Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism. Become a Member »

Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism.

From The Inventor (screenshot by Hyperallergic)

The story of Elizabeth Holmes and her failed health startup Theranos has permeated public discourse this year, thanks to Alex Gibney’s new HBO documentary The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley. Inspired by her fear of needles, Holmes, a Stanford dropout, made it her goal to revolutionize medical technology through home blood tests and branded wellness centers in pharmacies. However, issues with the actual science behind this vision came to light in a 2015 Wall Street Journal article, prompting a fraud investigation by the SEC. In 2018, Theranos settled in district court, agreeing to a fine of half a million dollars, the return of millions of company shares, and measures barring Holmes from the leadership board of any public company for a decade.

Since The Inventor was made without Holmes’s cooperation, Gibney substitutes insider materials with footage from a variety of sources, some of which was shot by fellow documentarian Errol Morris. As part of a multi-million-dollar deal Theranos struck with ad agency TWBA\Chiat\Day, Morris directed several commercials for the company. TWBA\Chiat\Day was previously behind some of Apple’s most well-known ads, including the Morris-helmed “Switch” campaign. Gibney asked for Morris’s input, but he declined to comment, reportedly telling Gibney that he “couldn’t make him talk,” even saying, “For God, there is no off the record, and he can be a very unforgiving person.” This reticence runs contrary to Morris’s stridently expressed beliefs about the pitfalls of paradigmatic thinking and relativism. With the benefit of hindsight, reviewing Morris’s Theranos commercials sheds light on the contradictions in the ideology that serves as the bedrock for his work.

Morris is perhaps the most vocal opponent of the writings of Thomas Kuhn, specifically The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In his book-length diss track The Ashtray, Morris rejects Kuhn’s theories on the incommensurability of the past and present, instead championing the empiricism of logician Bertrand Russell: “If you are strapped into an electric chair … there would be nothing relative about it. Suppose you are innocent. Suppose you were never at the crime scene. Suppose you were home in bed. Would you be satisfied with the claim that there is no definitive answer to the question of whether you’re guilty or innocent?” Rationalist philosophy informs the moral dicta of Morris’s work. The Thin Blue Line forces witnesses in a murder trial to reckon with their false testimonies, Mr. Death shames a Holocaust denier, A Wilderness of Error parses “mistakes” made by a federal court in a homicide case, and so on.

Morris’s long-held fascination with transparency extends to his aesthetic proclivities. His interview style famously features his subjects looking directly into the camera as they speak. In his own words, this creates “the true first person,” direct communication with the viewer. His commercials for Theranos are no exception, but in this case, the opposite effect is achieved. The studio lights bore into the pupils of each interviewee (eerily, while they get their blood taken out of frame). The light never escapes the subjects’ eyes, almost as if they are hypnotized. A commercial presenting Holmes on her own is the most disturbing of all. Her head lolls from side to side as the lights emphasize her already-wide eyes. Her gaze and composure feel unnatural. A friend described this short as “some RoboCop shit.”

In her Vulture article “Why the Errol Morris Shade in Alex Gibney’s The Inventor Is So Brutal,” Emily Yoshida theorizes that “Gibney’s decision to include … Morris’s footage mercilessly implicates the very idea of seeking truth,” referencing the “pursuit of truth” that has been Morris’s modus operandi since the ’70s. However, Gibney’s choice cuts far deeper than that. Morris’s willingness to work with Theranos illustrates the flaws in his contrarianism. He delights in upending codified models. Based on these commercials and their behind-the-scenes material, it appears he saw Holmes as a kindred spirit in this regard. It seems he was so caught up in her pie-in-the-sky claims that he ignored his own standards for logic and rational thought.

Morris’s denial of any culpability for his role in promoting a fraudulent company is a frustrating shirking of accountability, and it’s not the first time he’s done this. He directed a series of spots for AIG in the early 2000s about the nature of risk, but “risk” was exactly what led that company to help bring about the 2008 financial meltdown. When confronted with criticism over this campaign by John DeFore of The Washington Post in 2011, he was flippant: “Instead of offering remorse for burnishing the image of a corporation that helped trigger a global financial crisis, Morris focuses on a single creative disagreement he and AIG had.” Morris has authored ads for Nike as well, although he’s surely aware of their use of sweatshop labor. It’s ironic that Morris, a master of extracting answers from everyone from speech therapists to serial killers, cannot adequately answer for such questionable actions. According to his own philosophy, “It seemed like a good idea at the time” is an inadequate defense.

From The Inventor (screenshot by Hyperallergic)

The Latest

Carles Guerra: An Endorsement of an Amicus Brief for Lanier v. Harvard

We cannot be indifferent to the long-lasting effects of photography. The photographs at the center of Lanier v. Harvard are relentless in making Renty and Delia Taylor work and perform as slaves. The pain inflicted on them has not ceased. Photography has the capacity to propagate harm, and we have the moral obligation to interrupt…

Jordan Ogihara

Jordan Ogihara is a writer based in suburban New York. He is a contributor to the film review site Friends On Flicks. You can follow him on Twitter.

4 replies on “The Fraudulent Health Startup that Got an Acclaimed Documentarian to Make Its Ads”

  1. There is something strange about the language in the article. Why was ‘already-wide eyes’ used when describing her. It’s a low blow that undermines this otherwise interesting read.

  2. I used to think Hyperallergic was worth reading. Not after your story today putting forward irresponsible statements from the august Jordan O. about Errol Morris. It’s clear that whoever edits this writer at your place also thinks that directors are hired to write marketing communications for their clients. Uh, wake up and smell the host of marketing people inside of companies as well as their advertising and pr firms who help them refine their work for their target markets. You all need to broaden your knowledge of how shit works before making claims against powerfully talented people. Sign me out as disappointed. Rotsa ruck, kids.

  3. he ignored his own standards for logic and rational thought.

    As did the many affluent and powerful investors that fell for Holmes’ spiel. Logic and rational thought aren’t necessarily the key to scientific advancements. Morris is a film-maker, not a hematological researcher.

  4. Thanks Jordan Ogihara for this article.

    I just read Errol Morris’s “The Pianist and the Lobster” in the New York Times and mumbled to myself this guy Errol sounds like a fraudster.

    The top hit in Google search “Errol Morris” and “fraud” was Jordan Ogihara article confirming my conjecture that the phantasmagorical Morris’s fountain of words was in the service of obfuscation not enlightenment. I did not expect to find the New Times article author involved in Trumpian fraud. I think The New York Times owes its readers a little asterisk next to Morris’s name with a warning.

    I would love to see Errol’s blow by blow deconstruction of his involvement and personal culpability in the Theranos’s fiasco. Maybe he can convince us why he does not belong in jail. And maybe he can not.

Comments are closed.