シャドーイング練習: The Last Documentary: You Can See Everything - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

各モードは全画面の練習ルームで開きます。

273 文

文が短すぎたり長すぎる場合は、Editをタップして調整してください。

I have been extremely busy in the past few months.

And so I finally, after way too late, finally saw the movie, you can see everything that everyone was telling me to go see.

And now I understand why.

It is quite brilliant.

It is a brilliant piece of storytelling.

And it is a brilliant questioning about the reason or why is it that we engage in representation?

And how is it that we can do that?

That is, what purposes can we accomplish in the act of representation?

So what I want to do is, of course, you know, this is first going to be full of spoilers.

So, you know, always my reviews are always full of spoilers.

I want to go a little bit through the movie, not too much,

but mostly talk about some of the implications of what the movie is doing

so that you can understand what is it saying about the question of representation? what does that mean for symbolism

and what can we learn from that in terms of people that are engaged in symbolic interpretation

this is Jonathan Pajot welcome to the symbolic world

So the movie is, of course, a documentary on Elizabeth Holmes, the founder, CEO of Terranos,

who is got these documentarists to come to her house.

Nathan Fielder, of all people, which is that's already a very strange idea

that she got someone who is known for kind of trolling

and being a jokester to come

and spend the last 30 days with her family the last three days before she goes to prison.

Of course, the idea is that you can see everything.

They, at first, have this pretense that the filmmakers will have access to their entire lives, will be there in their house, living there.

Nathan sleeps in the house and that they'll be able to see everything.

And therefore, they should be able to transparently see the dynamics of the family, the dynamics of what's motivating Elizabeth Holmes.

And this, of course, is taken to extremes

In the early scenes of the movie, there's a pretty shocking scene that you don't expect, which is you see her husband naked in the shower.

It's rare in American cinema that they kind of show full male nudity that way.

So it's a little shocking because you're like, what is it?

Why are they showing this in the documentary?

What's the point?

And then as you watch, you realize that, in fact, you know, this kind of full access capacity to see everything,

almost like the pornographic gesture, doesn't mean that you see everything.

In fact, it is a kind of veil for trying to see what is true and that, in fact, the access to factuality

and the kind of access to data does not mean that you will be able to understand what is happening.

That is, the question that you're asking, the reason why you're investigating cannot be fully captured in the transparency and access to the facts.

So this is, of course, something that is very much the theme of the entire movie.

As the Fielder character starts to investigate, you know, you also, as a person watching the movie,

you're taken through these stages where at first you have the sense that this woman is,

you know, obviously manipulative and is trying to kind of control the narrative,

is trying to represent herself as being completely innocent and maybe is also trying to seduce the interviewer.

And so this first sense, you were like, oh yeah, this makes sense.

This is what is happening in the story.

Then it shifts and suddenly you start to realize that her husband is possibly manipulating her,

is controlling the narrative, is trying ultimately to start, he starts gatekeeping the access to her.

And so you start to question that.

And then ultimately, the whole thing becomes a meta experience where you realize the documentary itself is trying to make you realize

that you're watching a documentary and the mechanisms of the documentary are exposed.

They're already there at the beginning, but we're so used to watching documentaries that we often don't question.

Why am I seeing this?

You know, why?

Why am I seeing the interviewer?

Why are there scenes of him, you know, in bed trying to demonstrate certain things?

So he realized that the entire thing is almost like a theatrical performance

and there are many layers of theater that are layered on top of each other.

There is Elizabeth Holmes that might be pretending.

There's her husband who is also might be pretending.

Then there's the actress who played Elizabeth Holmes in the original TV show that featured her,

The Dropout, being used as an actress to represent the moments that the documentary...

guy doesn't have access to.

And so there's this new layer that is this kind of diving into the actor who played her in the series,

now playing her again in a different guise.

