She became known as a right-wing political commentator who promoted conservative and anti-trans positions. St. Clair now says she regrets helping to amplify those beliefs, attributing her involvement partly to her age and the people influencing her at the time.
“I got involved with Republican politics when I was 18 after I met Charlie Kirk, and there was an air of ignorance,” she said. “But that ignorance does not excuse any role in that.”
Her explanation stops short of presenting youth as a complete defence. Instead, she said she hopes speaking publicly now might repair at least some of the damage.
“I hope the risk that I’m taking now in speaking out and trying to fight back at least helps a little bit,” St. Clair said.
Why Alex Gibney struggled to find interviewees
Alex Gibney began developing the film in 2023. The Oscar-winning director has previously investigated corporate corruption in Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, sexual abuse cover-ups within the Catholic Church in Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God, Scientology in Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, and alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election in Agents of Chaos.
For this project, he turned to Musk, whose estimated fortune has reached $900 billion through companies and investments including Tesla and SpaceX. Gibney said one problem became obvious early in production: people were afraid to discuss the world’s richest man on camera.
“The thing that struck me most, particularly early on, there was a tremendous sense of fear of talking, both among people who were his critics, colleagues and friends,” Gibney said. “I talked to many, many, many people. Many declined to speak.”
Technology journalist Zoë Schiffer, another interview subject, joined Gibney and St. Clair at the Venice press conference.
Musk himself declined an interview. Gibney said contacting him was among the first steps taken by the production, so the billionaire was at least offered the familiar opportunity to explain everything personally.
How Donald Trump expanded the film’s scope
The documentary runs for almost four hours, a length Gibney said was not part of the original plan. Production expanded as Musk became more closely involved with Donald Trump’s political career and the United States government.
“We intended to make a shorter film before Musk became wrapped in the career of Donald Trump and the United States,” Gibney said.
The film also covers Musk’s purchase of Twitter, which he renamed X, along with the creation of artificial intelligence company xAI and its chatbot, Grok. Its stated aim is not simply to recount his companies, but to challenge the image of Musk as an unquestioned technological visionary.
According to the official synopsis, Musk presents the supposed “visionary genius” as a modern confidence man and argues that even his most celebrated achievements contain illusion and misdirection. The film also draws on Musk’s own suggestion that perceived reality could be a simulation, an idea that tends to become less abstract when attached to someone controlling major communications, aerospace and artificial intelligence businesses.
Musk dismissed the documentary as a “hit piece” well before its premiere, despite not taking part in it.
What Gibney and St. Clair say about Musk’s empathy
Gibney described Musk as “very dangerous” and said his central concern was the billionaire’s apparent difficulty showing consideration for other people.
“I would say he has a very difficult time with empathy, especially cognitive empathy, which is putting himself in the shoes of others,” the director said. “He seems incapable of doing that.”
St. Clair offered a harsher interpretation. She argued that the issue is not an inability to understand another person’s position, but a decision not to try.
“He makes a conscious choice to not put himself in other people’s shoes,” she said. “It is a deliberate rejection of empathy.”
That assessment sits at the centre of Gibney’s broader portrait: a man with enormous power over technology, public debate and politics, examined through the testimony of people willing to speak despite the possible consequences. Judging by the reported price attached to St. Clair’s silence, that willingness did not come cheaply.
