r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/movies Contributor • 4h ago
News Nathan Fielder Speaks Out on Living With Elizabeth Holmes While Filming ‘You Can See Everything’ Doc
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/nathan-fielder-elizabeth-holmes-you-can-see-everything-liar-1236893716/•
u/invyros 4h ago
Fielder and Oppenheim explained how they met and got in touch with Holmes for the film. Oppenheim had cold-emailed Fielder after learning he’d watched part of his documentary “Some Kind of Heaven,” and the two filmmakers became friends. They had visited the Magic Castle together a few years ago, and a magician asked the audience for a celebrity’s name for a close-up magic trick. Someone suggested Elizabeth Holmes, which reminded Oppenheim that the Theranos fraudster had reached out to A24 about someone documenting her life.
Love these weird origin stories.
It just makes sense that these guys would come up with this at the Magic Castle.
•
u/sweetplantveal 4h ago
The Gothic Arsehole?
•
u/fiddyshadesofcray 3h ago
I heard about that place in Poof
•
u/Paddy_Tanninger 3h ago
I gotta get into this Poof...
→ More replies (2)•
u/CHADWARDENPRODUCTION 3h ago
His name is Gary, and we don’t need another lawsuit
•
u/nightclaw96 1h ago
Okay, the chairs not doing it now, but lately its been giving out as soon as I lean back.
•
u/Double_Working_8414 1h ago
Wait, Gary's gay?
•
•
•
•
•
u/Javerage 4h ago
Boy am I glad I didn't go with that outfit. Yes hello, I am looking for the magic.
•
u/HGpennypacker 2h ago
I need something that says, "Dad likes leather."
•
•
u/Paddy_Tanninger 3h ago
You here to buy this time, or are you just curious?
•
u/Wayyd 3h ago
You could say I'm "buy curious"
•
u/ConstableTibs 2h ago
That's a woman's wig.
•
u/Jezeff 2h ago
He said it was a "Bob"
•
•
u/Loukoal117 4h ago
I had license plates to celebrate my sobriety and they said ANUSTART and people laughed at me.
•
→ More replies (3)•
•
•
•
•
→ More replies (7)•
•
u/SonOfMcGee 4h ago
Makes me think of the end of the Fyre Festival documentary. The fest had flopped and Billy MacFarlane had been thoroughly exposed. And the final ten minutes or so followed him trying to launch a “comeback” with the same old cycle of schemes.
And why do we have detailed footage of all this new scheming? Well, because the disgraced laughing stock had insisted a camera crew follow him around and document his comeback, of course.
These bear lots of personal accountability for their crimes and lies, but they also have a form of mental illness. Ultimately we’re responsible to stop paying attention to them and giving them money. There is no rehabilitation, nor will any form of punishment teach them a lesson.
•
u/boot2skull 3h ago
I’m wondering if that’s what we get from You Can See Everything. Just from the short trailers, Elizabeth seems completely detached from the ethics and consequences of her actions. Like tricking people into getting money is just another honest job to make an income. Or the ends always justify the means. I’d also like to learn about her background and her husband’s, because he seems totally on board with it and it sounds like he came from money, so this may be some kind of affluenza where they don’t think of consequences.
•
u/SonOfMcGee 3h ago
I think she falls into the same camp as Billy MacFarlane and Anna Delvey. They aren’t classic conmen who know exactly what they’re doing and want to escape to Thailand with briefcases full of money from chumps they scammed.
It’s a fake it till you make it, manifestation, narcissistic personality disorder sort of thing. They’re lying and swindling, yes. But they actually think their stupid scheme is going to work once everyone gives them enough money and surrenders to their genius.
•
u/CalEPygous 2h ago
In Holmes case I think she actually believed she was building a real product. It should have given people pause that she had only had one year of university and was building this very complicated analytic device that was really pushing the boundaries of sensitivity.
There are some fields, like pure mathematics or theoretical physics, where a genius 20 or 23 year old can make fundamental breakthroughs (looking at you Evariste Galois and Isaac Newton) but in experimental science and device building you just have to pay the dues because the sheer engineering is time-consuming and tedious and almost no one has such equipment lying around the house in high school to develop.
Her narcissism led her to ignore the bad data and proceed and my guess is she thought they would eventually figure it out. However when you start testing blood samples of thousands of people at Walgreen's and giving them inaccurate results that some people depend upon for important medical decisions, that, in my mind, is a far greater sin than fleecing a few rich old investors who had little clue about science.
