Remix.run Logo
▲ samschooler 6 hours ago

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.

▲wisty 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I haven't seen it, but my opinion is she likely was what lawyers call "reckless", as in she should have known but didn't care (blinded by the upside and a "we'll figure it once we scale" tech attitude that works a lot better for db performance than healthcare).

▲Earw0rm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I've worked for someone very like her.

It's worse than reckless. They make not-knowing part of their operating model.

And they make sure nobody else with power and influence does too much knowing either. Silos, stay in your lane, don't ask questions about how your department's KPIs mesh with the next one over, or what conclusions might be inferred.

▲wisty an hour ago | parent | next [-]

When a lawyer says "reckless" it's an extremely strong word. It doesn't mean "negligent", IANAL (and it depends on the state etc) but it's more like if you knowingly run over a pedestrian in your way, and you aren't trying to hurt them but don't care if they get hurt. And often criminal law will treat it as just a little less bad than intent.

▲kromokromo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How does this work though. At the end of the day, you can’t as a CEO say “I didn’t know” when your whole operating model is a scam.

▲Slow_Hand 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes. So many of her replies to Nathan's questions were "I don't know" or "I don't remember" or "I don't understand" for questions that were very straightforward.

At her level of responsibility she'd better know. Whatever the case, she's either deceitful or incompetent. Neither answer is flattering or acceptable.

▲orwin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's manufactured incompetence. You can see it a lot in companies who use a lot of subcontractors.

▲ashdksnndck 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Deceitful vs delusional or incompetent matters for your legal defense, your parole hearing etc

▲swiftcoder 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> At the end of the day, you can’t as a CEO say “I didn’t know” when your whole operating model is a scam.

There's always the chance one could have ridden fake-it-till-you-make-it long enough for the engineers to solve the underlying issues...

▲willis936 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

While far from a complete technical breakdown, Hank Green's recent video on Theranos is a good starting point. These are not serious people. The special sauce has never been the self promotion.

https://youtu.be/d9EaqyoA29E

▲kronnpp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is one thing to fake and misrepresent the completeness of a video game, but it is entirely another to provide false or unverified medical results to patients.

▲sippingabonedry 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does the film address that thing she does with her voice?

▲samschooler 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not at all, though she does talk slightly less like that now.

▲ 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲cm2187 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲Fargren 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> As for Kamala Harris and her sudden southern accent in front of certain audiences...

I grew up in one place with a very marked accent, and moved later in life to a place with another distinct, very different accent. My accent shifts within minutes of talking with people from either place. Sometimes I'm in a room with people from both places, and my accent changes depending on who's in my field of view. This doesn't take any effort; in fact, I need to make an effort to avoid it.

This is how accents work. Our brain adapts very quickly to try to fit in.

(I grew up in Buenos Aires and now I live in Madrid)

▲heckelson an hour ago | parent [-]

I have made a similar observation, maybe even stronger: In Lower Austria, I speak the dialect, but only 50km away in Vienna, people speak in more of a "standard German" way, I'm guessing due to the large influx of German migrants and because the dialect is considered lower-class (by the younger generations especially, who, probably due to social media, speak very Germany-esque) and I've noticed I myself also switch to a "standard German" type dialect.

▲socalgal2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To pile on, there used to by a comedy interview show in Japan. They would bring on a celebrity and have them call their mother and buzz them if they fell back into their local accent. Every star got buzzed.

The point being people have different ways of speaking to different people.

Maybe another example is Hawaiians talking to each other vs to tourists

▲maxbond 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's one of those cases where cringe becomes creepy. When someone is putting on a really transparent performance, and to the rest of us it broadcasts their insecurity, and they ought to know that but don't - it's eerie, it's mired in an uncanny valley. Too much to be a joke but not enough to plausibly work. When I see her back in the day with the turtleneck and the affected voice, it gives me the willies.

That said no it is not particularly important. But striking and memorable. The voice is the most striking part but I don't think it would land with me if not for also the turtleneck and the other Jobs knockoff stuff.

▲MrGilbert 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't have an issue with a different accent, but vocal fry sounds just outright weird to me. Maybe because I'm not a native speaker, but it's giving me snobbish, crow-like vibes. I don't like it, and I don't really understand why people aim for it. A deep voice is not vocal fry. Sam Elliot has a nice deep voice. Toni Braxton has a nice deep voice. Vocal fry is none of that. It's the tramp stamp of voice.

