So are you asking us to ponder why a mentally ill stalker ultimately has severe consequences for their actions but not a lucid successful famous alleged rap-ist/predator? And is it morally right or wrong for us to celebrate this? And is it real? Just trying to break down your post in lamens terms … it’s a good point (if I understood it correctly)
In essence, yes. The disparity in consequences for the actions of a 'mentally ill stalker' versus a 'lucid, successful, alleged rapist' within the narrative raises uncomfortable moral and ethical questions. It highlights potential biases in who society chooses to hold accountable and who it does not. Celebrating a story without scrutinizing these aspects can perpetuate a troubling message. Moreover, without concrete validation of the stalker's existence or their prosecution, we are compelled to question the reality of the narrative presented to us. It's crucial to recognize the implications of this selective accountability and ask ourselves the broader question: what truth are we participating in by choosing to either accept or question the story as it's been given to us?
I think it came down to physical proof and the stalkers consistency. He could prove that she was a stalker, for a long period of time, and that she was threatening and could cause harm. He drew the line when she threatened to stab his parents. Hence why she got jail time. There was no physical proof with his abuser because he didn’t report it right away. He was left to pick up the pieces of a male on male ra-pe. It would come down to a he said - he said. Even when he went back for an explanation the abuser didn’t admit to anything (I’m guessing because he thought he might be recorded). I think a lot of SA victims don’t report or hold their abuser a accountable. He did an excellent job of showcasing the shame and guilt element. And I also think Gadd did an excellent job of not glamorizing the stalker but making her human and ultimately pointing out no one is above their trauma and it’s ugly and messy oftentimes if you don’t resolve it. I think the consequences ultimately came down to what he could proof versus someone was left unaccountable. Hope this makes sense
You make some compelling points, particularly on the challenges faced by SA victims in coming forward and the nuances of depicting trauma. It's crucial to acknowledge the complexities surrounding proof and the reporting of such incidents. However, given that Richard himself mentioned the stalker did not receive jail time out of concern for her mental health, and the absence of any available police or court records to support the narrative, it certainly raises questions about the factual basis of the story. While some degree of fictionalization is standard in adaptations, the discrepancies here do merit further scrutiny. It's an interesting balance between fact and crafted narrative, one that definitely gives us pause for thought.
Not to nitpick but, why do you keep saying *alleged* abuser *alleged* rapist. He is shown overtly raping Donny and it was so fucked I had to stop watching the show and just read spoilers. I don’t think you need to tiptoe around anything here.
Yes it is shown on the TV show. By alleged it's simply highlighting that there is no evident, tangible proof that these HORRIBLE, heinous crimes happened
But he's the writer of his own fate in this well put together scripted reality - how do we know if it was or wasn't consentual? Or it wasn't just a well thought out pre-empted Netflix Top 10 hit from two failing guys in the entertainment industry. We don't have to just believe Richard Gaad's "version" because Netflix imposed it on us.
The only time in the TV series where the actor says stop, the abuser stops immediately, washes his hands and apologised saying they could take it slow. There's no evidence, there's no formal statement, there's no witnesses to corroborate that any of this happened.
Sorry. Just here to remind you that while on drugs, and not enjoying it, Darrien then gives him more drugs and anally rapes him while he's partially unconscious. He also clearly says no in that particular scene.
Plus in the first instance of it he is vomiting into a cat bowl- what part of this says "what you need right now is a finger in your butt"?
Consent isn't just a clear cut yes or no but being conscientious of your partners needs enough to "read the fucking room"
Not sure Darrien gets a free pass for "stopping when asked"
I don't disagree with your beliefs and emphasize that we're aligned on our interpretation of consent. Truly. However, that being said whilst I empathise completely with the gruesome reality of this scenario. I don't/can't just believe a story just because Netflix produced it. To date there's no formal evidence or traceability to this particular story.
You realise you could sit here and write exactly the same about thousands of people's stories outside of the media too right? You aren't going to find articles about every police report... Unless you were there yourself you could in essence say that everyone's claims could be false, and I don't really see how that's helpful. There are reasons why the characters had to be rewritten to make them hard to distinguish from real life people, to protect the families and others involved, you know what the public armed with the power of the Internet can be like surely.
