i have no friends so i have to talk about it with you retards. I walked out not understanding whether Liz is a somewhat tragic figure, manipulated by older men like Sunny and her board into turning a naive 19 year old’s idea into a billion dollar fraud. Or is she a woman who discovered her power to control older, powerful, wealthy men with her big blue eyes and charismatic intelligence at a young age? The story of her rape at Stanford, callously spit out by her father to Nathan, suggests a girl taken advantage of. But her father says it marked a change in her.Earlier in the film, we’re shown Liz in the water, exuberant and almost childish, frolicking with who we assume is Billy based on the intimacy of the scene. At the end, the film cuts back to that same scene in the water outside the rented house on the San Diego coast. The camera pans to show Liz’s bright eyes and wide smile. She’s following the man we assumed was Billy, but the zoom continues and we’re shown that it’s Nathan.Earlier, she had asked Nathan to join her in the water, and he said he didn’t like the cold. Only now are we shown that he did, in fact, swim with her. This is him crossing the line into her spell.The “Who’s on First?” scene felt like an impossibility, and Fielder’s incredulous reaction seemed blunted by what I now interpret as him already being under Liz’s spell. It was a moment to push her but he clearly couldn't bring himself to do it once she showed the smallest amount of vulnerability. Had he taken it easy on her in the final edit? Is that why we never really discuss Theranos and her crimes? His charitable retelling of the prison story to Amanda?sorry for this gay ass blog post but i had a lot to say and im curious how people read the film
>>224001249hey retard, just provide a 1-10 rating
>>2240016018 or 9 probably. i think i need to rewatch it
>>224001249>never really discuss Theranos and her crimesWhat even for. She's manipulative and everything's been judged in court already. There's endless documentation.
Why has the "who's on first" bit oneshotted so many people? Funny interaction, but it's not that important. It's not unthinkable that she didn't get it, and if she did get it and lie about it, that doesn't make her a mastermind manipulator.
>>224002057I mean the context of even having her as a documentary subject is her crimes right? It's an interesting story. The crux of the story kind of revolves around this quote (that liz and billy dispute) about Liz's entire public and corporate identity being a character she created. Which in a way is what the film is exploring
>>224002305It sort of is unthinkable that she doesn't get it though. and the greater meaning is tied back to why he showed her in the first place. Did she try to knowing deceive investors and customers, or did she truly communicate the properties of the diagnostic tool in a bad, but not illegal way. If you keep peeling back the layers on the scene you have to acknowledge that she either has been taken advantage of by others to extend the scope of the fraud, or she is manipulating nathan by lying about her understanding.
>>224002416>It sort of is unthinkable that she doesn't get it though.No it really isn't. She's not that bright, and she doesn't seem like the sort of person who would pay attention to some old black and white clip of Jews yapping. You could play this to a lot of women her age and they would respond the same.>Did she try to knowing deceive investors and customers, or did she truly communicate the properties of the diagnostic tool in a bad, but not illegal way.You can easily ascertain an answer from actually reading about the case. That's why I'm saying - it's not important.>If you keep peeling back the layers on the scene you have to acknowledge that she either has been taken advantage of by others to extend the scope of the fraud, or she is manipulating nathan by lying about her understanding.Or she lied because she was receiving close counsel from her lawyers who told her not to broach anything that might incriminate her. Or, she didn't get it.
>>224002703no offense but did you watch the movie? just want to make sure before i actually respond to you because im not getting the feeling you did
>>224002786I did. It just wasn't that convincing to me.
>>224001249I aint reading all all that shitSummarize your point in 20 words or less.
>>224002928ok fair enough, maybe I was more taken with the interpersonal aspects than you were. i didnt feel she really held back, she was already going to prison, they only benefit was to help Billy's new scam company.
>>224003001ok ill trywas Holmes manipulating nathan/her husband/the crew in the movie? was she manipulating investors/powerful men who helped her along the way at theranos? or is she kind of autistic and taken advantage of by men who see a smart, connected woman?
>>224003037>ok fair enough, maybe I was more taken with the interpersonal aspects than you were.That was one of more interesting aspects of the film, but that doesn't mean they were necessarily important. Catching Holmes in a lie is like catching a monkey with a banana. We know what she did. It was down to semantics or the use of the word "can.>i didnt feel she really held back, she was already going to prison, they only benefit was to help Billy's new scam company.You're green. She's going to have her prison term reduced. She was doing this to win sympathy and gain leniency.
>>224003358>She was doing this to win sympathy and gain leniency.dont think it works like that man> but that doesn't mean they were necessarily important.completely disagree, in fact I think that's the entire point of the documentary. They don't really cover theranos because it IS a story about. here's a review that says it better than I can>he film doesn’t cover the wealth of implicating evidence against Holmes — not the lies she told about the military using her blood-testing machine, not the Pfizer logos she added to falsified lab reports. But perhaps Fielder and Oppenheim didn’t think they needed to. Whether Holmes is guilty was never the question; the film is actually a meta-commentary on truth and information.
