A Secret New Elizabeth Holmes Documentary Stuns Telluride (techcrunch.com)
- Reference: 0185529330
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/09/08/1652228/a-secret-new-elizabeth-holmes-documentary-stuns-telluride
- Source link: https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/07/a-secret-new-elizabeth-holmes-documentary-stuns-telluride/
> Telluride just managed one of its best-kept secrets in years, per [1]The Hollywood Reporter . On Sunday night, festival-goers filed into a 650-seat theater with their phones locked away, having no idea what they were about to see, told only that it ran nearly three hours, hadn't been shown anywhere, and that its principal creators would be in the audience. The surprise premiere they went on to enjoy is a [2]new documentary from co-directors Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim about Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes .
>
> Called "You Can See Everything," the film is said to capture Holmes and her husband, Billy Evans, in the 34 days before she [3]reported to federal prison in May 2023 to begin an 11-year sentence for defrauding investors about her blood-testing technology. Since then, her legal fight has limped along without success. Her appeals to overturn the conviction and shorten her sentence were rejected in February of last year. She then went a different route last year, asking President Trump to commute her sentence. That clemency petition is [4]still listed as pending , meaning it's officially been opened and remains under review.
>
> Fielder apparently lived in the couple's guest house during filming -- the access they provided sounds shocking -- but some of the buzz also ties to an A-list actress who becomes part of the story itself. A24 is set to release the film in October.
You can watch a trailer for the film [5]on YouTube .
[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/nathan-fielder-elizabeth-holmes-doc-academy-analysis-1236692989/
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/07/a-secret-new-elizabeth-holmes-documentary-stuns-telluride/
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/05/17/2011231/court-orders-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-to-go-to-prison?sdsrc=rel
[4] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/search-clemency-case-status
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGJSRFWALTI
Um, stuns? (Score:2)
Really?
Re:Um, stuns? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone came to me and thought I would watch three hours of that sociopath con job, I would be stunned too...
Couldn't imagine... (Score:2)
> On Sunday night, festival-goers filed into a 650-seat theater with their phones locked away, having no idea what they were about to see, told only that it ran nearly three hours, hadn't been shown anywhere, and that its principal creators would be in the audience.
I could not imagine giving up three hours to watch something I have *zero* idea about, not even genre.
Re:Couldn't imagine... (Score:4, Informative)
Do you regularly go to film festivals? The people who regularly do are the sort of people who tend to follow the industry closely and know a lot about upcoming films in much the same way that posters here follow rumors about unreleased tech products. For them the prospect of being one of a few hundred people who get to screen something that no one else has seen before or even heard about is going to be an alluring proposition, in much the same way that plenty of people here would jump at the opportunity to beta test some secret new tech product that's been kept under wraps during development. Maybe it will be a waste of time, but the potential is what draws us in.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been fine with waiting until whatever I want to watch hits the high seas. Never understood why some people feel like they're getting something less if they're not among the first to experience something. It's not like they're going to run out of digital copies and you won't get one if you wait too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'd probably not be too interested in an unspecified new tech, as with things *that* open ended I end up stuck in a demo of some sort of warehouse inventory management software. Thinking back to the people that got all excited for the 'IT' product and then the massive letdown when it turned out to be a scooter.
I would have to at least know a more specific area to figure out if I'm going to get excited or not. The mere rarity/exclusivity of an experience doesn't hold much appeal to me.
I'm not a fi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you watched it you wouldn't be able to say that you have no idea about the Theranos / Elizabeth Holmes debacle, and you would walk away knowing about something that happened in the STEM / tech industry of which you really should be aware. Can you image that?
Were people allowed to walk out? (Score:3)
Because that would be the sane thing to do, don't give crooks and liars publicity.
Re: (Score:3)
> Because that would be the sane thing to do, don't give crooks and liars publicity.
That's kinda my reaction to this. I'm all for going to see a new film not really knowing what it's about. I've been to random test screenings, and it's usually quite interesting to see a film without knowing every detail like we usually get from standard trailers these days. But there hours of watching slime mold be slime mold would be more interesting that three more hours dedicated to the whole Theranos / Holmes debacle. It's shit people doing shit things for shit reasons, which is really just par for the
Re: (Score:1)
Following that line of reasoning we should just shut down all the news organizations.
tl;dw (Score:1)
hubris
A clear case of fictional prescience :o (Score:4, Informative)
Hawaii Five-O S01E19 (1969): Medical quack Dr. Fremont claims to have a machine that detects disease from a single blood drop. McGarrett swaps out the blood sample for vegetable oil exposing her as a fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
> Hawaii Five-O S01E19 (1969): Medical quack Dr. Fremont claims to have a machine that detects disease from a single blood drop. McGarrett swaps out the blood sample for vegetable oil exposing her as a fraud.
