its not out in the uk yet but every screening already is half fully booked

I've never seen a single thing this Nathan fella has put out and I'm not gonna watch this either

It’s a kino film yeah. For me the three hours flew by. I was glued to the screen. I had a fun time at the theatre too as it was full and the audience reactions to everything heightened the movie experience.

Some folks mentioned there’s apparently a scene that contains AI but I didn’t notice it.

>>224030475
It was an interesting, thought-provoking movie and yeah pretty good-looking movie for a documentary. But.. I can’t get past the weird and kind of unethical intrusion into their private lives, beyond the scope of what you’d think is appropriate for a documentarian. Nathan is a smart guy and knows how to make riveting reality TV, but I don’t know if I like watching a sociopath at work and inviting us to take his side.

>>224030642
How is it unethical? Elizabeth and Billy literally asked for this doc to be made. Only thing they didn’t plan on was Nathan being the one to do it.

The reason we are supposed to feel sorry for Elizabeth Holmes is because no one could have ever seen that the 300 billion dollar gamble on AI is officially retarded. Because no investor should go hungry.

>>224030642
I agree with youre sentiment
>the ending
>well maybe Im not portraying everything that was recorded. maybe Im sanitizing her presentation since we became close.

no rabbi nathan, you absolutely put on this atrocity exhibition to exploit and emphasize how much of a nutcase she was and how unnatural she came across so much so that you made a fucking movie out of it

and the whole blurring of the lines between the actress and the meta stuff "why would I decieve you" line getting repeated was a bit on the nose that it kinda took me out of it.

>>224030475
>the husband was amazing
How so?

>>224030642
Elizabeth for sure is a sociopath, but what makes you think Nathan is one? Sure he acts odd but that seemed more like him being autistic or something rather than straight up detrimental to his surroundings

>>224030642
Nobody was coerced, it was Billy and Elizabeth's idea in the first place. They reached out to Nathan dumbass, next you’re going to tell me it’s mean-spirited because it accurately portrays Billy as a dishonest control freak.

>>224030775
No, it’s mean-spirited because two Hollywood celebrities team up to try and break up Billy’s relationship because they don’t like him. And you, the audience, are along for the ride and because you worship celebrities you think it’s cool and funny when they fuck with people who don’t have the same benefit of hipster street cred and parasocial fandoms to absolve them of any responsibility for their shitty behavior.

>>224030475
>still dont know what to make of it.
Well fuck off then lol

>>224030989
Nobody likes Billy, stop being overly sensitive on behalf of strangers, that’s some white knight faggotry.

>>224030475
The obvious acting up of the "controlling husband" was just a ruse to protect Elizabeth's true nature of being a psychopath.

File: 1826CF50-4949-4908-AD31-2(...).png (354 KB, 725x684)

354 KB PNG

I mean don't pull this shit and your life won't be such hell. She could just admit she was stupid, lied and it's an act but she is a nihilist so nothing matters not even her own feeling. What a retard.

>>224030989
Sweet lord you are a stupid nigger.

>>224031163
Psychopaths and narcissists are incapable of doing this.

Does anything spicy get said or does this show her in compromised talks because I'm 35 minutes in and she is 1000000% a liar but she is infuriating and I want to bash her skull in.

>>224031043
>slobbering on celebrity dick because desperate to be cool like them

Pathetic

>>224030755
nathan has a long track record of being disingenuous to get a reaction. he is closer to a performance artist than a documentarian.

>>224031043
I liked when Billy called out how hypocritical Seyfried was being calling Charlie Kirk dishonest when she did the same shit to his wife.

>>224031494
Except it’s a retarded thing to say because Elizabeth is a convicted fraudster. Amanda is an actress. You’re so up your ass on magashit you were ready to take his side on anything.

>>224031580
What was Charlie Kirk convicted of?

>>224031580
>Except it’s a retarded thing to say because Elizabeth is a convicted fraudster
If someone's convicted of a crime it's ok to lie about them?

>>224031604
First-degree based

never seen nathan get upset until now
is billy the most powerful ragebaiter?

>>224030732
Yep. People jumping over backwards over this crap, and it's some contrived bullshit that was obvious from the beginning. Ultimately they're splitting hairs over shit that doesn't even matter. And I doubt Nathan has anything on Holmes, so the idea he's protecting her is such a smokeshow.
>>224031163
She was never going to do this. If she admits guilt or incriminates herself in any way, there would be legal consequences. She was being counseled by her lawyers throughout this entire thing.
>>224031633
He was upset because Billy had say over what Fielder could pursue. Notice he shuts down a lot of conversations throughout the film, and Fielder barely challenges him on it.

>>224031747
i think it's more to do with normies get upset when people say emotional things nathan only cares about his vision or his art. billy understood that fundamentally that was the way to rile him

>>224030475
Holmes and Billy really did get everything they wanted from this movie. Even if they came across as weird and batshit Nathan not calling her on any of her history of lies, the whisteblowers, the coverups etc. seeded some doubt in the public and made them come across as relatively sympathetic.

>>224031812
>nathan only cares about his vision or his art
Spare me. He's a TV entertainer. His vision and art are shit. Billy was an unleashed narcissist who made Fielder stop interviewing the father and the one expert. Fielder had a hate boner for this dude, and couldn't do his usual schtick because he was bound by contract.

>>224031846
It makes me wonder what terms they agreed to in order to get this made, but yeah, it makes the filmmakers look incredibly irresponsible. They tell you they were willing to pay Billy, but Billy changing his mind about get paid happens in the postscript. Very sus.