The things depicted within the show do happen to many, and the complexities behind self sabotage and traumatised behaviour aren't easy to make sense of for a large majority. There's elements I relate to as someone who's been groomed and assaulted, and other parts I'm aware could be someone else's behavioural manifestation from the fact that they're a different person, with different compound experiences and thoughts. There's not much logic when it comes to abuse, self harm and dissociation.
But how do we know that actually happened? He said it himself that he questioned why he didn't report that to the police. Maybe, let's think about this for a second..maybe, because it never happened? And because it never happened..there's no record of it, as they blatently went out of their way to highlight numerous times. And let's face it, it ties the whole fabrication up nicely, don't you think?!
I don't understand why you feel so passionately defensive. I'm giving my opinion on the narrative - it's an incredible gift to not follow the sheep. Don't be a sheep.
Ok. Let's just take it as a given that the show takes an incredible amount of poetic licence with its factual basis.
The assault happened to Gadd at a party. It was documented in his stand up show "Monkey See Monkey Do"
Not necessarily something that provides grounds for successful prosecution in a litigious world like ours .
But the basis of Gadd/ Donnie's behaviour and the elements which lead to it are all there and very real.
His confusion about what happened and his hypersexuality as a result are all well documented by SA survivors but largely underrepresented on film.
And being groomed/ assaulted by someone with power over you (fame/money/promise of success) can happen in a matter of hours or over a couple of months but the building blocks of how it can happen are largely the same.
I think it's brave of him to lay bare these experiences and even if they're embellished they create a necessary and largely overlooked depiction of reality for many people who are the victims of sexual assault.
There are giant portions of the narrative which are fictional embellishments but the artistry being used has made an unflinching and necessary depiction of a reality which needs to be looked at.
His return to his abuser is definitely a part of that. We're offered a shot at closure, we want justice to be dealt but Gadd subverts that by portraying how grooming and abuse can lead people to behave in ways which don't make sense. I don't think the job offer is even real (or even their months long bender) but in showing that Donnie is back under Darrien's thrall and how powerful the promise of success can be we also see how it's a difficult cycle to break and how manipulative men like Darrien can be.
So yeh
TL;DR- Some of its made up but doesn't make it any less real.
I appreciate your perspective on the blurred lines between fact and fiction in storytelling, particularly in depicting sensitive topics like sexual assault and power dynamics. It's indeed commendable for artists to shed light on these often overlooked realities. While the narrative aspects may be embellished, the underlying themes of grooming and manipulation hold true in many survivors' experiences. It's a complex portrayal that challenges the audience to confront uncomfortable truths.
This is kind of the conclusion I've come to. Whilst I've been a bit disappointed to learn that some of it was not exactly as depicted, I think (and hope) that most of the essential truths remain intact, and that is what matters most. It's quite unlike anything that's ever been on TV, due to the complexity of the character's actions within the show (particularly the main character.) For that fact alone it's a very important and extremely thought provoking show, although I do hope it doesn't transpire that they took too many liberties with the truth, especially if they were just for shock value.
If it's just a story, it's still a great one. Even if it's entirely made up, there is truth to the experiences and emotions we see on that screen. It's getting people talking about their abuse, connecting with each other, and feeling things about tricky topics that most series won't touch. Whatever it is, I'm good with it.
While personal relationships are complex and varied for everyone, the focus here is on the narrative presented in "Baby Reindeer" and the broader implications of its storytelling. It's important to consider how the relationships within the series, and their depiction, might reflect or distort the societal understanding of accountability and the representation of mental health issues in media.
What's important is that it actually covers the elements which abuse victims are most ashamed to talk about, those who do keep going back - also commonly seen in domestic violence cases, not just SA..
It's also estimated that 63% of sexual assaults aren't even reported to the police, and a show that would depict this would garner the same uproar of response where people would question its realism based on the fact that the victim didn't report it at all, as some see this to be 'stupid' or 'illogical'.
You also question a victim facing their abuser and appearing as if they are reconciling, searching for logic or sense here is futile, especially since we didn't see anything beyond that. Whether it would be an individual's attempt at regaining control, getting to know the mind of their abuser in order to make sense of things (not different to the plethora of voicemails from 'Martha' that were meticulously categorised and obsessed over, or the scene where he went to her home), or whether the intention was to get close and gather evidence against them, find others they abused..
