You Can See Everything

 

This review may contain spoilers!

You Can See Everything is an A24 documentary directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. The subject matter is Elizabeth Holmes, the infamous CEO behind Theranos. The crew was given permission to film within her family environment 34 days before she was incarcerated.

Sometimes a film can come along and be a singular force unto itself. You Can See Everything is one of those movies that is entirely unique and a masterclass in crafting something unique for the big screen. The very premise at the core of this is pretty astounding; the concept of any film crew being allowed so near Elizabeth Holmes, Billy Evans and their family in those final few days before Holmes' incarceration seems like an unbelievable moment. But it's the access that Fielder and Oppenheim get from the very start of this film. It's the hook to what winds up being a much bigger beast than it seems on the surface. You will be pulled in by the main subject: Elizabeth Holmes. This film starts you off by asking the obvious question around whether or not she is innocent. This point seems to be the thing the film is least interested in proving, however. We understand that by now, Theranos is a bad product. There are many points in the film that suggest the idea of Theranos continuing under Billy Evans' guidance as another dark descent into medical technology malpractice.

There are many reasons this film is so much bigger than the basic question of whether or not Elizabeth Holmes is innocent. The moment this film tried to interpret Elizabeth's character, I became absolutely fascinated by the many threads that got pulled upon. Elizabeth does not have a regular communication style; it is difficult to ascertain if this is innate in her nature or if there is something performative for Filder and the camera. Across the film, we get these wide-eyed confessionals that bear everything in what are quite simplistic, values-driven statements. Holmes seems genuinely thrilled by entrepreneurship; it energises her and gives her a sort of life that we only ever see in exclamations of love she shares for Billy or her children. She is very committed to the idea of Theranos, holds her testimony, but claims that there is a perception around her explanation that is wrong. A point in which she claimed something true that others have painted as her spinning a lie. This leads to a really compelling scene in which Nathan Fielder plays Elizabeth and Billy an old Abbott and Costello sketch titled 'Who's on First?'. The skit leads with the premise around miscommunication, parties talking around one another; both Abbott and Costello are justified in thinking what they are saying is common sense, but it leads to a conflict between the pair of them. Holmes identifies the humour and the cause, but struggles to understand the miscommunication itself or how it applies to her situation. Fielder and Oppenheim point to this a couple of times, pondering whether Holmes is not a manipulator but rather a victim of her own inability to communicate with others.

There's a deeper layer to Holmes' situation from Theranos to the shooting of this documentary. There is the matter of Sunny Balwani, Holmes' former boyfriend and business partner, and Billy Evans, her current partner. Whilst watching The Dropout with Fielder and Billy, Elizabeth has quite a visceral reaction to a scene depicting a more intimate moment between her and Sunny. It feels like there's trauma there, but at the same time the subjects of the film often point the crime away from Elizabeth wherever relevant. There is a marked depiction of Billy in a controlling position also. He takes over for Elizabeth often, speaking her mind for her and even extending that control to how he talks to the film crew. It is often Billy who shuts down the microphones and cameras; he cuts an interview between Fielder and Elizabeth's Dad short. We also watch as he listens to basic biology and chemistry videos on 2x speed, as if that will help him skyrocket Theranos 2.0 whilst Elizabeth is in prison. Billy is a fragile, yet controlling figure. We see him steer the camera crew towards him working out, even getting a glimpse of him naked in the shower at one point. Yet, on the other end of the spectrum, he holds a wall around Elizabeth once she's in prison, seemingly barring Fielder from contact until he understands the context behind the contact better. When it later gets revealed that Billy has power of attorney over Elizabeth, this argument takes a darker turn. It grows worse watching him brag about using her social media whilst she's incarcerated or using her likeness in AI programs.

The film reaches the inevitable point where Elizabeth Holmes is imprisoned. Around this point, most documentaries would do their closing retrospective, and we'd wind down. But this is You Can See Everything. Fielder and Oppenheim pull in Amanda Seyfried, who portrays Elizabeth Holmes in the Hulu series, The Dropout. This moment almost feels like a falter; for a moment we watch as a famous actress reacts to what we've already seen. We start to see her begin her role as re-enacting Elizabeth, this time through the lens of the documentary creators. I wondered if this was going to start providing a level of artifice. But as Seyfried drew some laughs and steadily became the stand-in for the audience perspective, I eased back on my criticism. However, it became surprisingly relevant once again. Artifice, or the truth behind the narrative, very quickly becomes the subject of the back half of the film. Suddenly we learn that Billy asked to be paid for their involvement in the documentary via a strong reenactment from both Amanda Seyfried and Christopher Abbott. It brought Elizabeth's values into question once again; it muddied the validity behind the documentary itself, and it made you wonder if the true message of the documentary could even be found anymore. Fielder spends those last moments of the film making the audience question if Elizabeth knew she would be paid for this documentary, or if Billy would retract his request to be paid at all. Even the way Fielder and Oppenheim have stitched this thing together gets called into question in some very pointed ways. Amanda Seyfried has been a useful tool until she reacts with vitriol to Elizabeth's opinion of her work on The Dropout. Nathan Fielder's motives for presenting a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes' character come into question as we are asked whether he cared too much for Elizabeth to remain objective.

What is achieved here is nothing short of monumental, even if it's not a film that has been made to provide answers. It leaves you asking questions in a manner that I think is increasingly rare in the media we consume. Oppenheim, Fielder and the crew behind this capture one of the more visually striking films of the year, with these square frames that are arresting and hold your attention for the complete three hours. There's barely a moment of film that doesn't feel like a clever piece of cinematography that has been expertly cut together to provide an engaging pace. That pensive, pondering score used throughout seems melancholy and transportive.

I watched this film wondering if Elizabeth Holmes had done it, if she was the guilty one. But I left questioning everything about her identity. There was a part of me that felt she had been carved up by so many people that what we had left was the person constantly living under the mask. Had her life been so traumatic that Billy had been her life preserver and the Elizabeth Holmes we now saw was the role she just had to play? It felt increasingly more difficult to predict deception as the film went along, which I felt was to the strength of the feature. I also really liked the way this whole thing pivots and becomes this clear demonstration that control of a narrative can result in unreliable narratives. We see that first through Elizabeth, and later Billy. But the You Can See Everything creatives used the financial demands of Billy Evans as a means to show that they too could be exploiting the narrative. The questions are for the viewers to answer; some things will feel clearer than others. This is not a documentary about innocent or guilty; this is a movie about following a narrative and wondering who is behind it.

Sometimes you go to the cinema and watch lightning be captured within a bottle. It's a rare feat, and it lies before you in this feature. I would give You Can See Everything a 9.5/10.