“You Can See Everything” Will Make You Question Everything
Mother Jones reviews the documentary 'You Can See Everything,' directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, which follows Elizabeth Holmes in the final weeks before her federal prison sentence. The film provides intimate access to Holmes' personal life, including her interactions with her children and legal preparations for incarceration. While Holmes' past actions as the founder of Theranos are well known, the documentary explores deeper existential questions about perception and understanding of individuals. The piece highlights emotionally raw moments of Holmes, such as her visible distress during Zoom calls with lawyers, raising questions about authenticity and whether these portrayals are genuine or part of a strategy to gain public sympathy. The review acknowledges the complexity of viewing Holmes as both a convicted fraudster and a vulnerable human being.
Elizabeth Holmes, the convicted founder of the failed blood-testing firm Theranos, granted unprecedented access to her private life to filmmakers Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim in the months preceding her imprisonment. The resulting documentary, titled You Can See Everything, is distributed by A24 and runs approximately three hours. The film premiered unexpectedly at the Telluride Film Festival last month, where attendees were required to secure their mobile devices in locking pouches and were monitored by security personnel equipped with night-vision equipment. Following the screening, Fielder urged the audience to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the film’s contents. The movie is now available in theaters, where it has generated significant buzz, selling out opening weekend screenings at multiplexes typically reserved for shorter features or pop music documentaries. The production originated from a direct outreach by Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, to A24. Approximately one month before Holmes was scheduled to surrender to authorities in 2023 to begin her federal prison term, the couple contacted the studio in a final attempt to rehabilitate Holmes’ public image. They proposed sending a film crew to document her remaining days of freedom. Fielder, known for his satirical television series Nathan for You and The Rehearsal, accepted the invitation alongside co-director Oppenheim. The pair moved into the couple’s beachfront rental property in Del Mar, California, near San Diego. Evans described the arrangement as an experiment in "radical transparency," arguing that the public perception of Holmes as a monster stemmed from a lack of genuine understanding. He suggested that total openness would dispel the fear surrounding her. During the filming period, the crew observed Holmes, Evans, and their two young children, including a newborn, in their domestic environment. The footage captures intimate moments, such as Holmes caring for her children while participating in stressful video conferences with her legal team regarding the logistical details of her upcoming incarceration, such as bathroom schedules and wake-up times. Holmes is shown crying in several scenes, a vulnerability she indicated she had historically struggled to display publicly. Evans also participated in scenes emphasizing total exposure, including one where he brushed his teeth in the shower with the door open and the cameras rolling. Despite this physical accessibility, the filmmakers noted a persistent difficulty in distinguishing between authentic emotion and calculated performance. Holmes maintained throughout the process that she committed no crimes and that the world’s belief in her guilt was based on a false reality. She stated that she had never told a lie in her life. When Fielder questioned her on this point, she replied, "I don't think so." The filmmakers expressed uncertainty about whether Holmes was a cold, calculating fraudster or a psychologically complex individual who genuinely believed in the narratives she constructed to justify her actions. The documentary explores these epistemological questions, utilizing formal techniques that blend documentary observation with surreal elements. Fielder, who initially intended to remain behind the camera, appeared on screen frequently, engaging in direct confrontations with Holmes. His presence added a layer of ambiguity, as his style often blurs the line between factual reporting and fictional performance. Legal and financial details of Holmes’ downfall provide the backdrop for the narrative. In 2022, Holmes was found guilty of defrauding investors of nearly $500 million. She was acquitted of charges related to defrauding patients. The court sentenced her to more than 11 years in federal prison. Prior to her sentencing, her legal team requested an early release from President Donald Trump. Theranos had marketed a device capable of performing extensive medical tests using a single drop of blood, claiming it would disrupt the healthcare industry. However, internal investigations and subsequent legal proceedings revealed that the technology did not function as advertised. The company relied on conventional laboratory analyzers to produce results, which were often inaccurate. Prominent figures invested heavily in the company, including billionaires Rupert Murdoch, Carlos Slim, and members of the Walton family. The board of directors included former government officials such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Mattis. Murdoch later acknowledged his failure to ask sufficient questions, describing the experience as a total embarrassment. The collapse of Theranos led to widespread scrutiny of the biotechnology sector. Holmes and Evans discussed plans for a successor venture, referred to