things that go bump in the night. Most of all you'll find some wonderful cinematic alternatives to bumming candy off your neighbors or enduring a silly costume party.

Hollywood has been churning out horror films since the silent era. Sadly, the genre has recently morphed into slasher films that emphasize gratuitous gore. But there's still plenty to choose from from days of yore. Here's a sampling of choices for your Halloween viewing pleasure.

Bride of Frankenstein (1935) Not just the best of the classic horror films of the Thirties, a wonderful film in its own right. The great James Whale's direction along with an intelligent script for a seemingly preposterous story outshine even the magical performance of Boris Karloff. Colin "it's Alive!" Clive is the now conflicted scientist and Elsa Lanchester is the blushing young bride. But Ernest Thesiger as the evil Dr. Pretorious is an absolute scene-stealer. This is a must-see film.

Frankenstein (1931) How about a shout out for the original? While out-shined by the sequel it’s still an excellent film. Clive, Karloff and the angry mob star. Excellent cinematography and some touching moments highlight this classic.

The Old Dark House (1932) It was a dark and stormy night. Let's see a group of travelers seek refuge from a driving rainstorm in a forbidding looking mansion. What could go wrong? You'll see. The residents are a decidedly odd lot with a temperamental butler. The amazing cast includes Melvyn Douglass, Raymond Massey, Gloria Stuart, Charles Laughton that man Karloff again and the delightful Thesiger (watch and listen as he offers his guests potatoes). This is my third straight Whale selection. Obviously he had the Gothic horror story down cold.

Alien (1979) No, no, no it's not science fiction it's a horror film. This time the role of the haunted mansion is played by a space ship and the victims/heroes are astronauts. This does not change the fact that all the elements of the horror film are at work. While the Alien is terrifying (and set the standard for many years to come) it's those moments when it is lurking off screen that are tense and scary.

The Exorcist (1973) I was reading the book in college on a weekend when my roommates all happened to be out of town. I slept in the living room with lights on and though not a religious man I've worn a cross around my neck ever since. The movie is just as frightening even after repeat viewings.  An innocent young lass is possessed by the devil (don't you just hate that?). Satan is profane, duplicitous and oh so dangerous. A great film by any standard.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) I like this better than the original (my God I've got a sequel and a re-make on this list, who'd have thunk). An absolutely terrifying concept expertly done by director Philip Kaufman. Alien clones are invading bodies and the human race is in peril. Will star Donald Sutherland save humanity or fall victim to this alien plot? The very notion of retaining your human form but your mind being taken over is chilling (hey, that sounds like Scientology!).

Psycho (1960) I know you've seen it a few times already but like a lot of Hitchcock's finest it gets better with each viewing. It never loses its suspense (how did Hitch do that?).  Just don't think about it in the shower. Janet Leigh and Vera Miles star along with the creepy Anthony Perkins and his..um "mom."

Young Frankenstein (1974) Why not some Halloween chuckles? I've never been a huge Mel Brooks fan but I love this film. This is, of course, the classic send off of the Frankenstein film with Gene Wilder as the doctor and Peter Boyle as the monster. The all-star cast includes Teri Garr, Cloris Leachman and Marty Feldman as the funniest Igor you'll ever see.

The Ring (2002) What's this? I have a film of recent vintage? Yes. I obviously quite liked it. It's a mystery as much as a horror film (many scary movies are) with an intelligent plot. The opportunity to enjoy Naomi Watts is a plus. She's both a great beauty and a great actress.

The Shining (1980) If he'd a mind to Stanley Kubrick could likely have directed a lot of good horror films and Jack Nicholson could have starred in them. Their respective directing and acting styles lent themselves to the genre.  The Shining is proof. A family of caretakers in a snowed in mountain resort. The father goes bats. Supernatural events take place. Kudos to Stephen King's story and Kubrick's adaptation of it.

