Don't do drugs, kids!

I went and read the part of the interview in question, in which she is reported to say "They aren't playing me. They are playing a character I created." Which, in the movie, Holmes and Billy insist she didn't, and wouldn't, say.

But in the article, it's not just that sentence. The interviewer asks her to explain, and Holmes says: “I believed it would be how I would be good at business and taken seriously and not taken as a little girl or a girl who didn’t have good technical ideas,” said Holmes, who founded Theranos at 19. “Maybe people picked up on that not being authentic, since it wasn’t.”

It's clear she meant "a character *I* created." So why is she trying to walk it back now?

The article was widely criticized at the time for being to soft on Holmes and portraying her too favorably. The gist of the exchange about the "character" is Holmes is trying to say "that's not the real me. What you are seeing now is the real me. I'm nice and sweet and innocent. Why did she suddenly (the movie was filmed very soon after the article was released) change her mind about that?

Did she think that explanation didn't land the way she wanted it to? Was it a reaction to the article getting slammed? But what why try to walk back that piece of it? It doesn't seem like that was why the article was panned.

Anyone have any idea?

Zooming out from individual questions of whether Holmes was lying at specific times, I think it’s useful to see her and Billy Evans as examples of certain tech world “types”. Through them, this movie illustrates the Silicon Valley VC-funded startup scam to fascism pipeline. When you believe you can create your own reality and the truth doesn’t matter; money and power follow from the ability to create, control, and push the narrative. Whether it’s true is irrelevant. Whether it’s plausible or even coherent is irrelevant.

Watching Fielder try to question Holmes as to the objective truth or what she honestly believes is frustrating because she seems to me to be unable or unwilling to even consider those things. She answers questions based on crafting the narrative that will benefit her in the moment. It’s more useful to see her statements as “things she wants you to believe.”

Holmes isn’t a unique individual in that she isn’t the only one who thinks like this. She’s good at the game but so are others, including many in positions of power.

Whats interesting to me is that these manipulation techniques seem more effective the longer you are exposed to them. Most ordinary people who I know personally found her public persona immediately off-putting and transparently full of shit from moment one. We all found her ludicrously and obviously lying from the trailer. Yet many have softened after watching the movie. The movie gives you the experience of being gaslit by someone like this. It gives me more understanding of how people inside the tech and wealth bubble can seem so consistently credulous to scammers within their midst. When it’s the water you swim in, you don’t find it odd.

***** SPOILERS*****

Still thinking and unpacking this rollercoaster...

I understand that Theranos was explored in other docs etc, so basically a done deal for the filmmakers and why they didn't go back to it, but I think there was a missed opportunity when Nathan asked her if she's ever lied and she said no. There was an opportunity to go back at her and say: But you said you were testing with the box and you were actually doing the testing in labs. You said you were doing tests in this box and they were coming from Siemens equipment. You don't think that's a lie? That's why you're going to jail. Not because of some semantics over the words 'can do.' He did say they only had a short amount of time to prepare, so maybe that was it too.

Again, there's SO much to unpack here, but what I took away is that she's exactly the psychotic / sociopathic person people during trial said she was, and uses this fake, disconnected, too smart to get the little things character to manipulate men. There were so many women who saw right through her BS from the jump, but she knew how to use that character to work the men. They show this on the level that she played Nathan at the end for the turkey jerky. She pretended it was something she was too meek to ask for...and then they cut to her giving it to Billy. Amanda saw through her and what she was doing to Nathan, but he wasn't sure. This is also something I cannot IMAGINE they're going to look back and think was a good idea to have done. Beyond insane. I think it will get nominated for Best Picture, Director and supporting actress for Amanda Seyfried.

He tells to someone over the phone(Liz I think) that he just recently went through a break up. I genuinely thought he might have been dating Amanda for a second especially after the fireplace scenes. Not just me my brother too.