This looks like an AI hallucination.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]It's not. [paramountplus.com]
[1] https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/5_Afl9Jwhkiq4kaj9YEqNBZeRDxihmuC/
Re: (Score:2)
>> Hawaii Five-O S01E19 (1969): Medical quack Dr. Fremont claims to have a machine that detects disease from a single blood drop. McGarrett swaps out the blood sample for vegetable oil exposing her as a fraud.
> This looks like an AI hallucination.
We're fast approaching a point where our entire reality looks like an AI hallucination.
Really? (Score:1)
I'm in Telluride and I haven't "been stunned".
Re: (Score:1)
My sister-in-law is in Telluride now .... and I pray her traveling companion protects her from this toxic waste.
Interesting Con story (Score:2)
The most unusual thing about this fraudulent business is that most of the fraud was committed against the 1%.
Theranos only sold about 1.5 million blood tests, for significantly less than $100 million (probably closer to $10 million), and paid about $5 million back. But she stole more than $700 million from investors.
Moreover, this money came from venture capital, she never went public. So all of it came from the 1`% wealthy, almost none from the less well off mutual fund investors.
Re: (Score:3)
Patients using Theranos tests received incorrect results for serious medical conditions, including miscarriages, HIV, and cancer markers. Those people weren't the 1%, and they were affected in a much more serious way than mere financial loss. Maybe you don't find that "interesting"?
Reviews (Score:2)
Reviews included: "What the fuck did I just watch?"
Between that review and this Slashvertisement, I now know what I suspected all along. I now know that I'd rather get a root canal than watch this dreck about a psychopath.
For the baby's sake, I hope that the father is a decent father. But, he's gotta be kinda nuts too.
Still interesting that such a fruitcake could take in so damn many people. Supposedly smart people.
Re: (Score:3)
I just watched the trailer and I got the same reaction - what. the. fuck. Nathan Fielder's comedy is kind of awkward/uncomfortable, but this is on another level.
Oh good, another one (Score:2)
Can anyone tell me if it tells the truth? Like does it say she's a complete mental patient, apple-obsessed cult member wack job with a fake deep voice and batshit crazy feminist obsessions? And they she let her dog run around a secure medical lab? Because if this is another ass-kissing fake documentary like the Michael Jackson one or the Steve Jobs one, I am going to throw up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I can tell you. It is not a white-washing of Holmes. There is already [1]Rotten Tomatoes entry [rottentomatoes.com].
[1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/you_can_see_everything
It's just like The Osbornes! (Score:2)
... but with less-sympathetic, less-interesting, and less-sane characters.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't understand why this is even that newsworthy. The last time I recall some documentary making it into the mainstream headspace was during Covid when everyone watched that Tiger King thing because Netflix's algorithm was like "You've binge watched Stranger Things fifteen times and seen everything else that's halfway decent - here's this random documentary that you'll probably tolerate because it's at least in English."
Re: It's just like The Osbornes! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called a Slashvertisment, someone paid for this shit "story" to be here. If it wasn't we'd know the mystery actress by the end of the summary.
Re: (Score:3)
Given we're talking about crazy health scams - my money's on Gwyneth Paltrow.
Re: (Score:3)
Good guess. Holmes and Paltrow are friends, and Paltrow actually appears in this documentary with Holmes.
For anyone who hasn't yet watched the trailer (linked in TFS) ... it's creepy.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously thing Slashdot is getting marketing from obscure movie studios? Are they trying to corner up the "poor & old IT closet cleaner" demographic? Are they chasing the 27 replies this story will get?
Re: (Score:2)
It was a huge scam perpetrated on investors in the technology sector, and endangered the lives of a lot of people. Slashdot regularly covers movies that have no actual impact on the real word, simply because some nerds like comic books, and the movies made based on them. I'd love to hear your rationale for claiming the it doesn't belong on Slashdot.