And then finally at the end, you have this final layer where you totally realize the documentary itself might also be a kind of fiction

that is motivated possibly by Nathan Fielder's affection for Elizabeth Holmes

as the actress towards the end of the movie is questioning his participation in this movie

and the way that he's trying to portray Holmes.

We cut to a scene where you see him

and Elizabeth Holmes swimming in the water together

and them acting in a way that honestly is very strange for a married woman to act.

She's kind of touching him.

She's pulling him in the water.

There's a kind of weird intimacy that they are dealing with.

And so the filmmaker himself is somewhat trying to question his own motivation in portraying the movie.

And so when the movie ends, you end up in a kind of maze of mirrors where

you don't really know what is true in the sense of the investigative aspect of what is true.

You know, if this documentary was there to show the truth of something, that is, is she guilty?

Is she the one? almost like a court would do,

then it utterly fails and it also exposes the problem of using representation to try to get to this capacity,

to get to the facts, right?

You know, we have lived in a world where we use fiction

that is based on real events and that fiction affects the way that we understand the original events that are being portrayed.

We are also used to the documentary, to reality TV, to the possibility of representing ourselves, representing ourselves, representing others through social media,

through all these different means.

And what the documentary is able to expose is the way in

which this actually dissimulates that it is not so much an act of revelation of factuality, but it actually dissimulates, you could say,

the intention of why it is that we are showing things.

And this is, I think, a really wonderful kind of exploration.

I think that it will send long ways in culture

if people are able to pay attention to the problem

that it is exposing and how it is exposing the fact that when representation is used,

it is used to bring about an experience and it is used in some ways to make you experience a story.

And that is very different from the fact -based notion of exposing what really happened, you could say.

And in the movie, they do it in an amazing way where they demonstrate on several occasions

and at several layers of the documentary how if you change only one word in a sentence, you can change the meaning of that word.

And so there's a New York Times article at the beginning of the movie

that is brought up where Elizabeth Holmes says that they changed one word in her statement, which has to do with the fact that,

you know, in the New York Times article, it says that the people believed in the character she made for herself.

I forget exactly how it's phrased.

And then Elizabeth Holmes said, I didn't say for myself, I didn't like say that I myself made that character,

100

that is a character that was made, right?

101

Like they believed in the character.

102

So just these two words, this like little change in the statement completely changes the meaning.

103

Then later in the movie,

104

when Elizabeth Holmes says that her machine can do the things that she said,

105

Fielder realizes that what she means by can is the possibility.

106

And so the machine, because it's a platform, it has the capacity to basically analyze any disease,

107

but it doesn't mean that it's actually doing it now.

108

You have to basically fill up the data so that the machine will come to do it.

109

And so she seems to imply that when she says that the machine can do this, she means in potential.

110

And what people are hearing, and one of the reasons why she was condemned is

111

that what people understood that was meant by that was that in actuality that the machine can do this.

112

And so just now it's even the same word, that even the same word with one little difference of interpretation of that one word,

113

you actually totally flip the meaning of the sentence.

114

You completely invert the meaning of the sentence.

115

And this, of course, is taken up later when Fielder himself seems to misremember one word in her testimony in the prison,

116

you know, and he hesitates.

117

And not only does he hesitate in the meaning of the word, but when the actress is playing the text the way

118

that she plays the text will affect the meaning and the understanding

119

and so as she reads the lines he says no no don't say it

120

that way and then she changes the way she says it

121

and it completely changes the meaning of what it is

122

that is happening and

123

so what the movie is doing is of course almost in in the most radical kind of post -modern way

124

it is exposing the impossibility of representation to be mimetic in an objective and completely neutral sense.

125

And there is even a suggestion, something that I've believed for a very long time,

126

which is that because realism in the sense of either painterly realism

127

or realism in terms of the way that movies are made or the way that documentaries are made,

128

because realism in some ways hides its artifice, right?

129

It uses an artifice of spontaneity.

130

It makes you feel like you're watching real life and that you're watching something that isn't controlled, isn't edited, isn't directed.

