Wow. This is the most mind blowing documentary I've seen since Tarnation. The director did a great job of conveying the frightening sense of what it must feel like to wake up one day on a subway car and have no idea who you are or what you're doing there. The journey of this person is extraordinary. Really makes you reconsider all the things you take for granted.
shareTarnation was really really really really really really really really really really bad.
sharecut the crap.
i actually i found it a very good film. tarnation i mean..if a bit pretencious.
anyway never though that unknown white male was a mockumentary. i actually loved it... but maybe is true that there are some facts that make you believe is fake but i doubt it because the acting is sublime....
Really? I thought just the opposite.
Saw this on a ripped, ok quality DVD. Story was silly. This guy seemed to take everything for granted. The bit with the newborn was so cheesy and fake.
I'm amazed any reviewer would be party to the fraud this movie is. The most lax research methodology can still prove this movie is a hoax. Critics who are playing the bs game with these film makers should be ashamed.
Well, Doug Bruce was recently interviewed in the New Yorker...so he is an actual person and he is, according to doctors, suffering from total retrograde amnesia. Of course, there are tons of people who don't believe him, you, dougpickering5, being one of them. However, go to New York and access public records. I'm sure you'll be able to find the police report of his acquisition at Coney Island. Or, write to him and talk to him yourself. Do all that instead of using your own lax research to write bash reviews.
ps: Why wouldn't he take everything for granted? He's learning everything for the first time! Idiot.
What doctor? Who is the doctor? When did the doctor make the diagnosis? I will look for the article.
Go to New York and access public records? Hey, good one.
The filmmakers claims on why there are no news stories from the period and why no police reports exist are ludicrous. They've offered no official documentation. It's akin to me claiming I'm related to the Queen of England and telling you how dare you argue with me until you go to England and look it up but oh wait, don't bother because the proof doesn't exist. The ball has been in the film makers court for a long time. They have offered no factual, official evidence. Quite the contrary. It's a fraud. I'll check the article but I'm not expecting much.
EDIT: LOL Good article. Nice proof. And good job by yet another journalist who did no research what so ever. He's repeating what the filmmakers told him and gives no indication he even spoke to these doctors or even got their names or checked out anything to do with this story. Same with just about every article on this film. HBO knew what they were doing when they passed on this project because of concerns over it's credibility.
Do you work for the studio or something?
doug, you're wrong. this story is true.
shareLOL Best post ever. I have forgotten about the complete lack of verifiable proof. You have convinced me. :)
sharedoug bruce had no motive to fake:
a) he's largely avoided the launches and screenings associated with the film, so he's presumably not in it for that. (anyway, when the film was commissioned it was only going to be broadcast on a British TV channel. he can't possibly have counted on it getting to Sundance, then the Oscar shortlist, and finally gaining general release.)
b) he's carried on where he was before in his work, as a photographer, so he wasn't making that kind of 'clean break'. and he doesn't mention what happened to the editors he works with.
c) he has worked at rebuilding relationships with friends and family, when he could easily have dropped them, if that was his wish.
it's hard to believe that anybody COULD fake this convincingly. all his friends and family talk about the absolute blankness, the lack of recognition, when they met for the first time. the infamous and fraudulent "piano man" (supposed amnesiac, found on a beach in Britain last year) only got away with his hoax by saying nothing, and staying away from people he knew.
obviously, you may never be convinced. fair enough: nobody can ever prove that they have forgotten something, far less everything.
but this film certainly seems to divide the world into people who think the worst of others and people who give the benefit of the doubt.
What is your source for all this? Outside of the movie where do you get all this from? Do you have any source for any of this that is outside of the movies own publicity machine?
Quote: "but this film certainly seems to divide the world into people who think the worst of others and people who give the benefit of the doubt. "
lol More pointless bs. Seriously, do you work for the studio?
Find one shred of proof from before the movie was released that this is real. Anything, absolutely anything from any independent source that backs this up. Give me the name of one legit, real doctor who diagnosed Bruce at the time.
