Mom and Dad argue on The Rehearsal
In "Apocalypto," Angela also manages to break our brains
TV Reviews Mom and Dad
“Nathan has a problem with lying. He lies a lot.”
At this point in the season of The Rehearsal, Angela’s line feels less like an accusation and more like an understatement. And that’s before we spent much of the episode watching him convincing the young actor playing his make-believe-now-a-kid-again son Adam to pretend he’s attending swimming lessons when, in reality, he’s learning about Judaism behind Angela’s back. (In case you’d forgotten, Angela has very, very strong feelings about her faith, as we’re reminded almost every five seconds in this episode; honestly, if you made a drinking game around taking a shot every time she says Jesus you may not make it through the entirety of “Apocalypto.”)
But back to Nathan’s lying. We could likely say it’s gotten worse over the course of the season but then episode one ended with him rehearsing a confession of having forced someone to unwittingly cheat only to watch Fielder refuse to disclose that altogether and to offer a pat compliment instead. The Rehearsal is built, in concept and in execution, on a system of lies. It’s not just the authentic improv-like impersonations the rehearsals call for but also the many steps that lead to such performances (let us not forget his method of acting calls for some slight stalking).
The murky ethics of the entire enterprise is not for me to assess—though, perhaps you can guess where I stand—but that’s mostly because I’m less interested in such black-and-white discourse and more fascinated by the way the show so clearly wants us to have those conversations. For someone so fixated on how he comes across and carefully attuned to how people’s behaviors can be fine-tuned with enough practice if not with a simple awareness of how they’re going about their lives—not to mention someone who is literally scripting and directing these episodes—all of these moments of obliviousness cannot help but come across as building toward…a semblance of self-actualization, right?
“We don’t always get to choose what happens in life,” Fielder notes toward the end of the episode. “We do get to decide if we rehearse for it.”
The whiff of self-help rhetoric should give us all pause. Not because the idea of preparing for key events in our life is not a feasible approach toward self-improvement. But because rehearsing, for Fielder, feels like more of a crutch than anything else. Also, that royal “we” being used is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Very slowly, as we’ve learned, The Rehearsal has become less a show about helping a collective “we” (or a singular “they”) cope with what may happen in life but an excuse to allow Fielder to grapple with his own life decisions (and hangups and insecurities and anxieties). I’d say the show is a season-long play on the lengths straight men will go to avoid therapy, but that almost feels like a too flippant riff on that popular meme.
But then, how else to explain his decision to use Angela’s rehearsal as a place where he can avoid falling into the same “old habits” that plagued his previous relationships? I will say, him recognizing such patterns (while talking to his parents, no less!) and in the context of a show where he controls pretty much every single aspect of his environment (love that drone shot where you see the fake snow offering a visual sense of his insularity) was a moment that made me wonder if I shouldn’t think of Fielder as some Gotham villain-in-the-making (hey, he now owns his own HBO-funded bar!) and instead as a melancholy loner. But then, once that empathetic feeling flares up, I’m left thinking that he is still in control here. He has an entire cast at his disposal. A crew who have and will build him whatever he desires. The backing of HBO, even.
I am curious, of course, to see how Fielder’s now self-involved project will come to an end. Is there yet another meta twist coming? Will we get to witness him learning something about himself many of his viewers (and critics and fans and reviewers and recappers) have maybe theorized already? Will this ouroboros of a docuseries eat itself as Fielder play-acts parenthood for no other reason than maybe he feels he should?
Are these too many questions? Should I be offering more trenchant critiques of a show that seems expressly designed to constantly enrage and engage its viewers? Perhaps. But for now I’d rather sit with my thoughts and keep wondering how Fielder is going to wrap this whole thing up.
Stray observations
- Wanting to pivot away from a discussion about Judaism with a benign question like “What’s your favorite movie?” only to have Angela answer Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto(!) broke my brain. Is this a “you can’t make this up” moment? Because it was almost too perfect.
