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?

▲

whilenot-dev 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous [...] with ambiguous subject matter?

There's a big difference in ambiguousness and ambivalence, especially in documentaries. "Ambiguousness" represents an uncertain logical conclusion, whereas "ambivalence" stands in for (the strength of) conflicting forces.

I'd wager that an ambiguous documentary would be close to being unwatchable, and I can't remember that I've seen any. Since I've yet to see You Can See Everything, unfortunately I can't comment about it in any way.

▲

nlitened 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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?

If you’re that interested in getting these answers, you probably should watch the film

	▲	namenotrequired 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The article makes it clear that most people didn’t get out of the movie what the author got out of it
	▲	moffkalast 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Nah, that would never work.

▲

comradesmith 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe just for not spoilers?

▲

hnlmorg 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If you’re watching this film, you likely already know who Elizabeth Holmes is. There isn’t going to be any Sixth Sense style plot twists.

▲

rafaeltorres 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I’ve watched the film. There are things that happen during the filming of it, involving the people making the project, that I would indeed classify as big spoilers and knowing them beforehand would lessen the experience.

▲

arjie 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Without having watched the film, I'm sure they can make it look like Sunny Balwani was the guy in charge, or something like that. I don't even know the whole story of Theranos and never followed it with much interest - startup scams are a dime-a-dozen. HP's acquisition of Autonomy always struck me as such a tale: CFO takes the fall for CEO and CTO for a $11 b acquisition that a few years later was worth a tenth because of accounting fraud and when he gets out the CEO gives him a sinecure; then the week of CEO and CTO acquittal the latter gets killed in a bicycling accident and the former dies when a tornado sinks his yacht.

Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes are interesting characters, true, but there's so much nuts in tech, it's just fertile ground for stories.

	▲	watwut 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

DuperPower 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

besides the topic that is being explored is deception so its expected the documentary Will use a rethorical or film technique that has some connection to that theme of deception?