A24’s You Can See Everything, a meta-documentary about former Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, has prompted debate over whether it presents an inaccurate portrait of its subject. The film’s unusual approach leaves viewers questioning whether Holmes is being misunderstood—or attempting to mislead both the filmmakers and the audience.
The documentary includes a discussion between Holmes and director Nathan Fielder about the meaning of “can” in the claim that a device “can run every test.” Holmes maintains that the statement is valid, while Fielder questions whether she is using the word in the ordinary sense. Another scene shows Holmes watching Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First?” sketch and apparently failing—or pretending to fail—to understand its wordplay.
Taken at face value, these moments could suggest that Holmes uses language in an unusually idiosyncratic way and that poor communication, rather than fraud, explains her actions. That interpretation would be misleading. The case against Holmes involved falsified financial records, diluted blood samples and claims that Theranos had used its own device when samples were actually analyzed by outside laboratories.
However, the film does not present itself as a conventional documentary designed to establish a definitive account of events. Fielder acknowledges at the outset that he is not well versed in science, and the filmmakers do not bring in other specialists to provide a broader explanation of the technology or the case. Their choices appear deliberate, signaling that the film is not attempting to establish “what really happened” in the standard documentary manner.
The exchanges about language may therefore be understood as attempts to engage Holmes on her own terms. Fielder could be testing how far he can go by accepting her premises, rather than simply creating ambiguity for dramatic effect. Likewise, the “Who’s on First?” scene may be a test of Holmes’ response. Although she appears to laugh while watching the sketch, she denies understanding it, leaving open the possibility that she is using the situation to obscure her intentions.
The filmmakers’ extended access to Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, does not result in clear access to their inner thoughts. Instead, the film focuses on the distance that remains between the subjects and the people filming them. Holmes’ repeated claims that she is engaging authentically are met with the impression that she is reflecting the filmmakers’ own expectations back at them.
You Can See Everything is consequently presented as exploratory rather than definitive. It does not promise to reveal “the truth about Holmes,” and its refusal to make conventional documentary claims is central to its effect. The film may not be accurate in the traditional sense, but the argument is that it should not be judged as a standard factual account. Its subject is partly the difficulty of determining what, if anything, Holmes is revealing.
Sources: Psychology Today.