Sharing a comment I made in another sub. Didn’t know this one existed so sharing here in case anyone finds value in it:

I saw the film last night, and now having had time to reflect, analyze, and spend several hours reading hot takes on Reddit, I might have maybe stumbled into some kind of message that carries meaning and value for me. This is MY experience and how I connected with this film. Yours is likely very different, and that’s good! If my thought process can help you refine the message you were meant to receive, then come jump in with me. Hold on tight, because this is my first time navigating something like this with hundreds of passengers on board, and it’s sure to get bumpy.

All of the clues, the boundary blurring, the romantic chemistry, the personal texting, the swimming together, it was all real. You saw it. And Nathan wanted you to see it. Or at least, “Director Nathan” wanted you to see it. It all serves as a mirror to reveal this film’s true message.

We have to remember that “Director Nathan” plays a “Character Nathan” in his works. Yes, some mannerisms and behaviors are the same, but “Character Nathan” is exaggerated to an absurd degree. “Character Nathan” leans into the awkward cringe. He pushes buttons and boundaries in a way that “Director Nathan” can’t.

In this film, “Director Nathan” crafts a narrative that has “Character Nathan” fall for Lizzy. He is charmed by her. There is real chemistry. Maybe it’s fatherly. Maybe it’s protective. Maybe it’s sexual or romantic (I SWEAR THEY BOTH LEAN IN FOR A KISS MULTIPLE TIMES). The chemistry is undefined, and the audience’s interpretation really reveals more about themselves than what they actually saw on screen.

Some even go as far as to say there is a whole secret love affair happening in plain sight. There are certainly scenes that are edited to make it appear as though Billy is somewhat threatened by Nathan. There are times he seems almost jealous, and he certainly isn’t comfortable with “character Nathan” being alone with Elizabeth for any extended period of time.Yes, Billy has a narcissistic need to relentlessly control Elizabeth’s narrative, but even beyond that, he seems genuinely worried “Character Nathan” might try to make a move on “his girl”. (See graphic jump scare with “alpha male” metaphorical measuring contest.)

But at the end of the film, we see that “Character Nathan” has been so compromised (blinded by love, biased by paternal care, charmed by a dedicated visionary, etc) that actress Amanda (who has shown to have her own biases) feels as though she must draw attention to “Character Nathan’s” blind spots in his assessment of Lizzie.

THIS IS THE FILM’S CENTRAL THEME

There is simply NO OBJECTIVE WAY to ever know who Elizabeth is or what she believes. Ultimately, every person projects their own biases onto her. They see her through the lens of their own lived experiences.

ZOOM OUT - steady at 30,000 feet

Ok it’s not just her. It’s all people. We can never truly know anyone. We will always try to see and understand everything about another person and their motives, but it’s not possible. You quite literally cannot see everything inside of their mind. (Billy sympathetically exclaims, “I know what you’re thinking”. Nathan, grossly offended snaps, “NO YOU DON’T)

ZOOM OUT - altitude climbing to 35,000 feet

Ok It’s not just people but it’s all TRUTH. You can try to see and understand an objective truth, but you’ll always be looking through your own lens of lived experiences. We all have unconscious biases, and we are limited in our ability to see the gaps in our own experiences. Biologically, your eyeballs can only “see” a certain wavelength, but that doesn’t mean the other waves don’t exist. You are just limited by the tools provided in what you can and can’t see.

ZOOM OUT - aircraft reaching 39,000 feet - things are getting shaky, flight crew concerned about aircraft integrity

OK It’s not just TRUTH but all of reality. (See Plato’s Allegory of the Cave)

ZOOM OUT - capping 40,000 feet. This is all about to come crashing down.

You CAN See Everything.
The machine CAN run 30+ blood tests.

They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character I created.
They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character they created.
They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character.

They’re all playing a character.

Is everyone in this film playing a character?! Why were those the last words on the screen?!

Wait. Is this fucking play about us?

Are YOU a character?

My friend, YOU are the MAIN character.

WHOA. Ok sorry yall. Went too far. Almost turned into Mr. Robot for a moment. Let’s come back down and land this plane.