131

Then it actually comes closer to lying because it dissimulates its artifice in a kind of realism.

132

And so there are other methods of representation that,

133

of course, do not pretend to be accurate portrayals of something that happened, but rather use representation for other means.

134

A simple example of that in history is, of course, when Plutarch writes his Lives of Great Men.

135

His purpose in writing the Lives of Great Men is not an accurate portrayal of the person,

136

especially the fact that they lived hundreds of years before him, but that, in fact, the purpose of the representation is to create models

137

that people can look at and identify with and follow.

138

And in doing

139

that, the use of representation is aimed at a different purpose

140

than what we tend to think in terms of kind of reductionist materialist.

141

We believe that the purpose of representation is accuracy.

142

And this is extremely important at this moment.

143

It's important as you kind of think back at the way in

144

which I talk about Bible stories or the way if you look at how icons are represented,

145

what you realize is that in many traditional modes of representation, whether it's icons, whether it's ancient storytelling, even if it's

146

Hamlet or the way that Shakespeare told stories, the artifice of representation is aimed at something different,

147

is aimed at the manifestation of truths that are deeper than factuality,

148

the manifestation of truths that are there to resonate with us in terms of models or counter models,

149

in terms of things that we can identify with and

150

that we can feel discussed for or that we can be aligned to.

151

And that this honestly ends up being a more truthful mode of representation and you could say a...

152

A less deceitful mode of representation,

153

you know, and the movie is very fascinating because it feels something like you could say it's like the last documentary.

154

I'm not saying there won't be documentaries after it, but it is a documentary that fully exposes the mechanism of documentary making

155

and questions the notion that documentaries themselves can lead us towards factuality.

156

It's a kind of deconstruction of the documentary process,

157

but in doing so, it might also open space for another type of documentary telling,

158

a kind of self -aware documentary where the documentary can be

159

used in some ways consciously without trying to deceive people as a way in which to create stories that people resonate with.

160

You know, there's an amazing moment in the story where, I mean, there's so many meta levels.

161

You can't even stop seeing them once you start to see them.

162

There's an amazing scene where the actress, Amanda Seyfried, who plays Elizabeth Holmes in the TV series,

163

The Dropout, but then now is playing her again for the documentary, plays Elizabeth Holmes in prison,

164

telling Nathan Fielder how Amanda Seyfried's representation of her,

165

in the dropout was extremely damaging to her. And so, I mean, can you even count the levels of representation

166

that are being represented in this and the levels of irony and of twist that are being represented in this moment?

167

And as she's representing Elizabeth Holmes,

168

that is, uh, complaining, not complaining or expressing how much pain and suffering she's experienced,

169

um, because of that actress's representation of her.

170

Then you cut back to the actress in the documentary who is defending herself, right.

171

And trying to defend the use of the, uh, the, the, the thing that she did, the fact that, you know, her acting her, you know,

172

that the things that she represented, obviously they weren't there.

173

They can't know what happened, She even says, well, that could have happened.

174

Right.

175

And it is captured, you know, that even though I don't know how she lied and how she pretended, we know that she did.

176

And therefore, representing her in this different in these different ways is completely appropriate.

177

And then as you're watching, you realize, I mean, at least I kept asking myself, I mean, is that also a script?

178

That is, are the parts of the documentary that are meant

179

that when the actress is being herself and is speaking to Fielder, was that scripted?

180

Was that planned?

181

Or is that truly spontaneous?

182

And there's absolutely no way to know that.

183

And you know that how anybody who's participated in a documentary, I participate in documentaries where the documentarist tries to guide you and tries to say,

184

oh, well, maybe you could say this because you know that it'll fit in in his narrative.

185

It can be very frustrating, but this is obviously how documentaries are made.

186

And so you keep jumping out of the documentary if you're very attentive and you keep asking yourself, you know,

187

how far removed do I have to stand outside of this experience to be able to wholly realize what really is happening?

188

And the answer is you can't.

