Sunset Boudoir: Elizabeth Holmes created another hoax — in the cinema
The controversial hit documentary "You Can See Everything" claims to be the main non-fiction film of the year and seems to be the most obvious candidate for the Oscar. The authors of the film made their failure in conversations with the creator of the infamous Theranos brand Elizabeth Holmes the basis for a virtuoso plot of the post-truth era. The doc has already grossed over $45 million worldwide and will be released in Russian cinemas on November 19. Izvestia examines this complex work in all respects, referring both to the classic Hollywood masterpieces "Citizen Kane" and "Sunset Boulevard", as well as to high-profile documentary projects where truth, fiction and manipulation form the most bizarre combinations. Beware: spoilers!
Who is Elizabeth Holmes?
"The world has come to believe in a certain truth about me that is actually not true. But what is the truth?" — Elizabeth Holmes unwittingly (or intentionally) quotes Pontius Pilate, and with this phrase gives a rough idea of what awaits the audience of the film "See Everything." The original title, however, should not have been changed: "You can see everything" expresses the idea of the authors much more accurately. Because "you can see" does not mean "you will see" and does not mean that "they will show you everything." This is one of the many mysteries for the audience and, perhaps, for the authors and even for the characters of the film, which has made so much noise and served with great fanfare. They even arranged for him to premiere at the Telluride festival as a performance: the show was not announced, there were no plot details, and before the session the audience was required to hand over their phones and monitored them for all three hours through night vision devices. This usually happens at the first screenings of Hollywood blockbusters like Odyssey or Barbie.
A shot from the movie "See Everything"
Briefly about the heroes. Elizabeth Holmes was one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the United States 11 years ago, she was called the second Steve Jobs, she even wore the same black turtlenecks. Everything was based on a device that was invented in the depths of her Theranos company. A tiny box with a single drop of blood could supposedly do dozens of complex tests. The organization had influential investors and a board of directors made up of reputable option makers. In 2015, it turned out that the device was not actually working, and then a case was opened against Holmes, and the court sentenced her to 11 years in prison for fraud.
Shortly before being sent to a Texas prison, Holmes and her husband Billy Evans decided to invite documentary filmmakers to make a film about how unfair it is to send the creator of Theranos to prison. And at the same time, to block out the impression of other high—profile films about Holmes - "The Inventor" by Alex Gibney (which used promotional interviews with Holmes by the legendary Errol Morris) and the Hulu series "Dropped Out". The reputable studio A24 invited the famous documentary filmmaker Lance Oppenheim to this project, along with comedian and actor Nathan Fielder, the creator of provocative shows featuring ordinary people. Fielder was supposed to be talking to Holmes, and Oppenheim was supposed to be filming. The film crew entered the businesswoman's house 34 days before the start of her prison term.
What is shown in the movie "See Everything"
It could have been a big creative failure. The filmmakers were faced with the fact that they were allowed to go home to Holmes and Evans and were allowed to film almost everything, right down to how naked Evans takes a shower. But it immediately became clear that the conversation was not going well. Fielder's questions came across a rigidly built defense system. "I know that I did not commit any crime," Holmes declares to the camera. "I've never lied in my life," she answers Fielder's question and reluctantly agrees that she probably could have lied at school.
A shot from the movie "See Everything"
The documentaries quickly regrouped and decided to make Fielder one of the characters in the film. Two more cameramen were called in to film him too. To build a narrative on the conflict between Fielder with his eternal pokerface and quips with a twist and an "open" but closed married couple.
From the very first minutes, we have a space for questions that cannot and cannot be answered. For example, Fielder as an interviewer is already a provocation. "Why did you choose me? I'm not a scientist, and I can't discuss your invention with you," he asks Holmes. Indeed, why not Joshua Oppenheimer, for example, the creator of the main film of the last decade, "The Act of Murder," where Indonesian criminals were happy to reconstruct their murders half a century ago? Or not the same Errol Morris, who would love to return to his old friend and definitely make a great movie?
The idea of Holmes filming in front of prison is looking increasingly suspicious. She consistently tries to prove that she is not a fraud. And that her car worked perfectly, the chemists just let her down, and the device itself is perfect. As soon as Fielder crosses the line, Evans, as befits a caring husband, interrupts the recording. We have to believe that Holmes is not fully aware of what was going on in her company, that she has no sense of humor, that she is a naive girl with mental trauma after being raped in her youth. And even if there is some kind of pressure on the documentary filmmakers, it is her husband, and she is not even aware of it, because she is the very soul, open, vulnerable, just a victim of circumstances.
