You Can See Everything (Nathan Fielder/Lance Oppenheim, 2026)

[brundlefly]

Teasing You Can See Everything, "a documentary by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. Featuring Elizabeth Holmes."

[denti alligator]

Can’t wait!

[Lowry_Sam]

Looks promising, too bad I can't say the same for Alex Gibney's Musk teaser.

The 2 movies could make an interesting double bill though.

[flyonthewall2983]

Teasing You Can See Everything, "a documentary by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. Featuring Elizabeth Holmes."

174 minutes is a diabolical runtime for this

[nitin]

Spoiler

apparently she goes to jail around the halfway point, and Fielder brings in Amanda Seyfried, who played her in The Dropout, to read transcripts of her convos with Fielder from jail and her performance seems realer than the real Holmes

[Guido]

It's hilarious to me that in the midst of A-listers coming to the defense of something like Digger (are they expecting their peers to return the favor when they bravely make their own vacuous, bloated project to the tune of 180 million that communicates nothing but platitudes?), audiences are selling out screenings of Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim's staggering and remarkable new film.

I'm still processing what I believe will turn out to be the film of the year for me, but I'll just note how refreshing it was to see 500+ people glued to their seats for three hours, audibly shifting and laughing and gasping at the slightest change in someone's facial expression. We were all budding anthropologists last night, forced to confront the truly alien nature of other human beings and thrilled to be challenged in exactly that way.

Can't wait to see it again. It's "Finding Frances" cranked up to 11.

[domino harvey]

So this looks on track to be the first documentary to be nominated for Best Picture

[Never Cursed]

Looks promising, too bad I can't say the same for Alex Gibney's Musk teaser.

For what it's worth: the Gibney (NOT this film, the Fielder/Oppenheim) apparently uses a ton of AI-generated images.

[The Narrator Returns]

So this looks on track to be the first documentary to be nominated for Best Picture

I’m very curious whether it achieves what seems like a pipe dream at the moment, an acting nomination for a documentary. The person in question (noted in the one spoiler comment here so far) would sure deserve it.

[Lowry_Sam]

Though she gets out of prison soon, it's not soon enough to accept an award if she wins.

[therewillbeblus]

There's too much to say about this movie. It's obviously hysterical, but there was a real human element too that balanced the humor well. We're presented with opportunities for sympathy and scorn and soft confusion and loud information, layers of dissection to demonstrate the unknowability of people, as well as the inherent barriers to 'genuine' documentary filmmaking. On the most basic level, it furthers Fielder's forever-search for truth and authenticity while blurring the lines intentionally to show the insanity of doing that, which strangely recalls Godard more than any other comparative artist to the cause. I bet Godard would have loved Fielder's work, and respected his mission

[Walter Kurtz]

That's an astute observation, blu. Godard deconstructed cinema. Fielder deconstructs life.

[Mr Sausage]

Spoiler

Bringing Amanda Seyfried in as Holmes upends the entire movie. She's terrific as Holmes, but she's also so much warmer and more human than the real Holmes, even when directly mimicking her. She's more restrained, too. Those mannerisms are far more exaggerated in the real Holmes. I found myself enjoying the stuff with Seyfried, playing Holmes or otherwise, more than the stuff with Holmes herself just for how much life Seyfried brings to the movie. Holmes and Billy are such stifling presences, while Seyfried seems like a regular, genuine person. She gives direct answers, offers real opinions, has comprehensible reactions like defensiveness, or shock, or embarrassment, even a bit of ego at times, and it just throws into relief how offputting and opaque Billy and Elizabeth are. That these real people, touting their openness and honesty, are outdone at openness and honesty by a longtime Hollywood performer is one of the many baffling things in this movie. So the film turns inside out, the recreations with Seyfried becoming so much more humanly comprehensible and inviting than any of the supposedly real moments with the real Holmes. It gives you the bizarre sensation that the Hulu series (which I haven't seen) may also be more real than the actual people and events.

When the screen faded to black I kept hoping it was just a long transition and not the end, which sadly it was. Three hours and I still kept wanting to see more.

[domino harvey]

I have spoilered your post because right now this aspect is being closely guarded, though it won’t be for long since everyone agrees we may see an impossible to predict before this Oscar acting nomination for a documentary (though I guess you could count Maria Bakalova if you consider Borat 2 a doc) and they’re going to campaign them hard because there’s no front runner in

Spoiler

the supporting actress category

[Mr Sausage]

Oh, really? I had it spoiled for me so casually I figured it was just an open fact of the movie.