Verifying a documentary is easy. Half my job is doing similar kinds of research. The most basic research indicates that this movie is fake. The statements and excuses of the filmmakers makes it even more obvious. It's got nothing to do with thinking the best or worst of others.
i'm a journalist. i got this from speaking at length to the people involved, including Doug.
you may not have heard that doctors who saw him have confirmed their belief that he's not faking. are they part of the publicity machine? are members of his family?
like i said, nobody can truly PROVE that they've forgotten something.
you have cornered yourself into your position, and you won't find it easy to change your mind. but i think you are mistaken.
it's easy to forget, on a message board, that Doug is not some abstract 2D image but a human being. i have seen for myself how the accusations of fakery upset him.
if, as you believe, he's taking me for a ride, i won't regret having given him the benefit of the doubt. but if he's for real, isn't your shrill scepticism a little heartless?
all best wishes to you.
lmao A journalist? Yeah, sure. With what publication? What article have you done on this subject? Where has the article been published? And before you do something really nuts like link to and pretend to be a real specific journalist, the real upshot to this all is please name one doctor and where he practices who originally diagnosed him or even one who has diagnosed him now.
Quote: "if, as you believe, he's taking me for a ride, i won't regret having given him the benefit of the doubt. but if he's for real, isn't your shrill scepticism a little heartless?"
More irrelevant crap and as back handed taunts it's pathetic.
Quote: "Give him the benefit of the doubt"
lol You come across as the worst journalist in the world.
Your lieing and pretending to be a journalist. You could at least make a good attempt at it and try to post some facts. You know, facts? Verifiable facts. Journalists are supposed to give a @#$% about that. Even pretend ones should try to care. ;)
Edit: Omg, your post history is 3 posts all about this movie. Nice creds. Seriously, again, do you work for the studio? If this is paid for stealth marketing you suck at it. If you are some whacko doing it for free then the work is worth the pay.
Biggest-selling broadsheet Sunday paper in the UK. (Won't be hard for you to find out which that is.) Story hasn't come out yet - nor has the film, over here - but wait a bit and it will.
I don't care about building up a post history because I'm writing about THIS film, happened to find your comments, and felt motivated to tell you my view. After all, I've actually met and spoken to people involved.
If YOU tried to stand up your scepticism you would find the names of the doctors, as I did - they weren't handed to me by the "studio" or the "publicity machine" - and you'd have talked to them.
You don't need to be so aggressive. It's a bit silly.
Quote: "After all, I've actually met and spoken to people involved. "
Really? Promise? lol Did I already say pathetic?
Quote: "If YOU tried to stand up your scepticism you would find the names of the doctors, as I did "
lol For shame. The fact that you and the filmmakers have not provided any verifiable info is my fault? Wtf? Nice logic. Are you sending your messages in from Mars or something cause it sounds like you are on another planet. The filmmakers got nothing, they have provided nothing. Just the opposite. Their own publicity material suggests the film is fiction. You have nothing and have provided nothing except lies and some of the weakest taunts I've ever read here.
Keep trolling buddy. It's hard for you to look more stupid and pathetic but I'm sure you'll try.
Oh and I'd edit out the caps abuse. Coming from someone who is pretending to be a journalist, at least a print journalist, it's really weak.
Take off the fez, stop smoking that cigar, and put down your snifter of brandy. I say again, stop prattling away at those keys, monkey.
shareAnd troll #2 comes crawling out of the woodwork to offer absolutely nothing on the subject at hand. Good job. Keep it up.
shareWhere am I? What is this place? I can't remember...
Ha ha, fooled you.
Sucker.
lol I think that about sums it up. :)
shareThank you for being the only voice of reason on this film. I saw it last night, avec BF, and felt there was something amiss about the whole dang thing -- in fact -- may contradictions with the filmakers comments and what we are seeing. Here are my questions/complaints/idiotic-prattlings:
1. Filmmaker says he starts filming Doug after 6 days of lost memory -- yet we see that he doesn't meet him until 11 months after initial m-loss.
2. Who is filming Doug in psych ward, if filmmakers doesn't appear on the scene till 11 months later -- or is this redundant - -is this simply Doug filming himself -- if so, why does he appear to be lead by questions when filmed -- who is leading him?
3. Doug was a complete arse as a human being prior to m-loss, i felt that he still had quite a bit of the arse potential left within him and isn't conventient that the love of his life is yet another willowy model-type who is at least 10 years his junior.
4. if he is a changed man, having gleamed a bit of a conscious, heart, contemplation - -etc., why does he do the most unfeeling thing of filming his family for the first time when he meets them? this reeks of insensitivity.
i could go on...blah, blah, blah.... needless to say - -i wish i could lose my memory and wake up a millionaire living in a loft in the east village with no job to go to other than to enjoy my beauty, my love and my life!