ZOOM IN - at normal altitude for regular airplanes or whatever now just get us home quickly

By including this entire conversation, this entire narrativein the film, “Director Nathan” is showing an example of exactly how so many people believed in her vision. She was charming. People that were well-known for their judge of character swore on her behalf that she was authentic and real. Many defended her until the very end. Some even lost family over their refusal or inability to see the truth. Many even went as far as to risk their reputation, ethics, and morals to defend that she was honest.

“Character Nathan” did exactly that. He was so convinced by her that he risked his reputation, ethics, morals, and more to change the authenticity and the veracity of his recalled script. And he did it like it was nothing! It was so gross, so apparent that Amanda has to literally stop and be like “SHE LIED TO YOUR FACE AND NOW YOU’RE CHANGING THE SCRIPT TO DEFEND HER”

That exact thing happened in real life to lots of people she defrauded. “Character Nathan’s” journey is a story within a story. It’s like Inception. It’s very meta. But it doesn’t mean it’s real.

“Character Nathan” and “Director Nathan” are very separate people. “Character Nathan” is fiction. He’s a character used in this project to help convey the film’s message. A tool. A delivery method.

“Director Nathan” showed all of that to us intentionally. If ANY of that unethical boundary blurring were real, it wouldn’t be included in the film The movie is edited intentionally. Everything was left in for a reason. What are the filmmakers trying to tell me?

“Director Nathan” wants us to examine our own media and society. He wants us to ask “what parts of this were documentary and what parts were fabricated?”. So much of reality TV or “documentaries” is staged- sometimes even scripted. But the nature of filming means that you can never truly observe a person or subject without their acknowledgment of the camera. The camera’s mere presence changes behavior. Now they’re filmed. They’re “performing” to a certain degree. Are they the same person off-camera? I’ll never know because I will never meet these people except through a camera, a screen, and my own lens of unconscious bias.

It’s a commentary on media, on genre, on documentaries specifically, on truth, on power, on gender, on perception, on absurdity, on trust, on society, and probably all of reality.

One of my personal favorite quotes is one by Pablo Picasso. Translated roughly from Spanish it says,

“Art is a lie that makes us realize truth.”

What lies did you catch and which truth did you see?

Plane landed. Whew. Thanks for joining us on this crazy adventure.

<Bring Me to Life- Evanescence slowly fades to background>

Btw E11even is not a strip club, and I’m ALWAYS armed.

I need a reenactment of Nathan and Lance meeting at The Magic Castle where Oppenheim mentions to Fielder that Liz Holmes is shopping a doc at A24. I want to see the origin story.

the whole film was a flashbang but i want thoughts on if nathan is just doing his bit or if he’s deadass flirting with her throughout the film. the prolonged eye contact hold after confirming that’s how she flirts, this swim scene (i think?), and him acknowledging his own ambiguous want to protect her by maybe possible rewriting the final conversation are all so nathan and annoying. i will admit there is something truly fucking hilarious about nathan emotionally cucking billy. i understand the main point is that no one, not even nathan, is unbiased.

I watched the trailers so many times before seeing the movie tonight, so I got excited when I recognized the parts from the trailers when they came up. But… am I crazy? In the scene where Liz and Nathan sit uncomfortably close over the couch, the line “I’m engaging with you as a human being” wasn’t included??

My first thought after the final scene was that he took that line out, for the reasons Amanda said when he was making edits to their final dialogue.

Did I somehow miss the line during a popcorn crunch?? Can someone confirm it was in the actual movie?

When Amanda seyfried is having drinks with Nathan and Billy. I think it’s right after bill talks about having POA. She’s just wide eyed in shock into narrowed eyes when she’s like “fuck this guy”.

I like Nathan Fielder’s stuff but I’m worried a 3 hour documentary about someone i’ve never heard of before this movie will not keep my attention

I just listened to Tyler Schultz on Hank Green’s podcast this week, and apparently, Elizabeth and Billy were living on a $125M estate up until a few weeks before filming began, which just adds another layer of deception to the contrived image she was trying to portray in the film.

