- [Quinton] This video is sponsored by RAYCON,
earbuds that give you premium sound quality, without the premium price.
You can go to BUYRAYCON.com/QUINTON now to get 15% off your first order.
Once again, that's BUYRAYCON.com/QUINTON
In 2012, a documentary was released titled 'The Impostor,' to critical and commercial acclaim.
The story follows the life of French con artist, Frédéric Bourdin.
In 1997 Frédéric managed to convince American officials that he was actually-
Nicholas Barclay, a 13-year-old from Texas who had gone missing three years earlier.
Bourdin and Barclay had little in common,
Bourdin's eyes were not the right color,
and he had a noticeable French accent, implying that he had been in the country
for more than three years.
Despite this, he was able to convince the family of the missing child that he was, in fact, their little boy.
He was shipped to America, and lived as 17-year-old Nicholas Barclay for the next five months,
before his coup was discovered by local officials.
In the documentary, heavy scrutiny is put on the family for this.
How, it is wondered, could they blindly accept that this 24-year-old Frenchman,
was their missing teenage son, when all evidence suggested otherwise?
Why would they give him plentiful information about their family tree,
which he then used to trick American officials into believing his story?
Was it possible, they knew all along that this couldn't be their son,
and that they had ulterior motives in helping support his story?
Throughout the story, Frederic recalls feeling scared of the family,
as he realized that there was something afoot that they just weren't telling him.
It was possible, he realized,
that the disappearance of Nicholas Barclay was caused by one of the members of the family,
and that they knowingly fed into his fib, in order to give themselves an alibi.
As if they wanted police to believe that their son was still alive,
so his disappearance would not be properly looked into.
Extensive doubt is then put into the lives and stories of every member of the Barclay family,
and great speculation is made over which one of them was most likely to commit murder.
And then, in the final moments of the film, a small detail is lightly dropped in our laps.
Frédéric Bourdin...
...is a pathological liar.
He's a man who not only impersonated a missing child,
but then went back to France, and did it a second time, and then a third time, and then a fourth time.
Alongside this, he would constantly attempt to provide fake leads about other missing children
to other grieving families.
Even while sitting in prison, for previous attempts at this, and all of this, because he craved attention.
When this is revealed, literally moments before the credits roll,
you end up feeling mad about how this documentary has presented all of this.
Why have the filmmakers left out this crucial detail, and tricked us into believing that this random,
grieving family, with a missing 13-year-old son,
were actually the bad guys in this story of this horrible, horrible monster?
I think about this a lot, and the answer I've come to,
is that 'The Impostor' shouldn't be looked at as a commentary on cold cases,
or tragedies, or anything like that that you might otherwise expect,
but instead, as a piece that asks you to question the very format you have been buying into
during its extensive runtime,
the modern documentary style of choosing a voice, a key person in the story,
and latching on to their perspective obsessively, as the one worth telling,
even if it happens to be the most empirically, untrustable one in a story.
Stop.
Rewind.
I want to talk about Unsolved Mysteries.
I've wanted to talk about this show, for a very long time, and that's the case for a lot of reasons.
Unsolved Mysteries influenced the future of television, and general informational media in a way that's almost impossible to to measure.
Pretty much any true crime documentary show that you can watch today,
Forensic Files, The First 48, Sex & Murder, Forensic Files 2, Forensic Files 3-D
They all have unsolved mysteries to thank for the basic genealogy of their content.
Now, there are two ways to look at Unsolved Mysteries, both equally valid but slightly mutually exclusive.
Here's take one;
Unsolved mysteries was an attempt by NBC to use the massive power and influence of-
television, to solve crimes and cold cases around the country.
This was back when the world was generally,
unconnected, and it was pretty easy to commit a crime in an obscure place, and then simply slip off and start a new identity without-
anyone raising an eye.
Unsolved Mysteries thus took these cases, and elevated them to worldwide recognition.
Tuning in for the show became a common occurrence for people of all ages.
As audiences became obsessed with the idea that they could help solve a mystery.
And in enough cases for it to be impressive, the show's broadcasts did lead to the identification and arrest of-
dangerous people, all across America.
Unsolved Mysteries was a project made by investigators, with the goal of bringing people together, and accomplishing great things.
Fugitives were brought to justice, families were reunited, constantly time, and time again.
The show, overwhelmingly, had a positive influence on the world and the stories it covered.
Okay, so here's take two about the show;
Unsolved Mysteries was middle-class fear baiting designed to boost ratings.