- Such moments, whether scripted or not do get at one of the aspects of The Rehearsal I haven’t had a chance to dig into too much: This is a very funny show. Sure, its humor is sometimes very cringey and most definitely feeds off a sense of discomfort in its viewers, but I do find myself outright cackling several times per episode. (The line “I watch Key & Peele!” had me howling, as did the makeshift Dr. Fart sketch which made me think Adam could grow up to become a great TGS staff writer.) And, however you feel about Nathan, he does make for a great straight man.
- Okay, I know that had Fielder not decided to upend Angela’s rehearsal we’d likely have focused on it more, but it’s kind of bonkers how she barely adhered to the mock-reality of her parenting rehearsal, right? Right? It’s in those moments when I am left wondering what we might have learned about Angela and her approach to the rehearsal if the show allowed for more conventional talking heads/confessional moments. Instead, because she was constantly forced to play a role and only do so when Nathan was around, it was (as he points out in voice over) hard to tell when she was role playing and when she was actually (and truly) committed to the bit.
- Also, can we give it up for Anna LaMadrid, who really nailed her performance as Fake Angela? I need these various actors to find a way to turn their perfect impersonations into better gigs.
92 Comments
I’m getting the sense you don’t realize that the Nathan Fielder we see is a comic persona developed by Nathan Fielder the creative mastermind.
Mastermind. The guy’s schtick is transparent even though he’s still fooling a lot of people. He’s a Troll and his game is really very cruel. That’s the name of the game these days.
That’s deeply silly.
Have you watched the latest episode?
Youre so deeply unpleasant.
Some of us were born with a curious mind
He’s giving the subjects of the show enough rope to hang themselves.
I mean, I think everyone kind of understands that’s the general concept of Fielder’s comedy. But it’s becoming increasingly unclear what element of this is a persona and what element of this is supposed to be Nathan authentically trying to accomplish something for himself. Every single recap has comments that are like “You don’t get that Nathan’s doing a persona” or something like that. Maybe if lots of people are not getting it, that’s the artist’s fault?
I figured the ambiguity was intentional.
I dunno if “one person who gets paid to write about the show” equates to “lots of people.”
It doesn’t
Right, so when you said “Maybe if lots of people are not getting it, that’s the artist’s fault?” I’m saying “I don’t think we have sufficient evidence that lots of people are not getting it, or at least not evidence beyond our recapper here.”
Yeah, I get the point you’re making.
Well, this has been a pleasant exchange leading to mutual understanding. In an Internet comments section, of all places!
Every single recap has comments that are like “You don’t get that
Nathan’s doing a persona” or something like that. Maybe if lots of
people are not getting it, that’s the artist’s fault?
Lots of people thought Colbert was sincerely right-wing. Lots of people thought Andy Kaufman was mad at Jerry Lawler. Lots of people are stupid.
Yeah, and some people are fucking assholes, and some people think they’re way smarter than they are. That combo leads some people to unearned, silly condescension. I bet you get off on telling people who like pro wrestling it’s not real, don’t you?
I was countering this: “Maybe if lots of people are not getting it, that’s the artist’s fault?”
I understand that, it’s an idiotic “counter” from a jackass who is not nearly so clever as he thinks he is.
Even if I’m the stupidest jackass alive, that doesn’t show that my counter is idiotic (or even unsuccessful), and (as far as I can tell) you haven’t even attempted to substantiate that charge.
So you already understand how an insult is not an argument? Then what’s your excuse?
I never suggested that an insult was an argument, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Sure you did, by suggesting that your first response to me, where you call people stupid who supposedly don’t understand that liars are lying, was a “counter” to my good faith argument. It wasn’t, you were just being (inaccurately) condescending.
You’ve misunderstood. The people I called stupid were people who didn’t understand that Colbert and Kaufman were doing a character. Surely you can’t deny that those people are stupid. And inasmuch as lots of people are stupid, which is impossible to deny, that undercuts the idea that the artist is to blame for lots of people not getting it. After all, you can’t blame an artist for a stupid person not understanding their art, right?