•
u/Born-Entrepreneur 2h ago edited 2h ago
In Holmes case I think she actually believed she was building a real product. It should have given people pause that she had only had one year of university and was building this very complicated analytic device that was really pushing the boundaries of sensitivity.
The first thing in Bad Blood that raised an eyebrow, for me, was university student Holmes coming back from an overseas internship and feverishly writing up a patent application for a "medical patch" that would both diagnose conditions and dispense medications through gestures vaguely nanotechnology. The "How" of it all was very much handwavey. Fantastical tech for the 2020s, let alone the 2000s when this started.
Lots of whackos think they've happened across something groundbreaking and also write patent applications, which go no where because all they did was write their fever/pipe dream down on paper. Yet she had the extra gumption, preternatural ability to con people, and familial connections to spiral it out in to everything that happened. Including several pivots in to slightly less science fiction (yet still unworkable) products in the process.
I can't recommend the book enough, it is a wild read.
•
u/SamIamGreenEggsNoHam 1h ago
Lab techs everywhere knew she was full of shit when she said the blood could be taken from a finger tip, like a blood glucose test. That blood sample contains bits of skin and other contamination that is not suitable for the myriad tests they do. You don't get a reliable mix of all of the components of our blood from a finger prick, either. Total bullshit from day 1.
•
u/Lemonwizard 25m ago
When I was 8 I "invented" a machine that could make anything. All you have to do is move protons from one atom to another and change it into whatever element you need! Once we finally build an element changing machine we can have whatever we want! It'll be like Star Trek!
How does the machine move protons from one atom to another? Uhhh, I'm just an idea guy....
•
u/SonOfMcGee 2h ago
So, before her epic fall, when Theranos was making the news as a miracle device company, I was in grad school for chemical engineering.
I had several colleagues doing their theses in microfluidics calling absolute bullshit.This is one of many fields where all final products “start” as a gnarly proof-of-concept in an academic paper. Most of these papers prove impossible to replicate, or run into a snag that makes the tech impossible to commercialize. But for the tiny percentage of advances that show up in a consumer product, you can bet there’s a associate professor out there that scoffs and says, “Pfft, I proved that was possible a decade ago. It cost $50K and started a fire at the time, but it did work for the few second I needed to measure it.”
There was no such established body of science for Theranos’ product. “Lab on a chip” devices aren’t one breakthrough, but a series of many breakthroughs. Nobody had ever shown you could bust one drop of blood up into that many pieces and transport it to that many sensors. And the state of the art for most of the tests they claimed to run took more than a drop and consumed the sample in the process.
So Theranos invented, from scratch, a new type of microfluidic tech and several dozen blood assays that needed less than a drop and didn’t destroy that drop in the process so it could be handed off to the next assay? And no part of this had been shown to even kinda work on a hungover grad student’s lab bench?
Bullshit.
•
u/jollyreaper2112 1h ago
The remarkable thing is they didn't ask a single person in the field about this. My understanding is the shortcomings as you describe are obvious on a fundamental level. This isn't some esoteric flaw only three people on the planet could spot. Rudimentary due diligence would have flagged it. Which just goes to show these people are richer than us not smarter. Maybe even dumber because they won't admit when they don't know.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Germanofthebored 1h ago
But she wore a black turtleneck, just like Steve Jobs! And he made his investors lots of money
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)•
u/TemporaryElk5202 1h ago
I was in high school and it was really obvious that their aims were impossible, because some illnesses/ substances etc are only present in blood at low parts-per-million. So you have to get a larger sample or else you may miss them.
•
u/SonOfMcGee 56m ago
You have to get a larger sample according to our current understanding of how to measure those concentrations. The only fundamental limit is a sample and concentration so small that there may not be a single molecule of the substance in your sample. And scientific breakthroughs surprise us every day.
My point was that all breakthroughs of this impact start as very rough experiments in academia. Theranos claimed their modestly experienced scientists secretly cooked up what would have been a dozen groundbreaking articles in Nature, then immediately turned that into a cheap product without a decade of engineering.
→ More replies (2)•
u/coolaznkenny 2h ago
Greed is blinding. At any level if these investors brought in real third party expert to do deep dive of the science and reality of the business model this wouldnt of been an issue. The trouble thing is all these VCs run on a mean girl investment strategy. They are spraying and praying and if so and so invest in this company that means I NEED TO GET ON THIS. Punting millions if not billions of dollars for a lotto ticket while kids are literally starving in america and .0001 percent of the investments given to these companies can solve so many social problems. Tax these fuckers.
