I'm amazed at how we can all watch the same series and see something different. I, of course, think I'm seeing what is ACTUALLY there and not just what my bias is telling me, haha.
My opinion is that this accurately depicts someone who's goal in life was to "be like Steve Jobs" and not in a good way. The "be like Steve Jobs" mentality isn't really about making a difference in the world, it's about being *famous* for having made a difference in the world and defying convention. That is the ambition of a sociopath. The subtle difference here is, "I'm going to change the world! (So I can get credit for it, be important and famous, and make lots of money.)" vs. "I'm going to change the world! (So I can make a difference with this life I've been given.)"
Steve Jobs had his own considerable issues, but he was obviously passionate about the way technology could intersect with humanity and change our experience of life. Elizabeth Holmes couldn't have cared less about the technology. She was aiming for the money, the accolades, and her place in history. Like a typical sociopath. From what I have read about her trial, testimony, and subsequent actions (like getting pregnant and bringing her child into the world during the middle of all of this-an act that seems suspiciously and selfishly designed to get sympathy and a lighter punishment), I don't think she is remorseful, and I don't think she's changed a bit.
Unlike some of the other reviewers, I don't see this series being apologetic to her. I think it portrays her as knowingly advancing a company whose product didn't work, and lying to people and manipulating them to get them to invest (look at how she is supposed to have gotten Walgreens to enter a partnership agreement-nothing but manipulation there). If I were Holmes, I would NOT be happy about this series coming out prior to my sentencing and would be worried it would simply make the judge more likely to go harder on me. I don't see Holmes in a sympathetic light AT ALL as a result of this series. When she cries and acts like a victim-as a woman, all I see is someone who pathetically uses her "womanly" qualities to manipulate people.
If people see her trying to "make her way in a man's world" I would encourage them to ask themselves why they see that, when other women (such as myself) just see her as abusing her femininity to manipulate men. If people see Larry Ellison as being the person who told her to "do whatever it takes" and it's somehow then HIS fault that she lied and cheated, I would encourage them to ask themselves why they see that, when other women see her making a conscious choice to take Ellison's advice and turn it into an excuse to lie and cheat.
(Side note: I just read a review that said this show portrays Balwani and Holmes as "deeply engaged" vs. The gold-digger relationship that actually existed... and would say, SERIOUSLY? All I see is gold-digger/Sugar Daddy. There is no chemistry between them and the relationship seems gross from the start. So again, we see what we want to see, and I see Holmes using Balwani for safety, money, and advice. I also see him going along with it, so I have no sympathy for the guy either. But in no way do I see a "love story" between those two. Ew.)
Back to the series itself, though: like many other reviewers, I'll say that Amanda Seyfried plays the role of Holmes very well. Across the board, the acting is quite good. The pacing is fine, and the story remains interesting throughout, with little to no superfluous material to detract from the main storyline. A very good watch, and one I'd recommend.
My opinion is that this accurately depicts someone who's goal in life was to "be like Steve Jobs" and not in a good way. The "be like Steve Jobs" mentality isn't really about making a difference in the world, it's about being *famous* for having made a difference in the world and defying convention. That is the ambition of a sociopath. The subtle difference here is, "I'm going to change the world! (So I can get credit for it, be important and famous, and make lots of money.)" vs. "I'm going to change the world! (So I can make a difference with this life I've been given.)"
Steve Jobs had his own considerable issues, but he was obviously passionate about the way technology could intersect with humanity and change our experience of life. Elizabeth Holmes couldn't have cared less about the technology. She was aiming for the money, the accolades, and her place in history. Like a typical sociopath. From what I have read about her trial, testimony, and subsequent actions (like getting pregnant and bringing her child into the world during the middle of all of this-an act that seems suspiciously and selfishly designed to get sympathy and a lighter punishment), I don't think she is remorseful, and I don't think she's changed a bit.
Unlike some of the other reviewers, I don't see this series being apologetic to her. I think it portrays her as knowingly advancing a company whose product didn't work, and lying to people and manipulating them to get them to invest (look at how she is supposed to have gotten Walgreens to enter a partnership agreement-nothing but manipulation there). If I were Holmes, I would NOT be happy about this series coming out prior to my sentencing and would be worried it would simply make the judge more likely to go harder on me. I don't see Holmes in a sympathetic light AT ALL as a result of this series. When she cries and acts like a victim-as a woman, all I see is someone who pathetically uses her "womanly" qualities to manipulate people.
If people see her trying to "make her way in a man's world" I would encourage them to ask themselves why they see that, when other women (such as myself) just see her as abusing her femininity to manipulate men. If people see Larry Ellison as being the person who told her to "do whatever it takes" and it's somehow then HIS fault that she lied and cheated, I would encourage them to ask themselves why they see that, when other women see her making a conscious choice to take Ellison's advice and turn it into an excuse to lie and cheat.
(Side note: I just read a review that said this show portrays Balwani and Holmes as "deeply engaged" vs. The gold-digger relationship that actually existed... and would say, SERIOUSLY? All I see is gold-digger/Sugar Daddy. There is no chemistry between them and the relationship seems gross from the start. So again, we see what we want to see, and I see Holmes using Balwani for safety, money, and advice. I also see him going along with it, so I have no sympathy for the guy either. But in no way do I see a "love story" between those two. Ew.)
Back to the series itself, though: like many other reviewers, I'll say that Amanda Seyfried plays the role of Holmes very well. Across the board, the acting is quite good. The pacing is fine, and the story remains interesting throughout, with little to no superfluous material to detract from the main storyline. A very good watch, and one I'd recommend.