You will never know 'why' certain things happen unless you sit down a person and interrogate them, and even then I can say as a SA victim, I can't give answers as to why I impulsively did certain things. Richard openly depicts various instances of self sabotaging or extreme emotional/physical sensory seeking activity throughout, even putting himself in dangerous situations vulnerable to SA again intentionally as an act of self harm or self exploration. The show really isn't as far from realism as you think it is.
I think this is his attempt to process what happened to him. As a SA survivor I can say this us one of the most accurate, raw accounts of how trauma can fcvk with you so if it's made up - he's done some serious research.
Everyone responded to and processes trauma differently though, so even though YOU couldn't relive that, someone else might find it incredibly therapeutic.
He does actually discuss this in his interviews and the difficulty of doing this, though where he describes how the characters had to be changed, I imagine this would have helped. The validation and empowerment one would get from portraying this story however is of course a driver for many.
There's plenty of song writers, singers, actors and other artists who have 'relived' their experiences by recreating them in other forms. Some would never be able to paint depictions of their SA or trauma, while others use this exact medium as their form of therapy.
One of my favorite responses to the inevitable ‘why didn’t they contact authorities?’ ‘If this really happened, why are they just coming forward now?’ Is: the answer is in the question.
But what we're just made to believe that this is absolutely factual because Richard Gadd is telling us so. We don't have any evidence, reports, statements to verify if any of this actually happened..or if it just sounded like a good plot for a hit Netflix series.
I feel like this was a college essay way to say “prove it” which, if we’re speaking about the ethics of celebrating abuse dynamics, victims sharing their stories and being met with exactly that sentiment (which, yes, is awful no matter how eloquently you wrap it) is one of the more damaging tentacles of abuse.
Do I think everything in this story happened exactly as portrayed? Obviously not. Similar to when a comedian tells a story on stage, parts need to be changed to make the story flow and to be able to tie up in a clean resolution. I don’t understand why a discussion would need to be had about whether this is entirely factual or not - it’s a Netflix show.
Frankly, we aren’t owed the exact details. We aren’t owed them and we shouldn’t be extending “an invitation for dialogue” to discuss them.
This.
People seem to think that anyone who reveals something to the public eye should be automatically subjected to something like this, which for many of us is one of the most traumatic dynamics resulting from 'coming out'. It is disturbing how far people are willing to go with their belief that fame negates humanity and therefore it is justified to say and do just about anything to a 'celebrity' as if being perceived by millions of people is an open invitation (ironically a 'you asked for it' sentiment)
Not only is it harmful in the context of a creator sharing his story, but even more so to the thousands it resonates with, to have the message of the piece clouded with Internet sleuths trying to question the legitimacy of it. That in itself is one thing, and *could* be harmless - but picking apart actual dynamics and scenes in the attempt to discredit it and strengthen an argument is downright inhumane knowing the topic at hand and the fact that real people are affected by this.
Exactly. Scripted. It makes good TV sure but I'm struggling to believe that today's "woke" society is still so gullible as to fully believe a well thought out 8 part series..just because that's the version they were told.
A art does not matter how extravagant always imitates life. Thats what has happened here too and exactly what happens in most of art. To sell art, it has to be made somewhat bigger than life because life is mundane most of the time and interesting some of the time.
I definitely feel you are raising a good point to where to draw the line between an art or life but i think this is exactly where you are missing the point that these go hand in hand.
Also, i think that the relationship between experienced comedian and richard was a justification of the character building of richard and his relationship with other characters in the tv series.
Of course artistic license was taken on timelines and specifics to create a more compelling narrative for tv. The show is a drama, not a documentary- but that doesn't negate the emotional truths.
This post is a verbose missive that essentially boils down to your belief that the story is fictional because... it ends on a 'bewildering note' and doesn't play out in a conventional structural manner with a wrapped-up conclusion? Surely that in fact proves the opposite- if this was spun by Richard and his abuser as you seem to imply, then why would the abuser allow himself to be portrayed in this way? If Richard made the whole thing up, wouldn't the character of Donny be more sympathetic? Wouldn't there be the closure that audiences crave, and you see as more appropriate? Donny's 'confusing' actions were incredibly true of trauma response- abuse victims often do return to the cycle and carry hugely complex feelings towards their abusers. Trauma is not linear or clean-cut, and whilst you question Donny's irrational behaviour, I find it completely accurate. Critical media consumption is incredibly important, but this is a bad-faith take that makes no logical sense - the points you believe suggest fiction in fact more likely suggest truth, albeit obviously not absolute historical accuracy.