The coverage given to any specific segment was not bound by if the story was good journalism,
or if it was even true, but instead, by how flashy could seem when presented within the given format.
Here's a theoretical question for you;
Let's say you're a director, and you arrive at a location of a supposed story for the show,
however, when you look into it, you quickly deduced that everything you've been told up to this point is bunk,
either the story is a massive hoax, or it's been overwhelmingly solved ages ago,
and people just don't find the answer satisfying.
Well, if that's the case, you're shit out of luck because you work for a show called 'Unsolved Mysteries.'
You have an ultimate duty to present the story in a way that makes it seem like there is something of interest in the case.
and the way that the show ultimately accomplishes this, is by structuring itself off of testimony,
and then choosing to never question what is said, and presumably to leave any contradictions on the editing room floor.
Stories the show would report on were often so outlandish,
and improbable, that even Robert Stack was known to jokingly roast the crew, for the material that they handed over to him.
- "Hi, excuse me."
- "Oh, hi."
- "How many chunks of this have you eaten already?"
- "Well, I had a whole bunch why?"
- "Really, whole bunch?"
- "Uhm, because those are Dr. Watson's love potions."
- "Love potions? What's that?"
- "Charlie was already halfway to paradise, and probably could have left Dr. Watson's love drops on the mantle,"
- "but Charlie wasn't taking any chances."
- "Aww. Chocolate hearts."
In-between honest investigations and criminal mysteries, the show would insert stories with hauntings, the paranormal,
UFOs, and of course these could be the most hilarious and impossible to believe, but they would keep people watching.
But even many of the other stories, which are considered to be more reputable, turn out to be heavily filled with misinformation-
when you actually look into them.
It's amazing how many episodes of the show come to conclusions with such confidence,
and yet those conclusions have been made by essentially no other reputable person ever.
Did you know that Amelia Earhart was captured by the Japanese and executed?
She definitely wasn't, but it's a fun thing to believe in!
Robert Stack once described making the show as a
"compromise between making theater, and doing a public service."
And theater just happened to be more important in most cases, and this helps hammer home the first lesson we have to understand.
Most documentaries are entertainment.
Not journalism.
The reason this can become a problem, is that there isn't exactly an industry standard for documentaries to cite their sources.
And yet, they are traditionally treated as primary text by most people.
And viewers are encouraged to not look into those topics on their own.
Researching most of the cases which Unsolved once covered is close to impossible today.
Because everyone tends to just parrot the narrator's claims word-for-word, when it's entirely possible that some of those facts were-
exaggerated or made up on the spot.
You know, a great example of this problem in action is the documentary,
'Super Size Me'
If you took a health class in the early 2010's like I did, you probably got forced to watch this thing at some point.
Teachers loved it, and it's easy to understand why.
The film was a disturbing and shocking voyage into how mistreating your own body can lead to terrifying results-
as Morgan Spurlock forces himself to eat nothing but McDonald's, every day for 30 days.
But in the decade and a half since 'Super Size Me' was released,
it has become one of the most consistently doubted documentaries of all time.
As almost every attempt to recreate its results have failed.
In fact, many people who have imitated his stunt have actually lost significant weight.
To put it briefly, it seems that Spurlock was purposefully overeating at the restaurant, and trying to avoid exercise to make his results seem more-
sensational, as its insisted in the documentary that he is eating more than 5,000 calories a day.
The counter documentary, 'Fat Head' mocks this and points out how impossible it is to get anywhere near that,
with even the biggest three meal packages,
without breaking every rule in Spurlock's book.
And it's funny to think about how meaningless that makes this documentary under this context.
If you go to McDonald's, and purposefully eat 5,000 calories worth of burgers, every day your health will decline.
"Whoa, no way man, that's crazy!"
Our second lesson here, is that most filmmakers have a gluttonous desire,
for people to watch their movies.
The reason I've been thinking about all of this, is because of the release of the recent Netflix hit,
'Tiger King'
Let's be real here;
'Tiger King' is much like the real Joe Exotic.
It's an extremely watchable film series, and a great guilty pleasure.
Truly, it's one of the most entertaining things to come out, amid this quarantine.
But as someone who loves documentaries, and loves the good that a documentary can do,
I'm not sure I would ever say that it's a good documentary piece.
'Tiger King' starts off as a lot of fun.
You're seeing these crazy people, doing all these cartoonish backwater eccentric things.
Personally, they all ended up reminding me of a lot of people I went to school with, but didn't really know that well.
And its easy to see what people have latched on to Joe, as the source of memes and deprecations.
