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)

The mattress scene is the one I keep going back to. I was talking to my wife about it, and we both agreed that if we had a guest staying with us, there’s no way we wouldn’t have a mattress ready for them.
But let’s give Billy and Elizabeth the benefit of the doubt and say they simply forgot because Nathan didn’t actually stay there until a couple of weeks after they offered.
What really stood out to me was when Nathan finally asked about the mattress. Billy just casually said, “Oh, it’s in the container,” and Elizabeth didn’t even react. Neither seemed remotely concerned that their guest didn't have a place to sleep.

Would you make the director of the documentary that is supposed to show you in a good light go get his own mattress?

The movie has lots of great shots. Elisabeth Holmes looking intently , various candid shots, etc. But one of my personal favorites and one I haven't really seen discussed is the title card right at the beginning.

The title is a shot of the beach. With "You Can See Everything" at the horizon. But not quite on the horizon. The very bottom of the letters are slightly cut off. So slight I suspect a lot of home/casual viewers will miss it.

Given the overall themes of the movie about truth vs fiction, radical transparency, lying etc and what is and isn't included I feel like this was a very intentional choice.

Even in the very title, at the very beginning of the movie it calls out that you in fact cannot see everything. That stuff remains literally under the surface. It is just such a wonderful shot and so perfectly encapsulates the movie.

I’ve sold various diagnostic type equipment for over a decade now. The fact that people think you can get all those tests out of a machine the size of a small microwave is laughable. And that you can use a finger prick for all of those test is not possible. Typically you need multiple vials that come in a tube called a vacuum tube that has various preservatives and EDTA or anticoagulant in order to preserve the blood or fluid to get ready for testing.

For example, an A1 C machine (that uses a finger prick) that you would have in the doctors office called a “point of care” device that is a small version of a diagnostic piece of equipment is the size of two large toasters and ALL you can do is A1c testing. It’s amazing that she duped so many people.

The size of a chemistry analyzer, that can do close to 100 tests, is about the size of your couch. It’s huge and you have a chemistry analyzer that does test like CMP‘s and then you also have a immuno chemistry analyzer that does test like vitamin D and HIV and you also have hematology analyzer which does CBCs.

These are all typically large, the size of a dresser. It’s insane that she got away with this with all of the scientific knowledge and laboratory knowledge out there. I find this case so fascinating.

Edit to add: when I first heard about Elizabeth Holmes, I had just started in the industry in about 2015 and I too thought that what amazing discovery this young woman had found and how awesome that a strong woman is breaking barriers. I was so new to the industry. I just didn’t realize at the time how impossible doing that testing was on a machine that size. But as I was visiting the labs for work, I remember the lab Director saying there’s just no way that it’s just impossible. So she actually duped me way back at the start of my career. So just thought I’d add a little bit more personal aspect to my post.

I loved the ending. The last shot feels almost too perfect, and that’s exactly what makes it unsettling. It left me wondering whether the whole thing is fake, or at least whether the film wants us to question how much of what we’ve seen is real. From early on in the film, I couldn’t stop thinking about the many parallels to Welles’s film essay F for Fake. It feels like this film, too, is offering its own meditation on the nature of fakery versus reality. There are too many connections to ignore, and I’ll probably make a separate post about that, but the ending really crystallized it for me.

We’ve just watched the reenactment of Nathan’s encounter with Liz inside, where she basically asks him to get her turkey jerky. Then the actors playing the family leave the hall and head out into the yard. The film returns to that moment from outside the yard, looking in at the real family. And there’s Billy, Liz’s real husband, eating her jerky. It’s the same bag we just saw Nathan buy for her in the reenactment. Billy isn’t in prison; he’s free and rich enough to buy himself anything he wants, yet he goes for the one snack Liz has, bought for her by a stranger! It’s such a petty, selfish thing to do that it almost feels too perfectly suited to the story and creates the perfect frame to end the film on. That’s what makes the shot unsettling: the possibility that Billy really is exactly that much of a pig or was it all staged?

The film gives us a detail that feels like proof, then the epilogue text tells us Billy gave up his share of the film’s proceeds. That doesn’t erase the impression from the final shot, but complicates it. They give us two pieces of 'evidence' that pull in different directions, then leaves us to decide what to make of the whole thing.

Did anyone else see the last shot that way or am I reading too much into it?

Oppenheim reflected on how Billy’s casual full-frontal moment came to be.

