"Musk," a four-hour documentary directed by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney, premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 8. The film quickly sparked significant controversy after its screening. Upon viewing it, Musk's team immediately sent a legal warning letter, reserving the right to file a defamation lawsuit.
Dated September 3, the cease-and-desist letter was delivered by Musk's lawyer, Alex Spiro, to the production company Jigsaw Productions.
The core allegations in the letter state that the documentary is not an objective investigation but rather starts with a predetermined negative conclusion and then selects material to fit that narrative. Furthermore, the director refused throughout the process to share the final cut with Musk and his team for fact-checking, failing to hear the subject's side of the story. The film allegedly contains numerous false and misleading statements.
The documentary features no real-life interviews with Musk. Instead, it uses an AI-generated virtual avatar of him. Interviewees include Musk's ex-wife, former girlfriends, old colleagues, and industry experts, recounting his journey from childhood in South Africa and entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley to becoming one of the world's wealthiest individuals.
While acknowledging his innovative capabilities, the film heavily focuses on controversies surrounding his personality, private family life, and child-rearing. The critique is sharp. The premiere received a prolonged standing ovation, and the film holds a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Musk is furious! He has sent a legal warning letter regarding the documentary "Musk"
The most controversial part of the film implies that Musk's Starlink system interfered with the U.S. presidential election, which is also the main point Musk's side is refuting.
In addition to the cease-and-desist letter, Musk himself publicly attacked the film on X, calling it a deliberate smear job. He claimed the director simply gathered a group of disgruntled individuals to compile a "blacklist," describing the documentary as dull, empty, and lacking professional integrity.
In response to the legal warning, the production company emphasized that Gibney's work consistently maintains journalistic rigor. They stated that critical documentary filming of public figures is protected under U.S. law and refused to compromise.