Omen (1976) What could possibly be scarier than the anti-Christ?  I can't think of anything either. Gregory Peck is an American statesman who's got the bad fortune of being the anti-Christ's father (and you thought your kid was a little devil). Richard Donner ably directed. It's got grisly deaths, tension and excitement and maybe a little something for bible thumpers and agnostics alike to think about. There are sequels and remakes aplenty but stick to this, the original.

Rosemary's Baby (1968) What could be worse than fathering the devil? How about giving birth to it? That was Mia Farrow's lot in this wonderfully scary Roman Polanski film. The worst part is that everyone seems to be in on it. Not knowing whom you can trust is scary stuff indeed. What's really scary is when there's such a sense of normalcy but you gradually discover something is amiss. Horribly so.

Dracula (1931) We close with this absolute classic. No one will ever be better in the title role than was Bela Lugosi. His performance is one of the reasons that this Dracula version ages so well. A seductive and intelligent demon is the worst kind to deal with. Repeat viewings only increase the film's allure.

And now for this year's addendum.

Poltergeist (1982). I watched it again this weekend for the first time science it first hit theaters (thanks TCM). I'm pleased to say it holds up pretty well. By no means a classic but it does tap into some very real fears: loss of a child; not safe in your own home; unseen forces at work and goblins in your TV set of all places. It's also a cautionary tale about building tract houses over graveyards.

The Invisible Man (1933). I love this movie. The feature film debut of the great Claude Rains and what a debut it was. He's a cackling but diabolical mad scientist who's gone and got himself invisible (don't you just hate when that happens?). He checks into a typical English country tavern to try to sort things out and the next thing you know Una O'Connor is screeching left and right. Another horror classic from my man James Whale.

Carrie (1976). The granddaddy of all oh-my-God-I-totally-didn't-see-that-coming-I-thought-all-the-scariness-was-over movies -- to coin a phrase. Brian DePalma directed, Sissy Spacek stars in this story of a teen with telekinetic powers This is not someone you want to piss off and wouldn't you know, pretty much all of her classmates conspire to humiliate her, and at the prom no less. Hell hath no fury like a girl with telekinesis scorned.

The Mummy (1932). Our old friend Karloff again, this time he's all wrapped up in his work (pause while readers roll on the floor emitting gales of laughter). For God's sakes folks don't waste your time with any of those silly Brendan Fraser mummy movies of recent vintage, you want this classic. British explorers discover an old Egyptian tomb and let loose a killer mummy. This was an easy sell for audiences back in its time because of the supposed curse on discoverers (disturbers) of King Tut's tomb. Karloff is wonderful as is a supporting cast that's mostly unfamiliar to today's viewers.

Nosferatu (1922). Today silly vampire movies are a dime a dozen. We've even had silly vampire TV shows with equally silly slayers of said vampires. It's being done -- you should excuse the expression -- to death. But here we have the original, preceding even Lugosi's blood loving count by nearly a decade. Moreover it comes from legendary German director F.W.  Murnau.

A few of other titles to consider: Aliens (1986), Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), The Blob (1958), The Blair Witch Project (1999), Tremors (1990), The Wolf Man (1941), The Haunting (1963).

"Oh My God, Oh My God" Just one of My Reactions to the Absolutely Incredible 'You Can See Everything'

I sat there in a crowded movie theater and, in the middle of the picture, against all my cinema experience, said aloud, “Oh my god, oh my god.”

I blame the film itself, You Can See Everything co-directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim.

It defies so much — all? — of the conventions surrounding a documentary. It is such a unique and extraordinary piece of filmmaking, it is so utterly compelling (not a yawn for me in two hours and fifty-four minutes), it is so goddamned much fun that…I am looking all over the place for words and ways to describe it and am struggling mightily.

This was the best movie I’ve seen in a theater in at least seven years. One of my best movie-going experiences of all time.

Here’s the pedestrian description: it was a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes who was found guilty of fraud through her health technology company, Theranos. Prior to that conviction she’d been a media darling. The attractive very young genius who’d become a billionaire.

Her downfall and the trial were one of those media sensations that lasted several months. Her fame (infamy) was redoubled by a TV mini-series about her starring Amanda Seyfried that was not only critically-acclaimed but popular. 

