I’ve always heard that “truth is stranger than fiction,” but these days, we’re having trouble telling them apart. This is cleverly illustrated by a new “documentary” by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim called You Can See Everything.
Non-fiction films tend to be small winners, if they succeed with the public at all. But excitement has arisen by word-of-mouth around You Can See Everything. The subject is Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of Theranos, a company claiming a dramatic advance in blood testing technology. Accusations of fraud eventually led to the collapse of Theranos. In 2022, Holmes was convicted of defrauding investors and sentenced to over eleven years. A month before having to report to prison, she invited Oppenheim, a documentary filmmaker, to stay with her family—her partner, hotel heir Billy Evans, and their two children, at a rented beach house in southern California. Then Oppenheim brought Fielder into the project, who handles the interviewing.
In talking to Holmes, Fielder employs an intense, highly personal conversational style in which he probes the details of Holmes’ life, career, and family. The persona she presents to the camera is of a wide-eyed, childlike, naïve innocent whose motives are always pure. She tells him she has never lied, at least not about important things. There are long awkward pauses in which we watch Fielder and Holmes just stare at each other. She’s an odd duck, no question—her partner Billy is more articulate, acting as the practical support for Holmes and her plans to resurrect the company. He is a very controlling person. We find ourselves questioning why these people have invited this oddball director into their lives.
Viewers may be forgiven for assuming that the film is all about Holmes—she is certainly weird enough to support that assumption. But you can watch an actual documentary about Holmes called The Inventor or read the many articles about Theranos, if you want more relevant information about her. The fact is, I don’t think this is a documentary about Holmes in any meaningful sense. Fielder is a deadpan humorist who specializes in staging recreations of events for satirical effect. The funny parts of You Can See Everything undercut the traditional idea of an objective approach to non-fiction. Instead of really exploring the facts, Fielder focuses on little personal quirks, like when Elizabeth is scrambling eggs in a bowl and Billy takes it from her while he’s talking—Fielder asks, “Why did you do that?” The camera will often show Fielder staring from off in a corner with ominous music, and throughout the film music is used to evoke a sense of drama that isn’t there. At one point he even shows the couple the “Who’s on First?” routine by Abbot & Costello to make a point about communication. We learn some things, but mostly we laugh at the outrageousness of the approach. It’s a quietly funny film. It’s also meticulous, taking its time to develop a kind of “reality show” effect. And things get even nuttier in the film’s second half.
The filmmakers use a familiar idea: peeking into the personal lives of infamous people, to satirize the way reality is presented in the culture. They don’t say whether they think Holmes is guilty. They are mocking themselves, highlighting the obsessive triviality of the film they’re pretending to make. I think that’s the reason the movie has gotten under people’s skin. You Can See Everything, it would seem, except what’s right in front of you.