as "Theranos 2.0," which would utilize laser technology and artificial intelligence. Evans described the project as an opportunity to restart their careers, while Holmes declared she would continue inventing from within her prison cell. Controversy surrounded a prior profile of Holmes published by The New York Times. Holmes and Evans claimed that a quote in the article, in which Holmes stated that actresses were playing a character she created, had been taken out of context. They asserted that Holmes had actually said the actresses were playing a character they created. Evans repeatedly offered to provide evidence supporting this correction to the filmmakers but never produced the documentation. The documentary includes scenes where Fielder watches the Hulu miniseries The Dropout with Holmes. The series, starring Amanda Seyfried, depicts Holmes’ rise and fall. Fielder later contacted Seyfried to assist in processing the footage, acknowledging the complexity of portraying a subject who refuses to acknowledge fault. The film challenges traditional documentary conventions by refusing to offer a definitive verdict on Holmes’ character. Instead, it presents a "hall of mirrors" effect, reflecting the audience’s own uncertainties about truth and deception. Critics and reviewers have described the viewing experience as unsettling and emotionally complex, eliciting feelings of compassion, confusion, and irritation simultaneously. The film’s structure relies on the tension between the visual evidence of Holmes’ domestic life and her verbal assertions of innocence. As the documentary progresses, it shifts into abstract territory, examining the nature of artistic representation and psychological reality. The reception has been overwhelmingly positive, with many viewers citing the film’s ability to provoke deep reflection on the limits of empathy and the reliability of personal narratives. The success of the film has sparked discussions about the ethics of documenting individuals who have been legally convicted of serious crimes, and the extent to which filmmakers can or should seek to redeem their subjects.
Go to the primary sources (10)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
This article discusses the documentary 'You Can See Everything,' which follows Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of Theranos, during the period just before her imprisonment for fraud. The film, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, provides unprecedented access to Holmes' personal life, including her family, but leaves her true nature ambiguous. While Holmes is widely seen as a fraudulent figure, the documentary explores whether she is a deliberate manipulator or a complex individual struggling with self-deception. The film does not excuse her crimes but offers deep empathy, challenging simplistic portrayals of villains. It presents a nuanced view of Holmes, highlighting the difficulty of understanding someone who has committed serious wrongdoing.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced perspective on Elizabeth Holmes and her documentary, acknowledging her criminal actions while exploring the psychological complexity of her character. There is no overt ideological bias or selective sourcing; the focus is on the narrative and emotional depth of the纪录片
Why factuality (90): Reason article accurately portrays the documentary's content and context, aligning closely with the primary source. It correctly identifies the timeline of events, the nature of the documentary, and the broader implications of the film. The information presented is well-supported and consistent with
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a balanced tone, presenting facts without overt bias. It frames the documentary as an act of empathy and explores the complexities of Holmes' character without taking sides. The language is measured and avoids emotional or loaded terms, maintaining a neutral stance.
Mother Jones reviews the documentary 'You Can See Everything,' directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, which follows Elizabeth Holmes in the final weeks before her federal prison sentence. The film provides intimate access to Holmes' personal life, including her interactions with her children and legal preparations for incarceration. While Holmes' past actions as the founder of Theranos are well known, the documentary explores deeper existential questions about perception and understanding of individuals. The piece highlights emotionally raw moments of Holmes, such as her visible distress during Zoom calls with lawyers, raising questions about authenticity and whether these portrayals are genuine or part of a strategy to gain public sympathy. The review acknowledges the complexity of viewing Holmes as both a convicted fraudster and a vulnerable human being.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced view of the documentary, acknowledging both the emotional portrayal of Elizabeth Holmes and the broader ethical questions raised. It does not take a clear stance on Holmes' guilt or innocence, nor does it favor any particular perspective on the documentary's framing.
Why factuality (90): Mother Jones article accurately portrays the documentary's content and context, aligning closely with the primary source. It correctly identifies the timeline of events, the nature of the documentary, and the broader implications of the film. The information presented is well-supported and consisten
Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, focusing on the documentary's content and its broader themes. It acknowledges the complexity of Holmes' case without taking a clear stance on her guilt or innocence. The language is descriptive and avoids overtly biased or emotionally charged terms.