Thanks. I have pretty good reading comprehension skills, so know who you were calling stupid, as it’s fairly obvious. But, is “Some people are stupid” supposed to be an insult or not? If so, then none of the bullshit in this comment matters, because your “counter” to me was actually just an insult. That’s before we even get into (1) whether people are “stupid” because they believe liars who are attempting, at least in part, to be somewhat believable (they aren’t) and (2) whether that description even applies to anyone arguably relevant here, i.e. this author, myself, others who have written about this show who pretty clearluy recognize that the Nathan Fielder they saw in Nathan for You and here is generally intended to be a comic persona, but recognize that the line between “Fielder the comic persona” and “Fielder the real person actually searching for something,” always at least a little blurry (the comic persona is pretty obviously based off Fielder’s real personality, as is almost always the case), has been intentionally rendered difficult to draw here for the viewer, I think (that is part of the show’s appeal). But getting into those two things would be a waste of time. What’s the point of continuing to respond in good faith to someone who has already met one good faith response with an insult?
???I never called you or anyone else here stupid, and I wasn’t even calling the people who failed to understand Colbert or Kaufman stupid as an insult. I was calling them stupid as a way of showing that artists aren’t necessarily at fault when lots of people fail to understand their art.I take it your argument went something like this:1. When lots of people fail to understand an artist (in particular, how real or artificial their persona is), then (maybe/probably) the artist is at fault.2. Lots of people fail to understand Nathan Fielder (in particular, how real or artificial his persona is).3. Therefore, (maybe/probably) Nathan Fielder is at fault.And all I’ve ever been doing is challenging premise 1.
Are you seriously acting as if it’s perplexing to interpret “Some people are stupid” as what it is, which is an insult?I don’t care how you take my argument. You haven’t “challenged” anything, again, unless you consider insulting people a way of challenging an argument. And fuck, even if I did engage with the garbage argument you are trying to have now, not only can’t you even follow my argument, you can’t even construct a coherent version of what you think it is. Even worse, the thing you claim is a “challenge” to 1. doesn’t even make sense! Because if you think part of my argument is “If lots of people fail to understand an artist, the artist is at fault,” how is “people are stupid” a challenge to that? That doesn’t challenge any aspect of number 1. At best, it suggests a thing the artist should take into account so their art is understood by more people (tailor their art to more stupid people).
Are you seriously acting as if it’s perplexing to interpret “Some people are stupid” as what it is, which is an insult?What’s perplexing is that you took it as an insult directed at you and/or the author in particular rather than a general description of human beings. And it’s not as if “stupid” is essentially an insult word: I was talking about people being unable to understand certain artworks, not calling them ding-dongs or knuckleheads.
I don’t care how you take my argument. You haven’t “challenged”
anything, again, unless you consider insulting people a way of
challenging an argument. And fuck, even if I did engage with the garbage
argument you are trying to have now, not only can’t you even follow my
argument, you can’t even construct a coherent version of what you think
it is. The version I presented contains no incoherence whatsoever (it’s a perfectly valid argument), and it sure seems to match what you’ve written, so I don’t understand what you’re saying here. But, by all means, if I’ve misrepresented your argument, feel free to present your own version of it.
Because if you think part of my argument is “If lots of people fail to
understand an artist, the artist is at fault,” how is “people are
stupid” a challenge to that? That doesn’t challenge any aspect of
number 1. Because even the finest artist can fail to have all of the audience understand even the finest artwork, if the audience contains stupid people. (And mutatis mutandis for lots of stupid people.) That’s not the fault of the artist, that’s just the reality of making art for human beings. So premise 1 looks to be false.
At best, it suggests a thing the artist should take into account so
their art is understood by more people (tailor their art to more stupid
people).
Only if you make the ridiculous assumption that an artist’s job is to make as many people in the audience understand the artwork as possible, no matter how much that degrades the artwork. Jettison that assumption, and it makes perfect sense for artists to make art knowing full well that sometimes lots of people won’t understand it, and that if that happens it’s not always (or even typically) the artist’s fault.
I’m sorry if you feel condescended to.
If an artist does something that goes over your head, the joke’s on you.
