Majka Jones pregledava dokumentarac 'Možeš vidjeti sve', u režiji Nathana Fieldera i Lancea Oppenheima, koji prati Elizabeth Holmes u posljednjim tjednima prije njezine savezne zatvorske kazne. Film pruža intimni pristup Holmesovom osobnom životu, uključujući njezine interakcije s djecom i pravne pripreme za zatvaranje. Dok su Holmesove prošle akcije kao osnivača Theranosa dobro poznate, dokumentarac istražuje dublja egzistencijalna pitanja o percepciji i razumijevanju pojedinaca. Film naglašava emocionalno sirove trenutke Holmesove, kao što je njena vidljiva nevolja tijekom Zoom poziva s odvjetnicima, podižući pitanja o autentičnosti i da li su ti prikazi istinski ili dio strategije za stjecanje simpatije javnosti. Pregled priznaje složenost gledanja na Holmesa kao osuđenog prevaranta i ranjivog ljudskog bića.
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.
Idi na primarne izvore (10)
Službeni izvori na kojima se izvještavanje temelji. Pročitaj ih izravno da zaobiđeš uokvirivanje.
Ovaj članak govori o dokumentarcu 'You Can See Everything', koji prati Elizabeth Holmes, bivšu izvršnu direktoricu Theranosa, u razdoblju neposredno prije njenog zatvaranja zbog prevare. Film, koji su režirali Nathan Fielder i Lance Oppenheim, pruža neviđeni pristup Holmesovom osobnom životu, uključujući i njezinu obitelj, ali ostavlja njezinu pravu prirodu dvosmislenom. Dok se Holmes smatra prevarantskom figurom, dokumentarac istražuje je li namjerna manipulatorka ili složena osoba koja se bori s samoobmanom. Film ne opravdava njezine zločine, već nudi duboku empatiju, izazivajući pojednostavljene prikaze zlikovaca. Predstavlja nijansiran pogled na Holmesa, naglašavajući teškoće razumijevanja nekoga tko je počinio ozbiljan grijeh.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja uravnoteženu perspektivu o Elizabeth Holmes i njezinom dokumentarcu, priznajući njezine kriminalne postupke dok istražuje psihološku složenost njenog lika. Nema otvorene ideološke pristranosti ili selektivnog prikupljanja; fokus je na narativnoj i emocionalnoj dubini纪录片
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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.
Majka Jones pregledava dokumentarac 'Možeš vidjeti sve', u režiji Nathana Fieldera i Lancea Oppenheima, koji prati Elizabeth Holmes u posljednjim tjednima prije njezine savezne zatvorske kazne. Film pruža intimni pristup Holmesovom osobnom životu, uključujući njezine interakcije s djecom i pravne pripreme za zatvaranje. Dok su Holmesove prošle akcije kao osnivača Theranosa dobro poznate, dokumentarac istražuje dublja egzistencijalna pitanja o percepciji i razumijevanju pojedinaca. Film naglašava emocionalno sirove trenutke Holmesove, kao što je njena vidljiva nevolja tijekom Zoom poziva s odvjetnicima, podižući pitanja o autentičnosti i da li su ti prikazi istinski ili dio strategije za stjecanje simpatije javnosti. Pregled priznaje složenost gledanja na Holmesa kao osuđenog prevaranta i ranjivog ljudskog bića.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se iznosi uravnotežen pogled na dokumentarac, priznajući kako emocionalni portret Elizabeth Holmes, tako i šire etička pitanja koja se postavljaju. Ne zauzima jasan stav o Holmesovoj krivici ili nevinosti, niti favorizira bilo koju posebnu perspektivu u dokumentarcu.
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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.
STAT NewsNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 85Objektivnost 80
Ovaj članak raspravlja o nedavnom razvoju u zdravstvenoj zaštiti i biotehnologiji, uključujući ažuriranja sa STAT samita, napore za korporativnu odgovornost od strane Ministarstva pravosuđa, napredak u cjepivima protiv raka od strane Mercka i Moderne i američke političke razmatranja u vezi s kineskim rastom biotehnologije. Također spominje novi dokumentarac o Elizabeth Holmes, bivši Theranos CEO, postavljen za puštanje uskoro.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak pokriva više tema, uključujući korporativnu odgovornost, biotehnološke inovacije i međunarodne političke rasprave. Iako su u tim područjima uključeni politički elementi, sadržaj ostaje uravnotežen, predstavljajući različite perspektive bez otvorene favoriziranja bilo koje određene strane. Ne postoji rob.
