Review of the film “You Can See Everything”: Elizabeth Holmes’ Absurd and Entertaining Search for the Truth

Thirty-four days before the disgraced founder of Theranos Elizabeth Holmes was to be incarcerated in a federal prison to serve time 11 year sentence for conspiracy and fraud, she and her partner, Billy Evans, hosted a film crew at their seaside cottage.

The idea, according to Holmes and Evans, was to help the audience understand who Holmes really is. The story was incorrect. Journalists and television shows, such as Hulu Miniseries “The Dropout” she was wrong.

And so, in one of the many mysteries of this fascinating project, they chose Nathan Fieldera comedian known for blurring fiction and reality on absurdist shows like “Nathan for You” and “The Rehearsal,” to come to their rental home in Del Mar, Calif., and document her life with their two young children in her final days before prison. They even invited Fielder to stay with them – an offer he initially refuses but later accepts, about 20 days later.

The resulting film, “You can see everything” (in theaters Friday) defies categorization. In some ways, it is a stunning artistic performance by everyone involved. It’s also extremely entertaining, confusing and completely unique. I’m not even sure that an interest in Holmes is a prerequisite for enjoyment. Moreover, even after this exercise of almost three hours which passes quickly, she still remains as enigmatic.

Fielder shares directing credits with Lance Oppenheim, who also directed the recent Robert Pattinson drama as Chris Hansen “Primetime.” As in Fielder’s aforementioned TV shows, he is as much a character in “You Can See Everything” as his subjects. At first, he’s even filmed somewhat disturbingly, a voyeuristic creeper lurking in corners or in the distance with his headphones and portable monitor almost always affixed to his person. He is our portal to this world and we are obligated to empathize with him and trust him – what other choice do we have, really?

Although Fielder doesn’t claim to be a journalist or science expert, his questions are direct and insightful. In polite conversation, when someone tells you how they fell in love at first sight, you might just nod and accept their story. Fielder asks why and goes on and on, either until something starts to make sense to him or until he gives up (to his credit, this is usually due to an external interruption). He is never afraid to let the silence settle.

And these are not easy subjects. Holmes continues to maintain that she did nothing wrong and that her invention – a device supposedly capable of detecting a multitude of diseases and conditions from a few drops of blood – worked. At one point, she even tells Fielder that she never lied. That movie teaser (you know, the one where their faces are eerily close and she asks Fielder without blinking, “Why should I cheat on you?”) may not reflect exactly how it was originally cut, but it seems spiritually true to the company.

And then there’s Evans, who emerges as perhaps the biggest enigma. His early attitude toward Fielder has a tinge of discord. Fielder delves into the quirks of the couple’s relationship. He questions their first meeting – in which Evans pretends not to know who Holmes was for the first hour of their conversation – and Evans’ tendency to jump in and spin situations (even to correct the way Holmes limply mixes raw eggs). They’re an odd couple and watching them together probably isn’t the PR campaign they thought it would be.

One thing they’re particularly obsessed with is a juicy quote that a 2023 New York Times profile attributes to Holmes: “They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character I created.” She ostensibly speaks of romanticized representations, of That of Amanda Seyfried Emmy-winning performance for an abandoned Jennifer Lawrence film. Evans and Holmes say that’s not like him. They also say they also recorded the conversation and allege it was misquoted (although they won’t allow Fielder to listen). The New York Times stands by its reporting.

There are several disconnects like this in the film, some of which seem to boil down to simple semantics, and others which can be turned into elaborate metaphors for why we are here in the first place. The totality of it all can make you question your own perception of reality.

“You Can See Everything” is difficult to write in part because of what it is, but we’ll chalk it up to the fact that it also has a secret up its sleeve, one that filmmakers and studios hope to keep as long as possible. While I don’t think any great film can be diminished by the knowledge of a “spoiler”, we’ll play along.

It will be interesting to see how long this secret can be kept from the masses, if it matters, or if the masses will make “You Can See Everything” the cinematic event it deserves to be. Want something you’ve never seen before? It’s here.

“You Can See Everything,” an A24 release in theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for “language and some graphic nudity.” Duration: 174 minutes. Four stars out of four.