And when you meet his lifelong enemy Carol Baskin,
It's also obvious why so many people would decide that they hated her with a fiery passion.
But as it goes on, this becomes a lot less funny.
As you realize that these figureheads are all horrible, manipulative monsters.
And that many of the people presented in the documentary, suffer from mental illness and disease.
The show is basically structured around presenting you a narrative, than adding doubt to that, while selling another story,
then repeating that process over, and over again, fovever.
It depends, largely, on personal testimony from people involved, and chooses not to tell you certain details-
in order to warp your perspective of the situation.
Numerous times over the course the documentary, it seems like someone is not telling the truth, or is stretching what really happened.
But there isn't really any follow-up or response.
It's like the filmmakers think it's just good TV to let people lie on their platform, without being challenged in any significant way.
Some of the biggest revelations that's come out since the story, is just how much material-
wasn't put into the film, for one reason or another.
For instance; the directors have admitted to leaving out many overtly racist moments surrounding Joe in the movie.
Specifically, his use of slurs in various rants he went on.
And the reason this had to be done, in my opinion,
is that the film only really works, if you start it with the slightest belief that Joe might be some sort of redneck antihero.
It's possible to make a guy who tried to kill a woman seem approachable,
but not if he is a bigot.
Also left, out is a lot of the character's extensive history with animal abuse.
Dating back all the way to 1999, when he was caught shooting a group of malnourished emu that he had offered to give sanctuary.
Additional stories, like him shooting horses for pleasure, also seems to hit the cutting room floor.
It seems that the abuse of animals that happen at the zoo was constant and continuous,
and worse than what we saw on screen.
But presenting that information at the gate,
would make people not want to watch him be a jackass for the full runtime.
Joe's testimony is often presented without question, and is treated as valid by default,
in an attempt to appeal to both sides of the conversation.
What this means is, that lies are placed into the documentary, and then not questioned.
Leading the audience to sometimes believe them flat-out by default.
At the end, when Joe says that he shot and killed those five tigers because they were all sick and needed to be euthanized,
you're tempted to believe him, and it's not until you watch the 'After Party' episode that you learned that he-
definitely killed the tigers, because he didn't have enough space.
Literally just watching people from the story talk in an unedited fashion, tells you more of the truth than watching the entire series.
You know, it's fascinating to me, that Carol Baskin has been branded the enemy of the internet.
I think the main reason, is that Carol is the kind of bad person that we all know, and can understand.
She's the know-it-all, better than you, PETA obsessed, wine mom, who probaby voted for Biden.
But she's also the first person the film ultimately chooses to go after.
Eventually leading to a surreal moment, where it seems like the directors are playfully acting as if-
vigilantism against her, would actually be a good thing.
- "Cause you're afraid of Carol Baskin?"
-"Oh yes I am."
- "Im taking Carol on because everyone else is scared to."
And it's crazy to read up on the real facts later, and to realize that so much of what is presented in the episodes designed to-
bash her is either misinformation, or lies.
For instance; it's claimed that Don was a multi-millionaire when Carol met him.
This isn't true, because he only gained his wealth when he and Carol started buying and selling real estate.
Don's ex-wife claims at the moment Don met Carol,
he said he was leaving her, causing emotional disruption,
but apparently, everyone in his life knew that he constantly cheated all the time,
and Don's ex-wife only sought out divorce when she met another man.
Asking for only 1 million dollars, in exchange for keeping the process short.
She later sued him for more, and the couple's kids took the stand against Don, and in exchange he never spoke to any of them again.
Another woman in the documentary also embezzled $60,000 from Don's company and everyone else has similar issues,
which makes them really untrustable sources.
The documentary lightly glosses over the fact that Don had lost his pilot's license, and had been flying illegally for years and was terrible at it.
It's also casually left out, that Don was supposedly loaning money to the Costa Rica mafia.
Which is a pretty crucial piece of information.
I don't know, just my perspective-
I think Carol had motive to kill her husband, but I think she lacked means, or opportunity.
It's really hard to believe she somehow got rid of the body in a way, that no person has found evidence of in 10 years.
It's also fucking hilarious when the documentary describes to us,
how she had like, a kitchen meat grinder, that was very small-
but instead, the editors throw in like a fucking Sweeney Todd ass thing, like completely lying to the audience in our faces,
and expecting us to just not notice.
The point is, that all the things leveled against Carol are circumstantial,
and meanwhile, all of these other larger-than-life personalities, come across as definite criminals and manipulative monsters.