Elizabeth Holmes
In the masterpiece of the great documentary filmmaker Hertz Frank, The Supreme Court, the hero sentenced to death in his prison conversations also appeared so humane that it was impossible not to feel sorry for him, even though his crime had been proven. And these two films are somewhat similar, especially since in both cases the characters clearly play a role, and the authors give them the opportunity to do so. But since Fielder is one of the heroes, it is impossible not to recall Billy Wilder's noir Sunset Boulevard, where not only the hero was the victim of manipulation, but also the heroine, an elderly actress, could not get out of her own fantasies and face reality.
Fielder clings to a phrase from Holmes' interview with The New York Times about the series "Dropped Out." There, Holmes declares, "They're not playing me. They're playing a character that I created." Elizabeth explains to the camera that she was misrepresented and she allegedly said "the character they created." But you can't check it: the newspaper won't give you a recording of the conversation. But this phrase haunts Fielder. If Holmes created herself as a "character," then you can't trust her now either. And if she doesn't understand what she's doing then and now, then she should be pitied. Fielder keeps trying to expose Holmes, but he gives up on the fact that all her reactions can be interpreted in different ways. For example, he shows her a very funny video, but she doesn't understand what the humor is, but maybe she just wasn't concentrating on it, because after a few days she has to go to the camera. And there are a lot of such moments.
A shot from the TV series "Eliminated"
We don't trust Holmes, but for some reason we trust the authors of the tape less and less, but more on that later. In the middle of the film, Holmes goes to prison, and then we are informed that two years have passed and Fielder only then decided to return to work on the picture in a rather unusual way. Let's believe that after recording sensational materials about one of the most discussed figures in the US media field, the recordings were simply thrown on the shelf. But next, we need to believe that Fielder decided to show the entire video to Amanda Seyfried, who won a Golden Globe and an Emmy for her role as Holmes in "Eliminated." And that Seifred was so taken with the material that she decided to take part in the dock. First, she reconstructs with Fielder what couldn't be captured, and takes his Elizabeth apart with him. Is Christopher Abbott from East of Eden playing Evans in these reconstructions out of pure interest, too? They don't explain it to us.
But they twist the plot of noir, which eventually moves from Sunset Boulevard to Citizen Kane, where rosebud is not an invention of Holmes, but of herself. It gets to the point where Fielder meets with Holmes in prison, and then Seifred and Fielder, according to his memories, act out this scene in front of our eyes.
The plot structure is becoming more and more intricate, but the framework structure is both a trump card and a risk. So, in the foreground, we have some unknown truth about Holmes, Evans, and Theranos. The next frame is how Holmes and Evans present this truth to Fielder, claiming to expose myths. For example, Seifred in the series dances in front of a portrait of Jobs, but Holmes actually has Churchill on the wall with the quote "Never, never, never give up." However, the continuation of this phrase is omitted: "If it does not contradict honor and common sense."
The third frame is Fielder and his relationship with the characters. This is supposed to destroy the fourth wall, but it's suspiciously intrusive: the microphone and cameramen always get into the frame, meaning the percentage of rejection for professional non-fiction films is quite high. The fourth frame is a reconstruction of events involving Hollywood superstars. And finally, the fifth frame, which is not the most obvious, but nevertheless exists, is the author's view of director Lance Oppenheim, who remains invisible and unheard throughout the film. When we understand this, we begin to wonder to what extent what is happening in front of us is a matryoshka doll made up of several thoughtful performances. There are too many unknowns here, and the film itself makes substitution one of the main themes.
A shot from the movie "Dropped Out". Amanda Seyfried as Elizabeth Holmes
Orson Welles, in the mockumentary "F as a fake", exposed his deception at the end, explaining to the viewer where the forgery began (however, we do not know how honest he was here either). Here, as it should be in post-truth, this issue is completely removed, the plot, on the one hand, is looped, and on the other, it is demonstratively open. And definitely not informative. Almost nothing has been said about the Theranos scandals and Holmes' accusations. The expert in the frame tells Fielder that the device itself did not work and it was not at all about chemical processes, but no one checks his statement. Evans admits that he blogs on behalf of his wife, who is in prison, and simply asked for access to her account from the social network X, but this issue does not receive any development.
The three—hour "See Everything" tape is an outstanding work of art, perhaps the best doc of the year. But he's not talking about a woman who doesn't want to go to prison, or an unlucky comedian who agreed to make a movie about her. He talks about what documentaries are and what we can expect when we watch them. Like a textbook on theory for aspiring directors and screenwriters, he makes every second vulnerable and difficult to interpret. Shaky, unpredictable, and ironic, he seems to illustrate in detail Holmes' question "What is truth?" and answers it himself that the truth is accessible only to us through fiction. And the success of this approach has already been proven, at least by the enormous popularity of the painting, which critics carry on their hands, and the audience votes in rubles (or rather, for now in dollars).
So Holmes, Evans, Fielder, and Oppenheim had calculated everything exactly right when they invited us into their boudoir.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
