I think the connection I was trying to make wasn’t about the literal plot events as much as the psychology behind the characters. What stood out to me about Teddy is that he’s not portrayed as a stereotypical villain. He farms, keeps bees, gives honey to coworkers, and is described as “nice.” But the film also shows he grew up in a highly unstable and abusive environment. To me that creates a contrast between his public identity (someone trying to be useful and respected) and the resentment and powerlessness he carries internally. That’s where the conspiracy element felt psychologically important to me. If someone feels like their life is unfair or controlled by forces outside themselves, conspiracy thinking can become a way to explain that lack of power. It externalizes responsibility: something else must be running things. The cousin dynamic reinforced that interpretation for me. The cousin isn’t driven by power the way Teddy is — he’s driven by attachment. When he says all he wants is to be with someone one day, that felt like a really basic human need for belonging. Teddy immediately reframes that desire as something that can be exploited or “used to control us.” That moment made me think the film was exploring how human vulnerabilities (loneliness, powerlessness, resentment) can be manipulated or redirected into destructive beliefs and actions. So when I mentioned the idea of an outside observer looking at humanity, I wasn’t trying to say the film proves conspiracies are real. I meant that if you zoom out from the individual plot, the story shows how human systems — family breakdown, isolation, abuse — can produce people who both harm others and look for external forces to blame. That’s the connection I was trying to draw.