The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley

Like others, I followed the Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes story and in addition read the excellent book that investigative journalist John Carreyrou authored and published last year (Bad Blood).

It felt that the first part of this documentary was a hagiography rather than an incisive investigative documentary - the focus on the "female Steve Jobs" perspective dominated and she certainly seemed to have the same "reality distortion field" powers he had. However, having read the book my perspective was that she, and her boyfriend/COO Sunny Balwani were bullies (via lawyer David Boies, security guards and others) to their staff , associates and others and who benefited by manipulating otherwise smart, powerful people and taking advantage of their wishful thinking. Eventually the documentary got to the reality but it felt like a long time and frankly I found some of the interviews (eg with the respected behavioral economist Dan Ariely) to be somewhat ethereal and did not add value to the story.

I have been around start-ups and understand the notion of "faking it a bit" to get to the final "vision". However, to compare her to an Edison, a Jobs or a Musk was inappropriate. in terms of her ability to manipulate, tell brazen lies and intimidate I feel a much more appropriate comparison would have been Bernie Madoff.

Currently airing on HBO, this film by master documentarian Alex Gibney (The Armstrong Lie/Taxi to the Dark Side) explores the pervasive 'fake it till you make it' ethos which much of the dotcom enterprises have undertaken in order to gain funding for their big idea even though sometimes, as in this doc's case, there is no product delivered at the end of the day. Elizabeth Holmes wanted to create a revolutionary device which by using a person's blood (from a finger prick) could examine & determine any maladies or characteristics for medical use at a fraction of what the big labs charge today. Not having any successfully manufactured tangible device to use, the results of the initial tests performed on patients were skewed & problematic even though Walgreen's had bought into their new tech setting up wellness centers in Arizona before rolling them out nationwide. Aligning herself w/big money & hopeful investors, Holmes, along w/her partner & significant other, continued to ratchet up the success of their non-existent product to the public much to the chagrin of employees who knew the truth all along & eventually whistleblowed the entire scheme to the press. A worthy case of believing in the product rather than the producer is made when we see avarice & arrogance go hand in hand to a potentially devastating result.

Well, Elizabeth Holmes is still a mystery. Every media incarnation of hers (from magazines/newspapers to the book to this doc to the film version currently in production with Jennifer Lawrence) Holmes becomes a little more clear - and it's good to hear her infamously deep voice - but "The Inventor" hardly solves her. Didn't anyone know her in high school or college (short a time as that may have been)? Can't the filmmakers interview them? What about family? Surely someone must be willing to talk about her psyche. The people they interview is more or less the same as the book and hold no surprise in this medium, although Rochelle Gibbons was very powerful to hear, more so than the book. There were also opportunities in the doc to explore themes like Gen Y arrogance, the power of branding, and the cluelessness of companies like Walgreens - which did not do any vetting in the least...but they focused on the Silicon Valley Unicorn theme. It was a good watch, overall, especially if you like learning new and awful things about humanity and seeing some really awkward footage...like Elizabeth Holmes in a bouncy house. But the most harrowing segment-where "The Inventor" almost took off- was the focus on the (literally) hot mess inside of the Theranos machine. A lot of spilled blood, broken glass, and basic slime...all with the risk of transmitting fun stuff like Hepatitis to the many Theranos lab techs. But "The Inventor" is mostly a soft peddle of the Theranos story. It should have made much more of an emotional impact. I also suspect the folks whose health was damaged by Theranos's false diagnoses in the Arizona testing facilities are suing and therefore could not be filmed. Their filmed experiences would have been amazing. Overall, I would have appreciated more theorizing on the motivation of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes, although this doc suggests that she is basically bananas.