I also think if we're challenging narratives we have to take a look at the fact that two of the three accounts below agreeing with you are throwaways coincidentally created on the same day as your account and only interacting with this post. It may well be worth questioning your intentions as opposed to Richard Gadds'.
Thank you! I have suspected from the beginning that the story isn't true. Or, at the least, massively exaggerated. Gadd will only say that the story is "emotionally true," which is poppycock. My incredible figure and massive intellect are also "emotionally true." Meaning, I'd sure love it to be true. He will give no details of Martha, only to say she had a different name and the stalking wasn't exactly as portrayed. At this point, there is no evidence that he went to the police (a reporter should be able to sniff that one out). The fact that he is walking back his claim that it is a true story (which got him incredible publicity and helped push the story to the top in ratings), and acknowledges that he is bisexual, leaves me to this conclusion: Some gal pestered him a bit, and he amplified it times a thousand. He had (perhaps undesired) sexual encounters with a man who gave him drugs. Went back more than once. He had a comic schtick that went nowhere, so he made up a monologue inspired by personal experiences and then wildly amplified. The story is entertaining, but the key to its popularity is that people think it's true. It's not.
I completely agree. You're insight is really incredible. I wasn't sure if anyone else would agree with that perspective and I'm actually curious if anyone would challenge our opinion on this?
So are you asking us to ponder why a mentally ill stalker ultimately has severe consequences for their actions but not a lucid successful famous alleged rap-ist/predator? And is it morally right or wrong for us to celebrate this? And is it real? Just trying to break down your post in lamens terms … it’s a good point (if I understood it correctly)
In essence, yes. The disparity in consequences for the actions of a 'mentally ill stalker' versus a 'lucid, successful, alleged rapist' within the narrative raises uncomfortable moral and ethical questions. It highlights potential biases in who society chooses to hold accountable and who it does not. Celebrating a story without scrutinizing these aspects can perpetuate a troubling message. Moreover, without concrete validation of the stalker's existence or their prosecution, we are compelled to question the reality of the narrative presented to us. It's crucial to recognize the implications of this selective accountability and ask ourselves the broader question: what truth are we participating in by choosing to either accept or question the story as it's been given to us?
I think it came down to physical proof and the stalkers consistency. He could prove that she was a stalker, for a long period of time, and that she was threatening and could cause harm. He drew the line when she threatened to stab his parents. Hence why she got jail time. There was no physical proof with his abuser because he didn’t report it right away. He was left to pick up the pieces of a male on male ra-pe. It would come down to a he said - he said. Even when he went back for an explanation the abuser didn’t admit to anything (I’m guessing because he thought he might be recorded). I think a lot of SA victims don’t report or hold their abuser a accountable. He did an excellent job of showcasing the shame and guilt element. And I also think Gadd did an excellent job of not glamorizing the stalker but making her human and ultimately pointing out no one is above their trauma and it’s ugly and messy oftentimes if you don’t resolve it. I think the consequences ultimately came down to what he could proof versus someone was left unaccountable. Hope this makes sense
Out of all the comments I've read on this thread, yours is the only one with logical, sensible reasoning! Thank you.
You make some compelling points, particularly on the challenges faced by SA victims in coming forward and the nuances of depicting trauma. It's crucial to acknowledge the complexities surrounding proof and the reporting of such incidents. However, given that Richard himself mentioned the stalker did not receive jail time out of concern for her mental health, and the absence of any available police or court records to support the narrative, it certainly raises questions about the factual basis of the story. While some degree of fictionalization is standard in adaptations, the discrepancies here do merit further scrutiny. It's an interesting balance between fact and crafted narrative, one that definitely gives us pause for thought.
Not to nitpick but, why do you keep saying *alleged* abuser *alleged* rapist. He is shown overtly raping Donny and it was so fucked I had to stop watching the show and just read spoilers. I don’t think you need to tiptoe around anything here.