189

You can't step far enough outside the documentary to understand what is really happening

190

and how much the director is playing a part in the artifice

191

and how much the interviewer and how much the actress

192

and how much Elizabeth Holmes and how much of her husband are playing parts in this representation.

193

And so the whole thing is this fractal kind of deconstruction of representation in ways

194

that are so surprising that these things came together.

195

And a whole level, a whole layer of how this representation is there is this

196

whole other layer of how the husband pretends to be Elizabeth Holmes

197

and how the husband also has made an AI version of Elizabeth Holmes

198

that he has in his house as this giant screen that he can talk to and engage with.

199

And he sees that it's completely normal.

200

And as if he doesn't actually need to be in a relationship with his actual wife,

201

you know, this AI and his internal representation of her is sufficient for him to be in communion with her.

202

So it brings this image of representation and the accuracy of representation, not only in terms of the documentary,

203

but even in terms of the mental images that we have of others,

204

the mental representation that we have of the other person and how we in some ways are engaging in that mental representation,

205

even obviously as we are talking to the person in front of us, that even as we're speaking to them,

206

we are also at the same time engaging with the mental representation of that person.

207

And so the ultimate finality is that the purpose of communion, right?

208

And the purpose of being in a relationship, the purpose of telling stories, the purpose of representing something cannot be accurate portrayal

209

because you can never step enough outside of your experience to get to the objective portrayal in the first place, right?

210

And the whole frame, even the frame of the documentary, and of course, even the frame,

211

you could say, of the trial is not really to arrive at a completely neutral, objective, you could say, representation of reality.

212

But even the trial itself is pointed.

213

That is, we're trying to discover some truth.

214

And the means by which we're going to represent

215

and to mediate these facts is always going to come together towards the discovering of something particular,

216

like of moving towards a direction.

217

And of course, a court has its own means of doing that.

218

And sometimes we confuse the way in which the court does it,

219

which obviously sometimes misses, but still has developed the right way of presenting evidence

220

and of doing it in a forensic manner that can help lead to a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

221

But sometimes we pretend, we think that the social media and media representations are equivalent to the court.

222

And we've seen that, of course, in the way in which

223

You know, people often go to the court of public opinion during the Me Too era.

224

You saw a lot of that where people would basically use narrative, use representation in order to create certain effects.

225

And people were confusing that with the way in

226

which a court functions and the way in which you can arrive at an actual, truly, you could say, guilty verdict in a legal manner.

227

And so we have to, you know, as we watch the movie, you know, these are the questions that are still kind of haunting me.

228

thinking about, you know, what then can be the purpose of documentary?

229

You know, is it only propaganda?

230

Because this is, of course, I think one of the problems that the movie is exposing is that,

231

in fact, you can manipulate reality, right?

232

If your purpose is to discover what's real,

233

the mimetic element of the documentary can actually simulate a narrative in order to bring about a conclusion

234

that ends up being more something like propaganda.

235

And so how do we get out of it in a documentary purpose?

236

You know, that's why I tend to like narrative storytelling more, that is, films and books and,

237

you know, ancient stories, because already in its own representation,

238

there's a manner in which we're pointing towards a purpose that is the manifestation of true patterns, right?

239

The participation in them

240

And so I don't know what the future of documentary

241

Storytelling can be After this kind of movie

242

It has to be probably

243

More clearly about inspiration

244

Maybe about trying to kind of Help people see something beautiful

245

That they can follow, that they can emulate

246

Or something that they can despise

247

Or criticize, but also

248

Always understanding that it's always

249

It's not just the facts

250

That you have to be able to, that it can't just be about the understanding of new neutral factuality,

251

but using factuality and weaving it together towards something

252

that can inspire us or help us see a truth that is higher than the factuality.

253

And so it leaves me very puzzled about, you know, what a documentary can be, but at the same time,

254

it is an absolute gem of a movie.

