Pinned Tweet
boxd.it/cDKVaV
My exploration of Marty’s compulsive dishonesty and grifter tendencies as compatible with the realities of staunchly authentic pariahs in a world that offers no shortcuts for assimilation or upward mobility.
Good write up and an even better overview of the progression of postmodernist thought in 21st century documentary filmmaking
Remember when Sarah Polley made Stories We Tell, supposedly about a paternity question in her family history, but it actually turned out to be a meta-documentary about truth, narrative, and subjectivity? Or when Banksy made Exit Through the Gift Shop, which at first seemed to be about street artist Thierry Guetta but in the end turned out to be a meta-documentary about truth, art, and subjectivity? Remember when Rodney Ascher made Room 237, nominally about hidden meanings in The Shining, but really about truth, narrative, and subjectivity?
Would you believe me if I told you that You Can See Everything is only superficially about Elizabeth Holmes, that actually it's a meta-documentary about truth, narrative, and subjectivity?
Let’s set aside the fact that Amanda Seyfried shows up to atone for her Hulu biopic and that her plotline is copied from The Act of Killing, which itself stole its main gimmick from some Cambodian guy’s movie about the Khmer Rouge. Here we have another postmodern prestige doc which either can't find something to say about its subject or thinks having a subject is gauche, so it throws up its hands and settles for a thematic focus on "unknowability" instead—not out of necessity, not because it’s about the Zodiac Killer and they can’t find him, but just because they think that kind of abstraction is high-minded.
Every cliche is here: The filmmaker deliberately entangled with his subject, the film happily exposing its own artifice (because only dolts who believe in “objectivity” would try to hide that), the reflexive, flamboyantly meta structure which I guess is supposed to feel truth-coded, or remind you of truth and untruth in some way. Letterboxd users, who learned in college that truth is hopelessly mired in perspective, certainly appreciate these decisions and feel the movie is a “hall of mirrors,” but I found it boring and legible. I’ve already seen Capturing the Friedmans, Tabloid, F for Fake, Letter From Siberia, etc. I already know about “subjectivity.” I actually discovered it when I was a child and I began to experience the world.
So yes, this is another The Ambiguity Is The Point movie. That’s why it's titled You Can See Everything—because you can’t. And that’s why some of the posters show Elizabeth Holmes but kind of blurry, because it’s about truth, which is also blurry. And if you think that’s mind-blowing then you will probably like the movie. Personally, I think the filmmakers are confusing an empirical problem with an epistemic one, so actually their theming doesn't line up, because a lot of their questions are in fact quite "knowable," but whatever
Cinematic Underdogs retweeted
Digger is a damn masterpiece. Go out to see it while you still can—the ending, updating Orwellian doublespeak for the surveillance capitalism age, turns the act of walking out of a theater into a gut punch.
And Oscar for Maggie, immediately.
Fascinating
interpretability might be the most important scientific problem in the world right now, as I don't think we can solve alignment if we don't know what we're building. I think I have good news about it. I co-authored early work in mechanistic interpretability at OpenAI and came away pessimistic, because neural networks appeared to fold into arbitrary tangled knots. years later, I started openai's first large-scale automated interpretability project, finding about 2% of neurons legible with the primitive tools we had
with modern agentic tools and a much closer look, the picture looks totally different. the vast majority in models up to trillions of parameters are legible, and their circuits beautiful. many famous examples of tangled neurons turned out to be misunderstood. The roadblocks I expected mostly aren't there. I now think ambitious interpretability will be solved by the time we need it most, and possibly quite soon, as automated scientists keep improving. it may be a bitter lesson for interpretability: the simple thing, at absurd scale, works
already-clean.goodfire.com/
AI is actively threatening our species. Oil is under historic stress due to multiple blockades. The free world is run by imbeciles. And we’re all fixated on a micro-feud between a celebrity and a small shop over a mechanical antique bird. This timeline is beyond.
I didn’t chime in on this because a) I honestly didn’t care that much and b) there are usually two sides to these things.
But the way this went, as best I can tell, is that Kelly Clarkson walked into this Brooklyn store, voluntarily looking a bit homeless, and inquired about a fake bird. In between helping a ton of other people, they told her the bird was not for sale but here is the artist’s info, he sells them for about $15,000. In the meantime, here is a $2,000 bird they DO offer.
Which Clarkson took to mean, “You can’t afford our bougie bird that costs as much as a baby grand so here, take this pathetic $2,000 knock-off like good little poor.” (Which is a stupid interpretation all around because who but a rich person has $2k to drop on a fake bird? But okay.)
Anyway, that was not the intended message, but she immediately walked out and put this little business on blast to her millions of followers who instantly swarmed like bees with zero additional information.
I don’t give a crap whether Clarkson ends up with a fake bird or how much it costs. She can have a menagerie of $20,000 parakeets or she can whittle them herself out of sticks from her backyard, I don’t care.
But I do care that so many people can be instantly riled up on social media to attack a potentially innocent person or business simply because their celebrity idol tells them to.
Ostensibly self-satire going on here (?), but I dare anyone online in 2026 to hold a critique of “x” without attributing “x” to a psyop or slop…
Shout out to Sean Fennessey who clearly didn’t love the film (if you listen to the big pic) but still realized the importance of this simple message in the industry right now. It takes real maturity to overcome yourself and see the bigger picture.
Cinematic Underdogs retweeted
Ben Affleck on Digger
like high school bullying … you see it now with Digger a pretty ambitious interesting movie made by interesting people who have talent … if you punish movies that take risks … you’re gonna get a bunch of homogenized movies
Been saying this for years, but the film community really does itself a major disservice in going the hardest on its daring populists. We are willing to give a pass to so much mid-tier “entertainment” & eager to shit on ambitious flops to the detriment of big swing filmmaking.
Cinematic Underdogs retweeted
Just went to the @Padres game tonight. It’s tradition to sing “All the Small Things” at the game. Sat right behind @tomdelonge for it. Pretty surreal. (And the Padres won)
Current top 5 of the decade:
- The Taste of Things (Trần Anh Hùng)
- The Zone of Interest (Glazer)
- Crimes of the Future (Cronenberg)
- Aftersun (Charlotte Wells)
- The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar / The Swan / The Rat Catcher / Poison (Wes Anderson’s Roald Dahl compilation)
Cinematic Underdogs retweeted
In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.
Cinematic Underdogs retweeted
I cannot impart on progressive folks more strongly that it is not just Sam Altman sounding these alarms. I also do not care for or trust Sam Altman! But listen to the people actually building this stuff who are freaked out. Maybe they are wrong but they are not part of some profit motivated psyop.





