•
u/topdangle 1h ago
they're also just dumb. everyone at stanford told her it was impossible except for the one fish she hooked (I think it was her advisor). there is 0% chance the investors were not told this was impossible by someone in their circle. they just thought they knew better.
→ More replies (1)•
u/boot2skull 3h ago
I can see that. I’ve met compulsive liars that lie even when the truth is obvious. Sometimes it seems like an ego protection tick, to exaggerate/lie for the benefit of their ego and what people think, regardless of the reality in front of our faces.
→ More replies (2)•
u/monacelli 3h ago
Like tricking people into getting money is just another honest job to make an income.
It probably pisses her off that so many grifters are getting away with it these days with little to no consequences.
→ More replies (1)•
u/ActuallyYeah 2h ago
I know people like this. If they don't cheat the system, someone smarter than them will, and thats the shit that keeps them up at nights
→ More replies (3)•
u/BenryBorg 2h ago
They are actively promoting Theranos 2 right now and have already raised 20 million in VC funding
•
u/Sword_Thain 3h ago
The Anthony Wiener documentary lives rent free in my mind. He was being followed for his comeback and the cameras were there when Carlos Danger dropped in the media. The death stare his wife was giving as he tried to explain away what he'd done... priceless.
•
u/jollyreaper2112 1h ago
I both want and don't want to watch that. My Cthulhu, that sounds like I could die of second hand embarrassment.
•
u/Hautamaki 3h ago
Yes, no matter what you may say, you cannot make someone believe their behavior is unacceptable when you continue to accept it and in many ways even reward it.
•
•
u/Substantial__Unit 3h ago
That guy is definitely mentally I'll, he gives me the creeps.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)•
u/LifeguardDry7372 2h ago
Had to look this guy up. I was shocked to see the first few pics of him and trump. Shocked I tell you
•
•
u/MainlandX 4h ago edited 3h ago
Sounds like this film is worthy of a Hearts of Darkness-style documentary.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/theatretech37 3h ago
Side note: I got to go to Magic Castle recently and it was one of the coolest nights of my life. I fucking love magic man.
→ More replies (1)•
u/shagnarok 2h ago
i was about to comment this! the magic castle was dope as HELL
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)•
•
u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/movies Contributor 4h ago edited 4h ago
Nathan:
“When I met her, I remember having this weird experience where she seems so genuine at times. But then I’m like, ‘no,’ and clocking and tracking my thoughts and being like, ‘Okay, I know she’s a liar.’ It was a weird mental thing. From there, we were like, ‘Can we roll the dice on something if they were open to having cameras in?'”
“It wasn’t until we started shooting that moments would happen — some of them are in the film — and then after Lance and I would talk about what we thought happened there. We’d completely disagree on what something meant to us and what we thought was happening. Then we were like, ‘Oh, this is really interesting. If we can’t agree on what’s happening, there’s something here.’ And our curiosity sort of just like drove us from there.”
“I cannot tell you how weird it was that we were there. Truly, to this day, we’re still like — anyways, sorry. I wouldn’t think I’d be the person you would want for your final period. I’m a nice person, I do believe, but I’m not the most comforting. You know what I mean? I think you know.”
•
u/-Sp0iledmilk- 4h ago edited 4h ago
I really love the curious mind Nathan has. He digs deeper into social interactions than most people do. Probably helps that both of his parents are social workers.
His comments seem to match some who spoke for the HBO special about her. She’s a cult-like personality that will make you believe the unbelievable, and that’s partially because she seems deluded enough to believe them herself. We see this example a lot, but I can’t recall many people being given an insider access into the person, which might honestly be he partial intentions here.
There are definitely some questions about if she might capitalize from this fame as she’s about to be sent to a halfway house for “good behavior”, but I can’t deny this is gonna be a good watch.
•
u/DamonLazer 4h ago
She employs the Costanza method: "It's not a lie if you believe it."
•
u/zdelusion 3h ago
That's a pretty major theme of Oppenheim's "Primetime" as well.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Silent-G 1h ago
Similarly in The Rehearsal Season 2: "No one is allowed in the cockpit if there's something wrong with them, so if you're here, you must be fine."
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)•
•
u/sallyhectare 2h ago
In the NY Times profile from 2023 she totally cons the reporter, who only realizes it at the end of the time they spent together (even though there's a point in the middle where her editor is like OMG, she fucking conned you).
•
u/CapnFap 1h ago
Sorry can you elaborate more on this?
•
u/sallyhectare 38m ago
Read the NY Times article "Liz Holmes Wants You to Forget about Elizabeth." (There's a paywall but you can get it through your library or something.)