I am a documentary filmmaker living in NYC who went to see this movie after reading several 3-4 star reviews about it in various papers including the Village Voice who's final quote was "unbelievable" which I understood to be a positive thing, but after viewing the movie realized that it truly meant NOT BELIEVABLE!
My gut tells me that the whole thing is a farce/hoax - way too convenient for everyone involved and I was almost mad at the filmmakers for lying to the audience by calling this a true story. One of Bruce's close friends just happens to be a documentarian, the story never even gets a blurb on the local news at the time (who eats these stories up), lame clues in the backpack when he's found, staged doctor testimonies, etc... it wreeks!!
OK, so if the story's actually true and the spoiled wealthy Brit did lose his memory?? Who the hell cares? It's not like he became a new man and joined the peace core - as the intelligent Johanna stated before me, he seemed to be more concerned with capturing video of the long awaited reunion with his family, than actually meeting them. He still lives in his Village Loft, dates a young model-type and takes lame portrait photos with that evil look in his eye. I don't trust him and don't trust this film - oh yeah, he marvels at some snow and cries at the beach - who cares?!
If it's a fake - these guys are going to doc filmmaker hell and I want my $$ back regardless.
-If the fish smells bad, don't buy it...
Quote: "If it's a fake - these guys are going to doc filmmaker hell and I want my $$ back regardless. "
Amen.
I was thinking what's the big deal, why should it matter if they want to call this work of fiction a true story but then I thought of what this kind of thing means to legit documentaries.
Good post!
Calm down. If it's fake, it's fake. If it's real, it's real. If you are so utterly concerened about it, take it up with Doug and Rupert.
Arguing about it on a message board, calling everybody a troll and a lier is just making you look like a troll yourself.
Many films have been promoted as true in the past, such as The Blair Witch Project, as mentioned before. People believed that film was true for the longest time, and now we know better.
? So don't use this movie message board about this one movie to talk about aspects of this movie and it's promotion?
Uhh, no. And I'm calm. :)
Who? It was always a movie with a realistic web marketing campaign as any serious trade paper or newspaper of record reported many times before Blair Witch's release. This film is purporting to be a real story. Personally, I'm sceptical, and it's not that great film.
shareYou are welcome.
Quote: "i wish i could lose my memory and wake up a millionaire living in a loft in the east village with no job to go to other than to enjoy my beauty, my love and my life! "
heh heh Truly, only in a movie I guess.
I just saw "Unknown White Male" this evening with my girlfriend and was left thinking several things:
Why wasn't any more film/video devoted to studies or tests of what memories Doug Bruce may have retained? What, if anything, did he dream about, or recall from dreams? What tests if any, were conducted of his intelligence or ethical sensibilities? Mention is made of "semantic memory" - basically muscle memory for past physical activities. Like Roger Ebert in his review, my girlfriend and I laughingly wondered if his girlfriends noticed any differences in bedroom performance vs Bruce's pre-amnesia state.
I actually found myself identifying/empathizing with Doug Bruce in one regard. Due to a job transfer last fall, I am living in a new home, hundreds of miles from where I lived for the past 25 years. I too am going through some degree of self reinvention, but with the benefit of retained memories of family, friends, experiences etc. Starting over in my case has been a pretty interesting experience.
After reading Manohla Dargis' review in the New York Times (http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/movies/24male.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1142748689-H2oCAzreNJYWAfSx4wvJLw) I'm inclined to agree that the movie is likely a hoax, but also agree with her and other reviewers that say "who cares?" No, I'm not a shill for whatever studio released this movie. I'm a systems engineer for a software company. And no, my personal outlook doesn't tend more toward faith/belief vs. reason/scepticism. I just think that the movie should be appreciated as an opportunity for philosophic introspection. I enjoyed putting myself in Doug Bruce's shoes, and despite my own recent "reinvention" in a new town, am very glad I have something to go back to.
Scott
San Diego, CA
[deleted]
Very well said Scott. Best post so far
shareI think you were mixing up the recreations with the actual videography. He and the director re-trace his steps in Coney Island and the hospital. The director spends quite a bit of time showing the first day he himself started filming Doug, vs. using Doug's own home videos.
That grainy video where Doug emotionally explains his reaction to signing his name and finds his name starts with D was filmed later in his apt, filmed by himself, not in the psych ward.
As to why he picked up the camera, the Harvard prof. explains in detail that procedural memory is not lost in this condition. So Doug found a video camera in his loft and he started documenting what was happening to him. He also explains that he took the camera to the airport for the family reunion partly out of fear to avoid looking directly into faces he might not recognize so instead could look through the camera and wait for them to react.