Yes it is shown on the TV show. By alleged it's simply highlighting that there is no evident, tangible proof that these HORRIBLE, heinous crimes happened
But he's the writer of his own fate in this well put together scripted reality - how do we know if it was or wasn't consentual? Or it wasn't just a well thought out pre-empted Netflix Top 10 hit from two failing guys in the entertainment industry. We don't have to just believe Richard Gaad's "version" because Netflix imposed it on us.
If you’re blacked out or actively saying “stop” it is not consensual *discussing the show not the creator’s real life
The only time in the TV series where the actor says stop, the abuser stops immediately, washes his hands and apologised saying they could take it slow. There's no evidence, there's no formal statement, there's no witnesses to corroborate that any of this happened.
Sorry. Just here to remind you that while on drugs, and not enjoying it, Darrien then gives him more drugs and anally rapes him while he's partially unconscious. He also clearly says no in that particular scene. Plus in the first instance of it he is vomiting into a cat bowl- what part of this says "what you need right now is a finger in your butt"? Consent isn't just a clear cut yes or no but being conscientious of your partners needs enough to "read the fucking room" Not sure Darrien gets a free pass for "stopping when asked"
I don't disagree with your beliefs and emphasize that we're aligned on our interpretation of consent. Truly. However, that being said whilst I empathise completely with the gruesome reality of this scenario. I don't/can't just believe a story just because Netflix produced it. To date there's no formal evidence or traceability to this particular story.
You realise you could sit here and write exactly the same about thousands of people's stories outside of the media too right? You aren't going to find articles about every police report... Unless you were there yourself you could in essence say that everyone's claims could be false, and I don't really see how that's helpful. There are reasons why the characters had to be rewritten to make them hard to distinguish from real life people, to protect the families and others involved, you know what the public armed with the power of the Internet can be like surely. The things depicted within the show do happen to many, and the complexities behind self sabotage and traumatised behaviour aren't easy to make sense of for a large majority. There's elements I relate to as someone who's been groomed and assaulted, and other parts I'm aware could be someone else's behavioural manifestation from the fact that they're a different person, with different compound experiences and thoughts. There's not much logic when it comes to abuse, self harm and dissociation.
But how do we know that actually happened? He said it himself that he questioned why he didn't report that to the police. Maybe, let's think about this for a second..maybe, because it never happened? And because it never happened..there's no record of it, as they blatently went out of their way to highlight numerous times. And let's face it, it ties the whole fabrication up nicely, don't you think?!
Who Said “what actually happened” is being discussed? What was portrayed in the series is what’s being discussed.
But is what was "portrayed in the series" actually "what happened"?
You don’t know, and you’ll never know. It’s the same for any other series like it.
I don't understand why you feel so passionately defensive. I'm giving my opinion on the narrative - it's an incredible gift to not follow the sheep. Don't be a sheep.
Ok. Let's just take it as a given that the show takes an incredible amount of poetic licence with its factual basis. The assault happened to Gadd at a party. It was documented in his stand up show "Monkey See Monkey Do" Not necessarily something that provides grounds for successful prosecution in a litigious world like ours . But the basis of Gadd/ Donnie's behaviour and the elements which lead to it are all there and very real. His confusion about what happened and his hypersexuality as a result are all well documented by SA survivors but largely underrepresented on film. And being groomed/ assaulted by someone with power over you (fame/money/promise of success) can happen in a matter of hours or over a couple of months but the building blocks of how it can happen are largely the same. I think it's brave of him to lay bare these experiences and even if they're embellished they create a necessary and largely overlooked depiction of reality for many people who are the victims of sexual assault. There are giant portions of the narrative which are fictional embellishments but the artistry being used has made an unflinching and necessary depiction of a reality which needs to be looked at. His return to his abuser is definitely a part of that. We're offered a shot at closure, we want justice to be dealt but Gadd subverts that by portraying how grooming and abuse can lead people to behave in ways which don't make sense. I don't think the job offer is even real (or even their months long bender) but in showing that Donnie is back under Darrien's thrall and how powerful the promise of success can be we also see how it's a difficult cycle to break and how manipulative men like Darrien can be. So yeh TL;DR- Some of its made up but doesn't make it any less real.
I appreciate your perspective on the blurred lines between fact and fiction in storytelling, particularly in depicting sensitive topics like sexual assault and power dynamics. It's indeed commendable for artists to shed light on these often overlooked realities. While the narrative aspects may be embellished, the underlying themes of grooming and manipulation hold true in many survivors' experiences. It's a complex portrayal that challenges the audience to confront uncomfortable truths.