This is the conclusion:
"That Friday, the couple were getting ready to host a group of friends from the Bay Area. They invited me to stay. They repeatedly invited me to come back, to bring my family. We could all go to the zoo together.
I appreciated their hospitality, but I didn’t fully understand it. Usually interview subjects can’t wait to get rid of me.
Then I realized why they kept opening the door wider. Ms. Holmes is unlike anyone I’ve ever met — modest but mesmerizing. If you are in her presence, it is impossible not to believe her, not to be taken with her and be taken in by her. Liz Holmes and Billy Evans know that. I politely declined their invitation."
This is the paragraph where her editor laughs at her for getting conned:
I was admittedly swept up in Liz as an authentic and sympathetic person. She’s gentle and charismatic, in a quiet way. My editor laughed at me when I shared these impressions, telling me (and I quote), “Amy Chozick, you got rolled!” I vigorously disagreed! You don’t know her like I do! But then, something very strange happened. I worked my way through a list of Ms. Holmes’s friends, family and longtime supporters, whom she and Mr. Evans suggested I speak to. One of these friends said Ms. Holmes had genuine intentions at Theranos and didn’t deserve a lengthy prison sentence. Then, this person requested anonymity to caution me not to believe everything Ms. Holmes says.
It's an interesting story because the writer seems to understand that she got taken in but also doesn't seem to reflect on the positive assertions she makes about Holmes in the piece. It's a strange tension.
•
u/SweatyAdhesive 29m ago
I was admittedly swept up in Liz as an authentic and sympathetic person. She’s gentle and charismatic, in a quiet way. My editor laughed at me when I shared these impressions, telling me (and I quote), “Amy Chozick, you got rolled!” I vigorously disagreed! You don’t know her like I do! But then, something very strange happened. I worked my way through a list of Ms. Holmes’s friends, family and longtime supporters, whom she and Mr. Evans suggested I speak to. One of these friends said Ms. Holmes had genuine intentions at Theranos and didn’t deserve a lengthy prison sentence. Then, this person requested anonymity to caution me not to believe everything Ms. Holmes says.
read for yourself: https://web.archive.org/web/20230507094044/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/business/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-interview.html
•
•
→ More replies (6)•
u/uwsdwfismyname 4h ago
I have a similar type of autism but I tend to just annoy my wife by asking why people do some normy shit that makes no sense to me.
•
u/circio 4h ago
Nathan Fielder has done a great job of exploring this part of his personality (both in-character and outside of it) and turning it into compelling television.
I remember being blown away by the Nathan For You finale, and The Rehearsal is a great continuation of this character not being able to understand normal human interactions.
•
u/Muroid 4h ago
Nathan Fielder has done a great job of exploring this part of his personality (both in-character and outside of it) and turning it into compelling television.
I do think some people take his in-character bits a little too literally. He’s definitely putting some of himself into his work and playing up parts of his own personality, but the production of all of his shows requires him to have a much deeper understanding of other people and level of self-awareness than his character ever displays.
I think the way he intentionally blurs the line between his character and his own personality and life causes people to ascribe too much of his character’s beliefs, actions and traits to the real life Nathan.
•
u/Rage_Like_Nic_Cage 2h ago
Yeah, he’s very Kaufman-esque in that sense, especially in the Rehearsal
•
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/-Sp0iledmilk- 4h ago
Nathan’s just like us… except he uses a documentary crew to ask all these questions, and doesn’t get the same answer
•
u/mikonamiko 4h ago
Imagine being able to make Nathan Fielder of all people weird and uncomfortable
→ More replies (5)•
u/ThaddeusJP 2h ago
The woman is a psychopath and knows how to manipulate people to make anyone uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable, even at an unconscious level, you're open to being manipulated to make being unconfutable stop.
Psychopaths only run into problems when they have to deal with people who are either full blown assholes or other psychopaths.
•
u/3pinripper 2h ago
I can see his facial expression when he says “you know what I mean? I think you know.” 😂
•
u/macck_attack 4h ago
Didn’t know I could be even more intrigued by this doc but I am. The discourse is going to be so juicy.
→ More replies (34)•
u/MountainMuffin1980 3h ago
Presumably pre-filming they get her and her family to sign away all editing/filming/release rights? Because they are not going to come out of this well...
•
u/MuptonBossman 4h ago
You know Elizabeth Holmes is fucking nuts if she managed to weird out Nathan Fielder.
•
u/palinsafterbirth 4h ago
Elizabeth Holmes = That dude that tried to convince Nathan it was ok to drink his grandsons pee
•
u/-Sp0iledmilk- 4h ago
It’s still the only time I ever recall seeing Nathan breaking. He had no idea what was happening.
