How the Elizabeth Holmes Doc 'You Can See Everything' Is Deceiving You

sciencesama

you are either manipulated or you manipulate ! / influence !

nickstinemates

> But the thing that often gets lost in the retelling of her story is that Holmes was actually acquitted of all four charges related to defrauding patients. She’s in prison because a jury found that she knowingly misled investors who poured more than $700 million into the startup. trying to minimize fraud? what a weird article.

samschooler

I don't think there is any magic sauce to this movie. I saw it yesterday, and do agree (spoilers ahead) there are three acts: deception, sympathetic, puppeteer. I feel though that this article treats the movie as if its some sort of hypnosis; it's not. Its a very well put together movie that makes you question everything thats happening. I and others came out of it largely questioning: A. Is she truly the most manipulative person we've ever seen B. Largely oblivious to what's happening around her and not: - Is she guilty This movie I would say does not answer those questions, nor do I think seeks to.

jiggawatts

As someone outside US politics and as someone who generally takes the position of an impartial observer it’s always fun to engage people in gentle debate to see if they understand why they feel the way that they vehemently[1] do about a person or topic. A fun one to ask to rile up Fox News listeners is to ask them which specific law Hillary Clinton is guilty of breaking. Trump just threatened to jail her, so this is still relevant! That’s just a random example, there are many such biases people hold where they have a strong belief but no clue where they got that belief. [1] A study showed that many antivaxers would cheerfully get their kid a shot if offered $50! That’s what their “conviction” is actually worth.

ksymph

This article falls into the same trap, I dunno what to call them, artsy-upper-class-society-and-film reviewers often do; writing vague yet meaningful-sounding things about the obvious subtext of a movie as if it was a revelation, yet without any specific observations about it. Yes, this is a documentary about a person. And how the documentary is presented will color your perspective of the person. This should (hopefully) be apparent to anyone who's watched a documentary about a person before. But how does it do it? What tools does it use to that effect? I appreciate that this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous, but what makes this unique from other documentaries that deal with ambiguous subject matter?

halyconWays

This reads like a high schooler discovering that film can manipulate you, but doesn't go any further than that. "We like to believe that we form our opinions by gathering evidence, weighing facts, and arriving at reasonable conclusions. Be for real. No we do not." She speaks for herself. The author then doesn't bring up a single fact, piece of evidence, or anything else besides just restating the pedestrian premise a few times. I don't share her inability to study a topic in-depth, come to a conclusion or challenge my previously held beliefs, and then pass judgment while attaching a calibrated degree of certainty to the soundness of my conviction.

greesil

You can just read Bad Blood, too, and skip the movie / hyperbole/ whatever

muglug

Everything you watch, documentary and narrative alike, attempts to shape your understanding of events through the director's lens.

spectraldrift

Bizzare take

SurfingAlpaca

I saw a video on YouTube a while ago about her. I think it was either by Internet historian or someone similar. Not sure if it’s worth going to theaters for this

zetazzed

It’s such a good movie. Go with a friend and you can spend hours picking apart the layers.

nanolith

I saw the movie Friday night. It is a mind job. You'll walk away with more questions than answers. Without spoiling the movie, it's possible for people to be multiple things at once. That doesn't excuse what Elizabeth Holmes did or explain what others in her circle may be guilty of. The movie is a wild ride.

jdorfman

No one including my wife was interested in seeing it so I went by myself. It was long, but interesting. The author hits the nail on the head: “You sit there believing you’re watching a documentary about a woman who deceived the world, only to discover that you’re also watching a demonstration of how easy it is to deceive you.” I couldn’t agree more.

miguelazo

Has this person never seen Rashomon? Or any of the other films (even documentaries) that cleverly use different perspectives? Seems a bit breathless.

JMiao

“Local woman discovers Nathan For You”

jamienk

I'm not bragging: but I do not watch any (almost any) video of the news, so I never see Trump speak or see the Israeli military against the Palestinians or watch the footage of the trials, etc. I do read the news. I just sort of drifted into it when I was an early cord-cutter. I think around the yr 2000 there wasn't much video and I got used to it. I do find that I am much less overstimulated than my friends and family who watch a lot of news video. Lacan described registers of experience: the Imaginary (visual, sexual, emotional, fantasy), Symbolic (language, associations), and Real (the unsymbolizable, "impossible"). Watching video is immersion in the Imaginary, you get roused, riled up, turned-on, activated, thoughts are connected by paranoia, magical thinking, and aggression. It makes HUGE difference to not not follow the news that way! Again, I'm not bragging, not proud of myself, not espousing a Mr Spock outlook. But it is hard to miss the difference.