So, what is this movie? A series of interviews? A more traditional biopic that includes interviews? Something else?
I attempt to describe it here:
It’s less a formal interview than Fielder and his crew hanging out with Holmes and Evans while they go about their everyday lives, trying to understand what they see. Fielder does ask pointed questions, and appears to get more and more exasperated with Holmes’ stonewalling, but the film ends up going in a completely unexpected direction, such that, by the end, Holmes becomes this lens to examine a wide range of thorny issues, one of which is the inherent subjectivity of trying to make a film like this.
It was really entertaining, in a “holy shit is this really happening?” kind of way, and it’s really effective at sucking you into Fielder’s perspective as he is trying to make sense of all this, but it’s not just entertainment fodder. This is a serious film with real artistic merit. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.
That said, it’s going to leave the viewer with more questions than answers, so this is not a movie I would recommend to people who want more details about the Theranos scandal or anything like that. I went into it not knowing much about what Holmes actually did and I left it none the wiser. It takes her crimes as a given, and is more interested in exploring the psychology of someone who would do those things - and particularly her effect on other people.
I’m not a Nathan Fielder fan, and I think Holmes is a horrible human. I didn’t have much opinion of Billy Evans before the movie, but after it, I think he’s even worse than Holmes, if that’s possible.
Despite that, it was one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. It made me think like no other movie has. We saw it with two other couples last night, and we all walked out and stood there with our mouths wide open until one of my friends said, “we have GOT to discuss that movie.”
Glad you enjoyed it. What would be the focus of your discussion?
There’s the stuff specific to the case: is Holmes a cunning liar? A neurodivergent person who doesn’t understand how normal people think and communicate? A person easily manipulated and controlled by men in her life? A complete sociopath? Some blend of all of them?
There’s an underlying theme of manipulation throughout that will be fascinating to examine more closely – Holmes manipulating investors, men potentially manipulating her, Fielder manipulating the audience, Fielder being manipulated by Holmes, entertainment media (like The Dropout series on Hulu) manipulating public opinion.
There are questions about the roles and ethics of everyone involved. What responsibility does Fielder have to stay impartial? What is the impact when something like The Dropout presents a slightly fictionalized account of real people? How much does that apply to this movie? What is the responsibility of those participating?
And more shallow, WTF is up with Billy Evans? There are some amazing twists and turns that are great fodder for simple discussion of “can you believe that??” As I said in the other thread, I’ve never seen a movie with so many audible gasps from the audience.
A New York Times article on Billy Evans says
His family founded Evans Hotels, a San Diego-based chain that operates three luxury properties in Southern California. The chain’s website describes its business as “family-owned” since 1953, but the company made clear in a statement issued Oct. 1 that Billy Evans is not involved in the business in any way, as an employee or shareholder.
I wonder what it says about him that he’s not at all involved in the family business.
For me personally, I’d start with discussing specific choices Fielder made along the way and what other people think about their merit or his motive. I’d want to discuss what the directors might be trying to say with this film - because there are a lot of possibilities.
I’d then want to talk about things Holmes said and did and which, if any of them, can be taken at face value. We truly don’t know, but I’m curious how other viewers approached her in this film. For example, the guy who broke the NYTs story recently published a brief review where he said “this film expertly dissected all of her lies,” yet I walked away feeling something a bit different, so this is a film where I think people are going to have all kinds of opinions about what it revealed. And I want to hear those opinions.
Then there’s Evans, and oh boy is there a lot to unpack there.
And I have to see the movie a second time because I’m sure there are things I missed.
My husband said, “I wanted it to keep going” but then on my way out I heard two people complaining that it wasn’t all that funny. Talk about missing the point. (It has a few genuine laughs, but no, this is not cringe comedy, if you want that, look elsewhere.)
If anyone hasn’t found it yet, there’s a more spoiler-filled discussion of the movie over here. If you think you might see the movie at some point, I highly recommend skipping that thread until you see the movie. It’s quite a ride if you go in blind.
Thanks, super helpful. Not my cup of tea. Glad you enjoyed it.
Oh, and gender politics. The film is brimming with questions about how differently we tend to perceive men and women. I’m slowly making my way through this thread and have seen it already discussed here - the extent to which Holmes’ gender and attractiveness influenced her ability to con so many men, alongside her claim that she committed her crimes under duress, in an abusive relationship. I haven’t learned enough yet to know whether those claims were substantiated in any way. But the film explores these issues in a novel way and if the film is manipulative it’s here - but intentionally so. It’s so, so easy as a viewer to shove Holmes and Evans into these archetypal gender roles - until it’s not.
That’s the trick. What your mind is willing to entertain while you watch it. Is it Holmes? Is it Fielder? Is it my own assumptions? I don’t know.
That sounds like someone who doesn’t know what “documentary” means, or expects them all to be like The Office.
It’s also a strange complaint because the film is very funny.
Getting back to the scam itself…
Yeah, i watched the HBO (Netflix?) documentary with friends. I don’t especially prefer a finger stick to a needle in my arm if they are done by professionals, but being able to get the sample without a professional phlebotomist is huge, and being able to test immediately and locally is also huge, as every diabetic who routinely tests their own blood can attest.
We all agreed that if this thing was real, we would want it. And I’ve handled enough blood samples to know that this machine couldn’t possibly work as described.
I’m astonished it got the funding and publicity it did. That’s the question I’d like to examine. Is it just because she’s physically attractive and lies really well?
I’m about halfway through that HBO documentary now and the part where they show what’s inside the box and all the cross-contamination and exposed needles makes me shudder.
I haven’t gotten to it yet - was there documented harm to actual specific patients involved in this scam?
I believe she was acquitted of the patient charges, is that because they couldn’t prove she knew about the fake blood tests? Or because they couldn’t prove anyone was harmed?
I’m really sad that one employee/expert died by suicide. It’s obvious some people saw through the bullshit and a lot of them paid too high a price.
It’s evident to me that this was a factor at least. Also based on the HBO documentary, she intentionally surrounded herself with people who had no basis to evaluate the claims being made, and marginalized those that did.
I’m reminded of Warren Buffet’s take on crypto. They asked him why he’d never invested in it. He said, “Because I don’t understand it. I don’t invest in things I don’t understand.”
Sage advice.
Also, she was clearly courting the Silicon Valley set, and a lot of those folks were the type to invest in software companies that sometimes never released a working product or released buggy product that later needed patching and knew that they only really needed to hit on 1 out of perhaps 10 such companies to end up ahead. That worked at the time in that sector but not so much for medical testing, which has higher regulatory standards. “Fake it until you make it” is an actual slogan in that crowd, and she bought into that to a great expect.
They were high on hopium and FOMO. And Sunny, the other part of the pair was a narcissist and a bully.
There were actual patients who got “results” from this set up that were… Random numbers? Can you prove that one bad blood test caused harm? That seems hard. The financial harm to whoever paid for those tests is more straightforward. I was never clear on why those charges didn’t stick, though.
See when I mentioned the new documentary to my father in law (before I saw it) he said she should have been charged with murder. So I thought a patient must have died as a result of all this.
If so, I’m not aware of it. Although honestly, if they processed a lot of “tests”, the odds aren’t that bad.
She’s certainly guilty of gross disregard for the health of others.
I think that people may have been told that they were cancer free when they weren’t. This delayed treatment.