A explosive new documentary about Elon Musk has ignited a fierce war of words between the world’s richest man and the Oscar-winning filmmaker behind it, days after its thunderous debut at the Venice Film Festival. “Musk,” a nearly four-hour documentary directed by Alex Gibney, premiered to a five-minute standing ovation on Tuesday evening — but within hours, the subject himself had launched a blistering attack on social media, dismissing the film as a “hit piece that misses” and questioning his director’s integrity.
The clash marks one of the most public spats between a billionaire and a documentarian in recent memory, and it comes at a moment when Musk’s influence over politics, technology, and public discourse shows no sign of slowing.
A Fiery Rebuke From the Subject Himself
Elon Musk did not hold back. Across a series of posts on X — the platform he acquired for $44 billion in 2022 — the tech mogul tore into Gibney with remarkable vitriol. “Gibney deliberately set out to make a hit piece and lacks any integrity whatsoever,” he wrote, adding: “Gibney has zero integrity. Zero.”
He did not stop there. Musk went on to suggest the director had lost the plot, claiming: “Gibney just assembled a hit list of people who either have an axe to grind or don’t even know me (but still have an axe to grind)…. Yeah, he’s a bitter old man who lost the plot long ago.” In another post, he drew an unorthodox comparison, writing: “Dogs*** is worth more respect than Gibney.”
Remarkably, Musk also took aim at the film’s entertainment value, writing: “It’s a hit piece that misses, and makes the fatal sin of being boring for 4 hours.”
The question many observers are asking is whether this level of engagement undermines his criticism. A man who controls one of the world’s largest social media platforms spending hours posting about a documentary — even to attack it — suggests the film has at least succeeded in commanding attention.
Claims That Demand Scrutiny
At the heart of the documentary are striking allegations from people closest to Musk. The film features an extended interview with Ashley St. Clair, a former MAGA influencer and one of Musk’s ex-partners, who makes provocative claims about how the tech billionaire targeted young women he believed would make suitable “breeders” to father his children. Musk, who has 14 children in total, shares a son named Romulus with St. Clair.
St. Clair also alleges that Musk’s team offered her $40 million to sign a non-disclosure agreement covering their time together. Musk has firmly denied this, writing on X: “She was never offered that and has a history of making false claims.”
St. Clair did not limit her comments to personal matters. She claimed Musk texted her that he wanted to have a child with her because he needed to have “a legion of children before the civil war.” She also warned that Musk’s activity on X — the platform once known as Twitter — was stoking dangerous flames. “Whatever it is, what he’s doing with this platform on X cannot be ignored, because he is stoking flames that don’t exist in the real world,” she said. “I do believe that he is causing deliberate division that may be catastrophic if it’s not regulated or tamed, or if we don’t do our part in putting it down.”
Those are powerful words from someone with direct personal experience of the man in question. Whether they will reshape public perception remains to be seen.
The Director Stands His Ground
Alex Gibney, whose previous work includes the acclaimed “Taxi to the Dark Side” and “We Steal Secrets,” addressed the press in Venice with a mix of defiance and concern. He revealed that individuals he approached for participation in the film exhibited a “tremendous sense of fear” that was, in his words, “existential.”
Gibney also did not shy away from characterising his subject. He called Musk, widely regarded as the world’s richest person, “extremely ridiculous.” More intriguingly, he offered a psychological dimension to the film, suggesting that Musk’s upbringing in South Africa holds clues to his behaviour. “He had a childhood that was very difficult and traumatic,” Gibney said. “To some extent he’s now playing out that trauma on the rest of us, if I were to psychoanalyze the situation.”
The director also pushed back against criticism that the film lacks balance. He told The Hollywood Reporter that Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro, had sent the production a letter accusing Gibney of misrepresenting facts and criticising him for failing to engage with Musk’s team during fact-checking. Gibney countered that Musk simply declined to collaborate or appear in the documentary.
Meanwhile, Katie Miller — the wife of Donald Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller, who previously served as communications director for Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — also entered the fray. She questioned the documentary’s completeness, writing: “It simply can’t be ‘definitive’ if the people who were present didn’t participate.” She called it “a hit job by a self-obsessed Hollywood director.”
Critics Are Raving
Despite the controversy — or perhaps because of it — early critical reception has been overwhelmingly positive. The Hollywood Reporter’s review described “Musk” as “a poleaxing portrait of the tech titan as a con man given way too much power to be stopped,” adding that viewers will be left “simmering in outrage for 225 minutes.”
Variety was equally effusive, calling it a “lacerating portrait of technocratic brilliance, power lust and crackpot delusion.”
Such language suggests that Gibney has achieved something rare in documentary filmmaking: a work that does not merely inform but provokes. The film is scheduled for release in select theatres on October 16, and industry insiders are already predicting a significant awards season push.
One thing is certain — whether you find the documentary revelatory or reductive, it has ensured that the conversation around Elon Musk’s power, persona, and influence has entered entirely new territory.
Why it Matters
The release of “Musk” arrives at a pivotal moment in the intersection of technology, politics, and media. As Elon Musk continues to wield enormous influence — through his ownership of X, his involvement with government efficiency initiatives, and his public alignment with political figures — a documentary that examines his conduct with such unflinching scrutiny carries weight far beyond the festival circuit. The standing ovation in Venice tells us audiences and critics alike are hungry for accountability; Musk’s furious response tells us he is acutely aware of the threat. What happens next will test the boundaries of free expression, public discourse, and the power one individual can hold over the narratives that shape our world.