Slashdot has reported:

A documentary directed by Lance Oppenheim follows comedian and filmmaker Nathan Fielder as he tries to understand Elizabeth Holmes, the convicted Theranos founder who continues to maintain that she did nothing wrong. Fielder’s project began as Holmes approached the start of her prison sentence, and it probes whether she believes her own claims of innocence or is presenting a carefully constructed version of herself.

One month before Holmes surrendered in 2023 to begin an 11-year criminal fraud sentence, she and her husband contacted A24 with what was described as a last-ditch effort to clear her name in public. They proposed that a film crew document her final days of freedom. Oppenheim joined Fielder, whose work in cringe comedy often moves between fact and fiction, in taking on the challenge of trying to determine who Holmes is.

In one exchange, Fielder gently draws a comparison between Holmes’ case and his own work. “Isn't it weird that I, like, did a TV show about kind of a business scam, and you got in trouble for like ... a business scam?” he asks. Holmes replies: “I never actually made that connection,” adding, “I think it's a pretty different situation....”

The documentary approaches Holmes’ case with the knowledge that she was convicted, while leaving open the question of whether she genuinely believes she did nothing wrong. At her trial, she listened to investors describe losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, whistleblowers recount being silenced after raising concerns that Theranos’ blood-testing devices did not work, and patients discuss acting on incorrect blood test results. The source review says she never wavered in her position.

The response to the film has highlighted the difficulty of interpreting Holmes on screen. Business Insider described the unsettling effect as “is how much I wanted to believe her.” SFGate called the documentary “one of the finest works of journalism I've ever seen.”

As Fielder builds rapport with Holmes and her husband, Evans, he gains opportunities to ask about Theranos, prison and their personal lives. The resulting footage includes Holmes answering “no” when asked whether she has ever lied. She and Evans also spend considerable time trying to start up what appears to be a Theranos 2.0, bringing out original blood-testing equipment to demonstrate the product.

The apparatus is described as looking like assorted parts assembled from TigerDirect. The film does not show it performing a test, though the couple assures Fielder that it would work if it were “hooked up properly.” The scenes are funny, but Fielder’s purpose is to determine whether Holmes is naïve, believes her own statements or is playing an innocent character with unusual skill. The review says the answer remains elusive, prompting Fielder and Oppenheim to use increasingly unusual methods.

The filmmakers hold the camera on Holmes’ face for extended periods, waiting to see whether she will blink, literally or figuratively. They also interview her parents. Her father, Christian Holmes, a former Enron executive, tells Fielder that everything changed for his daughter “when she was raped.”

Another approach involves actress Amanda Seyfried, who portrayed Holmes in the Hulu television series “The Dropout.” Seyfried recreates conversations Fielder had with Holmes that could not be recorded on camera. The review says her imitation is convincing enough that viewers may lose track of whether they are watching Seyfried or Holmes.

The film also features a lifelike artificial-intelligence avatar of Holmes, created by her husband Billy Evans. TechCrunch describes it as an avatar “trapped inside of a large vertical screen that he wheels over to the dinner table to sit with him and his kids as though she's actually there.” The scene extends the documentary’s focus on the boundary between a person and a representation of that person.

Variety writes that Holmes “comes off in the doc as every bit as innately bizarre as anyone showing up for a cinematic freak show might hope.” The reviewer offers a personal interpretation that Fielder may have concluded Holmes is sincere, insofar as someone who can seem like “an AI program's idea of how a human should behave” can be sincere. The review lays out several possible explanations: Holmes could be a simpleton; she could be a conniving sociopath who is exceptionally good at playing one; or she could represent a woman shaped by controlling men, to the detriment of her intellect, willpower and emotional development. It asks whether learning more about someone can make it harder to know what to think of them.

The documentary arrives as Holmes’ prison status is also drawing attention. NBC News recently reported that she is scheduled to transfer next year from a minimum-security federal prison to a halfway house, according to one of her victims. The U.S. Department of Justice is required by law to notify crime victims of case developments by letter or email, the report said.

Holmes was sentenced in 2022 to 11 years and three months in prison. She has been serving the sentence at a minimum-security prison in Bryan, Texas. Her business partner, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, was also ordered to pay restitution, with the two of them directed to provide a total of $452 million to 12 victims.

A judge reduced Holmes’ sentence in March from 135 months to 123 months. A court document said the judge agreed with Holmes that she did not personally cause “substantial financial hardship” to her victims. The scheduled halfway-house transfer would give her greater freedom than prison.

A prison consultant interviewed by NBC News said inmates at halfway houses can work, use phones, drive to religious services, shop for necessities and earn passes to spend weekends at home. The documentary’s questions about Holmes’ self-presentation therefore sit alongside a near-term change in her confinement, as she continues to maintain that she did nothing wrong.