‘The Mandela Effect Phenomenon’ is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen
A new documentary looks at the phenomenon of people misremembering things from the past- and bathes the concept in embarrassing, conspiratorial nonsense.
Here’s what I’ve never understood about the Mandela Effect: The story goes that some people think they remember Nelson Mandela dying at some point in the 1980s when he was still imprisoned in South Africa. Therefore, they were surprised when Mandela died, for real, in 2013, and something must have happened to explain that.
But… Mandela was in the news a lot in the intervening years! He won the Nobel Peace Prize, ended South African apartheid, was elected president of South Africa, and served in that office for five years. Two different biopics were made about him. For the last 30 years of his life, Nelson Mandela was nothing less than one of the most famous people in the world.
So, what’s the explanation? Is some large group of people, say, confusing Mandela with Steve Biko, another South African anti-apartheid activist who really did die in prison and was the subject of a biopic, Cry Freedom, which came out in 1987?
If someone says they were surprised in 2013 that Nelson Mandela hadn’t died 20 years earlier, what they’re really saying is, “I don’t follow the news, and I’m generally ignorant about world events.”
Or is there another explanation- that some amorphous “they” intervened at some point to change history?
This and similar phenomena are explored in The Mandela Effect Phenomenon, an absolutely laughable documentary that landed on VOD on July 9. The documentary examines historical misrememberings involving Mandela’s death, the spelling of “Berenstain Bears,” and various famous movie lines.
Is historical memory faulty, with parodies and pop culture references sometimes bleeding in with the historical memory? Or is something more nefarious going on? And what does that nefarious thing have to do with the Large Hadron Collider?
The film posits a bunch of bonkers, ridiculous conspiracy theories about someone intervening to change history at some point. One theory is that the Large Hadron Collider somehow opened a portal to a different dimension which, among other things, changed the spelling of “JIF” peanut butter and various film one-liners.
The Mandela Effect Phenomenon was directed by Robert Kiviat, who’s spent much of his career making films about aliens and other conspiracies; the Alien Autopsy pseudo-documentary from the ‘90s was him.
The question of why so many people remember things inaccurately is interesting and worthy of study. But this documentary jumps to the wildest, most ridiculous conclusions, without coming anywhere close to making a convincing case. There’s also talk that “we’re living in a simulation,” the favorite theory of all of the dumbest people you know.
Another big flaw: If there’s a plot to change history and do it in an underhanded manner, why aren’t they changing more important things than movie lines or whether or not Sinbad played a wizard in a movie called Shazam?
The film also spends a lot of time on movie quotes, which many people remember as different from how they were actually said in the movie.
The line in The Empire Strikes Back is “No, I am your father,” not “Luke, I am your father.”
We’re asked why subsequent commercials, pop culture references, and parodies have used the “Luke” version—I think maybe people are remembering the commercials! Why did James Earl Jones, in guest-starring on Two and a Half Men, say, “Luke, I am your father”? Probably because the writer of that episode remembered it the (wrong) way.
Even weirder is the idea that “If you build it, they will come” in Field of Dreams was changed at some point to “If you build it, HE will come.” But of course, it’s “He.” The “He” part—first interpreted to mean Shoeless Joe Jackson but later revealed as Ray’s father—is super-important to the movie's plot!
Another example in the movie is that many people remember Sex and the City being Sex IN the City during its early run. I remember, in fact, that on my college newspaper in 1999, I accidentally called the show Sex IN the City, and was corrected. Sex AND the City really was the name of Candace Bushnell’s newspaper column and book.
The final example of the film is one of the weakest: It’s supposed to an otherworldly phenomenon that Freddie Mercury doesn’t say “Of the world” at the end of “We are the Champions,” when he did do so at the end of the song in the Live Aid performance- but guess what- bands sometimes perform songs differently live.
It’s just self-evidently stupid and ridiculous, going into Alex Jones territory at various points, with talk of the global elites, Satanists, and secret ceremonies. It even flirts with antisemitism when someone argues that the Monster Energy drink logo… is 666 in Hebrew! (Really, it’s three of the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, which is not the number 6.)
If someone in real life said some of these things, I would get up and leave the room to avoid them.
I feel compelled to respond to this individual's evaluation of Kiviat's latest endeavor, as I myself was once a sceptic of everything “supernatural” or “paranormal” and am now a believer with irrefutable evidence that the world is not as it seems. I have personally experienced the impact of this “mandela effect” phenomenon, and the proof I possess is unlike any material I have encountered or examined. I have engaged in multiple discussions with Mr. Kiviat regarding the topic of his most recent film and my own experiences, and I know for a fact that something has changed, but it is more complicated than just a change to a sentence or a change to a historic event.
To dismiss the existence of a phenomenon involving widespread communal misremembering or deliberate collective contempt, accompanied by name-calling, toward people who have been affected by this topic is a significant issue in its own right. Imagine if the U.S. president appeared unclothed in public and was convinced he was wearing the newest outfit by a famous fashion designer, and his supporters genuinely believed he was wearing a remarkable new attire as well, while the rest of the world saw him as naked. Why would those who recognize his nudity dismiss the phenomenon of the believers' opinions by resorting to name-calling and disregarding their perspectives?
Instead, we should acknowledge that something is indeed different, whether we see what they are saying personally or simply see their odd "delusion.” Whether it is a matter of mental illness or another factor, dismissing and disparaging those who have experienced supposed "changes" in popular culture or history is problematic. We must address these experiences with respect and an open mind, recognizing that they reveal deeper issues worthy of serious consideration. Maybe, just maybe, we who don’t see it are indeed the ones that should be questioned.
I have yet to see the film, but I look forward to seeing how he handles this topic.
I get why people make things like that... it's just because its amusing. Plus... if you can't remember where you put your keys just 5 seconds ago... what can you really trust? If anything, this should just compel more people to understand the value and use and place of the collective crutch we're trying to assemble to try to remedy this: science.
As for Mandela. To many he is a controversial figure. Either "a terrorist" or "a sellout". He left behind enough evidence to prove that he is neither.
The reason he is famous, is because he was a true diplomat and changemaker: he changed. There is one thing he never compromised on, and that is to promote collective freedom and self determination.