This article discusses recent developments in healthcare and biotechnology, including updates from the STAT Summit, corporate accountability efforts by the Department of Justice, advancements in cancer vaccines by Merck and Moderna, and U.S. policy considerations regarding China's biotech growth. It also mentions a new documentary about Elizabeth Holmes, the former Theranos CEO, set to release soon.
Bias read (Center): The article covers multiple topics, including corporate accountability, biotech innovation, and international policy discussions. While these areas involve political elements, the content remains balanced, presenting various perspectives without overtly favoring any particular side. There is no slav
Why factuality (85): STAT News article accurately summarizes the documentary's content and provides relevant background on Elizabeth Holmes and the film's production. It correctly references the film's context and the involvement of A24. However, it includes some interpretive elements, such as the filmmakers' intentions
Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, focusing on the documentary's content and its relevance to current events. It acknowledges the complexity of Holmes' case without taking a clear stance on her guilt or innocence. The language is descriptive and avoids overtly biased or emotionally cha
The Los Angeles Times reviews Nathan Fielder's documentary 'You Can See Everything,' which explores the life of Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of Theranos, after her conviction for fraud. The film, directed by Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, follows Holmes and her partner Billy Evans in the months leading up to her imprisonment. The documentary delves into the complexities of Holmes' personality and the challenges faced by the filmmakers in distinguishing genuine emotion from staged performances. Fielder, known for his experimental approach in previous projects, expresses confusion over his experience working on the film. The piece highlights several unusual moments captured in the documentary, including Evans' commitment to radical transparency, which led to highly personal and revealing scenes.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced overview of the documentary without taking a stance on Elizabeth Holmes' guilt or innocence. It focuses on the filmmaking process and the portrayal of Holmes and her partner, avoiding any overt political commentary or biased language.
Why factuality (85): The article accurately summarizes the Telluride Film Festival premiere of 'You Can See Everything', mentioning the strict phone policies, the film's focus on Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans, and Fielder's reflections on the experience. However, it omits some specific details from the primary source
Why objectivity (80): The article is generally neutral in tone, presenting facts about the film and its reception. It includes a disclaimer advising readers to avoid spoilers, which shows consideration for the viewer experience. However, the title 'The 10 biggest revelations...' suggests a focus on dramatic elements, whi
This article discusses a documentary featuring comedian Nathan Fielder and former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, exploring Holmes' public persona and her legal troubles stemming from the Theranos fraud scandal. Holmes, facing an 11-year prison sentence, collaborated with A24 and Fielder to create a film documenting her final days of freedom. Fielder, known for his satirical docu-reality show 'Nathan for You,' attempts to uncover the truth behind Holmes' actions and motivations. Despite widespread evidence against her, Holmes maintains her innocence throughout the trial. The article highlights the ambiguity surrounding both Fielder's and Holmes' identities, questioning whether they are performing or being genuine.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced exploration of Elizabeth Holmes' legal issues and Nathan Fielder's comedic approach without overtly favoring either side. It does not exhibit clear bias toward one perspective over another.
Why factuality (85): The TechCrunch article accurately summarizes the documentary's content and provides relevant background on Elizabeth Holmes and Nathan Fielder. It correctly references the film's production context and the involvement of A24. However, it includes some interpretive elements, such as the quote from Fi
Why objectivity (75): The article adopts a slightly informal and conversational tone, using phrases like 'weird' and 'impossible project.' While it presents facts objectively, it also injects a degree of personal commentary and humor, which may affect its overall neutrality. The framing suggests a certain admiration for
Nathan Fielder's documentary 'You Can See Everything' follows Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder of Theranos, in the 34 days leading up to her sentencing for fraud. The film captures Holmes, her partner Billy Evans, and their family, creating a complex portrayal of Holmes' persona and actions. Fielder, initially intending to remain behind the camera, becomes increasingly involved in confronting Holmes directly. The documentary has become a significant cultural phenomenon, drawing attention for its unique approach and the intriguing nature of its subject.