▲squidmaster an hour ago | parent [-]

Vocal fry being the tramp stamp of voice is such a perfect way of putting it!

▲bahmboo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, to me that is catering to your audience. It also seems to overlap with coming back from your London trip with a British accent.

For her voice register change, where's the line or the gray area? It's a very personal human thing. I find her to be oriented around how she presents herself and how she is perceived. Then she uses her impressive talents to guide and manipulate.

I find her unnerving but also a great example of how the eyes are really part of the brain.

[edit: a lot, same general idea but composed bester[

▲willy_k 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah. “The eyes are the window to the soul” is true.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲serf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

everyone has a bit of a social chameleon thing going on, but when a person is nothing but facade to the point of others being totally unable to pinpoint their actual psyche it's a flashing warning sign for a lot of people that they're a sociopath or at the very least have a lot of tendencies towards that behavior.

let's flip it on its' head; she's now seeking sympathy and understanding from the public and her voice softened: Does that aid perception of truth and honesty? It doesn't for me.

▲kakacik an hour ago | parent [-]

No its a textbook sociopathy with all bells and whistles it brings along.

Btw rather hardcore sociopathy is the norm amongt elites who worked their own way to some small pyramid of power and/or wealth, normal balanced happy folks give up that endless chase long before since true achievements in life are hardly up there. But you can't explain this to them, you get blank stare at best or get ridiculed more probably (tried a few times, sobering experiences).

Its rather exceptional when above is not valid, and certainly shouldnt be shocking when revealed. Take top 10 companies, CEOs and whole C suite are all that, they select for their own 'kin'. Take top 100 and still most would fall there firmly, they just know how to do self PR better.

▲watwut 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree. I dont get why people get outraged over it either. Yes, having deeper voice makes people take you more seriously. Works with students, bosses, colleagues.

Using deeper voice as a result is like putting on suit and making your hair - adjusting yourself to societal biases.

The issue with Holmes is not voice or cloth or whatever. It is fraud, lies and lack of care about harm she caused.

▲UltraSane an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Because she faked her deeper voice and choosing to do that constantly is very creepy and weird.

▲globular-toast 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's because it's creepy. Simple as that really.

▲jimbob45 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It goes back to the parent poster’s question of whether or not she was doing it to manipulate people or if she genuinely looked up to Steve Jobs enough to want to emulate him down to his pitch.

▲watwut 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I dont buy either framing. There is nothing better about immitating Jobs.

And using deeper voice is no worsr then putting on cloth to impress. Or using makeup to impress.

If people are irrationally taking deeper voices more serious, using deeper voice is not some kind of evil manipulation. People with higher pitch are not unserious, only treated that way a bit more.

Your deeper voice is not making you more valid or serious in any way. Yes, it is advantage. It is ok to mimic it to get equal advantage.

▲Pengtuzi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> As for Kamala Harris and her sudden southern accent in front of certain audiences...

Care to finish that thought?

▲esikich 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Best take of the movie here. When the whole crew met with them before production, Nathan's idea to say "fuck it, let's just see how they do business" was the right call and might show she actually may not have known as much as you'd think, but it's fully intentional to the point of complete insanity.

▲nicce 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Is she truly the most manipulative person we've ever seen

Probably no. The most manipulative are still not in the jail and are running some well-known big companies.

▲roncesvalles 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think if you're stuck on that question, her manipulation poked through the silver screen and worked on you.

To me the subtext of the movie was that a sociopath's manipulation is so strong that even against the heavy counterforce of the filmmaker's bias, it makes it through. I agree with TFA's general premise that the film forces you to confront how easy it is to deceive you -- but it's not the filmmaker who's doing the deceiving. Sociopathic manipulation is about sparking doubt. Gaslighters don't need to prove anything, they just need to plant a "but what if" in some corner of your mind. The fact that the author felt compelled to write TFA at all is ironically a product of that manipulative power.

Another way to think of it is: the documentary makes you think whether, if you were in the room with her in the years that Theranos was operating, would you have fallen for it? If you feel the need to write apologia after watching a documentary that's basically a hit piece, you know the answer.