‘You Can See Everything’ Review: Fact, Fiction and Fraud in the Elizabeth Holmes Film
You Can See Everything Elizabeth Holmes film. A review of the documentary-ish film You Can See Everything, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, exploring its blend of reality and invention regarding convicted fraudster Elizabeth Holmes.
The new documentary-ish film about convicted fraudster Elizabeth Holmes, You Can See Everything, is divided into two contrasting halves. The first 90 minutes chronicle filmmaker Nathan Fielder and his collaborator Lance Oppenheim documenting Holmes’ last month at home with her partner, Billy Evans, and their children before she went to prison. The second 90 minutes are experimental, picking up two years later when Holmes was not available to film. Fielder and Oppenheim have treated their approach to that part of the story as secret.
Substantively, the film functions better as a blend of reality and invention than as a traditional documentary. While compelling and fascinating for viewers who do not expect it to align with widely reported facts about Holmes, the film requires viewers not to look too closely. Fielder develops a close bond with Holmes and seemingly chooses to trust his gut and conversations with her over existing reporting and investigations regarding Theranos.
During the film, Fielder questions whether Holmes might not have lied to her investors, wondering if misunderstandings over the word “can” or her partner Billy’s observation that she thinks differently could explain her statements. However, the film omits other accusations against Holmes from her trial, such as claims that she falsely stated her technology was being used by the military on the battlefield, or allegations from whistleblowers that she tried to ruin their lives with threats, lawyers and private investigators.
Fielder’s focus also shifts at times to the terms of the agreement between the couple and A24 regarding potential profits, questioning what Holmes knew of the financial negotiations even though paperwork would presumably be accessible. Critics of the film note that its ambiguity is achieved in part by setting aside available evidence, creating a version of Elizabeth Holmes that contrasts with the findings of previous documentaries, books, podcasts, and her fraud trial.
Ultimately, the film presents a grayer version of Holmes who could plausibly be viewed as a victim of misunderstandings and relationship choices. Yet this portrayal risks doing a disservice to people who suffered real consequences from her actions, including Theranos investors, employees, whistleblowers, and regular people who reported receiving incorrect test results.