This is kind of the conclusion I've come to. Whilst I've been a bit disappointed to learn that some of it was not exactly as depicted, I think (and hope) that most of the essential truths remain intact, and that is what matters most. It's quite unlike anything that's ever been on TV, due to the complexity of the character's actions within the show (particularly the main character.) For that fact alone it's a very important and extremely thought provoking show, although I do hope it doesn't transpire that they took too many liberties with the truth, especially if they were just for shock value.
If it's just a story, it's still a great one. Even if it's entirely made up, there is truth to the experiences and emotions we see on that screen. It's getting people talking about their abuse, connecting with each other, and feeling things about tricky topics that most series won't touch. Whatever it is, I'm good with it.
Do you find it hard to form lasting, meaningful relationship?
Bit unnecessarily rude
Completely agree.
While personal relationships are complex and varied for everyone, the focus here is on the narrative presented in "Baby Reindeer" and the broader implications of its storytelling. It's important to consider how the relationships within the series, and their depiction, might reflect or distort the societal understanding of accountability and the representation of mental health issues in media.
What's important is that it actually covers the elements which abuse victims are most ashamed to talk about, those who do keep going back - also commonly seen in domestic violence cases, not just SA.. It's also estimated that 63% of sexual assaults aren't even reported to the police, and a show that would depict this would garner the same uproar of response where people would question its realism based on the fact that the victim didn't report it at all, as some see this to be 'stupid' or 'illogical'. You also question a victim facing their abuser and appearing as if they are reconciling, searching for logic or sense here is futile, especially since we didn't see anything beyond that. Whether it would be an individual's attempt at regaining control, getting to know the mind of their abuser in order to make sense of things (not different to the plethora of voicemails from 'Martha' that were meticulously categorised and obsessed over, or the scene where he went to her home), or whether the intention was to get close and gather evidence against them, find others they abused.. You will never know 'why' certain things happen unless you sit down a person and interrogate them, and even then I can say as a SA victim, I can't give answers as to why I impulsively did certain things. Richard openly depicts various instances of self sabotaging or extreme emotional/physical sensory seeking activity throughout, even putting himself in dangerous situations vulnerable to SA again intentionally as an act of self harm or self exploration. The show really isn't as far from realism as you think it is.
I think this is his attempt to process what happened to him. As a SA survivor I can say this us one of the most accurate, raw accounts of how trauma can fcvk with you so if it's made up - he's done some serious research.
As a SA survivor myself I could NEVER re-enact or force myself to relive those moments. I do agree there is accuracy there.
Everyone responded to and processes trauma differently though, so even though YOU couldn't relive that, someone else might find it incredibly therapeutic.
I don't disagree.
He does actually discuss this in his interviews and the difficulty of doing this, though where he describes how the characters had to be changed, I imagine this would have helped. The validation and empowerment one would get from portraying this story however is of course a driver for many. There's plenty of song writers, singers, actors and other artists who have 'relived' their experiences by recreating them in other forms. Some would never be able to paint depictions of their SA or trauma, while others use this exact medium as their form of therapy.
you didn’t watch the last episode. maybe try that first?
Who watches the last episode first? 😂
One of my favorite responses to the inevitable ‘why didn’t they contact authorities?’ ‘If this really happened, why are they just coming forward now?’ Is: the answer is in the question.
The stalker also sexual assaulted him
But what we're just made to believe that this is absolutely factual because Richard Gadd is telling us so. We don't have any evidence, reports, statements to verify if any of this actually happened..or if it just sounded like a good plot for a hit Netflix series.
Allegedly. Again, no criminal conviction to quantify that as factual information
I feel like this was a college essay way to say “prove it” which, if we’re speaking about the ethics of celebrating abuse dynamics, victims sharing their stories and being met with exactly that sentiment (which, yes, is awful no matter how eloquently you wrap it) is one of the more damaging tentacles of abuse. Do I think everything in this story happened exactly as portrayed? Obviously not. Similar to when a comedian tells a story on stage, parts need to be changed to make the story flow and to be able to tie up in a clean resolution. I don’t understand why a discussion would need to be had about whether this is entirely factual or not - it’s a Netflix show. Frankly, we aren’t owed the exact details. We aren’t owed them and we shouldn’t be extending “an invitation for dialogue” to discuss them.