>>224031874
he's the only one creating stuff that's being discussed. he actually had a kill switch on this project and could end it at any time because he doubted what he was going to find was any good. it's only when the crew started debating like what was actually happening at that house they realised what they had was interesting

>>224031621
Amanda didn’t lie about anything

>>224031929
>he's the only one creating stuff that's being discussed.
Maybe in Midwitville.
>he actually had a kill switch on this project and could end it at any time because he doubted what he was going to find was any good.
What he found wasn't any good. Maybe he did his best to salvage the project because of all the people that worked on it, and to try to twist the documentary as a passive aggressive attack against Billy.
>it's only when the crew started debating like what was actually happening at that house they realised what they had was interesting
They realized they could try to make something interesting out of it, even though they didn't get what they wanted. That's what all the formalist games are - the filmmakers trying to throw every idea at the screen to give it some kind of intellectual weight.

>>224031961
She made the scene playing Holmes where the blood machine exploded and she said "It doesn't matter" despite it never happening.

>>224032020
every documentary is biased. i think most people believe the thesis of the film is that billy is the figurehead.
it's like very surface level to feel sorry for elizabeth
why because she's a mother?
because she literally had children to delay her jail sentence?

if you actually scratch under the surface at her behaviour it's quite clear. You're simply seeing what's on the screen and chewing it up while calling other midwits while not thinking about what actually is motivating these people
think about money she has to set it up in this fashion where there's a 'controlling husband' or she has to be make her investor whole.

The stuff between Amanda and Fielder was clearly scripted. Can't imagine caring about any of that shit.

>>224032020
This. He got stonewalled by both of them the whole first half of the documentary. It’s like 50 different iterations of the same conversation and Elizabeth and Billy both just acted like retards the whole time. So he had to pull out his bag of tricks to salvage a halfway interesting documentary.

>>224032141
>every documentary is biased.
I realize that was a huge revelation for those who liked this film, but for me it's a big who cares. As De Palma said, the camera lies 24 times per second. I know all documentaries are biased. I'm not criticizing it for simply being biased. If anything, it's the way it's biased that bothers me.
>i think most people believe the thesis of the film is that billy is the figurehead.
Then they're dumb.
>it's like very surface level to feel sorry for elizabeth
It's very stupid level.
>if you actually scratch under the surface at her behaviour it's quite clear. You're simply seeing what's on the screen and chewing it up while calling other midwits while not thinking about what actually is motivating these people
What are you talking about? I didn't believe Holmes at all, for one minute.
>think about money she has to set it up in this fashion where there's a 'controlling husband' or she has to be make her investor whole.
You are so out of the ballpark. I never said Holmes was innocent or being manipulated by Billy. I never believed that even while watching the film.

>>224032087
She wasn’t the screenwriter of that Hulu show moron. And dramatizations of real life stories have to fictionalize parts of the story all the time, it’s not like some special injustice was done to Elizabeth.

>>224032245
She took part in a something that was deceptive and caused harm to Holmes. How is that any different than what Holmes did on a fundamental level? This documentary has so many levels you morons didn't even notice.

File: CA982D44-DF51-43DB-9960-E(...).gif (1.59 MB, 250x149)

1.59 MB GIF

>mfw billy after Liz goes to jail
This nigga really is a cuck lol

>>224032288
This is the most retarded thing I’ve ever read. Elizabeth defrauded people of hundreds millions of dollars. Amanda Seyfried played a part in a shitty Hulu series. There is no similarity between these two actions.

>>224032399
Did you even watch the movie? It's not even clear if she even did that. From what I can tell, she truly believed what she was saying.

>>224032441
Now you’re just making up headcanon to double down on your defence of convicted criminals because they also sniffed Charlie Kirk farts like your stupid ass.

>>224032399
>This is the most retarded thing I’ve ever read. Elizabeth defrauded people of hundreds millions of dollars. Amanda Seyfried played a part in a shitty Hulu series
Again though, we're not comparing Seyfried to Holmes but to Charlie Kirk. She shit on Charlie Kirk because he was disingenuous in his YouTube debates. Billy pointed out Seyfried does the same shit professionally when she plays real people.

>>224032441
There was a whole trial in which the federal government presented evidence of her crimes and she was found guilty by a jury of her peers. But you watched a 3 hour movie so I guess you’re the real expert on the case. You are trolling at this point, right? No one can actually be this dumb.

>>224032518
I have a question: who cares? Also, fuck Charlie Kirk, stupid kike puppet.

>>224032521
>There was a whole trial in which the federal government presented evidence of her crimes and she was found guilty by a jury of her peers
Insane Nathan never really brought up any of that evidence. He really didn't push her on her obvious lying at all.

>>224032576
Really, didn't you even watch the movie? Did anyone here watch it, or are you just judging it based on what you read on twitter? Fielder was taken in by her. He loves her and wants to protect her.

>>224032518
But even there the comparison falls apart. Chirk was disingenuous about gun violence and all sorts of other topics (like most conservative propagandists). Amanda was not disingenuous in playing a role for a show about a convicted criminal.

It’s like saying a child’s drawing of a horse and a picture of a snake are both equally not horses.

>>224032518
Okay yeah, I agree with that. She was literally in his house trying to get information out of him under false pretenses and then started calling Charlie Kirk “performative.” I mean that’s just funny.

>>224032652
Charlie Kirk was not disingenuous. You might disagree with what he believed but he was very sincere in his beliefs.

File: IMG_9277.jpg (758 KB, 1170x812)

758 KB JPG

>>224032678

>>224032609
>Fielder was taken in by her. He loves her and wants to protect her.
Yes. And that makes him a retard and a shit documentary maker.