I had read John Carreyrou's fine Wall Street Journal articles, as well as his thrilling book, Bad Blood, before seeing this documentary tonight. The first half of the documentary seems almost worshipful of Elizabeth Holmes, building up her mystique and putting her unique ability to attract doting followers to her message on display. Quite a lot of time is spent gazing into those big blue, unblinking eyes. By the time we get around to the cracks in the facade, we are more than an hour into the film. It is inevitable that a lot of important background was left out: the climate of constant firings that went on for years, the fact that Sunny and Elizabeth met when he was 38 (and married) and she was 19, that Elizabeth's dad had been a VP at Enron, etc. Mostly I would have appreciated a little more specific information on why the Edison machine failed. The examples given in the film don't seem that unsolvable, but I know from the book that there were some basic issues that simply couldn't be dreamed away owing to the tiny sample sizes from the finger pricks. Tyler Shultz comes off as a happy-go-lucky guy, but in fact he is one of the heroes of this story. It is not mentioned in this film, but not just his grandfather former Secretary of State and Theranos board member George Schultz, but also his parents flipped out when he told them he was quitting the company. His bravery in standing up for his values is truly admirable in one so young, especially considering the immense pressure he came under. To his parents' credit, they came around and ended up mortgaging their home to pay his legal bills. Ultimately, though, the story gets Elizabeth right: she is a zealot who is deaf to any naysayers, even to this day. The cautionary tale for the rest of us, is are we George Shultz or Tyler Shultz? Are we willing to see the truth and make a difficult decision, or are we too invested to be willing to give up on something we had believed in?

A very solid documentary, and one that hits close to home for me, so I really appreciated the depth Alex Gibney provided. I have to say first that Erika Cheung is a true hero and such an admirable person. She wanted to dream the dream but remained honest to the engineering and what the data was telling her. Tyler Schultz too. They are just kids really, and the pressure they faced was enormous, and interestingly enough Schultz's elderly grandfather George (former statesman) was a part of the problem. The documentary also shows us (yet again) the importance of a free press, and the interviews with the Wall Street Journal reporter (John Carreyrou) were one of my favorite parts, along with the commentary from behavioral scientist Dan Ariely. The footage that Gibney gets from company meetings is fantastic. I also loved the parallel he shows us to Thomas Edison, giving an example of a case in which the famous inventor followed the start-up mantra "fake it 'til you make it," as well as to other Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, which puts this story in context as well as helps explain it.

Elizabeth Holmes was brilliant at selling investors and motivating her employees with the promise of a breakthrough in blood testing, but she was woefully incompetent at building an engineering team or listening to R&D inputs. What she failed to understand is that while you can be boldly aspirational and even attempt to emulate the approach of your idol (in her case, Steve Jobs) down to his look, at the end of the day it has to be grounded in some semblance of reality. For Jobs, setting aside his massive personal flaws, he always had the ability to balance both of these things, and he always had a strong counterpart, starting with Steve Wozniak early on. Where was Elizabeth Holmes's Woz? It's telling that other than a brilliant scientist/PhD from Cambridge who was marginalized when he started injecting unpleasant truth into the discussion (ultimately leading him to commit suicide), there is no mention or interview with a VP of R&D, or VP of Engineering here. Instead we see the President, and ex-Apple guy who was also her boyfriend, operating in the same smoke and mirrors sales act as her, as well as one of the company's creative marketing / brand types. There was never any "there" there, as they say, with the result being a constant game of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" that snowballed.

How Holmes was able to deceive a number of powerful, older men, and then leverage that to achieve great visibility, further investment, and the Walgreens deal is pretty shocking, even by Silicon Valley standards. I've lived in the Valley for some time, and have experience with start-ups, investors, and entrepreneurs. There is often a grand vision and the joke is like that old cartoon with the calculation at the blackboard, with the step drawn at an impossible leap labeled "then a miracle occurs." There is also always going to be investor money lost in a number of startups and that's just a part of the risk - but what makes this story reprehensible is that people's health was on the line. Perhaps one thing lacking in the documentary is an interview with people who were negatively impacted, such as one woman whose bogus test results indicated she had cancer.

The young employees at Theranos understood the human factor, with Tyler Schultz pointing out (perhaps a little too glibly) that with their 65% success rate at detecting syphilis, someone could think they were STD-free and spread the disease. Holmes never seems to get this, and to the bitter end she continues lying. I thought the documentary showed remarkable restraint in not drawing a conclusion, and even showed someone say that he thought she simply dreamed it so deeply that she didn't realize she was being deceptive. I don't buy that for a second. Aside from being an awful executive, she's an awful person, and to me comes across as a master manipulator and borderline sociopath, one cloaked in the altruistic goal of revolutionizing health care. In the end she's not stretching the truth with the aim of making this thing happen, she's lying to save her own skin. It's a chilling, chilling portrait.