Full spoilers follow for You Can See Everything, which is currently in theaters.
You Can See Everything has attracted significant attention for both its filmmaking and its treatment of Elizabeth Holmes. Rather than offering a definitive answer about whether Holmes is a liar, the film questions whether she understands the difference between what she wants to be true and what is actually true.
The documentary revisits the collapse of Theranos, the company whose blood-testing technology failed to deliver on its promises. It also presents Holmes through several competing interpretations: as a convicted fraudster, a potentially neurodivergent person who struggles with language, and someone whose relationships may have been controlling or abusive.
One of the film’s most striking sequences shows Nathan Fielder watching Holmes react to the Abbott and Costello sketch “Who’s on First?” Holmes finds it amusing but says she did not understand that “Who” was the first baseman’s name. The scene becomes part of Fielder’s attempt to examine her grasp of linguistic nuance, including her earlier statement that the Theranos machine “can” perform certain tests.
Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, interpret that wording as a statement about what the machine was capable of in principle, rather than what it could actually do at the time. However, former Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz disputed the sequence in comments to CBS, saying the device shown was a later version that had never been completed and was not the machine used on patients. In his view, the film creates doubt about the Theranos story without fully resolving it.
That ambiguity is central to the documentary’s approach. Fielder and co-director Lance Oppenheim are known for work that blurs performance and reality, and the film repeatedly asks whether viewers are watching a documentary, a constructed narrative or both. Their methods also raise questions about how subjects are portrayed and which parts of Holmes’ story have been emphasized or left aside.
The film’s most elaborate example arrives through Amanda Seyfried, who played Holmes in the Hulu series The Dropout. Holmes and Seyfried are shown watching portrayals of each other, creating an intentionally voyeuristic exchange between the real person and the actor who became associated with her public image.
Because Fielder could not film inside the prison, Seyfried reenacts a conversation between him and Holmes there. Holmes reportedly argues that prison staff treated her according to the image created by The Dropout. During the reenactment, Fielder questions his own memory of Holmes’ words, while Seyfried wonders whether he is accurately recalling events or protecting his subject. The scene reinforces the film’s suggestion that audiences readily accept whichever version of a person a production presents to them.
You Can See Everything also focuses on the ways Holmes’ image has been used by others. The film portrays Balwani, The Dropout, the filmmakers and Evans as contributing to different versions of her identity. It says Evans has discussed creating an artificial-intelligence version of Holmes and has posted on her social-media account, apparently without her knowledge. At the same time, the documentary acknowledges that it is also benefiting from renewed interest in her story.
The production presents Holmes’ relationships with Balwani and Evans as potentially abusive, while also briefly referring to a sexual assault mentioned by her father. The film does not explore that allegation in depth. Instead, it leaves open the possibility that Holmes has repeatedly created personas as a way of protecting herself, without establishing whether there is a single, stable identity beneath them.
The documentary gives limited attention to the people affected by Theranos’ technology. The company voided two years of results from its Edison devices, and inaccurate medical results caused distress for patients. Yet those patients remain largely absent from the film, which offers a more sympathetic portrait of Holmes than some earlier accounts. The article notes that Holmes was acquitted on patient-fraud charges but convicted of defrauding investors, another factor that may shape the film’s focus.
A participant in Holmes and Evans’ new venture suggests that all chief executives lie, prompting the film to consider when a lie becomes consequential. The distinction in Holmes’ case is that Theranos deployed its technology and people received inaccurate medical information. The documentary’s treatment of that issue becomes part of its broader concern with selective truth and the stories people tell to achieve their aims.
Shultz compares Holmes to an illusionist who appears to drive an ice pick through his hand but is actually causing himself real pain. From his perspective, Holmes may be both a victim of an abusive relationship and someone participating in a painful performance. He has said the woman shown in the film is unlike the Elizabeth Holmes he knew, suggesting that she may adapt her identity to the situation around her.
Ultimately, You Can See Everything refuses to provide a final explanation of Holmes. Its subject may be manipulating the filmmakers, the filmmakers may be manipulating the audience, or both may be true at once. The film’s central promise—that viewers can see everything—becomes an ironic one: despite the access it offers, nothing about Holmes, her motives or the events surrounding Theranos is presented as completely settled.
Sources: IGN.