>>224032706
Oh he was. You just fell for the grift.

>>224032724
Have a (You)

This was the best movie I've seen this year. Possibly this decade. Totally changed the way I look at documentaries.

File: ThinRedLine.jpg (472 KB, 1280x1280)

472 KB JPG

>its not interesting because i know theyre narcissists and its just obvious she's lying!! its so tedious!!
>yeah that ww2 movie sucks like why did he attack the japanese in a frontal assault?? what a dumb movie it sucks. its so slow and tedious

its been a while since ive seen a more obvious iq test movie. thin red line seems to elicit similar responses from the same dumb people

>there are people reading this post that dont understand why this comparison is relevant

>you can see everything btw
>except any interviews of interesting people or her jail phone call or the meetings with the husband ehh you can watch Seyfried instead
>the only thing you can see is some guys dick
It's mid
Its carried by the fascination of this batshit couple, could've been done better

>>224033266
EVERYONE POINT AND LAUGH!!! HE DOESNT GET THE POINT OF OBSCURING THE PRISON INTERVIEW!!!
HAHAHAHAH

>>224033282
(You). You get it, not like everyone else. You see the clothes on the emperor because you’re special. Have a gold star.

File: down with the sickness.jpg (26 KB, 460x350)

26 KB JPG

>sociopathic manipulative lying couple unable to present themselves authentically without calculated positioning and plausible deniability alibies baked into every lying word out of their mouths ARE THE ONES who actually have the audience questioning what real love is and what and what does not make love valid between two people

like maybe they really are just two fucking psychos that enable each other but are actually in full on love

>>224033335
yes im truly a genius for understanding the narrative of the movie i watched!! im not like anyone else!!
nah like you actually dont get how the production used that to build the compelling "nathan slips under her spell" underpinning? true or not it was necessary

>>224032737
holy retard
the doc wasn't about theranos, it was about nathan fielder being invited into their home and the extreme manipulation committed therein

>>224033459
this retard gets it
anyone arguing about SHES LYING!!! NATHAN IS A RETARD!!! literally do not understand what they watched. they lack media literacy and i dont really know what else to say.

File: baseline.jpg (74 KB, 1280x720)

74 KB JPG

>>224032609
>Fielder was taken in by her.
Not in the least
did nobody get the "who's on first?" scene

she's blatantly manipulating and trying to double down on her "Im just really autistic and dont understand language or human interactions" to the point Im retarded and not liable for my interpretations and lies and words

if anything the power of attorney thing and the asking for money in the first place displays the shrewdness behind using the husband to be able to profit on her story and likeness without them having to pay restitution's
thats calculated and measured behavior. the husband wasnt some controlling bully and she wasnt a shrinking violet.

just two schemers that understand the best way to circumvent the system to their advantage.
they came across to me like two card counters at the same black jack table. covering for each other and making moves to benefit each other at the expense of the house.

Nathan understood this and went along with it for the audacity and entertainment value in it. the obfuscation with the "maybe the real journey was the friends we made along the way" was just a thematic cop out to keep it ambiguous and a business decision for framing it to keep it interesting.

Elizabeth Holmes for the millennial bitches, Freaky Nikki for the zoomettes. What a Halloween

Is Billy gay?

>>224030989
>No, it’s mean-spirited because two Hollywood celebrities team up to try and break up Billy’s relationship because they don’t like him
They discuss the possibility of breaking them up, but they do not actually attempt to break them up. The "you should break up" material is not actually presented to Elizabeth.

What he presents to her at the end is "you want this film to rehabilitate your image, and it can't do that if you're profiting from it", and you can decide for yourself whether or not it's ethical for him to push her on that, but it's still a different presentation.

>>224032288
>How is that any different than what Holmes did on a fundamental level?
If people have their medical tests fucked with, they can be misdiagnosed and, uh, die.

Most people would agree that it's a bad thing when people die prematurely.

While on one hand it fails at what should be its obvious purpose in the first half of the movie, I think it’s pretty interesting when it shows Amanda Seyfried looking stupid and tacky, and I was sympathetic to Holmes insofar as it must suck to be the subject of a Hulu miniseries. Although I also thought it was unintentionally kind of funny how they tried to suggest that EVERYBODY watched The Dropout.

>>224030740
he was entertaining and at the end it genuinely seemed like they cared for each other and were very much in love

There is no way or time that Nathan showed that he had bias or felt a sense of protection to Elizabeth. The dude was impressed by just how ridiculous they are and handles this couple with some of the greatest of eases I've ever seen. 10/10 doc. Billy is a cuck who will overdose or get killed.

>>224035237
>There is no way or time that Nathan showed that he had bias or felt a sense of protection to Elizabeth.
>>224035237
the entire scene towards the end of them swimming in the ocean together after initially declining the invitation?
the fact he states that maybe she did say something incriminating and he's not gonna publish that out of a sense of guardianship?

>>224035297
Going swimming with someone to show a person is human in a documentary isn't falling in love with them. Holding on to a potential piece of incriminating evidence out of the sense of legal danger for you and your production company and clients is not a romantic gesture.

I've never told a lie :)

People are sucking off this movie way too hard

It's definitely overrated. Anyone calling it 10/10 or the movie of the year can be safely disregarded.

File: Spoiler Image (891 KB, 1080x784)

891 KB PNG

>>224035468
>Reddit spacing

>>224035468
>i am le contrarian so le reddit will le accept me!