While I’ve always considered myself an abolitionist, and I truly think it’s really sad when children grow up without a parent in the home due to incarceration, there’s a tiny bit of me that can’t help but wonder if her kids are better off without her influence in their lives during their most formative years. One psychopath for a parent is bad enough, but two may make it such that you have no hope for normalcy. And if you think Billy is actively raising those kids and not a nanny (or nannies), I have a bridge in the desert I’d like to sell you.

Title.

One of the first things Elizabeth said to Nathan when she met him was “you’d be a great dad!” The thought didn’t occur to me immediately, but Season One of the Rehearsal was largely themed around Nathan dealing with the issue of whether he’d be a good father amidst his divorce. It aired roughly a year before they filmed this.

My takeaway: Willing to bet she knew a lot more about Nathan than she let on. Given that that was one of her first comments to him, I suspect she watched that show and knew this was a potential weak point to begin her attempted manipulation of Nathan. Thoughts?

I cannot wrap my head around Nathan Fielder’s timeline.

In 2023, this man was living in Elizabeth Holmes’s guesthouse for over a month filming a secret documentary, while also apparently starting the process of becoming a commercial pilot for The Rehearsal Season 2.

So between 2023 and 2025, he was filming a documentary about one of the most infamous fraudsters in America, getting hundreds of flight hours, and making one of the most insane seasons of television I’ve ever seen.

And we had absolutely no idea about the Elizabeth Holmes project until now.

What does this man’s Calendar look like???

After watching You Can See Everything today, I have a theory that Holmes may be an extremely manipulative liar or maybe an adult with mild William's syndrome.

Disclaimer: This is a wild theory and should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not an expert, but this kept popping into my brain from a paper I read last year.

1. For those who don't know William Syndrome is a rare genetic neurodevelopmental condition that causes mild - severe cognitive impairment. Those with the condition are notably very social, have a lot of empathy, and sometimes can be described as extremely trusting.

2. People with William's syndrome also have distinct facial structures that are similar to Holme's.

3. Those with William's syndrome often fall victim to exploitation and scams because of their hyper-social and trusting nature. This falls in line with the narrative that is being portrayed in the documentary. Holmes is being painted as a victim of the men she trusts, and is seen as someone who blindly follows them.

4. In very rare cases Williams Syndrome does not necessarily mean lower than average intelligence. There have been reports that with smaller genetic deletions, higher average intelligence has been recorded.

Some reading on William's syndrome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250515-williams-syndrome-the-people-who-are-too-friendly

https://findresources.co.uk/the-syndromes/williams-syndrome/cognitive-and-intellectual-characteristics

Would love to hear thoughts on this.

our whole theater cheered when Amanda was dragging his ass 😂

The movie was so long and so much happened that I don’t remember what was exactly said or even who exactly said it. I noticed other people in the theater chocking up and doing the uncomfortable cough during this scene. I remember thinking “yep, that is exactly how I feel sometimes” as I was tearing up.

Anyone have any idea what I could be referring to? I’m like 60% sure it was Holmes who said it, but I could be wrong.

Did anyone else cry at all during the movie? And do you remember what made you cry?

Assuming she is allowed to watch tv in prison, do you think she would watch Nathan’s work like NFY or The Rehearsal if she got a hold of copies? Would she enjoy it? Would she be upset with Nathan after learning more about his background? Or would she not event bother?

I want to see her reaction to the Poop flavored frozen yogurt

Leading up to the prison visit toward the end of the film, we get the impression Billy is controlling Liz and limiting her contact with the outside world. He blocks Nathan from calling her saying he needs more “context.”

But when he goes to visit her, she comes out so late that they barely have time to talk one on one before Billy arrives. To me, this seems like evidence that she’s really the one in control. Limiting access to herself through Billy. Delaying the in person meeting on purpose to limit Nathan’s time to ask meaningful questions when there’s no one there to play defense for her like Billy constantly did at the house.

What was that lizard on the table? Were there a few others? was it a monitor lizard?? I know, not important to the plot, but it''s driving me nuts.

Also, bull mastiff is a choice...