Directed by Jenny Papwell, the new true crime film “What Jennifer Did” delves into a case from the streets of Markham, Ontario. It unravels the events of one November night when a terrified young girl, Jennifer Pan, places a frantic call to 911, who reported a break-in of three intruders.
With urgency, Pan recounts how armed robbers violently shot her parents, leaving her mother, Bich Ha Pan, dead, and her father, Huei Hann Pan, heavily injured. Jennifer was found bound but alive. However, as the investigation unfolds, dark secrets and hidden motives emerge, showcasing a haunting portrait of deception and betrayal as the authorities begin to suspect the main witness, Jennifer.
According to reports, in 2014, Jennifer Pan, then 24 years old, was convicted of first-degree murder for orchestrating the killing of her mother and attempted murder of her father with the assistance of three co-conspirators. As a result, in 2015, she received a life sentence with no possibility of parole for approximately 25 years.
The nation was shocked by this story, with some trying to empathize with Jennifer’s situation, having lived in a strict household in which she was pressured constantly by her oppressive parents. Many presumed this is what led her to orchestrate the whole thing with her boyfriend, Daniel Wong, being one of her co-conspirators.
The true crime documentary gained traction and became the most popular movie on one of the world’s top streaming platform according to the platform’s public ranking system. But some viewers and social media users began questioning the nature of truth presented in the whole film after having noticed numerous photos of Pan in the film that seemed to be altered with the use of AI.
A photo shared by Daily Mail US on April 20th depicted one of the images featured in the film, showing Jennifer holding up a peace sign. The photo was scrutinized, highlighting apparent abnormalities that suggested possible AI manipulation.
Following the premiere, Futurism drew attention to peculiar discrepancies in the photographs, notably areas where Jennifer’s body appeared disproportionately altered. These anomalies were particularly evident in images portraying her as cheerful or bubbly.
This observation sparked widespread discussion among viewers on social media platforms. Many expressed skepticism and raised questions about the documentary’s authenticity. Others also criticized the streaming platform, insisting that using AI in filmmaking isn’t ethical at all.
As Jennifer Pan’s case is undeniably based on real events, the discovery of potential AI manipulation in the documentary’s portrayal raised significant concerns. Viewers began questioning the motives behind altering certain aspects of the story and what specific details the producers deemed necessary to modify. This led to a deeper inquiry into the reasons behind the manipulation and its implications to the the overall integrity of the narrative.
The only person who responded amidst all the altercations is the executive producer Jeremy Grimaldi. He expressed to the Toronto Star, “The photos of Jennifer are real photos of her. The foreground is exactly her. The background has been anonymized to protect the source.” further elaborating that it was only slightly altered to ‘protect the identity of the person who provided them.’
This answer, however, did not satisfy the viewers. And many had still hoped for a more detailed explanation of why the team felt the need to overly distort forms of evidence for the documentary, and specifically what tools the production team had used.
Other POP! stories that you might like:
Bluey’s season ending feels like a series finale for fans with bonus episode ‘Surprise’
Kim Soo Hyun to release OST for the first time in ten years for own drama ‘Queen of Tears’
Rosmar excitedly announces her new pares business, which comes with ‘unlimited swimming’
‘Watcher’ launches new subscription service after announcing their departure from YouTube
‘Unconventional’ sensations who have gone viral…accidentally