I can’t even with this guy’s rambling, ponderous reviews. He clearly doesn’t understand Nathan and the show, and seems to just be looking to meet a word count quota. I only come here for the comments.
aside from the last “Stray Observation”, I would have 100% thought this blogger believes this to be a reality show
Nathan For Jew
I skipped the last episode because I’m not taken with this series or its originator. But this ep was entertaining, and I couldn’t resist the title. Gibson is an ass, but Apocalypto is some of the best visual storytelling I’ve ever seen*. Angela is very offputting but that doesn’t mean I didn’t want to follow her when she left just to find out what she gets up to on a different kind of set. I can’t decide if she’s hard to get to know or if there’s just nothing ‘there’. Her Jesus fixation is scary but, aside from that, she’s just lazy and indifferent.On the other hand, maybe Fielder is pranking us and she’s a plant too. There were definitely moments when Angela’s arguments felt scripted. Her ‘character’ feels like it was written by a man who thinks he knows everything about women.Anyway, I’m really enjoying your work, Manuel. It’s certainly some of the best writing happening here right now. I appreciate your insight that “[t]he whiff of self-help rhetoric should give us all pause … because rehearsing, for Fielder, feels like more of a crutch than anything else.” I’m guilty of this: delaying or putting off an important experience by preparing and preparing, instead of just doing. There’s something I’ve literally been rehearsing for a year, the task fills me with so much terror. Time to do.*Accident?
Manuel, bro… You can make a dummy account to heap praise on your own review, but we’re all still tired of your weird obsession with the show’s ethical premise and misunderstanding that Nathan is playing a character. This is all an expertly calculated human behavior experiment that you’re entirely missing.
Why do you keep reading them only to leave shitty comments, then? Yeah he sees the show a little differently than I do, but that’s no need to be a dick about it.
I don’t know who “Ben” is but – the fuck is wrong with you?
*ahem*
Of course you would like this terrible reviewer lol
Angela isn’t hard to get to know. She is stupid.
It’s likely that ‘Angela’ is just another actor playing a part. Is she a stupid actor? I don’t know, but she got paid for this gig and I doubt you earned anything by bagging on her. So who’s the idiot?You earned some attention, though. You’re welcome.
And that attention will last longer than any money ever could! Seriously, though, I get paid to post on Kinja sites as long as I occasionally shill for Disney properties.But I doubt Angela is an actor. It’s not Nathan’s MO. Everything she says is insane. It’s too much crazy to just be clever editing.
I’m confused because elsewhere you wrote that “his game is really very cruel,” but if the other people on this show are actors what’s so cruel about it?
not to be too literal… but for me, it feels kind of clear that the viewer is intended to mainly relate to Nathan as author/filmmaker, with the emotional draw being (as he described in this episode) the absurdity of modern life, as heightened and illuminated by paradoxical meta performances. even though that scene was a (scripted) dressing-down, it does feel like the Rehearsal has gotten a much larger degree of ethical critiques than N4Y ever did. which is a shame, because it willfully ignores this profound draw of the show, which is very, very difficult to achieve and the clear intent of its creators, and instead moralizes/ (feigns concern for? condescends to?) the reality actors who essentially all know (to some extent) that reality TV is a performed exercise, always basically low stakes. We really all are in on the joke at the end of the day, ‘on Nathan’s side’, trying to emotionally parse reality, and so the fact that he *is* the lead character does not make him a solipsist/narcissist/master manipulator IMO but a fairly solid stand-in for the audience’s collective anxieties about confrontation, regret, aging, life and faith. What he’s doing seems to me to be a pretty vulnerable performance and exploration of his own anxieties as expressed through comedic world-building and re-creation, with hired actors assisting in ridiculous situations that they may not fully *get* in the moment but basically know are ridiculous the entire time.Because I consider the world-building an expressive element of Nathan’s performance, this episode hit home for me, and pretty sincerely painted a picture of his psyche through these elaborate and ridiculous paradoxes. The ‘silver Jew’ element of being in relationship with a bullheaded fundamentalist Christian, while on the other hand trapped with a maternal fundamentalist Jew as self-defense is extremely relatable for most Jewish Americans, and lends some insight as to a potential source of his incredible humor and creativity, finding a sort of home in devising absurd scenarios that reveal a satisfying truth that voices alienation and displacement.
