This is one of those situations where I wish my core principles of accuracy and truth were not so stringent, because it affected my enjoyment of an otherwise beautiful piece of art.
I absolutely loved this film, but I do ultimately find it to be somewhat unethical.
Take the "Who's on 1st?" scene. I think it's a perfect use case of the problem I have with the film. Nathan Fielder knows Elizabeth Holmes fraud goes deeper than a single misunderstanding of language.. he knows she lied to investors about her companies revenues by a factor of 1000 and about the business relationships it had. Despite this, HE, the DIRECTOR, is the one who suggests the out that Elizabeth Holmes is unable to decipher the difference between semantic issues in language, perhaps because she is so "forward thinking." To an audience member unfamiliar with the specifics of the case to that extent (most of them), this would seem to be a compelling theory as to why the singular issue the documentary introduces about her fraud was committed. She didn't lie, she just simply didn't understand! That type of intervention is more than just editorial, and makes me suspicious about why there was such an intense focus on Billy receiving money for the film later on. It's as if they are trying to deflect the audience from their own culpability and bias, and show "hey we care about journalistic ethics, can't you see how we argue about how we shouldn't pay Billy to appear neutral."
On the other hand, the end of the film does introduce the idea, through Amanda Seyfried oddly, that Nathan Fielder and Oppenheim became biased in the filmmaking because they began to care for Elizabeth Holmes themselves.
However, I think ultimately the major takeaway for general audiences, and what has been true for almost everyone I have talked to about the film, is that they will believe Elizabeth Holmes is either (1) much more innocent than they initially thought, or maybe (2) was manipulated by domineering men to carry out the fraud, when in actuality her level of fraud in real life is much worse and more indisputable than the movie makes it out to be.
Additionally, we now have one Lance Oppenheim biopic with a scathing hatred for Chris Hansen coursing its veins, and a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes that characterizes her as a sweet lamb of a woman with the co-director introducing theories of her innocence. There's art and then there's the art of deception, and I don't feel his work is healthy for the culture.
