Everyone Is Running a Con in “You Can See Everything”
The new documentary‑style film blurs truth and trickery while probing Elizabeth Holmes’s possible neurodivergence and the filmmakers’ own sleight of hand.
What the Film Claims to Be
You Can See Everything has become one of the most‑talked‑about releases of the year, drawing attention for its box‑office performance in the documentary category. The filmmakers present the work as a social experiment that asks whether anyone truly knows, cares about, or communicates what is “real” beyond personal interests.
Holmes: Liar, Victim, or Neurodivergent?
The co‑directors, Nathan Fielder (known for Nathan for You) and Lance Oppenheim (known for Primetime), avoid a definitive verdict on Elizabeth Holmes’s honesty. Legally and according to whistleblowers, Holmes is a liar because Theranos’s blood‑testing device never functioned as advertised. The film instead asks whether Holmes herself understood she was lying or simply could not discern the difference between wishful thinking and reality.
Speculation in the public sphere has linked Holmes to Narcissistic Personality Disorder and sociopathic traits, though no public diagnosis exists. In the film, moments suggest a possible neurodivergent profile that might impair her ability to read social cues or grasp linguistic nuance. For example, Fielder shows Holmes the Abbott and Costello “Who’s on First?” sketch; she laughs but claims she did not understand that the first baseman’s name is “Who,” becoming visibly upset when pressed.
Holmes’s partner, Billy Evans, appears on screen as controlling, and the relationship is portrayed as potentially abusive. The film juxtaposes this with earlier allegations that Holmes was manipulated by her former romantic and business partner, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, whom she met at age 18 when he was 37.
Language Games and the “Lie” Debate
Fielder revisits a clip where Holmes says the Theranos machine “can” run tests, without clarifying that it could not yet do so. Holmes and Evans retrieve the device from storage to demonstrate that the hardware could work in principle, but the testing software lagged behind. The implication presented is that what appeared to be a lie may instead be a failure to grasp linguistic nuance.
Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz told CBS that the device shown in the film was a future prototype never used on patients, arguing the film “re‑litigates Theranos just enough to sow doubt.” He suggests the film is not a documentary in the traditional sense.
Documentary or Showmanship?
The film’s own label as a “documentary” is questioned. Holmes and Evans originally pitched a documentary to tell their version of events, and the directors used the same unregulated label for their version. Legal precedent shows courts often rely on a “reasonable viewer” standard, assuming audiences can separate dramatization from fact. Cases involving Feud and Tucker Carlson illustrate this approach.
However, a Washington University study found that when a film contradicts an accurate text, students recall the film’s misinformation up to half the time, and generic warnings about inaccuracy do little to help. The Telegraph reported that belief in the historical accuracy of The Crown rose from 19 % to 27 % between 2022 and 2023, underscoring the difficulty of parsing fact from fiction.
Why the Directors Matter
Fielder and Oppenheim are not traditional documentarians like Ken Burns or Errol Morris; they are known for blurring performance and reality. Oppenheim’s recent film Primetime examined how Chris Hansen manipulated subjects for narrative effect, while Hansen called that film a “complete work of fiction.” Fielder’s earlier work, Nathan for You and The Rehearsal, has faced ethical questions about participant portrayal.
These reputations suggest the directors may be deliberately using their own notoriety to pose “interesting questions” about truth, while also shaping Holmes’s image to suit narrative needs.
Final Twist and Unresolved Questions
Near the film’s conclusion, Holmes is shown in prison. The editing room scene hints that the directors considered flipping the narrative—showing Holmes a fictional version of herself and then reversing the process with actress Amanda Seyfried. The exact outcome of that idea remains unknown.
In sum, You Can See Everything functions as a mirror that reflects both the elusive nature of truth in Holmes’s saga and the filmmakers’ own capacity to manipulate perception, leaving viewers to wonder who, if anyone, is truly being honest.
