When asked if she has ever lied, at any point in her life, Elizabeth Holmes says with a straight face and apparent earnestness, “no”. It is a bewildering answer, catching its interviewer off guard, and it is vital. Holmes cannot bear being seen as a dishonest person and it is a little torture to her that that is what most people associate her with. She is so fixated on diminishing that perception to the point of making ludicrous statements such as this. Changing that perception is supposedly why she invited a documentary crew into her home. She’s not a liar, she’s not a grifter, and she can prove it. It’s all there in the open. You can see everything. The film that came out of this is unusually layered for a documentary character study; but Elizabeth Holmes is a uniquely unusual subject. The disgraced former billionaire CEO of Theranos, convicted of defrauding investors on a massive scale, has maintained her innocence of any wrongdoing through the flimsiest of defenses that she is no...
It was perhaps obligation that created this movie. Jane Austen adaptations are a reliable brand and they come in generational cycles -every decade or so brings a new version of one of her classic books to television, and occasionally to film. We have seen in recent years new iterations of Pride and Prejudice , Emma , and Persuasion . And with Mansfield Park being not an attractive prospect for adaptation, Northanger Abbey being obscure, and Sandington even more so -that leaves Sense and Sensibility as thus the sensible choice of source. And it has been some time since Austen’s debut masterpiece has gotten such a treatment, the likely reason being the enormous shadow cast by the 1995 film version by Emma Thompson and Ang Lee -a very definitive adaptation that not only won Thompson a screenwriting Oscar but that set a standard for most Austen adaptations and romantic period dramas alike that have come since. Its influence is clear and unavoidable on this new film thirty-one years lat...