So many comments about Holmes, I think, are missing the point. This isn't about Holmes, and neither, IMO, is the article. Like all things Nathan Fielder does, this is a movie by Nathan for Nathan. Elizabeth Holmes is just used, in every sense of the word, as a prop.

The article was written by someone who's never seen any of Nathan's other work and is apparently blown away by his skill at and unquenchable fetish for using and deceiving people. Yeah, that's his whole thing. Congrats, you just watched a documentary about psychopaths.

▲

esikich 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think this is anything like Nathan's normal stuff. He didn't manipulate at all. He just hung around and asked really direct and obvious questions and you watched her and her husband squirm and lie.

▲

novia 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The thing where he said he'd gone through a break-up seemed like it could have been misleading (I don't actually know about his personal life)

	▲	EdwardDiego 21 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How many people do you know who _haven't_ gone through a break-up? I'm unsure why you'd think this was a deception, given the probability.
	▲	esikich 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I will give you that. I wasn't sure if that was real or not.

▲

gorfian_robot 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

sounds like the Primetime movie. good film. surely has little to do with real life.