I would be watching the doc and then it would repeatedly hit me as a reminder that these are REAL people, not characters in movies. It felt surreal...

As someone deeply rooted in the legal system, I'm always skeptical of eyewitness testimony. Which is why the second part of the film bothered me so much. However (and maybe I'm a little late to the party),in my opinion it was completely intentional.

Memory is naturally selective. So relying on someone to recount an unrecorded conversation after the fact means you're watching a curated version of history. Nathan's brain automatically fills in the gaps and smoothes over details. Even if it's done with zero emotional intent he's altering the pacing to fit the story.

But, by casting Amanda Seyfried to perform those scenes, they intentionally exploit that flaw. It makes the dialogue sound natural. Which ended up creating a conflict in my mind. I wanted to accept the production parts as the truth. But the logical part of my brain was thinking nobody actually can write a perfectly curated script of a prison visit going off of memory. So, can you really call this a documentary??

But, instead of hiding behind that question, the MOVIE highlights it. It turns the reenactments into a commentary on how easily we can be manipulated by cameras and actors. It forces you to question the validity of what you're seeing. Or not seeing.

For instance, the scene that stuck w me the most was when Amanda and Nathan are rehearsing and he alters "It" to "something."

I didn't know until afterward that the word change mirrored the Theranos trial. And her lawyers spent months arguing the semantics of the word "can" versus "will."

I think this was set up in the very beginning. When Elizabeth lays out the pieces of the Theranos device. She tries to claim that the machine was a masterpiece that "can" run any medical diagnostic test. The two contrasting concepts Nathan traps her on are the difference between an "idea" versus a "product."

As I've thought about it more and more, I don't know that this should necessarily be called a documentary. Obviously you don't see everything. Which, seems to be what they were after.

I believe that the reason Nathan would not go swimming with her was because he never wanted to interact with her without a microphone. When he swims with her, he “breaks his own rule” making the point that he himself is a terribly unreliable narrator.

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

I watched this in theaters and that sketch went right over my head. They were talking so fast and all I heard was literally what the guy was saying about “who’s on first”…etc.

I appear to be in the minority because almost everyone here seems to have picked up on it. I actually felt exactly how Liz was in her responses about how it was supposed to be funny because the characters were just talking over each other. It wasn’t until Nathan’s explanation that I understood the crux of the joke.

Are there others who didn’t pick up on it as well? I definitely felt a sense of not wanting to say I didn’t get it because everyone else said they did.

Fielder fought hard for objectivity by telling Billy he shouldn't get paid. Fielder's success is shown on screen in the film's final moments.

But Fielder produces a documentary that covers Holmes' education and rise to fame without covering key aspects about what landed her in prison.

Withholding parts of the story and allowing the audience to form opinions is manipulative and FAR from objective.

Fielder fails his film's objectivity as much as Billy would have if he had been paid.

Despite the title of Fielder's film, you really don't get to see everything. Key details are deliberately withheld.

Was the film entertaining? Sure. Does it manipulate viewer opinion? Yes.

And if you're not aware, Homes--as CEO--forged or fabricated documents to falsely tell investors that major pharmaceutical companies (such as Pfizer) had validated her technology.

She was aware that employees secretly diluted or rerouted blood samples to standard, commercially available machines made by traditional companies.

She very arguablely lied that the military used her technology.

Genuinely wondering about the full frontal shower scene and what was the point? To show that Billy and Liz were sincere about "you can see everything"? Nothing off limits? Or to confuse the audience or evoke discomfort?

It really added nothing to the movie.

I thought it was fine. Entertaining, but not a very good documentary. I didn't learn anything about Elizabeth Holmes because I already knew she is a manipulative sociopath. Yet I keep seeing people describe this movie as a masterpiece. Why?

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

Mariah had Tommy Motolla. Elizabeth had Sunny Balwani.

In both relationships there was a 20 year age difference.

Both relationships blended business and romance.

Both involved controlling men telling their partner how to act, dress and eat.

I have looked into Holmes case deeply and the parallel is there. I think I'm going to tell Mariah. She'll probably stay out of it but you never know. I am a fan of hers, she is a queen.

Let me start by saying I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary, as well as all of Nathan’s previous work. I thought it was compelling, thought-provoking, and delightfully ambiguous.

But even two weeks into its release, it’s clear that certain people are coming away from this documentary with a more positive view on Elizabeth and her guilt. And I can’t see that as anything but intentional from Nathan and Lance.

The documentary intentionally plants seeds of doubt about who she might be or what might be going on. Was this actually just a misunderstanding over the word “can”? Is she being manipulated or used by Billy? Was she being manipulated or used by Sunny? Don’t you feel bad about a new mom being separated from her kids? Did she even really do anything wrong (remember, all of the patient related charges were found not guilty)?

I understand the purpose of the documentary was not to prove her guilt, and that sowing those seeds of doubt was necessary to explore other themes. Everything interesting about the documentary (the unreliability of any narrative viewpoint, the weird codependent mess of a relationship between her and Billy, the cat and mouse of who is deceiving who, etc) is made stronger by drawing out the ambiguity of each of those questions.

