Hulu's 'Good American Family' concluded with Michael Barnett, played by Mark Duplass, acquitted of child abuse charges. However, the finale leaves the audience questioning the extent of his culpability in Natalia Grace's horrific childhood. Unlike his wife, Kristine (Ellen Pompeo), Michael remains largely passive, rarely directly participating in the abuse but equally failing to intervene. This inaction, Duplass argues, constitutes a form of egregious enabling. In an exclusive interview with Deadline, Duplass delves into his portrayal of Michael, emphasizing the subtle monstrosity of his passivity. He reveals his approach to the role, drawing on personal experiences with mental health and anxiety to understand Michael's motivations. Duplass explains that Michael's anxiety and fear of disrupting his life led to a willful denial of the severity of the situation, highlighting the complexities of his character and avoiding judgment. The interview explores the crucial scene between Michael and Natalia in the finale, where Natalia confronts Michael about his role in the abuse. Duplass suggests that while a sliver of awareness may have cracked through Michael's defenses, true reckoning and understanding remain a long, difficult journey ahead. He emphasizes the lack of traditional closure, reflecting the ongoing real-life implications of the case and the ongoing debate surrounding the truth. Duplass further discusses the show's approach to challenging viewers' biases, initially presenting a narrative that could easily portray Natalia negatively before flipping the script. He praises the showrunners' daring approach in implicating the audience's preconceived notions and the subsequent shift in perspective. The conversation also touches upon Duplass's personal journey with mental health, explaining how his experiences informed his empathetic portrayal of Michael. He highlights the importance of understanding the complexities of human behavior, even in the face of questionable actions, emphasizing the power of empathy and the challenges of confronting one's own past actions. The interview concludes with Duplass reflecting on the show's impact and his hopes for the audience, envisioning a scenario where viewers engage in lively discussions, challenging their initial biases and ultimately wrestling with the complexities of the case and its lasting implications. The ambiguity of the ending serves as a powerful statement, leaving the audience with lingering questions and prompting further reflection on the narrative's unsettling realities.