Not sure if this counts as a spoiler but spoilers! Just in case.

I took this scene as her realizing her con had finally worked on Nathan. Once she noticed that he genuinely believed she might not get the joke she took advantage of that and played into it. It was her “gotcha” for Nathan.

Billy noticed that’s what she was doing and played into it too. He explained the joke to her as like a “I see what you’re doing”. That’s why he said “thank you for bringing this up” because Nathan essentially proved he was buying her schtick of being this oblivious person.

I feel like after this scene she also started to act a little more “dumb” to keep that facade up. Anyway, thoughts on this?

I think the movie makes it fairly obvious that Elizabeth is using Billy as a means to circumvent the wage garnishment. She does not make any money, he makes money. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is how he was able to get power of attorney.

I also think its been thoroughly speculated that Elizabeth had children in order to get sympathy from the judge and reduce her sentence. I think this might be true but I think there might be another level to it.

What if the children are being used to a link in a money laundering scheme. Elizabeth cannot hold money. Any money she makes is taken away to pay restitution. That's why Billy has to make the deal with A24 and run the business. He is making the money. However Elizabeth has no real control over Billy, he can run away with the money at any time. But if they have children together, they can open up a bank account where she is the custodian of the account, essentially making it her bank account. And that might be why she had a child so close to her prison sentence. When she gets out of jail, her youngest will be 11 years old, giving her up to 7 years of control over said bank account to figure out her next scheme.

What are we expecting to see in this drop?? 👀 (aside from the brilliant Black Phillip butter dish)

Genuinely apprehensive with this one as I’ve heard how scary/unsettling it’s meant to be but know nothing about it.

UPDATE: I love horror films a lot but, this one I just didn’t get, outside of the initial shock moment that starts the events off with the car, I found it incredibly average with some good practical effects and performances. If I loose sleep it will be more confusion than anything else.

I think my interpretation currently is that she is the one who is using Billy, she wants vindication in the public eye and therefore allows Billy to be the controlling man that he is — that only serves to make her look like a victim, which is beneficial. They could love each other but it is also certainly a mutually beneficial relationship. He gets power by being attached to her name, she gets sympathy. But I still recognize that the point of the film is that we can’t understand everything; their dynamic is elusive as everything was in the movie, and that’s the point. When everything we know is biased by our personalized perspective, what can we truly understand? Objectivity does not exist in analysis.

Whatever he was about to say was clearly sympathetic to her, so I'm wondering why Billy with the willy felt the need to shut down the conversation

Amanda appeared to be really taken in by the idea that Billy is the villain in his and Liz's dynamic. The fact that Billy is a genuine POS in his own right definitely sold a lot of viewers on this idea

I don't pretend to know the ins-and-outs of their actual offscreen relationship, but the dynamic they tried to sell to the documentary crew strikes me (and a lot of others talking about the movie) as actually being very mutual and deliberate. Liz was already in a lot of trouble when she met this redpill trustfund baby who's used to treating people he sees as "beneath" him like shit, and these qualities made him a very useful attack dog. He handles the finances as her unmarried partner so that it doesn't have to go toward restitution, she still gets to enjoy all the financial benefits, and if outside parties see his behavior as controlling it just serves to generate more sympathy for her. It's a lot of trust to place in Billy, sure, but he needs her just as much as she needs him

A lot of people were thrown off by how much of an asshole Billy APPEARS to be in comparison to Liz. The truth is they're both assholes, with the difference being that:

1. Billy is an admitted Charlie Kirk fanboy, and their ilk already doesn't tend to see an issue with men acting as their female partners' handlers, so being publicly perceived as a controlling partner isn't an issue for him

2. Liz is going for a particular angle to try and garner sympathy, so she's never going to show how much of a say she actually has in their relationship because it just doesn't behoove her to do so

Mind you, Billy IS abusive, and Liz COULD be on the receiving end of some of it in reality. It's just not the whole picture of their dynamic the way Amanda seemed to think it was

Remember: Liz was willing to let innocent people potentially die due to the bullshit results generated by her product. Nothing about her actions, either as CEO of Theranos or as the subject of this documentary, indicates that she has a healthy conscience. Liz is pretending to not be an asshole, while Billy's got no qualms about being his authentic asshole self

Do they EVER drop the con/facade, even when they are alone together? When they are discussing the next scam, how do you think they communicate? I wonder wtf their pillow talk is like. Do we ever hear one call the other by a pet name like honey or sweetheart? What a film.

I organized an AMA/Q&A with actress & modern day Scream Queen Maika Monroe. She's known for her leading roles in Longlegs, It Follows, The Guest, Watcher, Hot Summer Nights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Reminders of Him, and lots more.

The AMA post is live here now in r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1xfv8o9/hey_reddit_3_im_maika_monroe_longlegs_it_follows/

She will be back at around 6-7 PM ET today to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Her new movie, Victorian Psycho, premiered at Cannes earlier this year and is out in theaters everywhere November 13th.

Trailer: https://youtu.be/sDiFol_2j2I?si=oVGQL6ovSF-vQt0n

Synopsis: Something wicked is brewing behind the walls of a remote gothic manor. VICTORIAN PSYCHO follows an eccentric governess whose arrival sets off a bloody string of strange and deliciously disturbing events. Maika Monroe stars as Winifred Notty, a woman with a dark past and a vicious appetite for bloodshed, giving into her most violent urges. What follows is a gruesome parade of savagery, butchered bodies, and increasingly grotesque acts of violence.

