Remember, Elizabeth Holmes is not to be trusted.
This review contains spoilers.
Fame is often described as the most addictive drug, and for Elizabeth Holmes, that seems to hold true. This notion underpins *You Can See Everything*, a film that delves into various forms of manipulation.
As the CEO of Theranos, Holmes became a prominent figure in the business world, having built a company valued at $9 billion based on a revolutionary blood testing device that claimed to analyze a single drop of blood for multiple health issues. She secured partnerships with major retailers, delivered keynote speeches, and garnered media attention, with high-profile investors like Rupert Murdoch and board members such as Henry Kissinger. However, the facade crumbled when a journalist exposed that Theranos was not using its own technology for most tests, revealing that only 15 tests were conducted on their machines, raising serious doubts about their reliability.
In 2021, I attended Holmes’ fraud trial, where she was convicted of conspiracy and wire fraud. The evidence was overwhelming, including forged documents from pharmaceutical companies and recordings of Holmes making false claims about military testing and the capabilities of her machines. Several former employees testified about their concerns regarding the accuracy of the tests, only to be ignored and subsequently harassed for speaking out.
*You Can See Everything* does not delve into these details; it assumes viewers are somewhat familiar with the Theranos saga. The film began when Holmes approached a studio about creating a documentary, which led to Nathan Fielder, a comedian known for his cringe humor, filming her final month of freedom and maintaining contact during her imprisonment. The central question posed by the film is whether she can be trusted. For those well-versed in the case, the answer is clear (no), yet Fielder finds himself drawn into her narrative.
Early on, Fielder questions Holmes about her choice of him as the storyteller, suggesting it might be easier to deceive him since he isn’t a science journalist. She frames her story as a human one, claiming she has been misunderstood and that she genuinely believed in her invention. As she speaks, her demeanor is calm and sincere, asserting that she has never lied in her life.
It’s a captivating performance, and I might have been swayed by her words if I hadn’t been privy to the extensive trial documentation. At one point, she explains that when she said her machine “can” perform tests, she meant it hypothetically, contingent on the right chemistry being created. This was a familiar argument, leading to a grammar lesson during the trial.
Fielder attempts to engage with this future-tense “can” by showing her the classic comedy routine “Who’s on First,” which she claims not to know. Despite its iconic status, she struggles to grasp the humor, seemingly unable to identify the first baseman. This lack of understanding is puzzling, but it serves her narrative; acknowledging comprehension would mean recognizing how her ambiguous language misled others. Her partner, Billy Evans, suggests her thought process is different from most people’s.
This is somewhat accurate. Fielder, a skilled manipulator in his own right, becomes entangled in Holmes’ story because he doesn’t rely on written records. The only significant footage of Holmes from the Theranos era is a brief clip of her speaking to a journalist, which sparks the “can” discussion. Without a permanent record, conversing with someone who appears confident while lying creates a disorienting experience. Onscreen, Fielder wants to believe her, even if he knows better.
Later, we see a text from Holmes to Fielder, reassuring him that he can move in with her and Evans, which provides context for the title. While Fielder grapples with whether Holmes is sincere or manipulative, I focused on the mechanics of her manipulation. Initially, Fielder appears awkwardly distant, but Holmes draws him in with engaging conversation and intense eye contact. At one point, she explains her flirting technique as prolonged eye contact, creating a sense of intimacy.
Holmes excels at connecting with men, having navigated a male-dominated environment at Theranos. However, her approach is less about seduction in the traditional sense and more about making her interlocutors feel seen and understood. Additionally, she implies that those she speaks to are uniquely qualified to grasp her perspective, enhancing her allure.
Despite this, Fielder sees through Evans’ attempts to sway him, as he tries to convince Fielder that Holmes is misunderstood and that he is special enough to appreciate her side. Fielder dismisses this notion outright.
The latter part of the documentary shifts focus to Evans and his relationship with Holmes, which is equally intriguing for those familiar with her story. During the Theranos years, she was romantically involved with Sunny Balwani, who later became her co-defendant. Holmes successfully argued for their trials to be separated by claiming their relationship was abusive.
In one scene, Evans takes over a task from Holmes, implying he often intervenes in her affairs. Before her imprisonment, he has her photographed to create a digital avatar for potential deepfakes. When Fielder raises concerns about the implications of AI-generated images, Evans shrugs it off. He also manages Holmes’ social media account, posting content that doesn’t align with her usual style, claiming he obtained the password from employees.
Holmes expresses discomfort with media attention, yet this contradicts her willingness to have a film crew document her life. Fielder seems to develop a protective instinct towards her, despite the evidence suggesting Holmes craves the spotlight. During her time at Theranos, Balwani warned her about overexposure, which she dismissed, believing she could control the narrative.
Evans often appears to exert control over Holmes, whether through the AI imagery or her social media presence. He claims to know what she wants without consulting her, which raises alarms for Fielder. In a twist, Fielder employs Amanda Seyfried, who portrays Holmes in a previous miniseries, to reenact off-camera interactions, including a tense moment where Evans demands payment for the documentary.
The film oscillates between Fielder’s discussions with Seyfried and her reenactments, questioning whether Holmes was aware of Evans’ actions or if she was being manipulated yet again. Fielder’s visit to the prison leads to an ambiguous conversation with Holmes, leaving him uncertain about her true understanding of her situation. Seyfried’s probing questions about Fielder’s intentions add another layer of complexity.
As the documentary progresses, Evans’ behavior becomes increasingly erratic, culminating in a paranoid outburst during his meeting with Seyfried. He claims to be armed and expresses disdain for her social media presence, suggesting a volatile mindset. This version of Evans insists that Holmes is unaware of his dealings regarding the documentary profits, further complicating their dynamic.
To maintain her approach at Theranos, Holmes must make sacrifices, relying on men willing to fight her battles. However, this often leads to relationships where control becomes a factor. The men who are eager to protect her may also seek to dominate her, as seen in her past with Balwani and her current relationship with Evans. Fielder’s documentary, while showcasing Holmes, also highlights the potential for manipulation from those around her.
Fielder’s visit to Holmes raises questions about her awareness of the film’s financial aspects, and her claim of having a “head-Evans” to consult suggests a level of detachment. The film’s conclusion reveals that Evans relinquished his financial stake, indicating that the documentary was intended for image rehabilitation, complicating Holmes’ narrative.
Ultimately, the film leaves viewers pondering whether Holmes genuinely believes her own statements. This ambiguity is part of the film’s allure, immersing the audience in the disorienting experience of interacting with Holmes. While she serves as a case study, the broader theme revolves around trust in relationships. In reality, we often lack the ability to pause and consult evidence, forcing us to decide whether to trust others.
Did Fielder fall under Holmes’ spell? The film concludes with a reenacted farewell as she heads to prison, followed by a scene of her comforting him during a breakup over the phone. Their earlier ocean swim invitation contrasts with the film’s closing moments, where they play together in the water.
On one hand, it appears Fielder was indeed manipulated. On the other, the deliberate sequencing of these scenes elevates the film’s artistry. Whether Fielder is orchestrating a narrative or genuinely being influenced remains an open question, leaving viewers to draw their own conclusions.
