With only the most baseline knowledge of Theranos and the Elizabeth Holmes trial, and having never seen any of Nathan Fielder's other work, I reached out to my movie friend™ with a simple request: let's get tickets for You Can See Everything this weekend.
I was prepared to go alone if my friend was unavailable, but imo it's absolutely worth seeing with someone for the experience of looking at each other afterwards and going haha what the fuck which was exactly the reaction I was hoping for after seeing reviews. It's a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes and Thernos and Billy Evans, certainly, but I'm even more interested in the way it also examines just how impossible it is to know anything for certain is masterful and worth experiencing and discussing.
I'm not much a movie watcher, and therefore I don't feel that I have the chops to write a review, per se. but as with other viewers, I sure as hell have a lot of thoughts about what I watched.
Now entering the spoiler zone
Holmes has such a particular way of communicating that Evans keeps saying is "special," and I wonder how much of that manner of communicating has been part of her entire life, and how much of it might be influenced by training her lawyers might have given her. the way she speaks is so deliberate, her words so carefully chosen that she's never fully taking responsibility and always deflecting to something that she can say truthfully.
it's very much like those riddles where one guard always lies and one always tells the truth -- where the words she says obscures the truth and twists reality.
one of the most potent examples is highlighted by Amanda Seyfried when she and Fielder visit Evans when Holmes happens to call. Holmes says that she "doesn't think that she knew" that Amanda would be there. it's innocuous enough, but nevertheless allows Holmes to evade the responsibility of knowing this fact -- even one that holds so little consequence.
after Holmes has been in prison, and Evans gets back in touch with Fielder, I got the sense that Evans had started to take on some of Holmes' mannerisms when communicating. he seems to be doing the wide eyed thing and his words are more evasive than they were during the 34 pre-prison days.
Seyfried's inclusion lends some much-appreciated perspective and it's incredible to watch her wrestle with her own perception of what's going on with Holmes and Evans in real time during her conversations with Fielder. I found myself often following a similar pattern of conclusion > reexamination > doubt
"You can see everything" is truly such a perfect title for this project. the way it ties into Holmes' stated understanding of the clarity of the word "can" but then contrasts with the inherent ambiguity of that word adds such a delicious layer of meaning to the title. Holmes and Evans have invited Fielder in, allowing him the capability to "see everything" but they have their own agenda! they have had time prior to plan how they'll present themselves for Fielder! as much as Fielder is able to film, as much as he's able to "see", he'll still never have the ability to fully know or understand all that Holmes and Evans are thinking or feeling.
and then! add in the audience layer and the editing that happens before that, and the audience sees even less of everything! we only get to see what Fielder allows us to.
not to mention that the reenactments also contradict the premise of "seeing everything" -- after all, these are moments that were not caught on camera and we are relying on both Fielder's memory and the portrayal to form our understanding of events.
speaking of, I did not expect "you can see everything" to include Evans' entire fucking hog, what the hell man nobody asked for this
I anticipate entire armchair psychoanalytic essays will be written on the egg thing, but, uh, wow! he really just grabbed the egg from her to do it his way, huh.
the fucking AI Holmes thing is so !!! again, i think others will write entire essays about this, but! seeing her AI version on the screen, while Evans sits in the dark, felt almost like some kind of sycophantic communing. as if he's head priest at the Order of Elizabeth Holmes and she is his idol. but also he's using her. but also she's using him?? it's all so strange and unsettling to witness.
also the way Evans just fuckin posts from her X account, seemingly without her knowledge?? wild shit. I wonder if he's still doing that but I don't feel like logging in to check. what a wild thing to use power of attorney for as well -- and why the fuck did she sign power of attorney over to him???? i have so many questions about this and i wonder if other journalists will try to dig more into what's going on here.
I can understand why so many people were taken in by Holmes. They way she speaks is almost trancelike -- i feel myself being convinced in the moment that she believes she was acting in good faith. it's only now that with distance i feel myself more convinced that she is being purposefully obtuse in order to obscure whatever truth exists.
Closing thoughts
as I've said on bsky, I'm going to be rolling this one around in my head for a long time. already I've started listening to The Dropout podcast and it's been enlightening to hear from her former colleagues, etc on what she's like to work with. I'd also like to read Bad Blood if I can get it from the library before too long.
the beauty of this documentary lies in the ambiguity, in the search for something true but with the admission that the truest truth will always be just out of reach. a thoroughly fascinating watch, and definitely one I'd like to revisit.