Not to be overly heady about something that’s way funny and visceral, and no disrespect towards the writing here. I just wanted to suggest that a show like this deserves to be discussed not just as ‘tracing character plot-lines’ but on the actual level in which it’s connecting so deeply with its fans, who essentially view it as a rare source of fresh air and, strangely, ‘realism’ — i.e. a highly creative attempt to ‘authentically’ parse out an absurd world amid a sea of cookie-cutter shows and movies. This is why among his many fans, Nathan is largely not ‘hated’ or ‘evil’ as the recent Fry and Brody pieces suggest, but deeply admired and appreciated for the sincere effort he puts in towards creating comedy and catharsis through the highly complicated put-ons and schemes.
Great comment. I think it really speaks to how rich this show is and how much is going on on multiple levels, including Fielder’s own psychology and hangups, that it can lend itself to in-depth analyses from multiple perspectives and on multiple topics or big ideas.
This is wonderful.
great comment, and I think a big part of it truly is that we are often performing, we are often rehearsing these identities we align with. Angela’s character is comical, because she can switch off the intensity of her beliefs and performance so easily when Nathan isn’t around. Flip side is the Jewish Tutor, who is also playing a part and teaching children how to rehearse for the role they’ll play in the faith. We all switch off the performance at the end of the day though.
When you said “On Nathan’s side” was that a 22 Minutes reference?
Thanks for the good writeup of my favourite episode yet! Definitely the most comedic for my tastes, I was laughing out loud for most of it. Also, if you read the comments, Manuel, I hope you’re not bothered by the umpteen people who come here just to be unreasonably mean to the writers. Sure, I’ll often disagree with your takes and analyses, but variety of opinion is part of the fun! Thanks for sharing your insights 🙂
*Snicker* writer’s pet
Look, I do feel that I should be paid good money to be this site’s full-time editor, because my god would my red pen come in handy. But fuck me, half the commenters on here are acting like they’re rumbling a holocaust denier.
I try not too be too harsh on anyone, because what’s the point? But every episode I feel like there’s so much to dig into that these recaps just elide totally or maybe gloss over. Other people have pointed out how strange it is that Manuel is just now getting around to the comedy of a Nathan Fielder show, or how little he talked about the exploration in this episode of Judaism as it relates to Fielder’s identity, for example.
I mean, sure, a couple of times I’ve been surprised that he’s written what I’d charitably call a bold take on the show, or didn’t touch upon a vital point or theme. I’m hardly Karen Han or anything but my own recaps would be wildly different.However, he’s probably some underpaid, overworked writer who last week had an entire high school’s worth of scorn poured into the comments. I felt so bad for the guy. Besides, there’s something to be said about reviewing this programme without having seen any previous Fielder methods.
Yeah, especially with what happens to the AV Club, I try to be more generous in that I still think the writers are doing their best— although, as you said, often overworked, underpaid, and possibly not assigned where their talents would shine best.I don’t have a ton of high opinions of most TV reviewers these days, but I have found Karen Han’s work quite good— I think I first realized she was good at this reading her Vice Principals reviews (another show a surprising number of TV reviewers seemed to miss the point of).
He’s a pretty well-established writer. He’s got a book coming out soon. Underpaid absolutely, all writers are. But he’s just doing a bad job criticizing and engaging with this show.
This was almost like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. The theme song would have been perfect over the credits as Miriam spoke.
Hahaha that’s exactly what I thought of! Larry just sat at the kitchen counter, realising that he must once again lie in the bed he has made.