“We were in the car ride on the way back from the gym and I said to Billy, ‘We will give you some time to shower,’” the filmmaker told GQ. “And Billy responded, ‘Want to film me showering?’”

Oppenheim added, “I offered to film him in a way that could avoid seeing his genitals, but Billy said he didn’t care about being seen naked.”

———————————————

It’s not at all surprising given the massive narcissism on display at all times. 🤣

After Nathan showed Liz and Billy the video of the comedy routine by Abbott and Costello, when Nathan asked her ”who’s on first” and she answered “I don’t know” it took all of my willpower not to scream “I don’t know is on third!”

But I don’t yell in theaters.

Also she absolutely understood the point of who’s on first.

Okay, I've seen everyone talking about the Who's On First scene, but I think that this scene with Nathan archly suggesting he could give them some time alone (to have sex) the morning of the day she was checking into prison is 1) a follow up to the Who's on First claims and 2) totally damning of EH's attempt to claim not to understand that language can be used on two levels at one time.

Like, Nathan sort of suggests giving them some space (he does not specify WHY but it's pretty clear what he means), and EH immediately laughs and gets bashful. At some point, sure, Billy explains that Nathan is saying he wants to give them some time for sex, but EH never asks for clarification and she doesn't respond as if she had no idea what was going on.

Someone with trouble understanding language whose literal meaning is separate from its implication/intention would have been wildly confused by that whole situation.

Does this make sense? Or am I remembering the scene wrong? (ah, the fallibility of human memory)

I just saw the movie last night, and like most of us I thought Nathan was very taken in by Elizabeth. But as I was showering, I thought about the timeline in chronological order and it put Nathan's motivations into clearer focus for me. Here is quick summary from memory:

• Nathan tells the David Blaine story. Bill and Liz agree to do the movie.
• They have the meeting with A24 and do the deal. Nathan expresses how angry (he used the word "frustrated") he was about the deal, saying it would sacrifice the artistic integrity of the film. It also means less money for him and A24.
• They shoot the film. It doesn't come out.
• Nathan meets Liz in jail and gets her to remove their financial interest. After that, the film comes out.

Putting the events in chronological order reframed every action, every conversation, every moment of the film for me. Instead of a documentary of a strange person, it felt more like a boxing match of con-men; Elizabeth and Billy wanted to use Nathan to rebuild their facade, but Nathan wanted to gain enough trust in order to remove their financial interest from the film.

The "Who's On First" moment was a great example. Is Nathan trying to find an explanation for her way of thinking? Is he sincere in this effort? Does Elizabeth go along with the bit or is she serious? Does Nathan believe his own argument or is it purely an exercise to build trust?

At the end, Nathan seems to succeed. He gets the ex-billionaire fraudster CEO and her narcissistic, wheeling-and-dealing money-focused partner to give up their financial stake in the film - a seemingly impossible feat. And then the film gets released. Which leads me to ask... did we just watch Nathan Fielder con one of the greatest fraudsters in history?

I keep hearing how this film is like the culmination of Nathan Fielders career and artistic endeavors. And I agree. But it’s the same for Oppenheimer. Especially recently with Primetime he’s fascinated by people playing characters. He also is developed such a craft for narration. And the way he and his cast is able to light his figures is at an unreal level, some of the best I’ve ever seen. All of those combined gave this film captivating and almost surrealistic feel that of course combined well with Nathan’s style.

Anyone else catch Billy double fisting a Celsius and a spindrift within seconds during the scene at his “office” with Nathan?

#GirlBillyWhoIsGonnaBeOk

I would love to watch this movie again but with Nathan’s banal VO - please consider this my formal petition to make this happen upon the DVD release.

One thing I realized on a rewatch is how Billy is a complete zero in grifter instincts (especially in contrast to Elizabeth and Nathan).

The two times we see him trying to end interviews abruptly are when Elizabeth’s dad brings up her SA as the moment Lizzie started to change, and when his Theranos 2.0 laserman talks about how the original Theranos was a failure but every CEO fails on the way to success.

Dad and SA: I want to handle this one with respect and care. I do not know enough about how victims can react to traumatic experiences. It’s possible that it was a breaking point in her life, and it does line up with what happens in her life afterward. It’s also possible her dad says it because it naturally illicits some sort of sympathy. Like a lot of things, it’s probably both. But Billy cuts off the interview right before he gets into it, so we’re left wondering, a lot of things there, but we don’t hear a possible origin story that could leave us supporting Elizabeth.