Prior to the start of her eleven years and three months (since reduced by a year) sentence, Holmes and her partner (social not business), Billy Evans, approached the production company and distributor A24 about making a documentary that would show the “real Elizabeth.” The comedian Nathan Fielder became fascinated by her after reading John Carreyrou’s 2018 book “Bad Blood” and asked for a chance to film, along with co-director Lance Oppenheim, with Holmes and her family, with the understanding that nothing might come of the project. Something very much did.

The first part of the film centers around her home life with Evans and their two small children in a rented San Diego beach house beginning thirty-four days before she is to surrender. That’s all fascinating. The last part of the movie is other-worldly.

I knew next to zero about Nathan Fielder before seeing the film though I was given to understand that his style of comedy made a lot of people uncomfortable ( I heard cringeworthy) and he seemed to be loved and hated in equal measure. I didn’t know as much as a lot of people about Ms. Holmes. I’d followed her story mostly through headlines and snippets without reading a full article. 

But the reviews for You Can See…. were rapturous and the trailer was one of the most enticing I’d ever seen. Yesterday was the soonest I could get to the theater. I had a feeling that this was going to be a terrific film. I had no idea that it would be mind-bending. 

My impression was that Holmes must be a sociopath. Early on in the film it becomes evident that she’s nothing of the sort. She’s probably neurodivergent  (I realize that word has become something of a catch all). But I’m in no position to offer a definitive diagnosis. And the film raises infinitely more questions than it gives answers and I love it for that. I will say that it’s evident that she has a different perception of reality than most of us. It’s hard to figure out exactly where her brain is coming from and how she interprets the world. Suffice to say it’s interesting and different and no bloody wonder she committed fraud and believes herself innocent. And I don’t doubt that she believes she did nothing wrong. That’s scary.

Fielder does a wonderful job throughout. Since seeing the film I’ve been given to understand that in his TV work he will allow an awkward silence to linger. This he does to great effect in the documentary. Letting certain assertions and opinions from Liz and Billy hang in there proves quite effective. Speaking of Billy….In a weird way he can be something of a scene stealer. It’s like we come for Holmes and stay for Evans (to stretch a point). He becomes a very large part of the story, provides the twist of the tale, and delivered my “Oh my God” moment.

There’s also a celebrity who shows up and sticks around and I’ll not say who in case you’ve not seen the movie yet. Her popping in initially seems an interesting touch but then she stays and plays a far more significant part than I could have imagined, even confronting Billy. She and Nathan become part of the story. I mean, that’s just weird. But it also turns out to be highly effective. Hell, everything about the film is highly effective.

How do we see the world? What are our motivations? What are our core beliefs? How do we relate to other people and how do we understand them and how do we get them to understand us? What is love? What is justice? What are good and evil and what happens when we confuse the two?

One fascinating idea I struck upon is that Elizabeth and Billy are living in different realities that somehow co-exist. They don't necessarily share an understanding of what they're doing, even though they're doing it together. Billy is cold and calculating. He has a genuine warmth for Elizabeth and their children but his other relationships are transactional. He strikes me as the epitome of the worst kind of tech bro. 

It’s fascinating to me that he can have such coldness in his heart and yet love Liz and his kids so much (at least I think he does). 

One last thought. I wonder if the film is a result of the genius of the filmmakers or if they -- while doing excellent work -- fell ass backwards into an incredible story. I think there's a lot of the latter to it but I wouldn't diminish the work of the director and producer, they deserve all the kudos they get. After all, you’ve got to have a little luck in making a documentary. In fiction you can script a “wow!” moment; in a documentary you can’t manufacture it and you’ve got to have cameras rolling when it appears.

I'll be chewing over You Can See…. for awhile. Someday — soon, I hope, I’ll watch it again. Who knows how differently I'll see it the second time? It's something that demands repeat viewings and perspectives will most certainly change with each viewing. There's so much to take in.

For decades Hearts & Minds has been my favorite documentary. It now has a challenger.