255

If you haven't seen it, I definitely recommend it you know you there are

256

so many more questions to be asked

257

and there are all these levels of of representation

258

that stack on top of each other um

259

that really leave you disoriented at the end not sure of what it is

260

that you have actually watched and not sure exactly what it is

261

that just happened to you and

262

so uh i hope this was useful this was just a few thoughts on the subject

263

and uh thanks for your attention everybody and i'll talk to you very soon bye -bye hello Hello, everyone.

264

I'm excited to announce that the fourth book in our Tales for Once and Ever series is out, The Valant Little Tailor.

265

This was one of my favorite stories as a child.

266

It's a story of trickery and of giant killing.

267

And if you get it now until November 21st, you will get a free copy of the audiobook read by myself.

268

So I cannot wait for people to see it.

269

It is beautifully illustrated by Eloise Scherer, who had illustrated our Jack and the Fallen Giants.

270

And you will see that she did an amazing job.

271

It feels like these illustrations are getting better and better at every book.

272

So I cannot wait for you to have it in your hands

273

and especially to know how your children react to this new story.

アプリをダウンロード

流暢に話すために必要なすべて

AI発音採点文ごとに採点

IPA練習すべての音をマスター

単語学習自分の単語帳を作る

単語ゲーム遊びながら覚える

QRをスキャン

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

このレッスンの語彙とスピーキングのポイント

このスピーキングレッスンは、動画「The Last Documentary: You Can See Everything」を教材にしています。繰り返し出てくる語は次のとおりです：representation, documentary, movie, Holmes, Elizabeth。この動画には、シャドーイング用の文が273文、単語が3729語あります。音声の長さは23:32です。話す速さは1分あたり約158語で、日常会話に近い自然なペースです。単語の86%は英語の頻出3,000語に含まれます。残りは練習の前に確認しておきましょう。

この動画の重要語彙

動画に出てくる覚えておきたい単語15語を、発音と意味つきで紹介します。

単語	発音	意味
documentary 名詞	/ˌdɒk.jʊˈmɛn.tɹi/	ドキュメンタリー, 記録映画
actress 名詞	/ˈæk.tɹɪs/	女優
expose 動詞	/ɪkˈspoʊz/	晒す, 暴く
layer 名詞	/ˈleɪ̯ɚ/	層, 膜
narrative 名詞	/ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/	物語
realism 名詞	/ˈɹi.əlɪzəm/	現実主義, 写実主義
fiction 名詞	/ˈfɪkʃən/	フィクション, 小説
discover 動詞	/dɪˈskʌvə/	発見する, 見つける
objective 名詞	/ɒbˈd͡ʒɛk.tɪv/	目標, 目的
neutral 形容詞	/ˈnuː.tɹəl/	中立の
interviewer 名詞	/ˈɪntɚvjuɚ/	インタビュアー, 会見者
defend 動詞	/dɪˈfɪnd/	守る, 防ぐ
shock 名詞	/ʃɔk/	衝撃, ショック
capture 動詞	/ˈkæp.(t)ʃɚ/	捕獲する
participate 動詞	/pɑːˈtɪs.ɪ.peɪt/	参加する

動画に出てくる句動詞

単語	意味
bring up 動詞	育てる
fill up 動詞	満たす

繰り返し練習したい文

動画に出てくる短く完結した文です。日常会話でそのまま使えます。

That is, what purposes can we accomplish in the act of representation?
Why am I seeing this?
Why am I seeing the interviewer?
I forget exactly how it's phrased.
You know, is it only propaganda?