Bias read (Center): The article discusses a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, focusing on the film's content and reception rather than taking a stance on the political implications of the Theranos scandal. The framing appears balanced, presenting both the film's perspective and the broader public and媒体反应
Why factuality (85): Slate article accurately describes the documentary and its subject, Elizabeth Holmes, with specific references to the film's content and context. It correctly identifies the timeline of events and accurately represents the film's premise and the filmmakers' approach. However, it includes some interp
Why objectivity (70): The article presents a somewhat critical view of the documentary, emphasizing its complexity and the challenges of understanding Holmes. It uses phrases like 'jaw-dropping second half' which introduce a degree of enthusiasm and potential bias. The tone is engaging but occasionally leans towards a mo
The article discusses the documentary 'You Can See Everything,' which follows Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of Theranos, during the 34 days before her incarceration. Holmes was convicted of fraud in 2018 and began serving an 11-year prison sentence in 2023. The film, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, was created after Holmes and her partner Billy Evans sought to present a more accurate portrayal of her life, emphasizing her role as a devoted mother and partner rather than the public figure vilified in media narratives. The documentary features Fielder interacting directly with Holmes, questioning her claims of transparency while capturing moments where her responses appear evasive. The piece critiques the impossibility of complete neutrality in documentary filmmaking, highlighting how the creators' perspectives influence the narrative.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced overview of the documentary, discussing both the filmmaker's approach and the subject matter without overtly favoring one perspective. It acknowledges the complexity of portraying individuals in documentaries and does not take a clear stance on Holmes' actions or the誠
Why factuality (75): The TIME article provides a detailed overview of the documentary and its subject, Elizabeth Holmes, with specific references to events and details from the primary source. However, it includes speculative commentary about the film's impact and interpretation, which introduces some subjectivity. Whil
Why objectivity (60): The article presents a critical view of the documentary, questioning its neutrality and suggesting it may not be as objective as claimed. It uses phrases like 'not so fast' and 'groundbreaking documentary work' which imply judgment. The tone leans toward skepticism about the film's ability to presen
The AtlanticIndependent🔒CenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 85
The article discusses Elizabeth Holmes, former CEO of the defunct medical startup Theranos, known for her charismatic but controversial leadership style reminiscent of Steve Jobs. Holmes promised revolutionary blood-testing technology but ultimately faced legal consequences, including an 11-year prison sentence for fraud. The documentary 'You Can See Everything' follows comedian Nathan Fielder as he spends time with Holmes before her incarceration, exploring whether she is a manipulative figure or simply delusional about her own abilities. The film captures Fielder's attempts to discern truth from performance in Holmes's behavior, highlighting the complexity of human perception and the difficulty of judging intent.
Bias read (Center): The article focuses on Elizabeth Holmes and her actions related to Theranos, which involve legal and ethical issues rather than direct political content. While the subject involves corporate misconduct and legal consequences, the framing remains neutral, presenting both Holmes's perspective and the
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a balanced tone, presenting facts without overt bias. It frames the documentary as an exploration of human perception and does not take sides in evaluating Holmes or the film itself. The language is measured and avoids emotional or loaded terms, maintaining a neutral stance.
The AtlanticIndependent🔒CenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 70
The article discusses the Theranos scandal, focusing on Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of the now-defunct biotech company, who was convicted of fraud for misleading investors about the capabilities of her technology. Despite her imprisonment, Holmes continues to assert her innocence and claims that Theranos was on the verge of achieving its goals. A new documentary titled 'You Can See Everything' explores Holmes's life during the final days before her sentencing, revealing her continued belief in her vision. The film highlights the surreal nature of Holmes's situation, drawing comparisons to fictional narratives where reality becomes blurred. The article reflects on how Holmes's story resonates with broader themes of deception and projection in modern politics.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the Theranos case as a cautionary tale with implications for trust in leadership and transparency, but does not take a clear ideological stance. It uses the narrative to draw parallels between Holmes's actions and broader political themes without explicitly favoring any side.
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the whistleblower's viewpoint objectively, quoting his statements directly. However, the framing of the article as a news story with a headline that highlights the whistleblower's perspective introduces a slight bias towards his interpretation of the film.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United States