File: brian wolf.jpg (24 KB, 447x447)

24 KB JPG

>>224030475
Is it true he saves the day?

>>224035516
I thought it was nice for him to break up all the lying with some honesty.

>>224031163
That's kind of how I feel about it. Everybody is like: "Oooh, is she a poor victim or is she a genius master manipulator?" - I don't give a fuck.
The bigger story to me is why there are so many people in the medical industry who apparently recognized that she didn't know what the fuck she was talking about and still went along with it.
Seriously, there are dozens of people who came out after the fact to say "I thought it was a bit weird that she didn't seem to understand how Theranos worked but I didn't say anything at the time".

>Nathan washing a bad taste of out his mouth (chopper conversation)
>Every step forward is 2 back (Nathan alone walking forward/back on beach)
>Billy taking a slice of the pie not his (a24 meeting)
>Something stinks (Seyfried horses)
felt like I'm missing way more of these

>>224032441
Vro fell for it holy shit
Or this is just surface level ragebait

>>224035498
Not a contrarian it's the truth. Was this your first time watching a documentary? First exposure to Nathan's schtick? It's good but it's not up to the hype at all.

>>224033742
>You can see everything (if you can read between the lines)

It feels like a step backwards from Rehearsal season 2, and one really gets the sense that they were all in on this project before they had a strong idea of what their whole angle should be.

>jewshills still can’t find an angle to shill this piece of crap

>>224037591
>still can’t find an angle
What do you mean? It's massively successful.
>that's an illusion, there is no real success, it's just jews jewing their jewish tricks
How come Nathan gets the benefit of tricks but the Ali G movie is flopping? Is Nathan allowed in the Jew Club but Sacha Baron Cohen is kicked out?

>>224030572
give a watch to the stunt where he puts himself in a situation where when some time limit is hit he will be naked in public, committing a crime. I forgot the exact premise but that episode was a fever dream.

File: Screenshot_20261029_21474(...).png (214 KB, 474x607)

214 KB PNG

why did they make holmes do the 666 picture?
is it because she is an mk ultra flesh puppet? she doesn't even seem human, just a vessel for them to push whatever they want through and she takes the fall when it fails

>>224035468
it was good but its basically just a less comedic Finding Frances

>>224030642
The fascinating part is that you discover pretty much what really happened in this film: they were fraudsters, schemers, they used semantics to try to deflect from their incompetence, and they seem like they’ve been stuck in Adderall induced thought shoots for years. They’re con artists in their hearts, the evidence is just too overwhelming. Watching how they formulate and maneuver through a con can be a fascinating glimpse for the viewer. It can even help with discernment in daily living, really seeing what people are doing when they start acting all weird and sketchy and beat around the bush in peculiar ways.

>>224037655
The Claw of Shame

I think it stops short of being genre-defining masterpiece. Gets close.

File: images.jpg (39 KB, 452x678)

39 KB JPG

>>224030475
3 hours is nothing for a documentary

>>224030475
I can’t imagine being such a goy that I would watch this.

>>224031163
You're talking to people that took every documentary or biopic they've ever seen at face value prior to seeing this.

File: bdvs.png (566 KB, 1159x850)

566 KB PNG

Advanced screenings are fully booked in my area

>>224040761
Fair

Menoids are really this easily fooled by some blonde saying “I’m le dumb”?

Thank fuck Amanda seyfried wws there to say nk

>>224033742
I literally didn't get the specifics of the who's on first thing. I understood that they're talking past each other, and that's where the comedy is coming from, but when he asked her "who's on first base?" I also was like "wait what?"

>>224030475
I felt like it was trying to paint a false dichotomy:
>Either she's an innocent autist who is manipulated by men, or she's the manipulator
I thought it was far more likely that she is bit of both. Nathan is one too, this whole documentary are people playing a character in order to fool each other or to fool you, the viewer.

>>224030740
He had a pretty amazing dick

>>224041474
>I thought it was far more likely that she is bit of both.
Yeah, there's no one answer, it's a complex picture of disturbed people.

>>224035452
>she asks "do you want to jump in with me"
>he shows hesitation
>you watch the rest of the movie, thinking he is showing hesitation to "jump into" liz's perspective
>amanda questions nathan's reliability as a narrator, implying liz has grabbed him in some way
>it's revealed that he did indeed "jump in" with her very early into the movie, giving a completely different perspective to nathan's involvement within the film
youre dumb but I hope I helped your media literacy a little bit

>>224040924
Let's establish a baseline reality as a foundation for this conversation. Can you tell me the name, as you understand it, of the baseman on first base?

>>224042859
Who?

>>224043088
The player, selected by the coach from the team roster, to be positioned at first base.

>>224043126
At first base?

>>224042859
Well I mean, I understood it completely after he said that the player Who is on first. But initially, I didn't capture that from the Abbott and Costello thing.

The second half is some amazing film making and storytelling, but it's not a documentary and mostly scripted
Also clearly ripping off Hitchcock

>>224043563
He ends the Abbott and Costello clip early, before they can finish the whole bit.

He made his point though. Either
>she genuinely doesn't understand that Who/Hu/Hoo is the name of the first baseman because she genuinely doesn't process language the same way we do
or
>she pretends to not understand that Who/Hu/Hoo is the name of the first baseman, as part of her sociopathic "I just think differently" defense

>>224043731
its funny that she could have just said "yeah im autistic" right then and gotten the desired effect. I dont think her ego would allow the lie to go that far though

jesus christ there's actually anons in here trying to understand the most classic comedy routine ever

this thread right here is explanation of how so many people fell for her lies and countless other schemes that happen all over the world

>>224043731
Or she didn't want to broach anything that might implicate her, so she played dumb. Or she's dumb and didn't get it.

