He claims in the caption that they are out of frame.

Which is possible, of course.

The teenagers describe their household in flattering ways and yet they seem to be lying for some reason. The clips of them hanging out with the writer look unnatural. And as one of them says 'it's his house, so it's his rules' we are treated with a clip of the writer casually pulling out a gun.

From this interaction, the audiences understand that Fielder is familiar with the convention of giving gifts in exchange for favours. However, his gift is uninspired and impersonal. Furthermore, a person of Meyers' status and notoriety is likely not to get aided financially by a mere 40 dollars.

Hence, the joke Fielder, the writer produces is based on the knowledge of social conventions and failure to implement them in his own interactions.

In opposition to those appearances, his second-time feature on Late Night with Jimmy Kimmel saw Fielder at his most charismatic as he told a captivating story of a particularly exciting run-in with police.

Audience members were baffled:

How did he become so charming?

Did his life somehow become interesting?

These episodes give insight into numerous characteristics of Nathan, the businessman.

Every screenshots below is from the Youtube clip

This strengthens the notion that his persona is rooted in the ordinary

After being asked to leave the house, Nathan decides to give up on his plan to hide from the investigator. This decision implies that many schemes from the show merely act as a pretext for ulterior motives.

In many cases it is the search for intimacy.

Nathan implements the focus group's recommendations for facial gestures, body language and fashion advice without question. It seems to work with some people.

Wolfe, however, rejects his 'new personality' about ten seconds into their second interaction.

These social anxieties are remedied by an AWKWARD, detached, ironic and absurd sense of humour that is also typical of Fielder himself.

His continuous failure to conform and find connection embodies his viewers' fears and makes him highly relatable

Fielder's mundane experiences and the awkwardness they sometimes present are very human and connect well with audiences.

This speaks to the detached humour typical of the past and current decades.

We choose to end our discussion on Nathan Fielder's star image with an image that, more so than any other, confirms his stardom.

We believe that the main characteristic of stardom is exceptionality. Being an unconventional example, Fielder tries to hide his uniqueness and in doing so becomes a relatable character for an anxiety-driven generation.

However, individuality emerges no matter what. Because of that, paradoxically, someone merely trying to fit in can become a universally acclaimed and influential, one-of-a-kind innovator.

The director taught acting lessons to the actors who would play minor roles in the rehearsals. He stressed the importance of trying to understand the subject an actor wishes to imitate. Therefore, instructed his students to stalk people they wanted to act like.

Preoccupied by his own idea, the director too wished to understand others better by stalking and embodying them. That is why he restarted the acting lesson with himself as one of the students and a different group of actors playing him (the teacher) and other pupils.

Not only that, but he rented an apartment identical to the one his student lives in, decorated it accordingly and cast two pretend flatmates.

Our guy is not a liar, of course, so he had to arrange for the entire story, down to the detail, to be technically true. Here we see him in fact attending someone's wedding in a comically oversized suit that he found in someone else's bag he mistook for his own.

He decides to cast himself as the male lead.

To reduce production costs, I'm sure.

This is one of numerous examples of the series' participants receiving different information from that granted to the viewer by narration. Hence the distinction between the director and the writer.

Unlike Nathan, the businessman, this character challenges the simplicity of the younger Fielder(s).

We'll get to that later.

Start with Nathan, the businessman.

Think of him as the creator of the other two characters. He is closest to Nathan Fielder, the actual person.

However, they are not the same.

A clip from the show on YouTube received numerous comments that highlights the amazement of Fielder's talent but also the inability to connect with the director.

'I became scared of this Nathan' - one viewer comments.

These characteristics, arguably absent or not as explicit in his other work, portray Fielder as truly a one-of-a-kind although not exemplary human being.

By comparing him to Andy Kaufman and the absurdist humour at large, these magazines add to the brand of Fielder that can be described as the normal-looking dude with crazy ideas.

Take note of the pictures the reviewers choose. We'll compare them to the ones from The Rehearsal reviews.

It starts off pretty simple: the businessman convinces the shop owner to extend the shop's working hours to increase the probability of a late-night bar frequenting drinkers accidentally smashing antiques and paying for them.

What comes next is not hard to explain but I wish not to derive the reader of the surprises that follow.

The traits that make him unique once in a while appear on Nathan For You or in his public appearances (see example below) but they truly blossom in his second major project - The Rehearsal.

1) weirdness in normality.

2) awkwardness

3) unwavering commitment

He wants to have the pizzeria meeting during a trivia night and implies to Nathan that his performance in the game might affect his willingness to go through with the confession. He does never cheat.

But the director does.

He designed their casual strolls to include apparently random encounters with people who accidentally tell Kor the answers to the trivia questions that the director got to know by implementing another ruse.

The director builds a house, hires a bunch of child actors of various ages and lets aspiring mother raise them. At some point he proposes the introduction of a father figure that he himself assumes. After a while the participant chooses to leave but the director continues the rehearsals for his own reasons.

Has he ever intended to help anyone? Or just himself?

The Rehearsal was particularly popular among YouTube video essayists that focused mainly of the meta-narratives of the show and its dubious morals. That stands in opposition to the Nathan For You discourse that mainly consisted of discussion about Fielder's humour and social commentary.

Ten years ago the audiences were entertained by a funny relatable guy. Today they are astonished and inspired to question their world because of a singular exceptional person.

In the director's character psychologist academics found substantial material for a manipulation case study.

In the exploration of (un)reality reviewers found philosophical merit.

What changed from critics' articles about Nathan For You is the tone. Earlier the tone used to be lighter and readers would see Fielder smiling in a silly pose, whereas the pictures they used this time capture Fielder in his most contemplative or even sinister.

In brief, it went from the funny relatable misfit to the exceptional yet sinister talent.

Has the writer changed his demeanor as well?