Spoiler alert! We're discussing important plot points from the new documentary “You Can See Everything,” so beware if you haven’t seen it yet.
It’s said that the truth will set you free. But what if the truth doesn’t matter? And what if everyone seems sort of cool with that?
If ever a movie was of this exact moment, it’s the much-ballyhooed documentary “You Can See Everything.”
Directed by Lance Oppenheim and comedian Nathan Fielder, the meta film (in theaters now) about disgraced Silicon Valley wunderkind Elizabeth Holmes plays with an audience’s sense of perception and reality − much like, well, real reality. From social-media disinformation campaigns and head-scratching AI Google summaries to a whole host of unreliable narrators from various
political spectrums, it’s often hard if not impossible to tell truth from lies.
And that goes for “Everything,” too. So far, the film has been catnip for critics and could be an Oscar powerhouse even though it feels like we’re all being played by its central figures.
The documentary begins by focusing on 34 days in 2023 that the film crew spends with Holmes and her family – including fiancé Billy Evans and their two kids – before the Theranos founder goes to prison. Alongside former romantic partner and Theranos president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, she was found guilty of fraud for scamming millions out of investors for a revolutionary blood-testing device that didn’t work.
What unfolds is mesmerizing, troubling and uncomfortable all at once as Fielder and Holmes have conversations where she doesn’t seem to understand what she’s done wrong, discusses plans she has for Theranos 2.0 (maybe a bad idea?) and fights how she’s been depicted in the media at large, including in the Hulu series “The Dropout” starring Amanda Seyfried. Fielder even shows it to her on his laptop and she can’t watch it, beginning to cry.
Holmes fervently denies a New York Times story that quotes her as saying “They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character I created.” But is she as awkward as she seems or is it all a con? “I’m always being real,” she says, completely unconvincingly. She argues that her brain just works differently: Fielder shows her the famous Abbott and Costello “Who’s on first?” routine and she doesn’t get the humor at all. (It’s arguably the most beloved comedy bit in history, but OK.)
There’s just an unrealness to Holmes that’s hard to shake. “Why would I deceive you?” she asks Fielder – and to a degree, the audience. (You've probably already seen it on social media, as it's one of many scenes built for max meme-ability.) But there’s also an inherent and extremely significant performative aspect to Fielder as well.
If this were an acclaimed documentarian like Alex Gibney or Werner Herzog doing “You Can See Everything,” it’d be one thing. But with shows like “Nathan for You” and “The Rehearsal,” this guy’s whole brand is blurring the line between fiction and reality. The way he’s filmed creepily looking at her and her family like a voyeur half the time, Fielder might as well be asking "Why would I deceive you?” to Holmes and the viewer.
And just when you think things can’t get any stranger, “Everything” doubles down. Holmes goes to jail, Fielder stays in communication while she's incarcerated, and he enlists the help of Seyfried to act out their conversations, "Dropout" Season 2 style, trying to suss out if she knew Evans brokered a deal to make a profit off the documentary’s release. (Pro tip: If you get a chance to reprise your Emmy-winning role, go for it!) This bonkers swerve is the best thing about the movie, but it also calls into question the truth about what we're seeing. Fielder and Seyfried even work on a “script” that they will film.
As bewildering as it is, “You Can See Everything” is a well-made flick. Is it unlike most everything else out there right now? You bet. Is it unforgettable? Eh, that’s probably going a bit far. Some of us prefer our documentaries with a little more, to quote Stephen Colbert, "truthiness" to them.
It’s funny and thought-provoking in the way it explores the stories we tell ourselves vs. the way everyone else sees us. While challenging an audience is good, though, the film leans a little off-putting in the way it doesn’t play straight.
And being that we’re going to be talking about this thing likely until the Oscars, where do you stick it in the awards conversation? It could be the first documentary to crash the best picture race. Given how yours truly feels about recent winners, it might even do well. (You’re welcome, Nathan.) Then again, Seyfried seems like a great candidate for a supporting actress nomination. Wouldn’t that be rather strange for a documentary?
“You Can See Everything” proudly disrupts a bunch of status quos, which would be better if the world wasn’t already such a cynical place right now. Perhaps that's the point: You can see everything but see nothing at all. And it’s a movie that saves its most real scene till the end, where Holmes is seen playing with her two children in a prison yard. It’s finally a truthful moment in a film where authenticity is at a premium.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'You Can See Everything' is the movie of the (cynical) moment