The photography prof. later also notes that Doug retained his photography techniques, compared to having to re-take history courses to catch up.
He seemed to have already been changing his life anyway before this.
hey dougpickering your a god damn *beep* the man is just trying to present you with information that you dont know b/c your a narrow minded dumbass who thinks hes funny for doubting others so stfu
shareI say Mr Pickering, If you were to obtain and read a copy of The Sunday Times magazine dated 2nd April 2006, you WILL in fact find out that the said aforementioned John-Paul Flintoff IS a bonafide journalist.
His article makes for a very interesting read and provides a good insight to Douglas Bruces' predicament.
If you could actually get off your high horse and refrain from being a self-righteous so and so you would realise that no financial reward would make up for the anguish that his family and friends have gone through.
As we live in a democratic world you are entitled to your own opinions no matter how cynical or short-sighted.
These questions provided plenty of material for the bilious occupants of internet chat rooms.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2100075,00.html
Got that bit right then.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
It does put the conversation on a different level. I will try to tread more softly not because I have been convinced of the veracity of Doug Bruce's tale or am intimidated by the reporter but rather it now involves someone's livelihood who I do not believe is a knowing party to this fraud. Obviously I've been corrected on one issue and apologise on that point.
Referring to Flintoff's article in The Sunday Times: When did Professor Daniel Schacter meet and diagnose Doug Bruce? Did he ever? Did Flintoff actually talk to Schacter?
From Allison Benedikt's article in the Chicago Tribune, "So I called Dr. Schacter, who served as the film's on-screen expert, and he told me that, though he had never met Doug, Murray informed him of the specifics of his condition."
http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-060310-movies-review-male,0,3168883.story?coll=mmx-movies_leftutility
What research did the writer do beyond talking to Bruce, a couple of his relatives and friends and the filmmaker? Where is the verifiable proof I was grousing about? Basically we have the writers sincere (I'll concede that, kudos, my faith in the veracity of anonymous people on the internet has been improved a sliver) opinion that is based on talking to some people who all have a vested interest of one kind or another in selling the story. The recounted personal experience with amnesia is nice but strongly hints at bias.
Flintoff wrote above, "If YOU tried to stand up your scepticism you would find the names of the doctors, as I did - they weren't handed to me by the "studio" or the "publicity machine" - and you'd have talked to them. "
Ok, so name these doctors who diagnosed Bruce at the time. None were named in the article or in the film except one doctor who treated him a year later for an unrelated condition. Produce or refer to one official report of any kind documenting his illness or refer to one verifiable piece of evidence that is not familial hearsay.
Flintoff wrote above 'you can't prove somebody has forgotten something.' Well, apparently you can. Referring to Segal's article in The Washington Post, a simple MRI would do it but Murray considers it 'rude' to ask for one.
And in the context of things, this is weird, from Flintoff's article: "With 24 hours’ notice, I was told he didn’t want to see me. He didn’t need, or want, the publicity." Or maybe not so weird. The story was already unraveling in different papers.
Speaking to Flintoff, I'm not you. Your heartfelt opinion or experience is immeasureable to me. I've heard enough of them from people hawking everything from underwear to weapons of mass destruction. Proof needs to be more and there have been endless opportunities for such proof to be presented.
It might be impossible to do but I would be happy to be so satisfied whatever the result.
For now I'll just refer people to a more well informed doubter than I who presents I think a much deeper analysis than Flintoff provided. If it is at all possible I would love to hear Flintoff's comments on this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101940.html
Doug one can but admire your tenacity.
Personally I don't know whether or not this story is genuine, though I am inclined to believe its veracity in the absence of good evidence to the contrary. In this regard I find your links unconvincing. Your position would seem to go beyond a healthy scepticism to an unwarranted certainty of ...this fraud.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
[deleted]
dougpickering5: Anything anyone says will not convince you that his story is true. You accuse everyone that their "proof" is useless or fake. Well, let's see your brilliant research then! Show us what your brilliant mind has come up with, what answers have you found and, most importantly, show us the evidence that this has been faked.
I eagerly await.
"Kiri kiri kiri kiri kiri kiri!"
-Asami Yamazaki
Until the guy submits to any proper testing there is no evidence. I think that's his point. Come on. Year now and no doctors? What? I read all those articles. Just the filmmaker and friends chatting it up. Fake! Reporter is not an expert on mental health.