[hearthesilence]

I don't care about spoilers as much as other people, but you definitely "spoiled" it for me. I'm not upset about it - if anything, it's convinced me to go see it soon - but I definitely wasn't aware.

[Never Cursed]

Most reviews went out of their way not to discuss the now hidden aspect of the film, though as with Digger I don’t think knowing it going in will ruin the experience

[therewillbeblus]

Most reviews went out of their way not to discuss the now hidden aspect of the film, though as with Digger I don’t think knowing it going in will ruin the experience

The reveal elicited some of the strongest audience reactions and was one of my favorite experiences watching the film. I had no idea where it was going before then and in that reveal instantly knew because of familiarity with his previous work

[Mr Sausage]

Oh I believe you guys. I just genuinely thought it was out in the open for whatever reason. Apologies to anyone I spoiled this to.

[The Narrator Returns]

I was told about the reveal I think before it even premiered, and it did make me more excited for it. And it still preserved the wonderful shock of the reveal of

Spoiler

the second reenactment actor, which I laughed and laughed at. When you need a guy to instantly come off as a thoughtless and/or abusive douchebag, Christopher Abbott is your man.

[bearcuborg]

Oh I believe you guys. I just genuinely thought it was out in the open for whatever reason. Apologies to anyone I spoiled this to.

I’m completely unfamiliar with the filmmakers and only superficially aware of the subject matter of this movie…but I’ve seen this spoiler discussed casually online. I can see how you thought it wasn’t a big deal but ever since I learned of it I wish I had seen this movie sooner.

[Matt]

This is either the Godzilla vs. Kong of master manipulators, Fielder meeting his match and ending in a stalemate ("Oh, okay" vs. "I don't know"), or this is the incredibly sad story of a credulous and damaged woman, possibly high-functioning autistic, being serially manipulated by men. Whatever's going on with her, I can't recall a moment when I saw Holmes' mask slip for even a second, if there's even a mask there at all. I feel sorry for her, but maybe I'm just a dupe too.

I feel like even after three hours I still know nothing about her. I didn't pay much attention to Theranos as the story was developing and haven't seen either the HBO documentary or the Hulu series, so I had no real idea what to expect here. I think I saw someone online characterize it as "The Rehearsal" season 3, but that doesn't seem like an accurate assessment at all.

The "Who's on First" bit was the hardest I laughed all year, full-on crying and wheezing with laughter. It feels more key to the film than anything that comes after. Like, she completely does not get it, even when Fielder spoon-feeds her the reasons why it's funny. She clearly has no cultural literacy or sense of humor, yet she's desperate to convince Fielder that she not only gets the jokes but fully understands why the bit is funny.

Spoiler

But when he pointedly asks her "who's on first base" and she says "I don't know," I absolutely lost it.

It seems very clear to me at that moment that she could be easily manipulated into saying anything without her realizing that she's being manipulated. Or she's a comedic genius. A deadpan Gracie Allen.

Did you know Ghislaine Maxwell is at the same prison as Holmes? As is former Real Housewife Jen Shah.

[Never Cursed]

This is either the Godzilla vs. Kong of master manipulators, Fielder meeting his match and ending in a stalemate ("Oh, okay" vs. "I don't know"), or this is the incredibly sad story of a credulous and damaged woman, possibly high-functioning autistic, being serially manipulated by men. Whatever's going on with her, I can't recall a moment when I saw Holmes' mask slip for even a second, if there's even a mask there at all. I feel sorry for her, but maybe I'm just a dupe too.

I've seen this dichotomy recapitulated online in almost every written reaction to the film, but I'm not really sure how much I buy it, or whether these are the only two options re: Holmes. Watching the sections of the movie with Holmes I was reminded of a perhaps tongue-in-cheek interview with Julia Fox where she provided "media-trained" vs. "non-media-trained" answers to a bunch of revealing questions. And while the ostensible joke in each question was that every answer was completely flipped, the less lurid, more interesting aspect to me was stylistic: all of her media-trained answers are evasive, formal, circumlocuitous, and provide equivocal, non-controversial answers in the language of morals or socially-appropriate emotional reactions. All of her "real" answers are blunt, informal, and more proudly, and perhaps righteously, self-interested (not a judgment of Fox, just an observation). (Whether we can trust that these "non-media-trained" answers are themselves real reflections of Julia Fox is another question entirely).