I’m convinced that this is one of about 3 TV shows that is on the air right now as this shows every waking move is covered here constantly.
https://www.tipsforcareer.in/
If you’re an entrepreneur, expanding your business internationally can be a great way to grow and expand. You might already have customers in other countries and know that they are interested in what you have to offer. Or maybe you want to sell products or services that are already popular across the globe like luxury fashion brands or restaurants. Either way, registering your business under an international trade name can help make sure that potential customers know about all of the different ways they can buy from you—and how much more easily you’ll be able to tap into their wealth of purchasing power!What is required to register your business internationally?When you register your business internationally, you need to be aware of the following requirements:The product or service must be able to be sold globally. This means that it needs to have a large domestic market in addition to being exportable outside of its country of origin.
You should have a workforce with language skills and expertise in international business so that they can sell into markets where English is not spoken.
You should have sufficient capital available for expansion plans that include both new products and services as well as advertising campaigns overseas.
Your understanding of the market(s) which you plan on expanding into should be thorough enough so as not only know what products/services might work well there but also why those particular types would sell better than others (e.g., price point).
Be aware of the risks and rewardsGoing international can be a rewarding experience, but it’s not without its risks. The first thing to remember is that you’re risking your business if you expand internationally. If it doesn’t work out and your business goes under, then there will be no one to collect on any insurance claims or lawsuits—and that’s not even considering the cost of setting up new offices abroad!The rewards of going international are huge too: You’ll have access to markets where consumers speak different languages than yours, so they may be less likely to take advantage of shady tactics like bait-and-switch pricing policies found at some retailers’ websites (or even on their shelves). Plus, many countries offer tax breaks when businesses invest money in local economies—so long as those investments help create jobs!1. Need a product or service that can be sold globallyWhile there are many ways to register a business internationally, the most common way is through the establishment of an international branch office. The benefits of having an international branch are:You can expand your reach and grow your business locally and globally
You can gain access to new markets and customers who may not be served by local companies or traditional channels such as distributorships or partnerships with local businesses
2. Workforce with language skills and expertise in international business.It’s important to have workers who can speak the local language and understand the local market. You also need people who understand industry-specific jargon, as well as how businesses are run in a specific country.If you’re thinking of opening an international business in another country, make sure that you have employees who speak at least three different languages (including English). This will allow them to communicate effectively with customers and partners from around the world!3. Have sufficient capital to fund expansionYou’ll need to have sufficient capital to fund your expansion. This means that you will likely have to raise some money from investors, banks or other lenders. The amount of debt you take on is one of the major factors determining how much interest you pay on your loans.It also helps if your business is already successful and has a track record of paying back its debts in full every time they come due (known as “paying down debt”). If this isn’t possible because it relies too heavily on one source of income—such as being reliant on advertising revenue—then it could be difficult for the company’s overall financial picture to improve enough for them not only stay competitive but also grow further over time without taking on more debt, simply because there aren’t enough other opportunities coming up fast enough where all their efforts go toward paying off old debts rather than creating new ones!4. Thorough understanding of the market to which you are expanding.One of the most important things you can do when expanding your business internationally is to have a thorough understanding of the market to which you’re expanding. If you don’t already know who your customers are and what they want, then it’s time for action!Here are some questions that could help guide this process:Who are my customers and why do they buy from me? Is there anything unique about what I do or how I provide services that makes them different from other businesses in the same industry? Why should anyone choose me over another potential competitor?
What does my target audience (i.e., potential clients) think about my products/services/brand generally speaking? What type(s) would like be interested in buying something from me specifically – e.g., luxury goods vs mass-market products; online vs offline sales channels; etc.
5. Infrastructure to support global operations, including technology, communications and distribution systemsInfrastructure to support global operations, including technology, communications and distribution systems.
