쉐도잉 연습: The Last Documentary: You Can See Everything - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

각 모드는 전체 화면 연습실로 열립니다.

273 문장

문장이 너무 짧거나 길면 Edit를 눌러 조정하세요.

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.

앱 다운로드

유창하게 말하는 데 필요한 모든 것

AI 발음 평가문장마다 점수 확인

IPA 발음 연습모든 소리 마스터

단어 학습나만의 단어장 만들기

단어 게임놀면서 외우기

QR 스캔

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 말하기 레슨은 영상 “The Last Documentary: You Can See Everything”을(를) 바탕으로 합니다. 가장 자주 반복되는 단어는 다음과 같습니다: representation, documentary, movie, Holmes, Elizabeth. 이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 273개와 단어 3729개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 23:32입니다. 화자는 분당 약 158단어로, 일상 대화에 가까운 자연스러운 속도로 말합니다. 단어의 86%가 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속합니다. 나머지는 연습 전에 미리 확인해 두세요.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 익혀 둘 만한 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
documentary 명사	/ˌdɒk.jʊˈmɛn.tɹi/	다큐멘터리, 기록영화
actress 명사	/ˈæk.tɹɪs/	여배우, 여우
layer 명사	/ˈleɪ̯ɚ/	층
narrative 명사	/ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/	설화, 이야기
fiction 명사	/ˈfɪkʃən/	소설, 픽션
discover 동사	/dɪˈskʌvə/	발견하다
objective 명사	/ɒbˈd͡ʒɛk.tɪv/	목적
neutral 형용사	/ˈnuː.tɹəl/	중립의
portray 동사	/poɹˈtɹeɪ̯/	묘사하다
interviewer 명사	/ˈɪntɚvjuɚ/	면접관
defend 동사	/dɪˈfɪnd/	방어하다
shock 명사	/ʃɔk/	충격, 쇼크
capture 동사	/ˈkæp.(t)ʃɚ/	포획하다
participate 동사	/pɑːˈtɪs.ɪ.peɪt/	참가하다
arrive 동사	/əˈɹaɪv/	도착하다

영상에 나오는 구동사

단어	뜻
bring up 동사	꺼내다

따라 말해 볼 만한 문장

영상에 나오는 짧고 완결된 문장으로, 일상 대화에서 그대로 쓸 수 있습니다:

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?

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	is known · is taken · cannot be fully captured
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	have been · have lived · I've believed
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	people that are · people, which is · someone who is

주의할 발음

화자는 you're, don't, can't 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 45번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“th” 소리: theater /ˈθi(ə)tɚ/, theatrical /θiˈætɹɪkəl/, truthful /ˈtɹuːθ.f(ə)l/
“sh”와 “zh” 소리: representation /ˌɹɛp.ɹə.zɛnˈteɪ.ʃən/, fiction /ˈfɪkʃən/, shock /ʃɔk/, capture /ˈkæp.(t)ʃɚ/, participation /pɑːˌtɪs.ɪˈpeɪ.ʃən/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: documentary /ˌdɒk.jʊˈmɛn.tɹi/, representation /ˌɹɛp.ɹə.zɛnˈteɪ.ʃən/, realism /ˈɹi.əlɪzəm/, participate /pɑːˈtɪs.ɪ.peɪt/, participation /pɑːˌtɪs.ɪˈpeɪ.ʃən/

한국어 화자가 어려워하는 소리:

/f/ — ㅍ(/p/)으로 바꾸지 말고 윗니를 아랫입술에 대기: fiction /ˈfɪkʃən/, defend /dɪˈfɪnd/, confuse /kənˈfjuːz/, founder /ˈfaʊ̯n.dəː/, sufficient /səˈfɪʃənt/
/v/ — ㅂ(/b/)과 구별하기: narrative /ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/, discover /dɪˈskʌvə/, objective /ɒbˈd͡ʒɛk.tɪv/, interviewer /ˈɪntɚvjuɚ/, arrive /əˈɹaɪv/
/z/ — ㅈ이 아니라 성대를 울리는 /s/: representation /ˌɹɛp.ɹə.zɛnˈteɪ.ʃən/, expose /ɪkˈspoʊz/, realism /ˈɹi.əlɪzəm/, mechanism /ˈmɛk.ə.nɪ.zəm/, hesitate /ˈhɛz.ə.teɪt/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
0.75배속으로 한 문장씩 섀도잉을 시작하고, 익숙해지면 보통 속도로 돌아갑니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, documentary, actress, layer 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: The Last Documentary: You Can See Everything - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

앱 다운로드

추천 영상

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)

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

What No One Told Ethan Hawke About Being Famous

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

John Berger / Ways of Seeing , Episode 1 (1972)

Why I Work So Hard Even Though I’ve Already "Made It"