•
u/aeisenst 4h ago
There's also the time during the ghost realtor seance when the realtor brings up what happened in Switzerland
•
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/GrumpyGummyBear 2h ago
That was the hardest I've ever laughed at a show or movie ever. His face just broke me.
•
•
u/PangolinParade 4h ago
He almost breaks here too but manages to keep it together.
→ More replies (2)•
u/nss68 4h ago
This is the “Aragorn actually broke his toe” type comment that is guaranteed to be on all Nathan fielder threads with the author framing it as though they personally made this discovery and didn’t learn it by reading it somewhere else.
•
u/BBanner 3h ago
I mean it definitely stands out as the most obvious when you’re watching the show, but it’s not like there aren’t other examples either, especially in the episode of the rehearsal with that insane angel numbers guy
•
u/putinspenis 3h ago
Was that the same guy who talked about how many dating apps he’s banned from? Nathan looked like he needed an adult lol
•
u/TheWalrusToo 3h ago
Angel numbers guy is the one from beginning of S1 of the Rehearsal, the guy who was going to “be” the woman’s husband and care for the trial kid… until she tells him they’re not going to have sex during the experiment and he immediately leaves lol
→ More replies (1)•
u/BBanner 3h ago
I think that was the pilot from s2 right? I’m thinking of the guy who didn’t have a license plate on his car and drove while hitting a bong
→ More replies (1)•
u/pantstoaknifefight2 3h ago
The insane angel numbers guy (and the entitled woman who wanted to be a trad-wife homesteader) freaked the ever living fuck out of me. The fact that these people exist (and vote) fills me with despair.
→ More replies (1)•
→ More replies (3)•
u/fakeaccount36 3h ago
He was also on the verge of breaking when Cornelius showed him those age progressed photos
•
•
•
→ More replies (8)•
u/iLORdemeNtE 4h ago edited 3h ago
I was showing my partner who Nathan was the other day, and accidentally pulled up that clip which I hadn’t seen before. Ive seen a lot of weird shit in my life and that honestly took the award for most wtf for me.
•
u/Kaiisim 4h ago
That's kind of the opposite of what he says. That it's weird he liked her and found her genuine despite knowing she's a liar.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/x2040 3h ago
I know a few people that knew her at the time. They say that she genuinely believed in blood tests with a drop of blood was possible and really wanted to make it work because it’d change humanity and home health.
She saw people like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk stretch the truth to make things happen (aka get people excited about what is possible) to get the money to make it actually happen and got ahead of her skis. Like Elon’s super power is getting people to believe something can happen even when everyone says it can’t and then powerigng through missed deadline after missed deadline keeping the hype alive until it can actually happen. She thought she could do this.
Ironically AI has made it possible to explore again (can find patterns / eliminate noise / etc that typical methods could not); but no one is willing to touch at home drop of blood tests because of Theranos.
•
u/RYouNotEntertained 2h ago
She saw people like Steve Jobs
Imo this is the most interesting thing about Theranos: she was legitimately following the Steve Jobs/larger Silicon valley playbook of promising first and delivering later. That first iphone demo was famously smoke and mirrors, and basically every VC-backed tech company exists somewhere on the spectrum between future potential and a fully realized product.
→ More replies (1)•
u/goog1e 54m ago
I was watching a documentary about her in preparation for this. For like half the documentary, all I was thinking was "she's just doing what every AI guy and tech bro has done the past 40 years, she just got the Martha Stewart treatment"
But then she actually rolled out a medical product and lied to the regulators to get it approved. She lied to patients about how their samples were being used. And she lied about the accuracy of their testing. You just can't do that. You can't sell and STD test that has a 60% chance of detecting an STD if one is present.
That's where she jumped the shark. If her passion hadn't been MEDICAL she'd for sure be a Steve Jobs type today. She got taken down because instead of releasing an AI that didn't function as promised, she told people they didn't have Herpes when they did.
→ More replies (1)•
u/joshocar 3h ago
The problem with this is if you talk to people who actually know what they are talking about, experts and doctors, they will tell you that what Theranos was proposing was a non-starter.
It was not a Musk like oversell, where it might not really be possible today or in the near future, but is theoretically possible, i.e. not impossible.
It was also not a Steve Jobs, bending reality to get engineers to deliver on seemingly impossible deadlines and goals.
It was like she was convincing everyone that she was making a plane that could accelerate to faster than light speeds, it just wasn't a possibility from the start.