If you are looking to expand your business into international territories, it is vital that you have the right infrastructure in place to support this growth. You will need access to a high speed internet connection so that you can communicate with customers around the world. You will also need a reliable phone system which can connect people from different time zones across multiple continents at once. Additionally, if your company is based in one country but operates globally then having an efficient distribution system would be beneficial as well as providing better visibility into inventory levels and sales trends across all markets where your products are sold (this can help reduce waste).6. Effective marketing plan for international markets and an understanding of cultural differences that may impact customer perceptions and buying patterns.Understanding cultural differences can be an important part of your marketing and sales strategy. For example, if you offer a product that requires assembly in China, it may not be as familiar to consumers there as it is in the United States. This could lead them to think that assembling your product will take too much time or effort compared with other options available on the market.In addition, some cultural differences may affect how customers perceive your business’s products or services—for example:Product quality – Some cultures value higher quality goods over lower prices; others place more emphasis on price than quality when making purchasing decisions
Customer service – In some countries such as Japan and Korea customer service is viewed differently than in other parts of Asia (e.g., China) where customers expect quicker responses from companies
7. Financial resources needed for international expansion, which may vary depending on the locations where you are establishing operations or creating sales channels and will probably require financing from banks and other lenders.Financial resources needed for international expansion, which may vary depending on the locations where you are establishing operations or creating sales channels and will probably require financing from banks and other lenders.
This will depend on what kind of business you want to run in different countries, but generally speaking:You’ll need at least $10 million in liquid assets (cash) for each country where your company operates. The higher the risk associated with entering a foreign market, the more capital it’s likely that you’ll need before starting operations there—and vice versa. For example: If your company has limited experience in international trade, then it might make sense not to invest too much time or money into setting up shop overseas until they’ve gained some traction elsewhere first. *
Choose your markets carefully, starting with places where you have customers and contacts or your competitors already have a presenceChoose a market where you have customers and contacts or your competitors already have a presence.
Choose a market where you have the resources to compete.
Choose a market where you have a product or service that can be sold globally.
Registering your business internationally can help expand your customer base globally.Registering your business internationally can help expand your customer base globally. It’s also a great way to grow and expand your business, as well as the market for which you sell.Registering your company can be done in three different ways: through an agent, through a legal firm or via an online platform. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages that must be considered before making a final decision on which route will work best for you and/or your company.ConclusionAs you can see, registering your business internationally is not always easy, but it can be done. The key is to know what you are getting yourself into before making the leap and doing some research on how other companies have dealt with this process before you. Once you have all these things in place, then it will only take time before your business has reached full potential!
Another fantastic episode. Like Nathan, I’ve also dreamt of one day claiming to own a business that a studio paid for.
Fake Angela yelling “You’ll never have something real!” (paraphrasing) at Nathan right before breaking character to run the ‘scene’ again was just! The whole fake fight scene was incredible.
can we do it again, but nicer
I think this whole show is a metaphor for living with autism.
Stop.
I did. I wrote a period at the end of my sentence.
Letter Grade: B for Better Than A.
“I must concede that this comedy program has made me laugh.”
Great stuff as always, dude. Good Lord.
To spend so little time in this review on the cultural and religious dynamics at work here is criminal, when that’s the goddamn crux of the episode. No mention of the post-credits Israel conversation, or the Jewish tutor who’s essentially a main character in the episode? You say you’re asking “so many questions” and yet you completely ignore any of the questions actually posed by the episode. It’s honestly unreal.
you’re not wrong- this review reads like it was written by a sentient pile of cocaine
The religious allegories are all right there and very few critics have seen that this is ultimately the core of the show. I thought this episode would have brought that all to the forefront of their mind, but it seems to still not register.The whole show has become an illustration of the Jewish concept of tzimtzum, the idea that when God created the universe, it ‘contracted’ or pulled back some of its infinite power to allow living beings to exist and have free will.The last argument Nathan and Angela have is a straight illustration of man’s frustration with the universe and the friction of why God would create a universe and then abandon its subjects in it. Nathan, as God of his own small universe, created a perfect world for Angela to live in and express her free will, but then Angela gets frustrated when she is given that free will and does nothing with it, doesn’t participate in the universe created for her because she didn’t have specific guidance.
This is a very interesting theory. I wasn’t familiar with the concept of tzimtzum (there was Marilyn Manson bandmember called Zim Zum. I wonder if he’s referencing this).Nathan doesn’t abandon her though (except when he left for a few days). He actually pushes to be more a part of it. I’m not sure he could have planned for this (or anything Angela does), but it must have been a theme that occurred to him in editing.