Cast: Maika Monroe, Thomasin McKenzie, Jason Isaacs, Ruth Wilson, Evie Templeton, Jacobi Jupe

Thank you :)

I've seen a lot of people say that the movie makes it ambiguous as to whether or not Nathan was fooled by Elizabeth or not.

I could be completely misinterpreting the ending here, but honestly, I got the exact opposite impression: I think it made it pretty clear he wasn't fooled by her. Nathan's line about how "No, I am going for the most logical conclusion here" after Amanda sort of accuses him of letting his emotions towards her cloud his judgment made that pretty clear.

Do I think he's still confused as to what is really going on here? Absolutely. In a normal documentary or even a narrative feature, a scene like the conversation at the prison would be one of those "the prisoner has a new perspective" type scenes. But as we find out- and this is assuming that Nathan's memory of the encounter was as cut and dry as in the reenactment (or that it's at least 80 percent), she's still operating on her own wavelength. I've seen people saying that Nathan correcting the tone Amanda says the line in is him "manipulating the narrative" but idk, have you ever remembered someone saying something to you in such a way that the way they say it is what strikes you most? Ostensibly the purpose of the prison visit was to get some clarity and also tell Liz that Billy is profiting off of the movie, but then Liz gives her usual "word vomit" for answers that she uses in the rest of the film, her very warped perception of how things work.

Yet it's hard not to come away from the film with the impression that he can't help but have a bit of empathy with her. In a sense, everybody operates on their own wavelength to some extent. So maybe he sees this as her sort of making peace with this new reality, masking something, or something of the sort

Either way, excellent movie. Best of the year for sure.

People have been questioning why Billy gave up revenue rights for the documentary, and last night a little theory occurred to me.

Fielder and Oppenheim have mentioned that off and on during the three year project, they weren’t sure if they really “had anything”. Fielder visited Holmes in prison over a year ago, and briefly mentioned in another interview they had a trailer ready to go a while ago too, but the movie wasn’t released till now. Why?

My guess is the entire A24 team decided to wait out Billy. The film was probably done a few months after the prison visit, and they were ready to release in time for awards last year.

But the way the movie shaped up, they knew if they released it and the audience learned halfway through that Billy was getting a cut of their ticket money, that would be the story. Instead of a discourse on truth and lies, the discourse would be around the ethics of warning the audience about who is profiting from sales, and whether even fans of the film people would willingly pay to see it again, knowing Billy was profiting.

So, given they had a kill switch already, were two years into production at that point, and really nothing to lose, they decided to wait. A24 has a STACKED year anyway, and there was no point releasing YCSE if it was going to be dead in the water over contract issues.

This also explains why YCSE and Primetime are being released so closely; once Billy agreed it was all hands on deck to get YCSE out asap.

The quiet tension building into hysteric emotion, the surreal facial expression. Now oh God, why are they wet?? What the hell is happening right now!? It was so unnerving, I physically felt a chill go down my spine and wanted to jump out of my chair. 10/10

The rest of the movie was also freaky but did anybody else have this reaction to this scene?

When Liz left to deal with the crying kid, why didn’t the filmmakers and A24 execs wait for her to come back to discuss anything else?

She’s the reason for the doc, or at least was supposed to be at the time. It seems so strange to me that they would discuss anything of importance without her there to agree to it.

Wondering about the accuracy of the final reenactment sequence in YCSE. The movie goes out of its way to progressively call attention to the unreliability/bias of the documentary itself. Culminating in Nathan changing a word in the script of his last conversation with Liz as soon as Amanda pointed out that it was incriminating toward Liz.

But even more fundamentally, I feel like the conversation the final reenactment allegedly depicted is just insanely unreliable. The earlier reenactment scenes at least had plausible explanations of how Nathan could have had access to verbatim dialogue. The one in Elizabeth's house, he could have (openly or secretly) recorded. Same thing with the one in the LA friend's house (plus other witnesses to the convo). But for the prison convo, the documentary expressly tells the viewer no electronic equipment of any kind was allowed in (and it looked like he had to go thru security, so presumably no hidden recorder). There is no way he could have recalled that entire conversation verbatim. And again, the film even lampshades this by him allegedly misremembering and then re-remembering a particular word. So how can he be presenting that reenactment as factual, beyond maybe the general gist of what was said and maybe some key turns of phrase? Is this part of undermining the reliability of the narrative itself?

And it also really puts in a new light the big focus on the NYT article quotation--which completely changed meaning based on one word used (they or I). The text on screen at the end of the movie says the NYT reporter couldn't produce any evidence Liz said what she said.......which is EXACTLY the same case for the final reenactment of the movie.

As someone who was tempted to give EH at least some benefits of the doubt after seeing this film, I was very encouraged by this REACTION video put out by a clinical psychologist who teaches about narcissistic abuse, how to recognize it, and how to deal with it. She caught herself getting pulled into the quicksand and didn't even realize it until the following day!

Check it out..would love to hear others' reactions to the points she raises.

Dr. Ramani and Dangerous Empathy

We are having a very Midsommar Halloween this year! I made my dog the May Queen costume, sun gate, rune stone and my dress. She loves wearing her costume too. (Also Her name is Dottie and she's 7)

I only know the basics of Elizabeth Holmes and her downfall. Any recommended pre-watching or reading before seeing? Or will it explain everything I need to know?