Everyone is running a con in the Elizabeth Holmes documentary You Can See Everything. The film, co-directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, delves into the complex narrative surrounding the former Theranos CEO, presenting a social experiment on how we perceive reality, truth, and deception.
Liar, or Wired Differently?
The documentary does not aim to definitively state whether Elizabeth Holmes is a liar, a status legally established by whistleblowers and the justice system after Theranos's blood-testing machine proved non-functional. Instead, You Can See Everything probes whether Holmes understands her own deceptions or if she can differentiate between her desires and reality. This distinction has led to speculation, though she lacks a public diagnosis, about Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies. The film suggests there are moments where Holmes appears neurodivergent, reframing her story and raising questions about whether she was manipulated by her former partners, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani and her current partner, Billy Evans.
A striking moment occurs when Fielder shows Holmes and Evans the classic Abbott and Costello sketch “Who’s on First?” Holmes finds it amusing but claims not to understand the joke's premise, the very name of the first baseman being "Who." Her visible distress at her own confusion, coupled with Evans sending her to bed, hints at an inhibited discernment and a different way of processing language. Evans posits that her brain simply functions differently. This exploration is prompted by Holmes's past statement that the Theranos machine "can" run tests, without specifying it could not yet do so. Holmes and Evans demonstrate that the machine itself was capable, but the testing technology had not caught up, suggesting that what appeared to be a lie might have been a failure to grasp linguistic nuance.
However, Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz challenges this interpretation. He stated in an interview that the machine demonstrated in the film was not the one used on patients, but a future, uncompleted version. Shultz believes the film re-litigates the Theranos case to sow doubt in the audience's mind, emphasizing that the film, while well-made and compelling, is not a traditional documentary but a cleverly told story that holds a funhouse mirror to truth.
Showmen, Not Documentarians
The film itself raises questions about manipulation, as Holmes and Evans initially pitched a "documentary" to tell their side of the story. The directors adopted this label, operating in a space where the legal system often relies on an imagined "reasonable viewer" to distinguish dramatization from fact. Legal precedents, such as the lawsuits involving FX's Feud and Fox News's Tucker Carlson show, suggest that courts may not hold media accountable for viewers mistaking dramatized content for factual reporting, based on the assumption of audience skepticism.
Research, however, indicates that viewers often struggle to separate fact from fiction. A Washington University study found that students recalled misinformation from films as factual, even when presented with accurate texts, and general warnings about inaccuracy did not alter recall. Similarly, a trend observed in the UK showed an increase in viewers believing The Crown to be historically accurate over time. This difficulty in parsing fact from fiction is understandable, given the concept of suspension of disbelief.
The choice of Fielder and Oppenheim, known for blurring the lines between performance and reality, is notable. Their previous works, including Oppenheim's Primetime and Fielder's Nathan for You and The Rehearsal, have faced ethical questions regarding participant portrayal. This film can be viewed as either an intentional use of their reputations to explore complex questions about truth or as a narrative shaped by convenient framing.
Enter Amanda Seyfried
The film employs a narrative device where Holmes watches Amanda Seyfried's portrayal of her in the Hulu series The Dropout, and Seyfried, in turn, watches Fielder's interactions with Holmes. This meta-narrative, particularly Seyfried's reenactment of a prison visit, highlights how readily audiences accept a presented version of a person. Seyfried, who won an Emmy for her role, grapples with her stake in a particular interpretation of Holmes, acknowledging the complex emotions involved when faced with the subject of her acclaimed performance.
The Many Faces of Liz
You Can See Everything explores the concept of Holmes's image being exploited by various parties: Balwani, Holmes herself, The Dropout, Fielder and Oppenheim, and particularly Evans, who reportedly plans to create an AI version of her. Her social media presence, managed by Evans, includes posts for which she will be judged. The film notes that while Holmes and Evans relinquished their financial stake in the film, others, including the filmmakers and The Dropout, have profited from her image.
This exploitation is set against a backdrop of alleged abuse by Balwani and Evans, and a reference to a sexual assault that profoundly impacted Holmes. The film suggests that Holmes may have created personas to protect herself. It posits that while Holmes is a complex figure, others, to varying degrees, employ selective truths and storytelling to achieve their goals. The documentary raises questions about the commonality of deception among tech CEOs, citing examples like Elon Musk and Trevor Milton, while distinguishing Holmes by the real-world consequences of Theranos's faulty medical results. However, the film dedicates little time to contextualizing the impact on Theranos's victims, focusing instead on a more sympathetic portrayal of Holmes.
The Ultimate Magic Trick
Fielder compares Holmes's situation to a David Blaine trick where the magician appears to drive an ice pick through his hand, suggesting Holmes endures genuine pain for the sake of a narrative. Whistleblower Tyler Shultz interprets this analogy as Holmes being a victim by design, commanding rooms and embodying different versions of herself as needed. The film suggests that Holmes and Evans may have anticipated a non-traditional documentary approach, perhaps intending to manipulate the filmmakers or the audience. Ultimately, the documentary leaves the viewer questioning who is being deceived.
The film's title, "You Can See Everything," becomes ironic. As psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula notes, the documentary leaves viewers feeling unmoored and potentially gaslit, similar to victims of narcissistic abuse. The film's ultimate magic trick places the viewer in the position of being "had" by Holmes and possibly the filmmakers, weaponizing empathy and forcing a confrontation with the spectrum of deception and perception.