New details from inside “On the Record” are raising fresh questions about how the film was made and what participants say was happening behind the scenes.
The revelations come as Russell Simmons’ amended lawsuit, filed in a New York court against Warner Bros. Discovery, HBO, HBO Max, Max, filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering, and Jane Doe Films, continues to move forward, accusing the defendants of producing and distributing a one-sided film that damaged his reputation.
Now, in conversations and texts obtained exclusively by The Informer, sources, including individuals who appeared in the controversial documentary, describe a production they say involved direction, pressure, and a narrative they did not fully understand when they agreed to take part.
“I don’t hate Russell Simmons,” one participant said. “I hate HBO. I hate the filmmakers. They are liars. This wasn’t a documentary. This was all scripted.”
The accounts, provided by sources who asked not to be identified, track closely with claims laid out in Simmons’ lawsuit, including allegations that key information was left out, opposing voices were not included, and participants were guided in how their stories were presented.
Several sources, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity, described what they said was a difficult and controlled process during production.
“On top of being the subject, and on top of being sucked dry for the concept itself, their lack of honesty and lack of humility is just stunning,” one participant said.
Another described repeated tension with the filmmakers.
“It’s been like this the whole time. I stand up for myself, she freaks out, and then I have to repair it so we can move on. Rinse, repeat. It’s awful,” the source said. “[Filmmaker] Amy Ziering has been holding all of the information and all of the cards.”
The same source described the dynamic as “classic abusive behavior,” pointing to what they said was a pattern during filming.
Others spoke more directly about how they believed the narrative was shaped.
“Those filmmakers are so terrible,” one participant said. “Thank God they’re done with.”
At the center of many of the conversations is the role of a primary figure in the film, who multiple sources say had influence beyond what viewers were told.
“The primary figure in the film definitely had a private deal with the film people,” one source said. “She was in it for monetary reasons and attention. Period.”
Another source said the effort had been in motion long before the documentary was released.
“She planned this. This has been architecture. This was always about her career,” the source said.
Those statements align with allegations in Simmons’ lawsuit, which claims that a central participant had a financial arrangement and an undisclosed role in shaping the project.
Some participants also questioned timelines and accounts presented in the film.
“There is nothing wrong with saying…people seem so certain I dated him, but nobody asked who I was actually dating,” one participant said. “He was with Marita Stavros during that period, constantly. So how is that timeline even possible?”
Another participant said assumptions were made about relationships without fully examining the details.
Participants also described confusion about the direction of the film and how it evolved.
One source said they initially believed the documentary would focus on a different high-profile figure before the narrative shifted.
The conversations also reveal the emotional toll the process had on some participants.
“It’s heartbreaking,” one source said. “At my lowest moments, I’ve wanted to die.”
Others spoke about frustration with how the project unfolded.
“If you want to be famous for being raped, you have some really low ambition,” one participant said.
The role of advocacy figures also came up in the conversations.
One source said Tarana Burke reached out with questions about the project and was trying to understand what had taken place, adding that there was confusion about involvement and communication.
Another participant said Burke “didn’t even know she was in the documentary,” raising additional questions about how the film was assembled.
HBO and the filmmakers declined to comment.
Across the accounts, participants described a project that, in their view, did not match what they expected when they agreed to take part.
“These conversations show exactly what he’s been saying,” one source said.