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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 recenzira dokumentarac Nathan Fielder 'Možete vidjeti sve', koji istražuje život Elizabeth Holmes, bivši izvršni direktor Theranos, nakon osude za prevaru. Film, koji su režirali Fielder i Lance Oppenheim, prati Holmes i njenog partnera Billyja Evansa u mjesecima prije njezina zatvaranja. Dokumentarac istražuje složenost Holmesove osobnosti i izazove s kojima se suočavaju filmski stvaraoci u razlikovanju istinskih emocija od insceniranih nastupa. Fielder, poznat po svom eksperimentalnom pristupu u prethodnim projektima, izražava zbunjenost zbog svog iskustva rada na filmu. Ovaj komad naglašava nekoliko neobičnih trenutaka snimljenih u dokumentarcu, uključujući Evansovu posvećenost radikalnoj transparentnosti, što je dovelo do vrlo osobnih i otkrivajućih scena.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak pruža uravnotežen pregled dokumentarca bez zauzimanja stava o krivnji ili nevinosti Elizabeth Holmes. Usredotočen je na proces snimanja filma i prikazivanje Holmes i njenog partnera, izbjegavajući bilo kakav otvoreni politički komentar ili pristran jezik.
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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
Ovaj članak raspravlja o dokumentarcu u kojem glume komičar Nathan Fielder i bivša izvršna direktorica Theranosa Elizabeth Holmes, istražujući Holmesovu javnu osobnost i njene pravne probleme koji proizlaze iz skandala prijevare Theranosa. Holmes, suočen s 11-godišnjom zatvorskom kaznom, surađivao je s A24 i Fielderom kako bi stvorio film koji dokumentira njene posljednje dane slobode. Fielder, poznat po svojoj satiričnoj docu-reality emisiji 'Nathan for You', pokušava otkriti istinu iza Holmesovih postupaka i motiva. Unatoč široko rasprostranjenim dokazima protiv nje, Holmes je održavao svoju nevinost tijekom suđenja. U članku se naglašava dvosmislenost oko identiteta Fielder i Holmes, postavljajući pitanje jesu li glumci ili autentični.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja uravnoteženo istraživanje pravnih pitanja Elizabeth Holmes i Nathan Fielder je komični pristup bez otvoreno favorizira nijednu stranu. Ne pokazuje jasnu pristranost prema jednoj perspektivi u odnosu na drugu.
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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 Fielderov dokumentarac 'You Can See Everything' prati Elizabeth Holmes, osramoćenu osnivačicu Theranosa, u 34 dana prije osude zbog prevare. Film prikazuje Holmes, njenog partnera Billyja Evansa i njihovu obitelj, stvarajući složen prikaz Holmesove ličnosti i postupaka. Fielder, koji je u početku namjeravao ostati iza kamere, postaje sve više uključen u suočavanje s Holmesom izravno. Dokumentarni film postao je značajan kulturni fenomen, privlačeći pozornost svojim jedinstvenim pristupom i intrigantnom prirodom svoje teme.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se govori o dokumentarcu o Elizabeth Holmes i Theranosu, fokusirajući se na sadržaj i prihvaćanje filma umjesto da zauzme stav o političkim implikacijama Theranos skandala. Okvir izgleda uravnoteženo, predstavljajući i perspektivu filma i širu javnost i reakciju medija.