>>224003494>it IS a story about the interpersonalmy bad i cut it off replying
>>224003494>dont think it works like that manClearly it does, and you're the proof. You came away from this documentary with this vague impression of Holmes where you can't tell left from right. There are a lot of people watching this film thinking that she's sympathetic, or possibly innocent, which is fucking nuts. I blame the filmmakers, but you guys really are gullible. This is a film that encourages you to be skeptical, and it's being praised as that, but there are so many people who are not skeptical at all.>completely disagree, in fact I think that's the entire point of the documentary. Yes, but the point of the documentary is besides the point of figuring out whether or not Holmes is a liar and a fraud. We already know she's a liar and fraud.>They don't really cover theranos because it IS a story about.Or because they signed a contract where they agreed not to mention certain things to get the film made. I have no idea. Ultimately, what they made the film about wasn't that interesting.>>he film doesn’t cover the wealth of implicating evidence against Holmes — not the lies she told about the military using her blood-testing machine, not the Pfizer logos she added to falsified lab reports. But perhaps Fielder and Oppenheim didn’t think they needed to. Whether Holmes is guilty was never the question; the film is actually a meta-commentary on truth and information.The film itself says this explicitly. I didn't find these questions that interesting personally, but it should be noted that the film also obfuscates the truth. For those who go into this film not knowing anything about Holmes, they're likely to walk away with a lot of what they think is reasonable doubt. But if you know the actual case, there is none.
>>224004247i doubt the parole board will give a fuck about this film man. shes already sentenced and denied the appeal. shes gonna serve.I don't really get your argument other than you just didnt find the interpersonal aspect interesting. But you also dont find the fraud aspect interesting? I guess its not for you
>>224005617>i doubt the parole board will give a fuck about this film man. shes already sentenced and denied the appeal. shes gonna serve.What do you mean, she's going to serve? She's in prison right now. She is serving her time. She's still probably going to get out early. Her sentence was already reduced this year.>I don't really get your argument other than you just didnt find the interpersonal aspect interesting.I don't think you get my argument at all. And this vague non-sense about the "interpersonal" aspect doesn't say much. What are you referring to specifically? >But you also dont find the fraud aspect interesting? I guess its not for youWhat do you mean? The criminal fraud that Holmes committed, that the documentary didn't cover, or Holmes being a fraud herself? It's not that I don't find it interesting, but I don't find it something that needs to be investigated or questioned - we already know she's a fraud. It's on the record. It seems like you just loved this movie a lot and don't want to hear it criticized.
>>224006350i just think you fundamentally didnt understand what you were watching. you seem to have taken everything at face value like you were watching a marvel movie, the enjoyment lies in the meta analysis
>>224006506You seem very evasive. I've spoken to so many fans of this film who think that everyone who doesn't like it eats glue paste and can't into dialectal thinking. I would go so far as to say I probably understood the film better than you did. I understood the meta analysis. But the meta analysis, which really wasn't that interesting or complex, obscures the actual truth about Holmes, to the point where people seem to think she might be innocent to some degree, or at least sympathetic. Do you care to actually comment on that specifically? If you don't agree, say why.
>>224006677I said this already, I don’t reach any conclusion about her intentions or how deep or shallow the intended manipulation is (just talking in the film, not theranos). I don’t find the question of her guilt interesting or especially relevant to the movie other than providing context. What I found interesting, again I said this already, is the analysis of Liz as a person and using that in the context of her crimes. She showed her ability to ensnare Nathan in just a few weeks and affect the way the movie presents her story. Did she manipulate him?At the same time shes dating this sociopathic idiot who aims to control her, are at least that’s how it appears on the surface. Did she whisk the eggs badly on purpose because she knew the response it would elicit from Billy on camera?That’s what I enjoyed about the movie. Hopefully that makes sense
>>224006928>I don’t find the question of her guilt interesting or especially relevant to the movie other than providing context.I don't find it interesting either, because we already know she's guilty.>She showed her ability to ensnare Nathan in just a few weeks and affect the way the movie presents her story. Did she manipulate him?That's a loaded question, because you first have to take Fielder's word that he was drawn in by her ruse. I don't believe it. Regardless, Holmes is being deceptive. It was plain to see, and what you'd expect. Does that constitute manipulation? Sure, but it's more mundane than you're making it out to be.>At the same time shes dating this sociopathic idiot who aims to control her, are at least that’s how it appears on the surface. Did she whisk the eggs badly on purpose because she knew the response it would elicit from Billy on camera?It's a relationship between two narcissists. It's not that complex. What does poring over every detail really accomplish? Whether it was calculated or simply routine, you don't need to focus on that particular moment to figure out the nature of the relationship.>That’s what I enjoyed about the movie. Hopefully that makes senseI'm not trying to convince you that you didn't enjoy the movie, but I think this movie plays loose with the truth to a degree that was irresponsible, and encourages its audience to bark up all the wrong trees to arrive at the filmmaker's own contrived conclusion that truth is unknowable and that we can't believe what we see.
>>224007425I guess im curious what your take away from the movie is. like what do you think the goal was from the production's side and from holmes/billy's side