There were *parts* of Theranos that were possible, namely running maybe a dozen tests on capillary blood, but the claim of running hundreds was a non-starter from the very beginning.
•
u/Technical-Bobcat2107 2h ago
I'd like to point out that one of the ways she convinced all those creepy rich white dudes to give her money was by showing them her 'schematics' of a TIME MACHINE.
They were impressed by a drawing of a pretend device. A doodle, essentially.
One guy used that as an example of how smart she was.
Stupid stupid stupid. All around. And these guys have shaped America.
→ More replies (1)•
u/GB10VE 2h ago
It was not a Musk like oversell,
all of his oversells are nonstarters. he straight up lies. you cannot do self driving cars with cameras only. it is impossible.
→ More replies (8)•
u/Silent-G 1h ago
you cannot do self driving cars with cameras only. it is impossible.
True, you also need wheels and an engine.
•
•
u/green49285 4h ago
Well, as one of my neurodivergent homies wonderfully said once, "it's really easy to weird out the weirdo when the weirdo realizes the other person would watch them die and feel absolutely nothing."
It's literally the first thing that popped in my head when I saw that trailer LOL
→ More replies (14)•
u/taoistlumberjak 4h ago
It truly came through in that teaser. Fielder can be odd at times, but he looked truly, absolutely uncomfortable there..
•
u/ScarlaeCaress 4h ago
So does Holmes get a cut of the films profit? Is that her final con is making the weirdest documentary possible that everyone is going to watch and that’ll make millions
•
u/SaltyPhishman 4h ago
This was an initial thought of mine as well. I mean she wanted to do it so I’m assuming there’s evil intent to make money somewhere here.
→ More replies (5)•
u/Beer-survivalist 3h ago
I think she's absolutely bugshit crazy, she sincerely believes in the concept of the technology, and she's wholly incapable of seeing what she did was wrong. I suspect she wants to convince everyone she's a normal person who was just trying to do the best for the world and fucked up, no matter how deranged that obviously is to anyone who isn't inside of her crazy person sphere.
•
u/stonetjwall 1h ago
I’ve never heard of ‘bugshit’. Where does that fit on the horseshit to dogshit spectrum? Is it close to batshit?
I’m serious by the way. X-shit language is wildly intriguing.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Beer-survivalist 44m ago
I think bugshit is most closely related to batshit, in that they both denote the person or situation being described is nuts, and that things are not rational or reasonable, or at least that it appears to be outside of the expected boundaries of reality.
Horseshit, dogshit, and cowshit are a separate group of shit that indicate that something sucks or is deeply unfair, but are still rooted in reality.
•
u/wazacraft 4h ago
In the US, you can't legally profit from telling the story of a crime you've been convicted of. I had to phrase it that way because OJ, but this is why serial killers don't write memoirs.
•
u/keyToOpen 3h ago
In the US, you can't legally profit from telling the story of a crime you've been convicted of.
Uh, that's not true at all anymore. And it was never true across the US. What you are referring to is known as "Son of Sam Laws". Which don't exist as you describe them anymore, as the original and namesake law from New York State was ruled unconstitutional on first amendment grounds by the Supreme Court.
It's true that much of the time the judge can order profits to go towards restitution, forfeiture, or outstanding judgments. But the profit making venture can still happen and these deductions are not universal in every case. There are also similar laws which order that victims of the crime have to be notified if the convicted is profiting off of the story so they have the opportunity to file a civil suit to claim some or all of the profit.
→ More replies (1)•
u/jamesneysmith 4h ago
This isn't telling the story of the crime she's been convicted of though. This is just documented her day to day life before she goes to prison
•
u/Verklemptomaniac 4h ago edited 3h ago
This. Most US states have "Son of Sam" laws (named after the serial killer) that allow the victims of convicted felons to sue for any profits the convicted felon receives from telling the story of their criminal activity.
(The original versions of the law banned even publishing, but those were stuck down on 1st Amendment grounds. Revised versions allowed the speech but targeted the payment to prevent convicted felons from profiting from their crimes.)
→ More replies (3)•
u/jevindoiner 4h ago
Is that the default rule or only if it’s court-ordered? I think it was the Robert Chambers case (Preppie Killer) where the judge specifically ordered he couldn’t profit off any works arising from the case.
→ More replies (3)•
•
→ More replies (12)•
u/judgyjudgersen 2h ago
Any money she would make would go towards the $453m in restitution she owes to her victims that she has not paid yet. So for the same reason she hasn’t married her billionaire heir boyfriend, I doubt she’s getting paid for this. She’s trying to rehab her image so she can con more people into her next startup that her and her boyfriend have already raised over $5m for, from “friends and family” who apparently don’t have a brain.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/la_dama_azul 4h ago
I was at the NY premiere at the NY Film Festival last night. Without speaking about details, this is one of the most incredible and insane documentaries I have ever seen. Really recommend it to everyone.