Laser guy: he’s basically about to say that the first product was a failure, but Billy can’t have that, because it pins Elizabeth as a possible fraud. The problem is, comparing her to other successful CEOs puts her in a good light, it also shows some sort of remorse and reflection when it comes to the second product, that she’s learned from her mistakes and this one is actually different. Instead, Billy cuts this guy off and gets in Nathan’s face and doesn’t take the win.

It’s also possible both of these were edited to have Billy cut off the conversations where they did so you hate him, and they actually did talk about the things that I think he cuts off. I personally don’t think so, it fits that Billy does not like it when other men are talking about what Elizabeth wanted or did. I am once again left wondering about the reality of what I watched on many levels

At this point, I think Elizabeth is using Billy to pull off a magic trick: To create the illusion that Elizabeth has been a victim of domineering men.

Watching the documentary, it’s easy to think, “Well she’s in an abusive relationship with Billy, so she was probably in an abusive relationship with Sunny too.”

It’s the David Blaine ice pick trick. He really is putting the ice pick through his hand.

In the documentary, she really is a victim of Billy’s controlling behavior.

But we know Elizabeth has media training. If she lets the public see she is a victim in her relationship with Billy, it can lead people to make a false assumption that she was a victim at Theranos.

To make it look even more convincing, she can keep Billy unaware that he is participating in a trick and let his authentic narcissism shine.

What does it mean when a former billionaire, Silicon Valley CEO attempts to play the victim card?

The whole documentary features her playing a victimized mother:
- children on camera
- quiet disposition
- lets herself be bossed around by husband
- lets husband make business decisions with power of attorney
- lets husband use her image on social media and press
- professes her loyalty to husband
- her father bringing up the rape
- AI Hologram
- cries when she sees the scene in the dropout with Sunny

But the Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos was completely different and far from being a victim:
- Commanding, confident, ambitious
- Media Savvy and Controlled her public image
- Lied in paperwork about revenue
- Lied about results of product
- Lied to investors

I think that’s also why Nathan tried to see if she really told the New York Times while discussing The Dropout, “They're not playing me. They're playing a character I created.”

So what if Elizabeth simply created a new character in YCSE? Why would she do that?

If she can convince the public that she has been a victim of male domination— it would cleanse away most of the judgment from the Theranos scandal off of her and put the onus on the men.

She also has a powerful shield here: It’s a taboo in the post #MeToo era to say, “This woman is not a victim. She’s just pretending to be one”. I think Elizabeth is aware that most people fear the moral and social consequences of “blaming the victim” which prevents people from breaking the illusion she is trying to create.

For now, I think she’s a first rate magician and has created an amazing new character. We’ll see if it works.

With Jeremy Saulnier announcing his upcoming thriller Slayground, I thought it was about time to rewatch this A24 indie thriller.

Honestly, even better on a rewatch. Saulnier has a talent of taking simple narratives and escalating the tension and stress bit by bit to 11. It's honestly impressive to see how he can go from a slow-burn thriller like Blue Ruin to something far more grimy and dark as Green Room, especially since it almost all takes place in one building.

The violence too is an area where Saulnier truly excels. It's brutal and unceremonious, but, he never lingers on it for long stretches. It's abrupt and right to the point, similar to Cormac McCarthy's novels and especially the Coen Brothers' adaption of No Country for Old Men. The fact it happens to characters that we care about and want to see survive is also a large part of why the violence in Green Room is so effective.

Also just a great cast all around, especially Anton Yelchin, may he rest in peace. I still want to know how Saulnier got Patrick Stewart as the villain as it's arguably one of his best performances.

Overall, still a great indie thriller that really showcases Saulnier as one great thriller director in modern times. Makes me excited to see what he does with Slayground!

Some(?) potential spoilers in here as I reference some specifics.

Watched the movie today and I think it’s one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen. I just can’t stop thinking it all over, and I need someone to talk about it with, hence why I’m posting it here.

One thing I am thinking about as I’m writing this:
Billy insults Amanda, telling her he is more well-read than her/ more intelligent than her in part because she’s “just an actress”. Interestingly, he and Liz specifically chose Nathan Fielder, a COMEDIAN, for the interview. He himself said at the beginning of the film that he found it interesting they chose someone who is NOT a scientist to interview them.

