You Can See Everything by Nathan Fielder
Watching You Can See Everything by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim was a surreal experience, and I think it's the best documentary I've ever watched.
The movie is 174 minutes but it's so well-made and captivating that I felt like I couldn't take my eyes off the screen for a second. It's a viewing that's worth going into with little information, beyond a basic understanding of who Holmes is and the Theranos fraud scandal.
If you're at all familiar with Fielder's work, you know he's happy to let an awkward moment linger. He's even happier to dial up the level of discomfort in those moments—both for his subjects on screen and the audience watching.
Even though Fielder might not be a standard journalist, his ability to prolong an uncomfortable silence is remarkable in this film. It leads to great moments that another director might never have gotten because of the natural desire to fill that silence.
At the same time, he's willing to interrupt an interview with a pointed question that pops into his mind—one that that everyone is also thinking, but would probably avoid. Fielder is a co-director, but his presence in the film as one of the main characters and a quasi-fill-in for the audience is essential for its tone and as the driving force of the narrative.
You Can See Everything is shot in a 4:3 aspect ratio with relentless close-up facial shots. The audience is asked to judge what is true and what isn't by analyzing these close-ups on Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, as they react in unhinged and increasingly unbelievable ways.
It's not all serious. There were at least half a dozen laugh-out-loud moments in our theater. It's a legitimately funny movie in addition to one you're going to be thinking about constantly after leaving the theater.
It's also a meta-commentary on documentary film-making as a medium. Is an attempt to faithfully re-create a scene honest or misleading? What is real and what isn't when someone knows they are surrounded by cameras? How do profits impact the incentives of those who participate, and how does that impact the believability of a documentary for the audience? Where is the line between authenticity and acting? Does that line exist at all?
The film asks all of these questions, sometimes explicitly, and trying to figure out those answers throughout the film as a viewer is a ton of fun.
Immediately after the credits rolled, I did feel some sympathy for Holmes—which I'm sure was her goal in the project—but as I've been able to think through it more and re-visit the facts of the case, I mostly believe she's manipulative narcissist happy to play dumb if it benefits her.
More than anything though, I'm in awe of the product. It's a must-watch and I can't wait to watch it again.
Related:
- The Elizabeth Holmes Documentary, Through the Eyes of the Reporter Who Exposed Her by John Carreyrou
- Elizabeth Holmes and Nathan Fielder Keep Us Guessing from The Daily