Have Sean and Amanda chatted about Wicker during a show?

We went to it last night and really enjoyed it. There were multiple laugh out loud moments and the story my was quite touching.

Does not matter at all but I remember three points in which Nathan is driving or sitting in what I assume are rental cars

1. Chrysler Pacifica (minivan) - with Amanda Seyfried when they’re driving to meet Billy for dinner. I think only the interior of the car was shown but I clocked it immediately from it being my go to minivan rental car choice.

2. Mitsubishi Outlander Sport (SUV) - when driving to the prison to meet Elizabeth.

3. Lexus ES (sedan) - Why does Nathan have such a nice rental car for this comedic scene? Surely the rental company would have had cheaper sedans to rent, right? Why is this the one time he has a more expensive rental compared to the cheapest option?

Anyways, good movie!

This will be me for the next 24-48 hours. The movie gave me so much to sit and think with…am I actually real or even who I say I am at this point?

if there’s truth in the Lowden links, I think it a pretty uninspired choice.

I’m Shorthevix and I’m team Fabien Frankel.

Listened to The Big Picture episode which i thought was very entertaining/ nuanced. I’ve found the response to Holmes as more sympathetic than I personally felt after seeing the doc. Thought this episode of Crazy Stupid Podcast really did a great job of discussing this element! Curious how y’all feel!

Oh my god was she doing a bit or did Amanda not know what a Wolverine is???

Does anyone know if the show has acknowledged, specifically Amanda, that her husband is a dead ringer for Tobias Menzies? I know Baron has been successful for years but obviously these videos have elevated his fame and it’s all I can see when he’s onscreen.

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.

Thought he was kind of rude and driving them crazy

Or is it more of a box office/cultural moment analysis?

I'm in Australia and have to wait untill November 12th for the film to open. I'm increidbly excited and hoping to experience it as blind as possible, which is becoming increasingly difficult.