You Can See Everything (2026)

M Power said:

She just seems like the typical entitled Silicon Valley tech girl only this one got in way too deep for their own good.

Click to expand...

Holmes and her partner Billy Evans invited the film crew to live at home with them and their children during the 34 days prior to Holmes beginning her prison sentence.[6] A24 gave the filmmakers permission to pursue the project without a deadline or obligation to turn the footage into a finished film, with the studio saying that if nothing came of the project it could just be scrapped.[6] According to Fielder, they knew they had a compelling story when crew members disagreed about what was happening in the house, saying: “And that’s when we really realized, 'Oh, this is really interesting to follow this. We’re all smart and we’re really working at the top of our intelligence. Why can’t we make sense of what’s happening in this house?'"[7]


The original plan was for Fielder to remain behind the camera, but the interactions Fielder had with Holmes and Evans were so strange that it was decided to include them in the film.[8]

Click to expand...

‘You Can See Everything’ Review: Nathan Fielder’s Documentary About Elizabeth Holmes Is a Shameless, Fascinating, Reality-TV-Eats-Its-Tail Look at Entitled Duplicity

It's a reality-TV-as-hangout-movie portrait of the Theranos fraudster, which is Fielder's way to ask: What makes someone like Elizabeth Holmes tick?

variety.com

What she tells Fielder, with an implacable conviction that suggests a belief in her own narrative that’s nothing short of monomaniacal, is that the device patented by Theranos, which she sold as “the iPod of health care,” could, in fact, host any blood test that existed. The only thing they hadn’t quite worked out was the chemistry that would go into the tests. In other words, the device was based on the projection of a technology that didn’t exist yet. But the more Holmes talks to Fielder, the more he teases out her unhinged rationale, which is: The device works fine! We just had to figure out that pesky chemistry stuff! The strange thing is that Holmes has such a corporate mindset that she treats the chemistry stuff…that hadn’t been invented yet…as just another glitchy small problem that could easily be solved. (Have the solution on my desk Monday morning!)


She believes her version of reality. Fielder, who is not taken in by any of this (his questions remain rigorous in their skepticism), at one point gives vent to his impish side by showing Elizabeth and Billy the famous Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s on First?” When it ends, he tries to get Holmes to explain what the joke is (that “Who” is the first baseman’s name, but the name sounds like a question — hence the routine’s glorious verbal slapstick). And she can’t do it; she can’t grasp the joke. It’s not just that she lacks a sense of humor (though frankly, she kind of does). It’s that she’s got the malignant narcissist’s need to have words mean only what she decrees them to mean. She can’t hear any other meaning. Hence: her device did “work,” and still does (it can run any test!).

Click to expand...

M Power said:

Assuming any of it ever actually works, would she not get credit in patent payments?

Click to expand...