My questions are about what happens in the movie. I’m not trying to “gotcha” or to rip the movie apart, I’m just trying to understand why, if you already have a functioning knowledge of Holmes and Theranos, why would it be interesting? Is it just to watch Fielder’s reactions to her lying? Is there new information? Is there anything new or anything that would make it different from the millions of other lying liars who lie for profit and get caught?
Super Helpful. Thanks for your valuable input.
There are a lot of posts in this thread that discuss exactly that, and there are probably thousands of think-pieces out there. So it starts to seem like you are less interested in an answer, and more interested in arguing.
It’s a lot of fun to discuss the movie with people who saw and it, and see where their impression and experience diverge from mine. I’d love to discuss the movie with someone who saw it and didn’t like it. It’s less fun to discuss with someone who has an inaccurate view of what the movie might be in their mind, and isn’t showing openness to why that view might be wrong.
Thanks for saving me the time and for saying it better than I would have
Why so defensive? I simply asked “is there anything new in the movie that’s not known to those who know the trial” and “I’m not getting why it is interesting, so please explain it to me”.
Sorry to have bothered you oh so much.
Because as has been said multiple times already, it really has nothing to do with the trial. It’s not about her guilt or innocence.
Spice_Weasel has given some excellent explanations. I suggest you read them.
Well, you did ask several times and didn’t pay attention to the answers.
But no, I’m not really bothered, just saying why I’m not going to attempt another explanation.
Continuing on the topic of the movie, I posed a question to my friend: how often do you actually see Billy lie in the movie? I only asked because Billy seems to believe his own bullshit, which gives him a certain tech bro sincerity. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a weird ass scumbag, but I was just wondering.
One example she did come up with is when Fielder asks him if he actually did not recognize Holmes the first time he met her, and he insists that’s true. I do think that’s a lie, but I think it’s a lie of a very specific type: I suspect it’s something he said to Holmes at the time, and it’s become part of their big mythology, and now he’s certainly not going to backtrack on it on camera. I mean, that’s entirely my guess, there’s no proof either way.
As for documentaries, I’ve known they had a bullshit element since I saw Roger and Me in the theater, but that doesn’t change my fascination with them.
Great. Sorry to have bothered you. Enjoy your thread.
Ooof, I don’t have enough time to list them all. Granted, many of them are lies of the “can versus does” purposeful miscommunication, or lies of omission, or non-falsifiable lies. Off the top of my head, some of the lies he told:
I saw the movie because I am very interested in Nathan Fielder, so the appeal for me was to see how he handled this. I was sucked right away into the experience (or simulated experience) of trying to make sense of this woman. Trying to figure out what he was thinking was part of the fun for me.
The movie has some curveballs that I think are much more enjoyable if you don’t know, but (you were warned)
…throughout the film you get an increased sense of mistrust in Billy Evans. Fielder is picking up on it, which feels validating. After Holmes goes to prison, the film continues, and all the information you’re getting is from Billy Evans. Billy Evans is doing some shady fucking shit, including trying to make backroom deals for a cut of documentary profits (which Holmes may or may not be aware of and which could completely undermine her goal for the documentary), using Holmes’ image for his own personal gain in ways that are difficult to understand (he makes a digital avatar of her body to proliferate world-wide and blithely acknowledges it will be used to make non-consensual porn), and he posts inflammatory things as if he were her, using her social media accounts, among other things.
Then - and I can’t remember the reason Fielder did this - Fielder brings in Amanda Sayfried, the woman who played Holmes in The Dropout, to go in and try to get information from Billy. Sayfried is down. She has seen the footage and she is ready to rumble. Things are very tense. When she confronts him (pretty successfully I say) Billy goes off on a threatening rant, revealing himself to be a vengeful, terrifying person. He brags that he has power of attorney over Holmes, and reports that she has ceded all decision-making to him and him alone. He appears authentically delusionally batshit insane.
