Maybe it's just because I've been around a bunch of people in startup circles, seaking angel and vc, etc and myself raised and had exits and been deposed in highly contentious situations.

Holmes doesn't talk like any innocent person has ever talked. Period. Not even like a naive rube either.

She explicitly initiated this whole thing as a narrative exercise and she just had to stick to the script for what, 45 days? While letting herself feel the genuine self pity all these types of people feel when they are experiencing the consequences for their actions instead of being able to foist them onto someone else?

Her only path forward is to FULLY commit to the bit as a way of deceiving the credulous, even a moment of cynicism and the whole thing falls apart.

Now, did she in fact succeed in that or was it a choice to show no cracks in the facade because it made a more engaging movie?

News flash, I love his media but Nathan Fielder is a monster as well he's my favorite monster but let's not pretend. We can just hold both things to be true instead of engaging in cognitive dissonance.

Other than the children (and that one flatulent horse) everyone involved in this is a monster, and the only way to hide that fact is to ensure the ending is ambiguous, otherwise it just feels like non-transcendent tabloid pap profiting off of bad behavior.

There is goodness, and people attempting to increase goodness and it looks and talks nothing like any of these people.

What actions make Nathan and Amanda monstrous to you?