Also, they approached A24, the same people who released OBSESSION earlier this year, to make this documentary. Why? These people are NOT stupid. There is absolutely no way they didn’t know this would completely tank what’s left of their reputation. They MUST know that the public will never trust another biotech company associated with them. Is it possible this is intentional - that they want to put the final nail in the coffin so they can begin to move in silence? Is Billy’s “Theranos 2.0” just a diversion from something else (some other scam) they’re working on in secret? I wouldn’t be surprised if in 8-10 years we hear about an up-and-coming Theranos-esque company, but the public will think it couldn’t POSSIBLY be associated with them, as the face of it is someone we haven’t seen before…

About the financial arrangement - hear me out. I’m fully convinced she was aware of it the whole time. I’m sure others think this too. But I want to know if anyone else has been thinking about this: I am wondering if they were waiting for Nathan to confront her about the money, and that’s why they didn’t pull out until after he talked to her about it - so that it would appear as though she didn’t know until Nathan asked her, and that she convinced Billy to pull out of the deal. I think she knew about the money, and this was all intended to get the audience to think that she has a pattern of not being in control of her partnerships. I believe she wants us to think back to her relationship with Sunny and reconsider whether she had any knowledge or involvement in what happened with Theranos.

Thoughts?

​

This is from X.

On my mistakes:

I messed up plenty, I take accountability for the company failing, I was the CEO. The buck stops with me. We had many operational errors.

I made 1000 mistakes over the 16 years I spent pouring my heart, my time, every dollar I had (including the money my parents had saved for me to attend my dream college Stanford) into building Theranos.

But, I NEVER LIED. I may have been wrong but lying and being wrong are not the same.

I was wrong to trust Sunny, my single biggest mistake. I ran to him when I was 19 and hurt at Stanford l, they tried to cover it up, and he told me he would protect me. How wrong I was. Out of the pot and into the fire.

We were wrong some of revenue estimates. (These estimates came in large part from contractual obligations by Walgreens who had already spent hundreds of millions building out 900 Walgreens Theranos Walgreens centers.) I didn't make the models nor the projections but I thought they were reasonable.

I was wrong in thinking hiring PHDs from Stanford or Berkeley or any other prestigious university was better than hiring hard working people with 30 years of deeply relevant in the Lab experience. Intellect doesn't make up for experience.

I was wrong to stay silent for a decade. I should have opened our doors from the very beginning. That silence eats at me. I allowed for lies and slanderous headlines to spread like wildfire without any truths contradicting them.

I was wrong to believe that the courts find truth and see past noise.

I was wrong to lose balance between building a company I believed would alleviate massive pain in the world and spending meaningful time with my friends and family. I sacrificed too much. I saw it as some stoic burden I had to bear to see through something hard but important.

I am guilty of many mistakes, I will share them all. Without editorilizing or excuses. My mistakes were of naivete never malice or any bad intent.

BUT HEAR ME CLEARLY:

I am innocent of what I was convicted of.

I believed then and I believe now.

I and hundreds of the worlds best scientists, chemists, lab techs, manufacturing experts, clinicians and many others dedicated their lives to solving something truly important.

The team accomplished feats so amazing for the last decade people have claimed them to still be impossible. (Until only recently when that same competition is now doing "The Impossible 70 tests from a finger prick"

I am so proud of what they built and I will not take those people's efforts nor success from them.

I can't post the link sadly, but those are her words. Search "Elizabeth Holmes X Post Mistakes as ceo" to see for yourself.

I hope it's a digital code that still allows me to use my free bday shipping but I'm not sure. Thanks!

Alright I’ve seen Nathan For You back 10 years ago, loved it. Only didn’t watch The Rehearsal because my anxiety would hate to experience watching that for pleasure. Anyway the world needs Nathan Fielder more than ever and I respect what and how he does everything, although it can be catching people off guard sometimes, anyway. You Can See Everything is truly a fantastic piece of journalism and I took it as that knowing the growth of Fielder and the necessity of art. Loved the first two hours but man the last 30 minutes left so much to be desired. Obviously you can’t fabricate some perfect ending to a story still unfolding but after 3 hours of tension I found it to be a letdown in the end. Also I am scared to death (if I wasn’t already) of the weird ass millennial billionaires running Silicon Valley and the rest of the world’s future. We’re fucked. Idk I laughed out loud multiple times but I don’t think this movie should be glazed as hard as it is. It shouldn’t win best picture. But it was necessary. But it felt more like it was just “spilling the tea” more than a documentary. Idk whatever slightly disappointed.