>>224041940
Nah, it's pretty simple. She's a sociopath. What's complex about it?

>>224045315
...that's what the post already says.

>>224045374
No it's not. The other post said she might not get it because she doesn't process language the same way as us, implying she's autistic or something. The other explanation is that she's lying to further construct her facade. The possible explanations I gave are simple - she's dumb, or she's playing dumb to avoid talking about something. Those aren't the same, numbnuts.

>>224038273
you don't need to see this movie to understand that

>>224038273
>the chick convicted for fraud is... a fraudster?
>Elizabeth Holmes is... le lying?
People this dumb must need a movie like this to tell them not to trust documentaries, because they're so fucking gullible. What the hell did you expect?

>>224031580
>>224032497
>>224032518
>>224032652
>>224032745
No he wasn't.
You're just a seething leftist freak.

>>224045758
Okay.

>>224045758
Doesn't matter. Amanda Siegfried is cool. Charlie Kirk is a dead loser. Amanda could get away with it, and Charlie ACK-ed

Am I the only person that thinks the whole thing was scripted or atleast everyone was being directed?

>>224045820
I mean, that's half right. Part of why I liked the first hour more than the boring meta stuff that followed.

>>224045820
theyre certainly acting, thats for sure

>>224045811
Based

Amanda Seyfried saves this, unironically
She's the only one who isn't afraid to act like a real person
Also she's still v.qt for a 40 year old hag

I dont think its crazy to think that the production could have come to holmes to make something using her particular situation in pop culture and name to create something that would for sure be talked about and lucrative. It all seems too good to be true and especially the parts with the mean girl actress and husband it doesnt feel real at all the way it turns into a badly acted twitter argument and the comments hes making with her account seem like an arg gimmick.

File: lbeh.jpg (45 KB, 647x263)

45 KB JPG

>>224030475
She has the soulless, vacant eyes of the Liberty Biberty ball. Quite disturbing.

Haven't seen it but don't understand how it could be so groundbreaking. Wow, sit in a house with a noted conwoman for a couple months, whoa...

>Fielder

Reddit "comedy" for pseuds and retards, shall not be watching.

>>224046132
She's clearly acting the entire time. I didn't really think she was that interesting. The film seems to think it's really interesting watching her react to Holmes reacting to the Dropout, but it's not.
>>224046245
Because after an hour of that, it becomes 'meta' and becomes a documentary about making a documentary, which is really novel for people who have never watched anything outside of docuslop before.

File: pepe-smoke_png_80.jpg (34 KB, 640x640)

34 KB JPG

>nathan continously trying to pressure them both to pull from the deal where they get a percentage of profits for the film
>in the end it actually worked

absolutely jewish from nathan.
>bro you know that deal we made and is signed and legally binding... just go back on it because its bad for the movie or something
>movie makes bank at box office
>man who is humiliated and villainized on-screen gets nothing

>>224046296
If we're to believe the postscript. Find it kind of interesting that we never see when Billy changes his mind.

The only thing I've learned for certain from this movie is that Amanda Seyfried has apparently never had good sex.

>>224046296
>>224046469
The film ends with Amanda accusing Nathan of manipulating the film to protect Elizabeth and make her look better.

It makes Elizabeth look bad if she's profiting off the film, so Nathan pressuring her to relinquish her profits could just be his artistic integrity to protect the project... or his lack of artistic integrity, as he protects her and makes her look better.

>>224030475
Why does this woman need 4 different fucking movies about her

>>224030642
>thought-provoking movie
What was thought provoking about it?

>>224046540
There is no way people think that conversation was real and unprompted

File: CamRip You Can See Everything.jpg (31 KB, 640x360)

31 KB JPG

>>224046594
THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

>>224046594
What are the ethics and implications of a documentary subject profiting from a documentary made about them?

>>224046540
She let her boyfriend film her sucking his dick on a paddle board out in the ocean
There’s no way she’s not a fun lay

>>224046686
i personally dont see any problem with it. The documentary maker is profiting off them. So why can they not get a cut? They have to put arguably more on the line than actors and put in just as much effort. If the deal is in place already as well then whats the problem?
>b-but it could influence the documentary
How? if you're the director then you call the shots and it doing so is a failure on your part.

>>224046594
How much should you trust a documentarian, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt for presenting their documentary in good faith? Nathan is one of the few documentarians who actively suggests that you should doubt him instead of trusting him blindly.

>>224046719
it was just classic sisterhood misandry.
>ive had to pretend my sex has been good with men because men are so BAD at sex right girlies!??! hehe

>>224046737
It reduces trust in the final product.

>documentary without profits for the subject(s)
Option A: This is them being their real selves.
Option B: This is them playing exaggeratedly positive versions of themselves to improve their image.

>documentary with profits for the subject(s)
Option A: This is them being their real selves.
Option B: This is them playing exaggeratedly positive versions of themselves to improve their image.
Option C: This is them playing exaggeratedly negative versions of themselves to improve the film's profitability.

Option C happens almost exclusively in reality TV, because subjects usually don't receive profits in reality film.

>>224046846
but the whole film was made with the second scenario in place anyway, where
>Option C: This is them playing exaggeratedly negative versions of themselves to improve the film's profitability.
could have been a very real thing. Yet, you do not think lesser of the film? Them pulling out at the end of the project would have made no meaningful difference to the outcome of the film. Also i'd argue option c is also something that could happen even without the subject getting direct profits.