この動画の文法

話し手がよく使っている文型を、動画の実際の表現とともに紹介します。

文型	動画での表現
受動態 be + 過去分詞 — 誰がするかより、何が起きるかに焦点を当てる	is known · is taken · cannot be fully captured
現在完了形 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去の出来事が今も関係している	have been · have lived · I've believed
関係詞節 who / which + 節 — 人や物について情報を加える	people that are · people, which is · someone who is

注意したい発音

話し手はyou're, don't, can'tなど、短縮形や弱形を45回使っています。聞こえたとおりの短い形で発音しましょう。

「th」の音: theater /ˈθi(ə)tɚ/, theatrical /θiˈætɹɪkəl/, truthful /ˈtɹuːθ.f(ə)l/
「sh」と「zh」の音: representation /ˌɹɛp.ɹə.zɛnˈteɪ.ʃən/, fiction /ˈfɪkʃən/, shock /ʃɔk/, capture /ˈkæp.(t)ʃɚ/, participation /pɑːˌtɪs.ɪˈpeɪ.ʃən/
長い単語（アクセントの位置に注意）: documentary /ˌdɒk.jʊˈmɛn.tɹi/, representation /ˌɹɛp.ɹə.zɛnˈteɪ.ʃən/, realism /ˈɹi.əlɪzəm/, participate /pɑːˈtɪs.ɪ.peɪt/, participation /pɑːˌtɪs.ɪˈpeɪ.ʃən/

日本語話者が苦手な音：

/r/ と /l/ の区別 — /l/ は舌先を歯茎につけ、/r/ はどこにもつけない: realism /ˈɹi.əlɪzəm/, portrayal /ˌpɔɹˈtɹeɪ.əl/, neutral /ˈnuː.tɹəl/, illustrate /ˈɪl.əˌstɹeɪt/, radical /ˈɹædɪkəl/
/v/ — /b/ にならないように、上の歯を下唇に当てる: narrative /ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/, discover /dɪˈskʌvə/, objective /ɒbˈd͡ʒɛk.tɪv/, interviewer /ˈɪntɚvjuɚ/, arrive /əˈɹaɪv/
/f/ — 「フ」ではなく、上の歯と下唇で出す: fiction /ˈfɪkʃən/, defend /dɪˈfɪnd/, confuse /kənˈfjuːz/, founder /ˈfaʊ̯n.dəː/, sufficient /səˈfɪʃənt/

この動画での練習方法

まず声を出さずに動画を最後まで聞き、知らない単語をメモします。
まず0.75倍速で一文ずつシャドーイングし、慣れてきたら通常の速度に戻します。
自分の声を録音して元の音声と比べます。documentary, actress, exposeなどの単語に特に注意しましょう。

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由

シャドーイング（Shadowing）は、もともとプロの通訳者養成プログラムで開発された言語学習法で、多言語習得者として知られるDr. Alexander Arguelles によって広く普及されました。方法はシンプルですが非常に効果的：ネイティブスピーカーの英語を聞きながら、1〜2秒の遅延で声に出してすぐに繰り返す——まるで「影（shadow）」のように話者を追いかけます。文法ドリルや受動的なリスニングと異なり、シャドーイングは脳と口の筋肉が同時にリアルタイムで英語を処理・再現することを強制します。研究により、発音精度、抑揚、リズム、連音、リスニング力、そして会話の流暢さが大幅に向上することが確認されています。IELTSスピーキング対策や自然な英語コミュニケーションを目指す方に特におすすめです。

シャドーイングのやり方: ステップ別の完全ガイドを読む →

シャドーイング練習: The Last Documentary: You Can See Everything - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

アプリをダウンロード

おすすめ動画

The Odyssey : the only Christopher Nolan interview you need to watch

The SYMBOLISM, MEANING, and BEAUTY of La La Land | EXPLAINED

Are We Living Inside an Alien Control System?

ENGLISH SPEECH | AMAL CLOONEY: The Price of Truth (English Subtitles)

The Lie You Tell Every Day

Gary’s Economics Has Quit…or Has He?

The REAL reason China built so much

Jennifer Lawrence Cannot Handle Jack Whitehall's Poop Story | The Graham Norton Show

SHUTTER ISLAND (2010) Breakdown | Ending Explained, Easter Eggs, Hidden Details & Things You Missed

Anne Hathaway Rewatches The Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada & More | Vanity Fair

How Does Money Factor into Your Life's Purpose

I Don't F*cking Believe This