•
u/RobotDonger 4h ago
Can you answer one question for me, please? Where does the nudity come from into play? Because I sincerely hope it’s just Nathan hanging dong 🤞
•
u/FKDotFitzgerald 3h ago
I’ve heard it’s Holmes husband takes a shower while speaking to Nathan.
•
u/Oh_yes_I_did 3h ago
I buy it. Before the rating came out I had already heard that they insisted Nathan film them showering
•
•
u/theconceptofcanada 3h ago
God, last week in the trailer thread some thirsty girl commented "Nathan is so fucking hot, I could watch him do anything" and I've been seeing him entirely differently now.
He is just willing to go the extra mile for a good conversation he knows will expose a part of someone or something that you'd never get if you didn't do that effort, and I respect the hell out of it.
•
u/kevlarbaboon 2h ago
I never felt that way until he got that salt and pepper. I have issues I guess.
•
→ More replies (4)•
→ More replies (4)•
u/anonymous_otter28 4h ago
Does it have a twist like Icarus, the documentary, did? That's what I'm hoping for. That's still the most mind-blowing doc I've seen
→ More replies (6)•
u/National_Future6190 3h ago
Yes, there's a big twist where reality and fiction merge. Not saying more at this point, but you can easily seek out the spoiler. I recommend you do not!
•
u/anonymous_otter28 3h ago
I'm going in blind. Usually I spoil movies bc they're not that interesting. There's 0 consequences. This is real, the drama is real.
•
u/Future_Arrival_5395 3h ago
She's going to be on Dancing with the Stars isnt she lol
•
u/blankblank 1h ago
This is America. No one is too far gone to be rehabilitated by doing the cha cha in sequins.
•
u/IcyTransportation961 3h ago
Still never forgiving Colbert when he rehabd Sean Spicer by bringing him on the show to help him be in on the joke instead of the butt of the joke
Dont think I need to worry about Nathan doing that here
•
u/madmaxGMR 2h ago
And Kimmel brought Trump on the show and humanized him. And Chapelle said to give him a chance. And so on. No one took things seriously.
•
u/coleman57 1h ago
Kimmel hosted Trump in 2007. A mistake, but not in the same league as Fallon and others who gave him air after 2015/07.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)•
u/Flobking 1h ago
And Kimmel brought Trump on the show and humanized him.
It was fallon, just another reason to not like that not talent hack.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)•
•
u/crockoreptile 4h ago edited 3h ago
I find it so odd she reached out to A24 of all people to do a doc on her, but then again she’s odd herself
Edit: just realised I made the cardinal sin or referring to A24 as a person, I’m literally killing cinema sorry guys
•
u/Jaredlong 4h ago
Doesn't say she only reached out to A24. Likely pitched to everyone and only A24 considered this on brand.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Trump_Russia 3h ago
She's a crazy narcissist...
I'd bet she 100% believes the lies she sells people.
→ More replies (1)•
u/TheRealSpidey 4h ago
Well it might not be the only studio she reached out to, but yeah, I can see her being like, "I need my story told artfully"
•
u/apistat 3h ago
Oppenheim had cold-emailed Fielder after learning he’d watched part of his documentary “Some Kind of Heaven,”
I love this line. It's only an 80 minute movie.
•
u/double_shadow 1h ago
The Plan: Watch part of a documentarian's 80 minute movie, just enough to convince him to contact me, but not enough to ruin a perfectly good Saturday afternoon.
•
•
u/OrbitronFactory 4h ago
This is gonna be better than Grizzly Man
•
u/drrhrrdrr 4h ago
Promise me you will never shed a tear on command.
•
u/pantstoaknifefight2 2h ago
In my best Herzog voice:
"You must never listen to Elizabeth. You should not trust her. You should destroy her because she will be like the white elephant in your room all your life."
•
u/SDRPGLVR 2h ago
"The locals asked me if I would like for them to kill her on my behalf. I declined and informed them it was because I would like to do it myself.
"The truth is that I was protecting them as I do not believe mortal hands can vanquish such a creature."
