Why did this series make a profit-greedy woman a sympathetic character?
My guess is, it’s because she’s white.
Unsure why I’m now obssessed with startup disasters. Maybe it’s because I’m old enough to get over needing a lucky break. I’ve been reading Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams and it breaks my heart, as I think that optimism and hope in social media was only a handful years ago… but that was 2012, not 2025.
I forgot what got me to read up on Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes way back when, I have vague memories of even subscribing to WSJ to read it in its entirety, and listening in to the podcast on Spotify. Through pandemic, I skimmed headlines about Elizabeth Holmes’ real voice, her new boyfriend, and even giving birth.
And now, the Disney+ series. It’s been a few years, but what is time with an algorithm and FYP?
I was expecting something like the corporate drama equivalent of Gone Girl. Based on reports and footage of Elizabeth Holmes as the founder of Theranos, she had already been established as a robotic woman who will do the sales spiel to her dying breath. So I tilted my head to the side as the first 3-4 episodes showed us as Elizabeth the optimistic baby girl. While that can very well be the case for her family and husband, the sins of this woman is that she denied science and put lives at risk in the interest of profit.
Amanda Seyfried gave a believable performance as Holmes, maybe it’s why I write this in a fit of agitation at the caucasity of it all. There seems to be an apology for Holmes being who she is from participating in a patriarchal playground, but I am still stuck on her seeing health as a profit opportunity. In spite of the lens used for her story here, do not be fooled by the suggestion that she is a woman ruined by men in power.