If it was true they could come up with the proof. They can't because it's fake or they like the controversy. It is film makers own fault people do not believe. They made this happen.
Hi from Newark!
Exactly. So you can't claim anything. What you can do, however, is asume. And that's what doug (and everyone else) is doing.
"Kiri kiri kiri kiri kiri kiri!"
-Asami Yamazaki
Quote: "Anything anyone says will not convince you that his story is true. "
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have requested repeatedly I'd like the name of one medical professional who originally diagnosed Bruce. Not someone who has recently heard about his symptoms second hand. That would go a long way to dispelling my doubts and it should be easy to produce.
An MRI or fMRI, non-invasive procedures that involve negligible side effects, could definitively prove Bruce's condition. At the least these should have been part of any legitimate diagnostic procedure or treatment and Bruce should have records of such.
Quote: "show us the evidence that this has been faked. "
Very hard to do when Bruce won't submit to any tests. Like Segal wrote in the Post, it's what potentially makes it such a quality hoax.
On the one hand, without Bruce's cooperation it is very hard to disprove. On the other hand, it should be ridiculously easy for Bruce to offer expert proof and he has not done so. Bruce should be swimming in medical records but instead of making any available Bruce and the filmmaker have gone to great lengths to offer proof that is completely lacking in substance, impartiality or first hand expertise.
The filmmaker huffs, pouts and throws tantrums when people question the credibility of his work buts says nothing about what should be the most readily available proof of his subject's history and condition.
John-Paul-3, thanks for coming forward in the face of all this skepticism. I wonder if you're still in touch with any of the family?
sharejohn-paul-3:
I also lost all my retrograde memory 9 years ago. I would love to talk to Doug. I related very closely to the documentary - my experience was frighteningly similar.
People who believe he is faking it are obviously cynical jerks. If they thought about it for more than 5 seconds, they'd realize how totally ridiculous it would be for anyone to try to fake total retrograde amnesia. I've been unable to find a single benefit to the condition.
If you are still in contact with Doug, would you mind giving him my e-mail address and asking him to contact me? I would appreciate it deeply.
Thank you in advance,
Beki
QUOTE: " I've been unable to find a single benefit to the condition. "
Doug Bruce came up with several benefits to be had from faking it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101940.html
At one time or another and for a variety of reasons people have faked having just about every condition there is. I sympathize with your history but your pat conclusions are too dismissive of the facts.
Being or not being a 'cynical jerk' has nothing to do with it. Given the evidence or willful lack thereof anyone should at least have serious doubts.
Side note, I am amazed at the number of posts on this thread from people who have no other post history. It's a little weird for the IMDB.
Maybe i should watch the film again, i could not watch it on telly last time and the last time was in the london film festival. will rent it and watch it again and i will see. i really remember the very annoying music....
sharejust saw this yesterday. im not gonna sit here and try to argue one way or the other but i have a question. how does a guy who supposedly has lost his memory, has no recollection of who he is, where he is or what he is doing still have a concept of Police? How did he know that he should go to this IDEA of “The Police” and that they would be able to help? I mean how does he know Policeman from garbage men and that one of those professions had been established to help citizens. And yet when he goes back to London after taking all these history courses, he is astonished, absolutely shocked, to see the crowds waiting to see The Changing of The Guard and to learn where the Prime Minister lives. And yes, the analogy to the infant is a bit of a reach. And the photography crap? That’s so subjective I don’t understand why we should all of a sudden be made to believe his “work” has so much more depth or emotional resonance. That came from his school’s chairman, who understands Doug’s situation, so of course he’s going to think all of a sudden Doug has had some enlightenment that allows him this crazy new artistic freedom and stuff. I mean come on, that’s completely subjective and just should not have been used to drive a point home. This movie only worked for me in the sense that we experienced the things that Doug did. We don’t know if this movie is true anymore than Doug knows whether any of these people in his life now are genuine. This is not a Discovery channel or national geographic type documentary because we simply didn’t learn anything. I was left as confused with all these people and experiences as Doug seemingly was. Nothing answered except that Doug knew some hot women.