→ More replies (1)
•
u/blue-opuntia 3h ago
I recently watched a bunch of other Lance Oppenheim stuff and was really impressed by his documentaries, ‘Ren Faire’ and ‘some kind of heaven’. I love the dreamy kind of over production vibes, it feels so fresh and unique. I’m dying to see this mostly for that reason
→ More replies (3)
•
u/AthwartHistory 4h ago
I definitely identify with everyone worried that the film will help Holmes rehabilitate her image, but I'm also strangely confident that she'll squander any goodwill or cultural capital she might earn, just by continuing to be batshit crazy.
•
u/Flemtality 3h ago
Holy shit. I'm an idiot. I thought that was an actress. I didn't know that was actually her in the trailer. I thought this was dramatized. That makes this movie so much better.
I was wondering why she looked just like Elizabeth Holmes...
•
u/Various_Ambassador92 2h ago
There are some dramatized portions, once she was in prison they weren't allowed to take cameras in when they went to see her so those portions will be recreated with an actress. Not really clear how much of the doc is from before vs after prison from what I've seen
•
u/Emanemanem 3h ago
“Holmes and Evans agreed to let Fielder and Oppenheim film them, and A24 gave the small crew a chance to “pull the plug” on the doc if they couldn’t find a story to tell.”
Maybe it’s hindsight but it sounds laughable that the studio would think these two filmmakers wouldn’t be able to come up with an interesting story to tell from that subject matter
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Sternmacaroon 3h ago
I am obsessed with this. I saw a comment that this is like the superbowl for weirdos and honestly that feels right.
•
•
•
u/giulianosse 3h ago
Nathan saying how he thinks the experience was strange and weird followed by Oppenheim just laying it out like:
Oppenheim compared the feeling to the 1979 movie “Stalker,” which featured a mystical zone that grants people’s innermost desires. “The laws of reality and everything that we thought was going on outside just evaporated, and no one could agree,” he said.
I'm genuinely howling, holy shit.
•
u/OrbitronFactory 4h ago
I can’t believe we’re getting a Nathan Fielder movie and a John Wilson movie in the same year. Timeline restored.
→ More replies (9)•
•
u/SeaTie 3h ago
What's the deal with this movie? I keep seeing all these salacious quotes and comments about it.
Do they just have one hell of a marketing team or is this actually going to be a wild ride of a documentary?
Sure, she's a fraudster or whatever...but the trailers and everything make it seem like it's more and even weirder than that.
•
u/Sublime120 2h ago
I saw it last night and don’t want to spoil anything but will say that it’s way more wild than I could have ever imagined. Def try to go in blind.
→ More replies (11)•
u/Sentrion 3h ago
It depends how familiar you are with Nathan Fielder. He's really the main attraction here, rather than Elizabeth Holmes.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Scruffy_Snub 3h ago
Nah it's absolutely both. The Holmes story is pretty insane by itself, throwing in Fielder just makes it that much better.
→ More replies (3)•
u/SweetSchlong 3h ago
If you have HBO, watch season one of The Rehearsal, you don’t understand how far this guy will go.
It’s going to be groundbreaking
→ More replies (8)•
u/gameboyz4dayz 3h ago
Season ONE?
→ More replies (12)•
u/SweetSchlong 2h ago
Ahaha, well after the season one mindfuck you’ll have no choice.
Season 2 is on another plane of existence
•
→ More replies (3)•
→ More replies (5)•
u/charlesdexterward 2h ago
So Nathan Fielder is a comedian whose work blends fiction and reality in a way that leaves audiences wondering what is fake and what is real. He asks profound questions in the most absurd ways imaginable, and walks the line between authenticity and artifice in a fascinating way. There are elements of manipulation in his work that borders on maniacal, so watching him go toe to toe with another professional manipulator is going to be like watching an unstoppable force meet an unmoving object.
If you want to get a better idea of his work, you can watch The Rehearsal, it’s two seasons (so far) and they’re both great. His old show, Nathan for You, is also great but leans more towards comedy, although you can see elements of his more recent work there, too. The series finale may as well be a pilot episode for The Rehearsal.
•
u/PuzzledPollyana 1h ago
I was going to write a comment to try and explain why Nathan in this project makes it so much more exciting, but I could never explain it as well as you have. 👏
•
u/johnla 3h ago
She's pregnant with his child, isn't she? The lengths that Nathan goes is admirable.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/ThingProfessional664 3h ago
I've never seen a human being look like the Chucky Cheese Rat tis much, insanity
•
u/BunyipPouch Currently at the movies. 3h ago
Nathan might be joining us for an AMA/Q&A here in /r/movies in a few weeks for the release of You Can See Everything. This one is still very much TBD. Please keep an eye out on the AMA sidebar schedule for updates if interested :)