So is this as much indication as we will get that “real” Angela was just as fake as “fake” Angela? Or will there be a final reveal?It was awfully close to explicit that all of the Christian home school Satan panic stuff was just part of her brief as a part of the show, and “real” Angela had nothing going on beyond that shallow character outline, but the show hasn’t pulled back the curtain all the way. I’m still not sure if the show will circle back to fulfilling the image in the promos for the show where Nathan is the only real person surrounded by obvious fakes.I guess the obvious question is whether there is an “actual real” Angela that “real” Angela was supposed to be standing in for. I suspect the reveal will just be that Nathan wishes “real” Angela would help him prepare for “actual real” Angela, but there never was an “actual real” Angela in the first place.
What indication is there that Angela isn’t real?
I think Angela is like the ghost realtor from Nathan For You, or the guy who drank his grandson’s piss. She’s an absolutely insane person that the show was lucky to find. There have been several character-breaking moments from Nathan while talking to Angela. When she unironically said Apokalypto was her favourite movie, you could see it in Nathan’s face that he couldn’t believe how lucky he was to have someone so un-self aware on the show.If it turns out she’s just an actor I would be surprised. It would be a big departure from his usual MO, but it would fit the theme of this series pretty well.
Well, I was enjoying the Jewish lady until the whole Zionist thing at the end. Still definitely prefer her to the christian nutter though.I kind of want to check go to that warehouse bar.That basement was creepy as hell.
I just want a talking head interview with everyone who went into the fake bar.
Is there something to be said about how the Jewish lady inserts herself into their home and calls Angela an antisemite to her face — and then begins spouting Zionist rhetoric over the end credits? Ultimately she’s much better than Angela by a margin for at least trying to find some common ground on the issue, but it had shades of a “two sides of the same coin” kind of issue.
There’s so much at play in this series. Nathan’s manipulative nature is definitely one of the main recurring themes, but we’re seeing so many interesting sides of so many people in all of these episodes that I’m a bit shocked the reviews stick so closely to the Nathan puppeteer shtick.
Of everything we’ve seen in the show, the reveal that Angela wasn’t in character when Nathan wasn’t around somehow felt like the biggest punch in the gut. Manuel I completely agree to your point that granting more agency to co-stars via talking head interviews would have been great to flesh out Angela’s character more.
Maybe that’s going to be the ultimate takeaway from the season? Nathan will learn to have less of a death-grip on these rehearsals and allow others to voice their opinions and influence how these simulations are run in future seasons?
The focus on Nathan in these reviews is exhausting, because he’s not doing much – if anything – fundamentally different from what he did on his last show. The other people are far more interesting, and I’m disappointed every week when I click on the AV Club’s review and I get three paragraphs of “Nathan did this. That’s ethically questionable!” and the people get relegated to “stray observations.”
Stop giving episodes of this show a B. It’s maddening. They have all been a B+.
Really odd, as some have pointed out, that the entire religious aspect of this episode was just… not discussed at all in this review. But also of note is the lack of addressing all of Fake Angela’s concerns during Nathan’s rehearsals with her. She pretty much asks Nathan all of the questions that this reviewer (and many others) has wondered concerning the ethical implications of this whole process. His answers may not be acceptable to a person who has continued asking the same questions every week rather than engaging with the actual work, but to me they seemed at once vulnerable and true (“it’s silly and serious” basically summing up Nathan’s entire deal) and also completely reinforced his control (he breaks, asks for a nicer version) and most importantly proved in no uncertain terms that HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE’S DOING! He was aware of what the critiques would be years ago when they shot the thing! Self awareness is not absolution, but it is at least proof that all of the “concern” about whether or not he knows what he’s doing, morally, has been mind-numbingly pointless. That’s been part of the whole thing! It should be discussed, not dismissed!
i like the new show, but i think it would have been better if this one concept didnt drag out as long and he stuck with the format of having different people each episode. maybe this could have been the season ending 2 or 3 parter, but it kind of drags. still fascinating as it drags…
is Angela eligible for an EMMY?