You Can See Everything Review

Just got out of seeing A24's collaboration with Nathan Fielder, You Can See Everything. This is a three-hour documentary dissecting Elizabeth Holmes. The first half of the film is spent in Texas with Elizabeth, her boyfriend Billy, their two kids, and Nathan Fielder wedged right in the middle, the 34 days leading up to Holmes going off to jail to serve her 11-year prison sentence for defrauding investors.

For a documentary, this film had a tremendous amount of hype. I was hearing "movie of the year" praise from people whose opinions I respect. I didn’t know much about Elizabeth Holmes, but had been given a brief synopsis by a few people from talking about the movie before I saw it. What I saw was hard to describe.

Elizabeth has these big, milky doe-eyes that she kinda just stares with, while nodding her head slightly. Her boyfriend Billy isn't much better, with long unbroken stares of his own and a perpetual sniffling problem the film surprisingly doesn't address.

Their relationship is beyond weird and derives much of the film's comedy. Like when Billy takes the bowl from Elizabeth so he can whisk the eggs. When Nathan asks why he did this, Billy says it was so Elizabeth can focus on the questions. But Elizabeth clarifies that Billy doesn't think she whisks the eggs properly. I also loved the awkwardness of Nathan asking if he should cut the cameras and give them some space so they can have sex, it being Elizabeth's last day before leaving for jail. Billy turns to Elizabeth and asks lovingly, "Does he make you laugh?" and asserts she could use a good laugh right now. When the couple returns from the shower, Fielder asks "How was it?" to add to the discomfort.

This movie is uncomfortable all over, which is to be expected with any Nathan Fielder project. To describe this movie in a word, I would say head-scratcher. Bizarre also came to mind. As the story unravels in the second half of the film, Billy's character is called more into question. We learn that Billy negotiated a deal to earn profit from his participation in the film. But did Elizabeth know? What did he tell her? What else has he been hiding from her? The power imbalance is constantly shifting. Who's deceiving whom?

I don't know what to think. The only thing I know for certain is Billy is a fucking psycho. Or at the very least, a narcissistic piece of shit. I don't know if I've ever seen someone talk with this much fluff. He talks around the questions like a politician would. I particularly loved when he told Nathan "I know what you're feeling" and Fielder rightly calls him out, responding with "No, you don't." Billy has another quote where he asserts he's good at sex, in the same conversation we learn he's a Charlie Kirk fan. Truly my hero.

The film also wisely acknowledges Fielder's emotional ties and potential bias to the story. Amanda Seyfried calls this into question when she pushes back and suggests that because Nathan cares about Elizabeth he may not want to portray her in a negative light. We then see a shot of Nathan and Elizabeth swimming in the cold water together, something Elizabeth had asked them to do earlier in the film, and we weren’t sure if Nathan had agreed to.

This was a good film to see in a packed theatre. To hear the gasps, laughs, people talking to the screen in disbelief. And the film leaves us with more questions than answers. Is she innocent in all of this and truly has a communication issue? Or is she a master manipulator? If the latter, she would prove to be one of the most calculated sociopaths I’ve ever seen. This is the central question the movie ponders and the reason for the immense amount of discussion around it. The film asks you: What do you think happened?

I'm not here to discuss defrauding investors, whether medical devices work, or who was in fact on first. Those things only interest me so much and I'm by no means an expert on the matter. What I can say is this was a fascinating watch that had me captivated throughout. I also really enjoyed Amanda Seyfried's inclusion and seeing her reenactments. Do I need to see it again? No. Three hours is a bit long for someone with a short attention span. But if a friend was interested I wouldn't mind watching it with them. I wasn’t getting “movie of the year” feelings like so many others, but I still found the film very engaging, especially the last hour. Not sure if I want to score a documentary, but if I had to, I'd give it a 7.5/10. Didn't change my life but definitely gave me some things to discuss at the water cooler.