shareI haven't seen the film, but this article from the Washington Post points out that there are medical ways of verifying total amnesia, tests which this guy hasn't taken and apparently refuses to take. This makes me doubt the authenticity of his story; you'd think that if he were for real, and these accusations of being a hoax were so upsetting to him, he'd have an MRI done and shut everybody up. I understand that he is well within his rights to refuse to undergo testing, but you'd think that since his director/best friend's career as a director could be on the line, he would submit. But, I guess I'll have to see the film before I decide, if I can ever find it. The article also sheds some light on the answers to other questions posted on this thread.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11954603/
Doug Pickering must feel pretty stupid. The enormously respected journalist he branded a fake here in the Unknown White Male forms discussion had his article printed in The Sunday Times magazine yesterday. It's a fantastic article full of facts, research and interviews. Sorry Doug, you've been exposed as someone with very bad instincts. You should no longer offer us your lame ill thought-through opinions.
like jamesmullinger, i just read john-paul-3's article with the unknown white male in the biggest selling broadsheet in britain. it was riveting. you were actually mentioned dougpickering, if you care to read it.
i hope you feel sorry for being so close minded, and quite frankly, rude.
Hi there,
I just saw the film yesterday. I don't want to comment here on whether I believed it or not, but I think both assumptions are fair. Therefore I don't see the need for grilling somebody who does not believe in the film being genuine. The user "dougpickering" was obviously wrong about the journalist, but that does not mean all he wrote was "closeminded". Also I found it a bit weird that he is publicly named and shamed in a Times-article. Obviously anybody could claim here in a forum he or she was a famous journalist.....so I don't see why it is so bad that he did not believe that. He was wrong about that.....so...? Yes, the one or other thing he wrote might not have been too polite, but, gosh, those opposing his view were no less rude.
As I am writing this weeks after the last post, it might even be that nobody will care to read that but it upsets me to see somebody, who has a point to make (even if one does not agree), being so grilled for it and publicly "hanged". Is is heartless to doubt? I see no need for that public blaming.....especially as he showed at occasions that he accpeted a good point made by the "other side".
Does anybody know about and psychological literature on that case? I am sure there will be reserach going on about it, so far I could not find scientific articles on it?
In any case, I was impressed by the film.
Yours Bruchbier
Hi,
I appreciate your comments bruchbier. I did think it was very strange that Flintoff bothered to name me but in my above response to his article I purposefully refrained from commenting on his motives. I don't live in his country and the only people I know who read it are ones I refered to it so it's no "shame" for me. Even if it was on the front page of my local paper I would likely still not be ashamed since if one reads his article and other later, more in depth and unbiased ones on the subject my arguements hold up pretty well.
As for some of the criticism leveled against me here none of it is too surprising. Given the circumstances of my misperception about Flintoffs identity I don't take any of it too seriously. I just hope nobody is distracted from the real issues being discussed.
I will continue to critically challenge people who tell me fantastic stories, expect me to pay to see the story and/or expect me to accept such stories on faith and sometimes I will do it in a "peevish" manner. In regards to Unknown White Male I think this habit has actually served me just fine.
dear doug pickering
i don't want to "name and shame" anybody.
i did call you peevish in my magazine story, but i also called myself priggish, which evens things up, i hope.
john-paul
Now the dust has settled and a close friend of someone involved in the making of the film has admitted to it being a great hoax- not that anyone who really watched the film could ever think otherwise -perhaps now we can all settle down
and watch real films and real documentaries.
Still it was great fun while it lasted- and as hoaxes go - not a bad one.
"a close friend of someone involved in the making of the film"?
Oh, well, I'm glad we've cleared *that* up without a shred of ambiguity or vague hearsay!
Sincerely, no worries.
Did you ever actually get the name of a doctor who originally diagnosed the guy? The name and any associated records or dates would help a lot. ?
I don't think the information exists and no other journalist alive seems to have it.
I'm a journo from Australia and, personally, I would be ashamed to put my name to this documentary. Real or fake, the problem is in the lack of research, information and credible spokespeople.
I found myself shaking my head far too often, and asking too many questions that I think the film makers should have anticipated.
A fascinating idea, but certainly not explored fully enough for my liking.
I would love to have the time and resources to research it more. Personally, I think it's a fake, but I would be more than happy to be proved wrong. The key word there is 'proved'- blind faith may be a good thing in religious circles but in journalism, it just validates poor research!!
Interesting thread by the way...
Because someone sent me a private message asking about this, yes, I am the original dougpickering5 mentioned in the news story cited above and yes, many months after I thought this story was over I changed my IMDB name to KorbenBackshot for completely unrelated reasons. My real name is still Doug Pickering and I still occasionally point out the news story to friends and acquaintances who have not seen it although I think few are actually interested.
share