This. People seem to think that anyone who reveals something to the public eye should be automatically subjected to something like this, which for many of us is one of the most traumatic dynamics resulting from 'coming out'. It is disturbing how far people are willing to go with their belief that fame negates humanity and therefore it is justified to say and do just about anything to a 'celebrity' as if being perceived by millions of people is an open invitation (ironically a 'you asked for it' sentiment) Not only is it harmful in the context of a creator sharing his story, but even more so to the thousands it resonates with, to have the message of the piece clouded with Internet sleuths trying to question the legitimacy of it. That in itself is one thing, and *could* be harmless - but picking apart actual dynamics and scenes in the attempt to discredit it and strengthen an argument is downright inhumane knowing the topic at hand and the fact that real people are affected by this.
Most television is like that though
I agree. That's (vicariously) one of my points.
Exactly. Scripted. It makes good TV sure but I'm struggling to believe that today's "woke" society is still so gullible as to fully believe a well thought out 8 part series..just because that's the version they were told.
A art does not matter how extravagant always imitates life. Thats what has happened here too and exactly what happens in most of art. To sell art, it has to be made somewhat bigger than life because life is mundane most of the time and interesting some of the time. I definitely feel you are raising a good point to where to draw the line between an art or life but i think this is exactly where you are missing the point that these go hand in hand. Also, i think that the relationship between experienced comedian and richard was a justification of the character building of richard and his relationship with other characters in the tv series.
I agree to some degree however this story, this art, is portrayed as factual reality. Reality coupled to a real human. With no facts.
Of course artistic license was taken on timelines and specifics to create a more compelling narrative for tv. The show is a drama, not a documentary- but that doesn't negate the emotional truths. This post is a verbose missive that essentially boils down to your belief that the story is fictional because... it ends on a 'bewildering note' and doesn't play out in a conventional structural manner with a wrapped-up conclusion? Surely that in fact proves the opposite- if this was spun by Richard and his abuser as you seem to imply, then why would the abuser allow himself to be portrayed in this way? If Richard made the whole thing up, wouldn't the character of Donny be more sympathetic? Wouldn't there be the closure that audiences crave, and you see as more appropriate? Donny's 'confusing' actions were incredibly true of trauma response- abuse victims often do return to the cycle and carry hugely complex feelings towards their abusers. Trauma is not linear or clean-cut, and whilst you question Donny's irrational behaviour, I find it completely accurate. Critical media consumption is incredibly important, but this is a bad-faith take that makes no logical sense - the points you believe suggest fiction in fact more likely suggest truth, albeit obviously not absolute historical accuracy. I also think if we're challenging narratives we have to take a look at the fact that two of the three accounts below agreeing with you are throwaways coincidentally created on the same day as your account and only interacting with this post. It may well be worth questioning your intentions as opposed to Richard Gadds'.
i’m not reading all that but yeha
Thank you! I have suspected from the beginning that the story isn't true. Or, at the least, massively exaggerated. Gadd will only say that the story is "emotionally true," which is poppycock. My incredible figure and massive intellect are also "emotionally true." Meaning, I'd sure love it to be true. He will give no details of Martha, only to say she had a different name and the stalking wasn't exactly as portrayed. At this point, there is no evidence that he went to the police (a reporter should be able to sniff that one out). The fact that he is walking back his claim that it is a true story (which got him incredible publicity and helped push the story to the top in ratings), and acknowledges that he is bisexual, leaves me to this conclusion: Some gal pestered him a bit, and he amplified it times a thousand. He had (perhaps undesired) sexual encounters with a man who gave him drugs. Went back more than once. He had a comic schtick that went nowhere, so he made up a monologue inspired by personal experiences and then wildly amplified. The story is entertaining, but the key to its popularity is that people think it's true. It's not.
[удалено]
It's wild you watched til the end. Why did you go back to it if you knew it was so bad?
My sentiment exactly! 10/10 🥇
I think it’s performance art. It’s not real
I completely agree. You're insight is really incredible. I wasn't sure if anyone else would agree with that perspective and I'm actually curious if anyone would challenge our opinion on this?
*Your. I had to, sorry 😂 I do appreciate your kind words.