Analysis of the Documentary ‘You Can See Everything’

The film You Can See Everything, directed by Lance Oppenheim and Nathan Fielder, is a significant documentary that captures the essence of current times. Unlike typical documentaries, it holds both commercial success and Oscar interest. This film delves into the profound impact of the Theranos scandal and explores the aftermath of Elizabeth Holmes’s life as one of the major fraud figures in business history.

The story does not only focus on Holmes’s attempts to rebuild her personal and public life. It also reflects on the broader societal unease caused by today’s economy, characterized by widespread misinformation and echo chambers. The documentary examines the pervasive culture of ‘fake it ’til you make it’ within startups and businesses.

Holmes, mimicking Steve Jobs up to his turtleneck, applied a similar visionary approach to blood testing. This method traditionally aligned with app development or new technologies. But her vision turned into fraud, risking billions and compromising the medical world founded on the principle of ‘do no harm’. The question posed is when does ambition cross into dishonesty?

The documentary does not delve into the detailed legal proceedings of Theranos, which many other media have covered. Instead, it highlights Holmes’s 2023 statement to The New York Times, questioning whether her actions were pure dishonesty or confusion. Fielder’s incisive portrayal amplifies this ambiguity.

Interestingly, Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, seem to have invited Oppenheim and Fielder into their lives. The couple aimed to reshape their image during the weeks preceding Holmes’s imprisonment. This strategy resembles brand narratives crafted to alter public perception. However, the awkward scenes raise questions about their genuineness.

The film challenges viewers to consider if Holmes was simply naive or manipulated by influential men. Is Billy’s attempt to seek sympathy or clemency an act of sanity loss or strategic planning? Are they sincere in preparing for Holmes’s life beyond her legal troubles, or are they merely acting out roles devised for public sympathy?

In its second half, the movie scrutinizes the media’s portrayal of Holmes in productions like The Dropout. It critiques how these stories, claiming to be based on real events, might themselves blur truth to achieve compelling narratives.

The documentary doesn’t only scrutinize Holmes and the pervasive culture of deception but also the media’s role in shaping public perception. While You Can See Everything provides a comprehensive view of these dynamics, it highlights the distinction between seeing facts and understanding them. Fielder and Oppenheim’s work leaves viewers to ponder the complexities beyond the veil of visibility.