Fielder and Sayfried are rocked. Billy is blocking his access to Elizabeth, who is in prison. So Fielder is apparently left grappling with this question of: is Holmes aware of the things Billy has been doing and if not, does Fielder have an obligation to tell her? And what does that mean about him: is he trying to help her, or is he trying to find out the truth? Or is he just trying to finish his documentary? (This is all subtext.)
The remainder of the film is Fielder trying to get in to see Holmes, which he eventually does, for a brief period of time, but not on camera. In one of the most surreal moments of the film, Amanda Sayfried re-enacts, from Fielder’s memory, the dialogue between Holmes and Fielder in prison. Fielder gives her direction notes.
The way Holmes is portrayed by Sayfried is something like a Stepford wife. She doesn’t acknowledge the accusations against Billy but reinforces every crazy thing Billy said. Fielder and Sayfried appear to be trying to understand the relationship. Sayfried suggests Stockholm Syndrome. Fielder points out that Holmes didn’t seem scared when he saw them interact at the prison. That she really does seem to trust him.
At which point, Sayfried says, “You’re emotionally involved, aren’t you?”
And he says, “No, I’m just trying to understand the truth.”
The film closes on a classic Fielder flashback where you learn he was cozier with Holmes than the documentary had led you to believe.
Everyone applauds.
Okay, I ruined the film for you. Reading about it would be, I imagine, 1000% less interesting then experiencing it as it unfolds. I hope that helps.
Yup. How soon til we get the standard “As I expected that sounds terrible. Glad I didn’t waste my time” response?
There were a couple of times where Felder and Holmes seemed to have sexual tension and almost kissed. Just me?
What about Restrepo?
It really does. Thanks for taking the time. Sounds like it is much more about Billy Evans than Holmes, and that Fielder is doing Fielder stuff.
Thanks again.
It makes you think about Trump without mentioning Trump. It makes you think about Thomas Edison without mentioning Edison (other than it’s the name of the device). It makes you think about Silicon Valley in a different way. About religion. About the nature of belief. It might make you question what you really value about the truth.
Not just you, but that’s the part that I feel was most manufactured by Fielder. I think at times he could sense that Liz was trying to use sexual chemistry to manipulate him, and he leaned into it for the sake of the story. But I dont think he was actually drawn in; I think he wants audiences to question whether he was drawn in, though.
Most people, I think, become very uncomfortable with close face-to-face proximity; apparently neither Holmes nor Fielder are those kinds of people. Combine that with a director in Lance Oppenheim who is very comfortable holding a very long frame, and you get…something. Something very weird. I wouldn’t say sexual, but something intimate.
Of course, she’s just had sex with her boyfriend at Fielder’s suggestion, so the entire thing is fucked up and weird.
I mean, no. It’s not really about Billy, either. It’s really about all the stuff we’ve been talking about throughout the thread. I’m not trying to convince you to see it. It’s just that the film is bigger than its plot.
However, it is definitely Fielder doing Fielder stuff.
As for documentary being reality TV, when I look at a painting of a tree, I’m not thinking, “That’s a real tree.” I’m thinking, “Oh, that’s interesting. I wonder why the artist put that color there, or what it means to have this part cast in shadow.” It’s the creative choices that make the experience.
I don’t think that this has been mentioned yet but in the interviews with her parents, I don’t think that her mom said a single word. This could obviously have been selective editing, of course.
I think it was a purposeful choice to have those lingering shots to raise the question of sexual tension. But I’m not sure why. I’m not convinced it was to make the audience wonder if Fielder was drawn in by her.
I lean more toward the general theme of making the audience question their assumptions and highlighting how the audience can be manipulated. Because what makes us think there was sexual tension? There was nothing there other than two people in close proximity for an uncomfortable length of time. When we see that happen, it’s usually in drama films, where of course the next thing that happens is they’ll kiss. So we immediately jump to that because of our baked-in assumptions.
When I saw those scenes, I also thought “holy crap, are they going to kiss?” And then nothing happened and I was forced to confront why I thought it would.