I bring this up because whenever Holmes spoke, I thought her statements were always of a piece with those found in settings where media-trained people spoke (and Holmes obviously, self-consciously participated in media training - hence her weird vocal inflection, for instance). These are fine in the usual milieus of the rich and famous - red carpets, formal interviews, criminal depositions - but incongruous in the film's setting of ostensible "radical honesty" to such a comical degree that Fielder only needs to look confused to draw huge laughs. This doesn't mean Holmes is a "master manipulator" - the extent to which this is a persona notwithstanding, the openly self-conscious, insecure Fielder is hardly a tough mark that would require expert manipulation - just someone who knows how not to crack when cameras are pointed at her, even at the expense of looking ridiculous.

Why point cameras at her at all, though? Why participate in a radical honesty exercise when everyone knows she is a liar? Holmes was convicted of fraud; that is to say, intentionally and consciously deceiving investors for profit. No matter how unrealistic the prospect of her receiving amnesty is (or, well, should be...), she maintains an attitude of innocence throughout her interviews that feeds into and needs to match her claims that she had only unintentionally misled her former partners or made optimistic statements that were radically over-interpreted by them (both of these were claims that she made in her defense at her trial). This is why her "mask doesn't slip" - it can't - even if she has to play dumb. She still believes that she can at least get out of prison early, and at best can still become a biotech prodigy. Part of this is probably the same kind of success-driven delusion that infects all hustlers and entrepreneurs (as Billy's associate notes just before Billy shuts down the interview with him), and part of it is probably her sincere belief that she at least does not deserve what has happened to her, nurtured by a parasitic partner. Unlike you, I felt like I could at least pathologize her by the time the credits rolled. She is very of a piece with the Silicon Valley tech monsters she came up around. The main point of difference is that, unlike the nerdy and unpleasant upstart successes and failures (Zuckerberg, Altman, Bankman-Fried) that routinely draw headlines in that world, she was charismatic and media-forward before her downfall.

The reason that the film's sudden, forced pivot to Billy, a far less interesting subject, works at all is because he trying to do the same thing as Holmes and is a part of Holmes' project, but is outright bad at it. He's the Williamson to Holmes' Ricky Roma, and like that character fucks up by opening his mouth at the wrong times. Unlike Holmes, who never cracks or even indirectly reveals harmful information, Billy is obviously new to the world of lying to interviewers on camera and constantly makes mistakes. Some of them (filming him nude in the shower) are merely embarrassing or revealing of his personality; others, like his discussion of the profits from the documentary or his increasing impositions on Fielder and Oppenheim's creative decisions as they shadow him, indicate a ham-handed attempt at spin or gain that can be incorporated into the content of the documentary Unlike Holmes, his cynicism is on full display, can be made the subject of his depictions,

Spoiler

and is the root of Fielder and Amanda Seyfried's growing revulsion towards him. It is worth thinking about Seyfried's role in all this. She comes off so incredibly well in the film - as an actor, as a human being that can somehow come off as "grounded" and "real" despite being rich and famous and owning a horse sanctuary for fun, as a much-needed sincere female counterpart to the masculine interlocutors - that she's now a dark horse candidate for an acting Oscar for her work in a three-hour-long documentary no one knew about two months ago. It is impossible for that to happen accidentally, or even as a consequence of well-executed marketing and hype; the second half of the film is crafted around her as a trustworthy, controlled (literally directed) counterpart to Holmes. But Seyfried is no less a product of media training and proper comportment than Holmes; she is only better-positioned to benefit (and fairly so) from her participation. Her disagreements with Fielder are self-serving, but always presented with plausible deniability, with at least the sheen of moral and political righteousness. I'm not accusing her of dishonesty or greed - she probably meant every word she said in the film, and maybe symptomatically, I believed everything she said in the film - just noting that, in a way, she and Holmes use the same strategies. I guess for me, the movie is more interesting as an exploration of how much and how little that matters, how much effort can bring to a performance and how much the same performance is circumscribed by circumstance and past choice, than as an attempt to peek inside the mind of a strange subject.