What if the most dangerous lie isn’t something someone tells you, but something they convince you to believe? That’s the question I kept returning to after watching You Can See Everything, a fascinating, frequently hilarious, and surprisingly unsettling documentary from directors Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. I’m a little late to the party with this sleeper hit, but the film has been on my mind ever since I left the theater. What initially appears to be another examination of disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes gradually becomes something far more complicated. For me, this isn’t really a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes. It’s a documentary about context, and how easily our understanding of the truth can change depending on who’s telling the story.
You Can See Everything: More Than Another Elizabeth Holmes Documentary
The documentary begins approximately 30 days before Holmes enters federal prison following her conviction for fraud. Fielder and Oppenheim are granted remarkable access to Holmes, her partner Billy Evans, their family, and the people surrounding them. The story eventually extends two years into her incarceration, allowing the filmmakers to examine how those relationships evolve. What makes this approach particularly interesting is that the documentary isn’t attempting to establish whether Holmes committed fraud. She’s already been convicted, and her involvement in the Theranos scandal has been extensively documented. Instead, the filmmakers explore something much more difficult to determine: Is Elizabeth Holmes capable of telling the truth? Does she recognize when she’s lying, or has she become so accustomed to presenting her own version of events that the distinction no longer matters?
Those questions become increasingly complicated as the documentary progresses because Holmes isn’t the only person attempting to shape the narrative. Everyone surrounding her seems to have their own understanding of events, their own motivations, and their own ideas about what the audience should believe. What begins as an examination of one woman’s relationship with the truth gradually expands into a broader exploration of manipulation, loyalty, relationships, and control. The documentary becomes less concerned with establishing facts that have already been determined and more interested in understanding how people construct their own versions of reality.
How Context Changes Everything in You Can See Everything
One of the film’s greatest strengths is how Fielder and Oppenheim allow seemingly ordinary conversations to develop into increasingly uncomfortable situations. Someone asks a question, another person responds, and then someone interrupts or redirects the conversation. Suddenly, what appeared straightforward becomes considerably more complicated. The filmmakers understand that audiences naturally form opinions based on the information they’re given, and throughout the documentary, they repeatedly challenge those assumptions. Something that initially appears innocent, awkward, or ridiculous can take on an entirely different meaning once additional information becomes available.
There’s also a surprising amount of humor throughout the documentary, much of it emerging from the absurdity of the situations rather than anything deliberately comedic. I frequently found myself laughing at something completely unexpected, only to reconsider that same moment later when the context changed. That’s what makes the film so effective. The footage itself hasn’t changed, but our understanding of what we’re watching has. At times, the experience feels like spending nearly three hours being gaslit, constantly questioning whether the people on screen are being sincere or deliberately influencing how they’re perceived. Even more unsettling is the possibility that some of them genuinely believe the stories they’re telling.
Love, Manipulation, and Control
As the documentary develops, its examination of truth becomes intertwined with a fascinating exploration of human relationships. Love, loyalty, protection, and control become increasingly difficult to separate, particularly when people believe their actions are motivated by affection or concern. Someone can genuinely love another person while attempting to control them, just as someone can believe they’re protecting another individual while making decisions that primarily benefit themselves. Perhaps most interestingly, someone can appear to surrender control while still influencing the people making decisions around them.
These complicated relationships eventually extend to the filmmakers themselves. Fielder and Oppenheim aren’t simply observing events from a distance. Their presence becomes part of the story, and their understanding of the people they’re documenting begins to change. That raises an important question about documentary filmmaking: Can someone remain objective when they begin caring about the people they’re filming? And can a person be manipulated without recognizing that it’s happening? I don’t want to reveal too much about how these relationships develop because discovering those dynamics is essential to the experience. However, the documentary’s willingness to explore these uncomfortable questions is one of the reasons I found it so compelling.
David Bolen’s Cinematography and the Connection to Primetime
The cinematography and editing deserve considerable recognition, particularly for how they transform ordinary interactions into moments of genuine tension. Cinematographer David Bolen gives the documentary an intimacy that occasionally feels almost intrusive, placing us inside private conversations and domestic situations where the camera seems to become part of the environment. There’s an unsettling quality to the visual presentation that makes the film feel more like a psychological thriller than a traditional documentary. The editing is equally impressive, carefully connecting moments that initially seem unrelated and allowing earlier scenes to take on new meaning as the story develops.
I also have to mention that Lance Oppenheim directed Primetime, which arrived just a few weeks before You Can See Everything, with Bolen handling the cinematography on both films. If you’ve seen Primetime, starring Robert Pattinson as Chris Hansen, you’ll probably recognize similarities in their thriller-like visual styles and their exploration of manipulation, sensationalism, and the truth. One is a fictionalized drama inspired by real events, while the other is a documentary, but both demonstrate how compelling stories can emerge from examining the people who shape what audiences see. Oppenheim and Bolen are having one heck of a year, and their work on these two films deserves attention.
Amanda Seyfried and the Oscar Potential of You Can See Everything
Another reason this documentary stands apart is the involvement of Amanda Seyfried, who appears both as herself and portraying Elizabeth Holmes. Her appearance is something of a surprise, but with the film already generating considerable discussion, I think it’s worth acknowledging without revealing the circumstances surrounding her participation. Seyfried brings an intelligence and perspective to the material that encourages us to reconsider what we’ve been watching. Her contribution adds another dimension to a documentary already filled with competing interpretations of the truth, and I found her involvement particularly impressive.
I’m also going to make a prediction about this film’s awards potential. I think You Can See Everything could become a serious contender during Oscar season, including possible recognition for Best Picture, Best Editing, and Best Cinematography. I also wouldn’t rule out Amanda Seyfried receiving consideration for Best Supporting Actress. What makes that possibility particularly exciting is that we’re discussing a documentary potentially competing in categories traditionally dominated by narrative filmmaking. Whether those nominations materialize remains to be seen, but the craftsmanship on display deserves serious recognition.
You Can See Everything Review: Who Controls the Truth?
What ultimately makes You Can See Everything so relevant is how closely its themes reflect the world we’re living in. We exist in a time when facts are constantly challenged, statements are taken out of context, and competing narratives are constructed around the same events. We’ve reached a point where phrases like “alternative facts” have become part of our political vocabulary, and people frequently argue about what someone meant rather than what they actually said. Everyone seems convinced that their interpretation is the correct one, even when they’re looking at exactly the same information.
That’s why I believe this documentary extends far beyond Elizabeth Holmes. Everybody involved is attempting to tell their own story, everybody wants to be understood, and everybody, in one way or another, wants to be the hero. But there’s another layer that makes the experience particularly unsettling. We’re watching a documentary assembled by filmmakers who are also determining what information we receive, when we receive it, and how that information is presented. Even as we’re questioning the people appearing on screen, shouldn’t we also be questioning the people behind the camera? And perhaps ourselves?
I walked away wondering whether I’d spent nearly three hours watching people manipulate one another or whether I’d spent nearly three hours being manipulated myself. That’s what makes You Can See Everything such a remarkable achievement. The documentary provides more and more information, but rather than making the truth clearer, it challenges how we arrived at our conclusions in the first place. We all sit in the same theater, watch the same movie, and walk away with different interpretations of what we’ve experienced. Perhaps that’s the most fascinating aspect of this documentary. It reminds us that seeing everything doesn’t necessarily mean we’re seeing the truth.
Leave a Reply