>>224046896
>>224046846
also ill add that the format of the documentary and how it is shot is supposed to reduce the chances of option B and C simply by time of exposure. Nobody can hide their true selves for 24 hours / 7 days per week for a month straight. Which is how long nathan was with them.

>>224046540
She was just saying that to take a swipe at Billy.
>>224046560
I doubt Fielder is actually protecting her. It's just a bit a theater to play the documentarian who gets too close to his subject cliche. As it is, we have no clue why they changed their minds, or any real confirmation that they did, other than the film saying so. Kind of odd. You'd think they'd include that in the movie if it really happened.
>>224046686
That's certainly a thought it provokes, but it's not really what the documentary is about.
>>224046752
The filmmakers had to sign a contract, and couldn't just do whatever they wanted. It's part of why so little actually happens in it.

Man Nathan Fieldjew and the Jew director are gullible simps. They really fell for “woe is me, I was raped when I was 18 so my brain made me commit fraud for 12 years”??

“Trust me it was all the Pakistanis fault, no he didn’t come on to Theranos until six years in but it was all him!”

Imagine a guy trying to blame massive fraud committed over a decade on being attacked at 18

Pussy privilege strikes again

>>224046896
>but the whole film was made with the second scenario in place anyway, where
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. If you can trust Nathan, then he wasn't sure, and the end of the movie was him trying to find out whether or not Holmes was aware of the profit deal.

>>224030725
Or we had to feel deep because she was a woman.

>>224046932
>That's certainly a thought it provokes, but it's not really what the documentary is about.
Why would the entire film need to be about that one thought in order for it to be a valid thought presented by the film? It has at least 30 minutes of content put into it, so it's not insubstantial.

Anybody else find it weird when Nathan asks Amanda Seyfried why they had a scene in the dropout that didn’t happen in real life (because Holmes was crying in prison saying the other prisoners were bullying her over it)

Amanda got super defensive and her answer was basically “but it’s tv, everyone knows it’s not a documentary”

Which is true I guess, but most people I know who care about this story probably fucking got most of their info from the dramatised tv show which is inaccurate

Heard the guy shows his dick. Is it big? If not why’d he do it?

>>224046996
>Why would the entire film need to be about that one thought in order for it to be a valid thought presented by the film?
Because when someone asks why a film like this is thought provoking, what they mean is something the film is actually about, that provokes thought, not just some lingering question about the production of the documentary.
>It has at least 30 minutes of content put into it, so it's not insubstantial.
There's 30 minutes to do with the ethics of Billy and Holmes profiting off the movie? No, there's not. It's just a question of whether or not she knows. That's what the film is interested in.
>>224047042
He's a narcissist.

>>224046296

i love how you only focus on that, and not where Nathan actually swam in the ocean with Liz, which put his entire objectivity up in the air

>>224033266

did you not literally watch or listen?

they were told by her husband that she can be transferred if they find out anyone is recording her calls, they did it to not harm her

>>224030475
They won't air it in Spain until 25dec!

File: images (76).jpg (16 KB, 739x415)

16 KB JPG

>>224030475
Liars...le exist?

>>224047336
>>224047303
Who gives a shit? You talk like gossiping middle aged women

>>224047336
Would've been better if they harmed her. But seriously, so what? If that's the case they didn't have much of a movie.
>>224047303
You don't need that moment to question Fielder's objectivity or the documentary's objectivity, as both Fielder and the documentary are aggressively manipulative from the start.

>>224030475
I can't believe the sociopath conwoman could just... hecking lie to Nathan! This definitely needed to be 3 hours long.

>>224047441
Wow, the movie is about so much more. Didn't you watch it? It's cerebral and complex.

>>224047459
Cerebral is such a great buzzword for brainlet filmbuffs

>>224047497
Go watch your MCU movies. Leave art to those with a brain.

>>224047389
The movie is mainly to be spoken of like middle ages women thoughbeit.

>>224047517
A24 is the Marvel Studios of "art" movies. Get a normie approved celebrity and write a twist that people can make tiktoks about, and A24 will make it.

>>224030475
>the cinematography was kino
It was overproduced prestige crap. Not an interesting idea to be found here.

I wanna watch this so bad but the only pirate copy is inaudible

>>224048903
Don't hype yourself up. I was originally going to drive an hour to see this in theaters, but luckily it came to my local theater the day of. Underwhelming stuff. And if you're not seeing it in a theater with bunch of metropolitan types, the sort that make up Fielder's fanbase, it's sort of a snooze as a theater experience.

>>224046944
It was quite stupid and pointless for Nathan to get so hung up on that one question. Someone with Elizabeth's experience with the legal system would know she's better off not knowing, and would probably just say to Billy "if you want to discuss payment on behalf of you and the kids go for it but I don't want to know anything about it in case it comes up later in court." In criminal circles this kind of thinking and practice is very commonplace.

>>224047459
>the movie is about so much more
No, not really.

>>224049121
It makes me wonder if Fielder is this dumb, or if he just didn't have anything substantial to make this documentary, so instead it's filled with misleadingly dumb shit that fools your average midwit into thinking they've watched something probing and complex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr_QFX_LCso

this video explains in depth the layers of this film and also points out how it will transcend the genre of documentaries going forward, this film will be studied.

all these people forgetting the part where Liz was completely off the grid for nearly 10 years before this documentary was first released in a trailer a few months ago.

>>224049307
Not even true. There was a New York Times Reporter (I think) on twitter who commented that the film inaccurately makes this claim, even though the reporter had interviewed Holmes a few months before they shot this movie.

