Movie Case 39 Netflix

[Silvana Fleischacker]

Butit was a bizarre decision for the filmmakers to make without disclosing it, especially given how important audio is to the case. One crucial piece of evidence is a 911 call that Pan makes while ostensibly being tied up by her assailants. In the film, she is shown demonstrating how she was able to make the call while holding her phone at her waist. But the demonstration is awkward and not particularly credible. Given how important that audio is, it struck me as odd that the rest of the documentary would use manipulated audio.

Assuming AI was indeed used in this fashion, it feels like a line has been crossed here. Using AI to make promotional art for a fictional narrative film is one (already objectionable) thing. But to manipulate pre-existing photos in a documentary feels not only completely unnecessary (people understand that photos can be blurry sometimes!) but an own goal that calls into question the filmmakers credibility as a whole. How can we trust what is presented if even photographs that are ostensibly part of the historical record have been manipulated so blatantly and without any disclosure?

The other day, I did something that usually ends in mild disappointment: I took a look at what was on Netflix\u2019s \u201CMost Watched\u201D chart, selected the number one film on the list and pressed \u201Cplay.\u201D

In this case, it was a true crime documentary called \u201CWhat Jennifer Did.\u201D The documentary chronicles the story of Jennifer Pan, a Canadian woman whose parents were brutalized in a home invasion in 2010. Multiple assailants entered Pan\u2019s home at night and Pan\u2019s mother was murdered, while her dad survived being shot near his right eye and had to be put into an induced coma. It was grisly stuff.

Titling your documentary What Jennifer Did kind of removes any suspense from whether or not Pan was involved in the crime (Not since We Bought a Zoo has a film title been more spoilery). Beyond that, the documentary itself wasn\u2019t particularly revelatory, adding very little to what one might glean from watching a YouTube video or reading a Wikipedia entry about the same event. There are no interviews with any of the main subjects: Pan herself, Jennifer\u2019s ex-boyfriend, who seemed to be one of the key people behind the attack, or any of the assailants. The end result is a piece of fluffy copaganda with just the barest of additional context about Pan\u2019s life and motivations.

There was one thing that stuck out to me though: the film very obviously enhanced the audio of its interrogations and did not disclose it. Since the film didn\u2019t have an interview with Pan herself, footage of Pan in interrogations is copiously used. But the audio from these scenes shows obvious signs of tampering (you can hear excerpts of it below in the trailer for the film).

I\u2019m no sound expert but I have been working with podcasting and microphones for over 15 years. I\u2019ve also watched more than my share of true crime documentaries, many of which feature interrogation footage. Even people with casual knowledge of these topics can probably detect that there\u2019s something unnatural about the way that the people in this film sound. You simply cannot achieve audio that is of the fidelity level found in What Jennifer Dead without having a high-quality microphone placed near a subject\u2019s mouth (which the footage clearly shows is not present). Some kind of enhancement \u2014 possibly powered by AI \u2014 had to have been used.

On some level, I understand why the filmmakers might have wanted to go this route. There\u2019s so little footage of Pan herself beyond the interrogation scenes, and I think the filmmakers recognized it would be tough watch unless they sweetened the audio a bit for discerning ears.

At a couple points in the movie, we are shown photos of Pan before the murder took place. These photos show some odd digital artifacts that have led many people to believe they are AI-enhanced (This post on Threads has a good summary of the specific path the filmmakers likely took). It appears the filmmakers took actual photos from Pan\u2019s life and used AI to sharpen them and fill in details. Presumably this was done so they would be more presentable in high definition/4K for Netflix\u2019s audience.

I\u2019m not sure what the response from Netflix will be to this matter. But if all of the above is accurate, then it\u2019s clear that filmmakers already have no compunction about using AI in scenarios we previously would have deemed totally unacceptable. Only a sufficient and sustained cultural backlash is likely to change that.

Speaking of AI-fueled backlashes, A24 is making waves this week for using AI to make promotional posters for Alex Garland\u2019s Civil War. A24 is a company that has done enormous good in creating passionate film fans by being friendly to unique creators and auteurs. Thus, it\u2019s all the more bizarre that they\u2019d invite controversy in this way given how AI-related sentiment is trending in the artistic community. I\u2019d recommend \u2018s piece on the matter here.

I\u2019ve been livestreaming a bunch of my gameplaying recently so I decided to launch a YouTube channel for it. Nothing special or edited. It\u2019s just a channel where you can watch me play videogames live if you\u2019d like, often with some other cool folks. I\u2019m currently playing a lot of Helldivers 2, with some Call of Duty: Warzone and Balatro in there as well. I\u2019m also on Twitch if that\u2019s your thing (I stream to both simultaneously).

On this week\u2019s Decoding TV, we talked about the first few episodes of Fallout (a really great adaptation!) and the 9th episode of Shogun (one of the greatest TV episodes in recent memory). Subscribe here.

A few weeks back, I was talking to a colleague about wrapping-up my Worst-Case Scenario series. In each installment, I\u2019ve examined the vulnerabilities of the big-entertainment companies (so far, I\u2019ve covered Apple TV+, Amazon, Disney, Comcast and Warner Bros. Discovery; meanwhile my worries for all of Hollywood were here. And every scenario got worse in 2022.) To be clear, these aren\u2019t predictions: each analysis is meant to provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each company fighting to survive (and thrive) in Hollywood.

So far, I\u2019ve avoided the buzziest \u2014 and formerly biggest \u2014 company, Netflix. (In terms of market capitalization, Disney has since surpassed it and Comcast including the cable biz is also bigger.)

My colleague asked if Netflix could even have a worst-case scenario. Wasn\u2019t 2022 its worst case? Let\u2019s recall: starting in January 2022, its end-of-year earnings report for 2021 missed its quarterly subscriber additions and the stock took a plunge. On April 19, 2022, reporting on its first quarter of 2022, the company reported subscriber losses and forecast losing another two million globally in Q2, shattering its fairy tale growth. The results were punishing.

In a sign of how big Netflix is, its stock plunge dragged down the entire sector. All the studio and tech stocks got hammered. But by year\u2019s end, as former CEO Reed Hastings rode off into the sunset, Netflix had rebounded-ish (the stock is still 50 percent off its all-time high).

Since last year, it\u2019s gone from the brash newcomer upending how things are done to\u2026 a cost-conscious entertainment company that features live-events and advertising? It\u2019s basically moved into middle age, like a boring old studio.

Usually, I go through each company\u2019s different business units, but Netflix just does streaming, and globally. The better way to look at Netflix is in terms of the big bets it\u2019s made on streaming\u2019s future.

LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

A year ago I attended Certified Agile Leadership 1 (CAL1) training. As preparation for the course, we were to prepare a case study of a few suggested companies, such as Netflix. The facilitator of CAL1 focused on company culture, stressing this idea throughout the leadership training.

I was fascinated to learn that Netflix has a strong focus on its culture. It describes itself as being in a creative-inventive market. No one can doubt their success. So I was quite curious to research the company and see what I could learn.

The internet offers a unique challenge: how do we ensure that all of our digital products, services, and communications are accessible to people with disabilities? What are companies required to do to accommodate such users?

Federal disability laws still await comprehensive updates to keep pace with the digital world. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was set to receive input from the DOJ in 2018. However, such plans were dismissed in 2017 by the Trump administration and the DOJ indicated it would not give official guidance regarding website accessibility under the ADA.

3a8082e126