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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
Članak govori o dokumentarcu 'You Can See Everything', koji prati Elizabeth Holmes, bivšu izvršnu direktoricu Theranosa, tijekom 34 dana prije njenog zatvaranja. Holmes je osuđen za prevaru 2018. godine i počeo je odslužiti kaznu zatvora od 11 godina 2023. godine. Film, u režiji Nathana Fieldera i Lancea Oppenheima, nastao je nakon što su Holmes i njezin partner Billy Evans pokušali predstaviti točniji prikaz njenog života, naglašavajući njenu ulogu odane majke i partnera, a ne javnu ličnost koja je okaljana u medijskim narativima. Dokumentarac prikazuje Fielder u izravnoj interakciji s Holmesom, dovodeći u pitanje njezine tvrdnje o transparentnosti dok snima trenutke u kojima se njezini odgovori čine izbjegavajućim. U djelu se kritizira nemogućnost potpune neutralnosti u dokumentarnom filmskom stvaralaštvu, naglašavajući kako perspektiva stvaralaca utječe na naraciju.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak pruža uravnotežen pregled dokumentarnog filma, raspravljajući i o pristupu filma i o temi, bez da otvoreno favorizira jednu perspektivu. Prepoznaje složenost prikaza pojedinaca u dokumentarcima i ne zauzima jasan stav o Holmesovim postupcima ili iskrenoj
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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 AtlanticNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice: nije otkriven službeni izvor/dokumentObjektivnost 85
Članak govori o Elizabeth Holmes, bivšoj izvršnoj direktorici mrtvog medicinskog startapa Theranos, poznatoj po svom karizmatičnom ali kontroverznom stilu vođenja koji podsjeća na Steve Jobsa. Holmes je obećao revolucionarnu tehnologiju testiranja krvi, ali se na kraju suočio s pravnim posljedicama, uključujući 11-godišnju zatvorsku kaznu zbog prijevare. Dokumentarac 'Možeš vidjeti sve' prati komičara Nathana Fieldera dok provodi vrijeme s Holmesom prije njenog zatvora, istražujući je li ona manipulativna figura ili jednostavno obmana o vlastitim sposobnostima. Film prikazuje Fielderove pokušaje da razlikuje istinu od izvedbe u Holmesovom ponašanju, naglašavajući složenost ljudske percepcije i poteškoće u ocjenjivanju namjere.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak se fokusira na Elizabeth Holmes i njezine postupke vezane uz Theranos, koji uključuju pravna i etička pitanja, a ne izravni politički sadržaj. Dok je tema uključuje korporativno zlostavljanje i pravne posljedice, Okvir ostaje neutralna, predstavljajući i Holmes perspektivu i
Zašto činjenice: nije otkriven službeni izvor/dokument
Zašto objektivnost (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 AtlanticNeovisan🔒SredinaČinjenice: nije otkriven službeni izvor/dokumentObjektivnost 70
U članku se govori o Theranos skandalu, fokusirajući se na Elizabeth Holmes, bivšu izvršnu direktoricu biotehnološke tvrtke, koja je osuđena za prijevaru zbog obmanjivanja investitora o mogućnostima svoje tehnologije. Unatoč zatvoru, Holmes nastavlja tvrditi svoju nevinost i tvrdi da je Theranos bio na ivici postizanja svojih ciljeva. Novi dokumentarac pod nazivom 'Možeš vidjeti sve' istražuje Holmesov život tijekom posljednjih dana prije njezine kazne, otkrivajući njeno neprekidno vjerovanje u svoju viziju. Film naglašava nadrealnu prirodu Holmesove situacije, uspoređujući se s izmišljenim pričama u kojima stvarnost postaje mutna. Članak govori o tome kako Holmesova priča rezonira s širim temama obmane i projekcije u modernoj politici.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se Theranos slučaj predstavlja kao opomena koja ima implikacije za povjerenje u vodstvo i transparentnost, ali ne zauzima jasan ideološki stav. Koristi priču kako bi izvukla paralele između Holmesovih akcija i širih političkih tema bez izričito favoriziranja bilo koje strane.
Zašto činjenice: nije otkriven službeni izvor/dokument
Zašto objektivnost (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.
Kako je izvijestila svaka strana
Isti događaj, grupiran prema političkom nagibu medija koji su o njemu izvještavali.
progresivno
sredina
konzervativno
★
Kako je izvijestila svaka strana
Podržite neovisne vijesti svjesne pristranosti i otključajte društveni puls, glasovanje zajednice i sve ostale značajke za podupiratelje.
United States