Yes, her obvious guilt is easily proven with just cursory searches after the movie. But Nathan and Lance know as well as anybody that not everybody’s going to do that. By leaving these seeds of doubt unanswered, it allows certain viewers to walk away from the documentary believing there’s a chance she’s innocent.

All it would take is one or two more cards at the end of the film. “The machine brought out by Liz on display was not the same machine that Theranos was using.” “Days before the documentary, Holmes and Evans moved out of their $125M estate and into the beach condo for unknown reasons.” I don’t think the films impact would be meaningful affected.

From an image rehabilitation standpoint, I think the ambiguity of the documentary helped her case quite a bit, strictly from the standpoint that some people are going to leave on her side that weren’t before. Media literacy is not Nathan’s responsibility, but if he believes she’s guilty, is it not irresponsible to release a film that will make change some people’s minds to believe she’s not? Or is it possible this isn’t the pitch-perfect meta commentary everybody thinks it is?

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

Anyone have a pic of that device Nathan's holds in YCSE trying to replicate it for halloween.

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?

(like I can’t overstate how big of a spoiler this is)

I haven’t see much discussion of this so I’m going to pose it here —

With the exception of most of the fish bowl moments in the San Diego house, and the early fly on the wall interviews, YCSE is fictionalised.

By this I mean: again, I don’t think Holmes or Billy were promoted to do so or say anything in particular by the filmmakers and aside from the same editing process that all documentaries experience, have not been misleadingly depicted in their own life.

But the final half of the movie with Seyfried, in particular the scenes where they discuss planned re-enactments or capture Seyfried’s “real” reactions to footage or scripts? This in itself has been scripted by Fielder or Oppenheimer in order to essentially capture the documentary’s theme.

There is no arc here otherwise — they had a lot of good footage and Billy is perplexing but they were never getting anything of substance because Holmes is in it for some long con. A more interesting narrative emerged of “Fielder as Holmes’s mark”, which would mirror Holmes’s pattern of manipulating men by her affect of some aspect of gender performance (a motif in Seyfried’s show as well…).

That entire (amazing) last scene between Fielder and Seyfried is, for lack of a better term, fiction. Maybe Seyfried didn’t have a literal script in terms of “confronting” Fielder in that way but for sure the filmmakers planned that as their final set piece in which the depths of Fielder’s contamination as a documentarian are revealed. Seyfried names the thing the documentary has been hinting at for the last 60 minutes: beyond wanting to protect her interests from the strange, unlikeable Billy, Nathan now feels a desire to put Holmes’s interests before objectivity. He cares about her in some way he never intended.

Nothing is ever lingered on but the hotel/prison call scene is probably the other key “scripted” element. Nathan waiting by the phone all day like a teenager waiting to be invited to prom and then, when he gets Holmes on the phone, it isn’t like a documentarian getting his subject to speak. It’s like a teenager speaking to their crush.

Do I think this scripted element is based on a real feeling from Fielder? Maybe — in those heads between part 1 and 2, I have no doubt Fielder interrogated his own responses to Holmes and realised that she was likely trying to manipulate him. Maybe they watched back the footage and saw Holmes’s mirroring of Fielder and her intense “focus” on him (a typical effort by sociopaths to ingratiate themselves is to make someone feel very important and special).

So basically a feature documentary morphed into a mega episode of The Rehearsal, and with an interesting “angle” to portray, it was easier for A24 to convince Seyfried to engage in some strange meta-version of herself responding to the subject of a character she played years ago.

We’ve seen that Elizabeth’s con relies on the personas she sells, but so far most of these con’s have been focused on making men around her fall for her traps. She did it with Theranos and we all saw her attempt the same on Nathan.

It makes me wonder what the persona/con would look like if the YCSE interviewer was a woman. Would she still pull the innocent mom doe-eyed bit? Or would she go for a very competent girl power angle?

I saw the film alone tonight and haven't had anyone to discuss it with so I'm coming here. I'm so frustrated the film left out such a gigantic piece of all of this - which Liz illuminated herself - that everything changed since having kids. And no, I don't mean they should have focused on the broad topic or intellectualization of that but the real human experience. But unless they had a buncha nannies hidden off camera, I really can't take anything she said while steeped in fresh postpartum, broken sleep, her body and hormones producing milk for her new baby, and on 30 days precipice of incarceration seriously. How can she put full thoughts together and have clarity of mind through all that? It's an excruciating and bewildering period of time. I felt the only real / vulnerable moment I got from Liz, which also showcased how I think Billy and she support one another behind closed doors, was the last time she took Ivy milk. So, I know she's capable of that and I know she bring that stuff to Billy. They just seemed to masterfully keep a lid on it for most of the other filming opportunities. I also think her having kids with Billy is a huge component to her tethering that the film didn't highlight. Especially given her volatility / vengeance challenges. He's her only path to closely watching her children grow. If she betrayed him in any way? It may seem like she's trapped because she is and she seems totally resolved. She's now trapped (jail) inside of entrapment - it's really sad. But when the love of children is involved it shifts everything. The relationship with Sunny is such a massive and vital piece of this story and I think vital to understanding Liz's history with men her whole life. I'm rambling now but really fascinating story and I want to find out more about her identity as a mother and how that shifted her perspective on it all.

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?

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.