When you realize that so many of these private tiger collections are actually weird, surreal,
hierarchical sex cults, who legitimately try to brainwash young women into trading sex for higher staff positions.
It feels weird to go back and remember that those same people, were attacking Carol for running a nonprofit and having volunteers show up.
I mean, why does this documentary spend a dedicated time trying to make a spectacle out of all of these details,
when so much of the more serious stuff is presented with barely any thesis?
Animal abuse aside, it's disgusting the way that Joe treated people at his zoo, under paying them, and giving them homes without working water.
And specifically going after people with no chance to leave or to get a better life, but these moments are usually presented as buffoonish,
or inspiring, with the editing randomly choosing what narrative to tell, based on the person talking.
That strange rollercoaster, is the exact thing that 'Tiger King' banks itself on.
You end up leaving, without really feeling like there was any thesis statement about animal abuse, or mental health, or anything like that.
Instead, it's just trying to capture and recreate this feud, between these two ego-filled people,
and everyone around them, as carnival performers putting on a show.
It's sort of annoying to think that most of these people's lives-
were driven this way, because of poverty, because of drugs, and that their lives aren't going to fundamentally change once this all passes.
While these documentary creators will gain fame and fortune for this project.
But hey,
It's an entertaining story, and maybe that's just what America needs right now.
I don't want people walking away from this, thinking that I think that all documentaries are bad.
Actually, documentaries are my favorite kind of media.
If done right, they can really leave an impact, and inform you about the truth behind a situation.
I think my favorite three documentaries are 'Killer Legends,' 'Three Identical Strangers' and 'Prosecuting Evil.'
'Killer Legends' is an investigation into American myth
And when those myths can actually be rooted in an unseen truth.
'Prosecuting Evil' is about one of the leading men behind the Nuremberg trials, and his ongoing fight to punish crimes against humanity.
And 'Three Identical Strangers' is about something so insane, that I think you should just watch it with no context whatsoever.
I'd really like it if you guys gave me some documentary recommendations in the comment section below, because they're my favorite kind of media,
but it can be hard to find the good ones, you know?
The point I'm trying to make, is that it's important when viewing these projects, to understand that in the modern age,
documentaries have mainly evolved into being art,
and art is fiction.
But you know, whats never delivered with complicated motivations?
YouTube sponsorships!
People who know me, and have known me for a while, will tell you one definite thing about me.
Im a pacer.
I pace through my house. I pace in other people's houses. I pace outside. I pace in a quarantine. It's just what I do.
Most of the videos you see on my channel,
were probably written in my head, while I was pacing. And they just happen to get written down later.
But the thing about pacing with normal ear buds, is that everything wants to get caught on your cord.
Doorknobs counter tops, chairs.
I don't have any chairs.
And it just messes with my mood to have to reset my tunes every couple minutes-
whenever this happens, and that's why I've switched to RAYCON.
No cords, no wires, no hassle.
I've been using these everyday E25 earbuds, everyday.
And I've been calling them every day E25 earbuds all the time, because that is an organic and natural thing to say.
And let me just tell you, the everyday E25 earbuds are just as good as premium wireless earbuds,
but cost nearly half as much.
I've never really had to model my ears before, uh-
They're not good ears. Uhm-
I used to always get taunted in school because I got these tiny ass ears compared to my giant head,
but the point is, these earbuds are fantastic. They're really comfortable.
I think they look great, despite the ears they're attached to. And you shouldn't be focusing on the ears right now,
You should be focusing on how- how amazing this product is.
And just look at how these guys pop back into the case. Look at that!
I could do that all day!
To be honest, these guys charge for six hours a pop so I don't really need to charge them that often.
But I just think it's really satisfying watching them-
just pop back in the case like that. Over, and over, and over, again.
If you go to that link in the description, or go to BUYRAYCON.COM/QUINTON,
You'll get 15% off of your first order. Once again, that's BUYRAYCON.COM/QUINTON.
♪ Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lions on the phone ♪
♪ Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lions on the phone ♪
♪ Hey ♪
♪ Who's that playing ♪
♪ Hey ♪
♪ The guitar ♪
Hey, we're at the end of the video, most people probably closed it by now, but I got new patreon goals on patreon.
Uh- That I think you guys might be interested in, if we get to 666 patrons, I'm going to talk about Gorefield.
And if we get to a 1,025 patrons, I'm going to talk about Homestuck.
I'm just gonna get really into Homestuck, and lose my mind. So if you want to help me get there eventually,
uh- consider checking the link out below and supporting the channel. Okay. That's all you need.