>>224049245
Autistic people get hung up on black and white definite thinking, they cannot abide accepting multiple possibilities of varying probability and move on. They need to know "the truth" and get very caught up in trying to know why things are happening even if it's not possible.

>>224049607
Does that explain why general audiences love it and its ambiguity, and autistic 4channers hate it and its lack of definite answers?

>>224049281
Actually watched this, and it's awful even for a youtube video essay.
>transcend the genre of documentaries
What does this even mean? How does this transcend the genre, but something like F For Fake doesn't? Either the definition of documentary broadens, or it's not a documentary, or it's part documentary, part narrative. It's not rewriting the book.
>going forward, this film will be studied.
Doubtful. It actually doesn't do anything new. It'll be the topic of youtube essays for sure, but these are hardly studying anything.
>>224049607
The problem though is that "the truth" in this movie isn't even consequential for the most part. That was my big thing with the film - much of it amounts to "who cares."
>>224049772
It's pointlessly ambiguous and intentionally obfuscates the truth to serve its thesis.

>>224030475
Is out in hindi now?

>>224049772
Possibly, but there's other reasons to find it underwhelming apart from lacking definite answers: it's that the questions aren't that interesting, especially if you know Nathan's MO and have dealt with shameless sociopathic habitual liars before.

You will never truly know what anyone else is thinking! Highschool tier. Who is manipulating who??? An frequent trope in thrillers for decades. Would a documentarian lie or mislead? Something that occurs to anyone with 110+ IQ points and accepts true neutrality in media is theoretical. F for Fake did a lot of these in more detail 50 years ago.

If you don't watch a lot of documentaries or are a huge Nathan Fielder fan and don't really understand what he does I think it would be easy to be enamored by this.

>>224030475
Imagine being normie enough to actually watch this

>>224030475
Give me the qrd I have no idea wtf this is about. Sell it to me.

>>224050011
A famous white collar criminal invites film company A24 to make a documentary about her in the month before she goes to prison. The film company agrees but sends a comedian (formerly on Comedy Central, currently on HBO) to make the documentary.

Billy really was the highlight, the other 2 Nathan anf Liz have already been widely explored but Billy was a fascinating new addition. Crazy how much he triggered the redditors and women as a whole

>>224037591
Just say "our heros the documentary people, say a mean thing about Kirk, the guy who deserves to die for talking"

>>224030572
your loss

>>224050081
>Send the clown to do it
So are we supposed to take this seriously or what?

>>224050147
Having seen it, I feel like it's my loss, as it's 3 hours long and a waste of time.

>>224050147
oh no

>>224050192
Nobody knows.

>>224050192
The film provides no definite answers and encourages you to draw your own conclusions.

>>224050238
And if you have any critical thinking skills, you'll leave with plenty of conclusions, most of which you probably had walking into the theater.

>>224050276
I just go to the theater to be entertained, which this film succeeded in doing. If I want to learn something new, then I have books for that.

>>224050301
It was sometimes entertaining. By the last hour, it was pretty tedious.

>>224050301
I didn't say anything about learning. Saying the film succeeded because it entertained you is begging the question.

>>224030572
Why would we give s fuck that youre missing out on one of the best creators of today

>>224030642
Lel why are you worried about being ethical to one of the heads of the most unethical scam in medicine this century

>>224050546
No he's not. What is this hero-worship bullshit lately? Nathan Fielder is like pretty funny, and sometimes he has some clever ideas. He's not some genius or great artist.

>>224050546
Why did you bother replying?

>>224050620
If not him, then who are the best creators working today?

File: 6546454c36d588dc55caf71e.png (354 KB, 700x525)

354 KB PNG

>>224030475
>>224030583
>>224030642
These mother fuckers are not real

>>224031043
I had no problem with him and thought their relationship seemed genuine albeit still with participating manipulators. Hes a based chud

>>224050636
A better question is what makes Nathan Fielder such a great "creator." He made some funny shows, and a bloated mid documentary. This is like when people started treating the Daily Show as if it were adroit political commentary and not just entertainment.

>YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING
>born blind
>you can't see anything :(

>>224050798
You can see everything. At a future date, scientists may develop a method to give you unlimited sight.

The Theranos device can run any test. At a future date, scientists might develop chemistry to make any test possible.

>>224049386

the literal interview she was pissed about because they misquoted her?

yes the reason she wanted to have a documentary to show her side without censorship

all these fucking autists in here pontificating over shit they already discussed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gn0QeqYMr4

>>224030475
YMS made a video about it

>>224030475
Why is Fielder behaving like Holmes murdered somebody?

>>224051188
Faulty medical testing is... le deadly.

Haven't seen the doc and probably won't. Followed her trial pretty closely though and don't remember anything about her husband being involved. I thought she was in a relationship with her partner Balwani at the time Theranos went under. Can someone clue me in to the significance of her husband in any of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIzSJuZQVps

>>224051178
All these fucking autists, and here you are - the loser that actually watched this video.

>>224037717
If this is like finding Frances than everything hes ever done is like finding frances

>>224037591
>newfag is so new he doesnt know Nathan fielder was peak 4chan core

>>224051325
>Nathan fielder was peak 4chan core
You can keep trying to gas light but it's never going to work

>>224051325
>Nathan fielder was peak 4chan core
Now he's peak normie-core. Always reddit-core.

>>224030583
>there’s apparently a scene that contains AI but I didn’t notice it
you didn't notice the part where she was an AI person on the monitor? what????

