Elon Musk has launched an increasingly aggressive public confrontation against Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney, following the world premiere of Gibney’s nearly four-hour documentary Musk at the 2026 Venice Film Festival. The dispute has moved beyond criticism of the film itself, with Musk personally targeting Gibney on X, the social-media platform he owns, while his lawyer has warned that the filmmakers could face legal action over alleged defamatory claims. (The Guardian). Musk is an approximately four-hour examination of Musk’s rise from his early technology ventures to his position as one of the world’s most powerful businessmen and political figures. Gibney examines Musk’s roles in Tesla, SpaceX and X, as well as his growing involvement in politics and his relationships with government institutions and political leaders. However, the documentary premiered at Venice on September 8, 2026, outside the competition. Rather than presenting Musk simply as a technology entrepreneur, Gibney attempts to examine how Musk accumulated such enormous economic, technological and political influence. The film also explores controversies surrounding Tesla’s autonomous-driving technology, Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, his political activities and his relationship with former President Donald Trump. (Reuters). Gibney has said that the project became substantially larger as Musk’s influence expanded. According to Reuters, the filmmaker described a significant reluctance among people who had worked with or around Musk to speak publicly, saying there was a “tremendous sense of fear” among critics, business associates and even friends. (Reuters). According to reports, the film includes testimony from Musk’s former partner Ashley St. Clair that has been interpreted as raising questions about whether Musk could have used Starlink technology in connection with election interference. Musk’s legal team strongly rejects that implication. Spiro argued that Starlink’s laser communications are inter-satellite links and are not connected to vote tabulation. (New York Post). The legal warning is important because it changes the dispute from a conventional disagreement between a documentary subject and filmmaker into a potential defamation case. Musk’s legal team has reportedly demanded preservation of documents related to the production, a step that can precede litigation. (People.com). however, Gibney and his production company, Jigsaw Productions, have defended the film as a fact-based investigation. The filmmakers maintain that the documentary was produced as an examination of Musk’s public activities and influence rather than as a fictional attack on him. (People.com). The filmmaker’s approach is consistent with his wider documentary career. Gibney has previously produced investigations into powerful corporations, political institutions and controversial individuals, including films concerning Enron, Scientology and Elizabeth Holmes. For Musk, he relied heavily on interviews with people who had personal or professional connections to Musk, archival material and Musk’s own public statements. Because Musk declined to participate, Gibney used an AI-generated representation of Musk constructed from his existing public statements and interviews. The filmmakers say they consulted lawyers before using the technique. (The Washington Post).
Written By
Tochukwu Nicholas Ugwu
JOSSYN BLOG 