Written by Emma Morris. Photographs by Emma Morris.
Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s “You Can See Everything” has been making huge waves since its theatrical release. I’ve done my best to keep spoilers to a minimum so that I could walk into the movie knowing practically nothing.
I knew the general premise of Elizabeth Holmes’ infamous deceit about Theranos’ technology and Nathan Fielder’s background in comedy, but that’s about it. I was a little surprised by Fielder’s endeavor into the mind of the disgraced ex-CEO, as his content generally seemed more lighthearted. After seeing the film, everything made sense — it’s equally an exposé and a comedy.
If you’re unfamiliar with the film, although I doubt anyone is at this point, it follows comedian and filmmaker Nathan Fielder as he closely documents Elizabeth Holmes, former co-founder and CEO of Theranos, in the aftermath of a world-shattering fraud. Holmes claimed to create a device that could run hundreds of medical tests with a single drop of blood — the problem is that it never worked. Holmes not only scammed hundreds of millions of dollars in investments, but also duped the world into having new hope for the future of medicine.
Although the runtime is almost three hours, “You Can See Everything” leaves you wanting more. Every scene is jam-packed with insightful moments, awkward pauses, and bewildering discoveries. Holmes plays the innocent victim throughout the film, claiming she hasn’t done anything wrong, still believing in a future where she can continue her scientific work.
The most baffling part of Holmes’ demeanor is how hard it is to gauge her sincerity. Does she truly believe she hasn’t done any wrong, or is she really a cunning, master manipulator? One of the most interesting feats of the documentary is watching Fielder attempt to figure out whether she’s lying or being authentic, and in the end you still aren’t sure. The entire experience feels like everyone is constantly putting on an act rather than letting us see their true selves.
One aspect I found bizarre was Holmes’ near-infantilization, from herself and more so from her partner, Billy Evans. Evans would often insult Holmes behind her back, saying things like, “she’s really weird” or “she doesn’t think like most people.” He often jumps in to speak for her or takes over her tasks, almost as if he believes she’s not capable herself. Fielder and Oppenheim masterfully document this complicated relationship, exposing their odd dynamic by just watching them coexist. Many of the funniest moments come from Holmes and Evans simply talking to each other, not realizing how absurd their perspectives on the situation, or on each other, really are.
The couple often appears head-over-heels in love while also being extremely toxic and passive-aggressive, which Holmes often misses. In the latter half of the film, Evans is consumed with carrying on Holmes’ legacy while she’s in prison, claiming he doesn’t need her approval for anything because he already knows what she would say. This dynamic is especially interesting because Holmes is so hard to read, but seems to have no problem with his controlling actions, and actually finds them endearing.
When Evans wasn’t interjecting, Fielder and Holmes remained the central focus, whose contrasting yet equally awkward personalities create so-baffling-it’s-comedic moments in every interaction. Fielder embraces awkwardness and silence, which culminates in Holmes’ inability to answer questions or, at the very least, give clear answers. Yet, it works. Holmes seems to ruminate in the silence. Fielder keeps prying for clarity when a regular interviewer would have given up, sometimes abandoning politeness completely in his search for the truth. His ability to honestly confess his feelings while staying in the couple’s good graces, even as he intrudes on their lives, speaks to his lovable charm and his ability to read when he may have gone too far.
The Q&A after the screening from Oppenheim and Fielder provided insight into how the project came about. Holmes actually reached out to A24 herself to request a film crew to follow her around. Oppenheim heard of this opportunity and reached out to Fielder, sparking what would become “You Can See Everything.” One important aspect that the directors highlighted was the small amount of time they were given to begin the project and the small crew that made it possible. They began filming 2 months before Holmes’ sentence was set to begin, leaving little wiggle room to work out any possible kinks ahead of time. Oppenheim said that the experience was “trial by fire,” thrown into the lion’s den with no preparation.
I think that is the true beauty of the film. No preparation and a small crew add to the authenticity of the whole production. Everything was playing out in real time, and no one knew what would happen each day. It doesn’t feel calculated or like it’s trying to make you feel a certain way. Fielder and Oppenheim even said that after every shoot, they realized each member of their seven-person crew interpreted each interaction differently. The situation had so much nuance, and they wonderfully and absurdly captured the complex web Holmes had spun.
“You Can See Everything” is a project that has you laughing and gasping in the moment, leaving you to ponder what you’ve seen in the days following. The title is seen in a text from Holmes to Fielder, telling him that he can see everything, as in documenting her life with no parameters, proving to him that she has nothing to hide. The irony is palpable: you can’t see everything, and you never will. We can never know what Elizabeth Holmes is really thinking or feeling. In fact, you leave the experience with more questions than you had before.