>>224045811
Amanda is very likable and elevated this movie, Charlie was a great human being who was a net positive to the world and its a tragedy that he was murdered. The world is a better place because people like me are able to reproduce and people like you with darkness all over your soul fail to find suitable mates and your genes are lost

>>224045820
Schizos are a necessary arm of 4chan but the prevalence of guys like this who think nothing is real creates a boy who cried wolf effect, things are often real or close to real yet guys like you cant tell the difference

>>224051461
>Amanda is very likable and elevated this movie
How? In the movie, she's a dull audience surrogate most of the time. Audiences like this for some reason, but I found her scenes annoyingly contrived and uninteresting.
>Charlie was a great human being who was a net positive to the world and its a tragedy that he was murdered.
Israel slave killed by the hand that fed him.
>The world is a better place because people like me are able to reproduce and people like you with darkness all over your soul fail to find suitable mates and your genes are lost
Elizabeth Holmes has two kids. The future is darkness and soulless.

>>224046296
Without that B plot the movie would def be missing something, I still think they didnt use footage that made Holmes look even more compromised, as a huge fan of the actual Theranos debacle I was bummed there amounted to maybe 2 questions about the Edison.

>>224051542
>I still think they didnt use footage that made Holmes look even more compromised
Do people seriously think they have that, that they'd just let it sit? They couldn't get it. That's why the documentary is what it is.

>>224046573
Because her story is one of the most interesting real life stories of the modern era. The documentary about her is peak media

>>224051622
She was a Steve Jobs wannabe that had the world handed to her on a silver platter because everyone and their dog wanted to cash in on "beautiful young woman genius" trope that she completely manufactured, then got a little too silly and wound up in prison because the rich fools that were fooled by her got mad that she lost all their money.

Her story is peak.....for the reality tv slop crowd.

>>224047441
Id have watched 10 hour long episodes from Nathan about this so yeah 3 hours was litty

Would Liz really give a shit what Billy was doing with her image and Twitter? Genuinely cant say

>>224046941
>media literacy: 0

>>224047569
selling them short

this thread is reddit af

>>224051252
The husband has nothing to do with Theranos. He's in the documentary because he's her husband and helped arrange the documentary in the first place. I don't know what you think the documentary is about, but it's not about the Theranos scandal.

After I saw this film on opening weekend, I couldn't shake the feeling it was overrated. I am a huge Nathan fan, posting in Nathan For You threads back in 2016 on this board. I was expecting a magnum opus based on reviews and audience score, but this is basically a rehearsal pilot. The Rehearsal season 2 is way better, finding Frances is way better. I went with a friend to go see it, and he seemingly actually thought Nathan wasn't playing a character when he was interacting with the Elizabeth Holmes actress it put it into perspective that most reviews are basically just Nathan's first project babies, but his other stuff is way better

File: 1398739428036.jpg (43 KB, 681x496)

43 KB JPG

once Amanda Seyfried basically became the main character of the documentary it falls off hard. I understand getting her to do reenactments which for the novelty of it was interesting, but Nathan asking her about whether Elizabeth is manipulative or not is unnecessary.
Elizabeth is just a fucking wacko crazy person who scammed a bunch of old men because she was pretty and blonde and they fell for her bullshit.
I was really interested in what the dad had to say, he was about to talk about his reaction to seeing his 20 year old daughter with some Pakistani fuck literally twice her age before they're interrupted. It's never brought up again even though that could have been a big moment.

>>224052453
I agree, I am the poster above you. I think that a lot of critics fell for a cheap trap where that actress' opinion or even just screen presence was important to them. On top of that they didn't recognize that Nathan basically manipulated her to do and say things she did. The manipulation isn't a problem, but it's the fact these retards think it's an unironic documentary. Admittedly in his other works he is much more open that he is playing a character and being ironic, but still, you should know what you are getting in to when watching

>>224052453

yeah nobody has any interest in literally the only other movie or tv series about this case in the last 10 years, which won awards btw, and he knew she had to research her and would know just as much about her as anyone else.

gosh why did they even bother asking her!?

the documentry should have just ended with her going to prison and like 5 paragraphs of text on screen explaining the rest, thats so much better

>>224052603
>and he knew she had to research her and would know just as much about her as anyone else.
she watched deposition videos and interviews then copied the mannerisms. That's not knowing someone, you autist.

>>224052628

they should have filmed everything with 1 camera on a cell phone camera and just edited it down to a hard 90, maybe throw in some generic stereotypical docu trope text at the end to explain how shes "still in prison at the time of release and not scheduled to get out until "

>>224052657
show me where I wrote that. Go on.
They could have talked to her parents about what kind of person she was and from their perspective what they felt while their daughter's life was falling apart. They could give insight into whether she's manipulative or being manipulated more than fucking Amanda Seyfried.

>>224052703
The audience enjoys seeing Elizabeth and Billy get grilled because Elizabeth and Billy are sociopaths.
The audience wouldn't enjoy seeing the parents get grilled because the parents seem normal.

There are no real consequences if Nathan makes Billy upset. If the parents make Billy upset then they lose access to their grandchildren, so that's not a safe road for Nathan to go down.

Remember when in the second episode of The Rehearsal, Nathan Fielder got offended at a guy who used the adjective "jewy" in reference to being stingy and he seethed so hard that after that he basically tricked the normal guy into taking a nappie filled with shit out of an old man's ass in the middle of the forest? And then the guy disappeared from the show too. That's when I knew Nathan is an evil person.

>>224052780
>That's when I knew Nathan is an evil person.
That was a success story though. The lad emerged from the experience knowing how to deal with his brother.