Exploring the Documentary “You Can See Everything”

The documentary You Can See Everything by Lance Oppenheim and Nathan Fielder delves into themes that resonate in today’s society. The film examines the notorious collapse of Theranos, centering on Elizabeth Holmes’s journey to rebuild her image after being exposed as a fraudulent figure in the business world.

This story taps into a broader cultural anxiety. Today, many grapple with dishonesty in the so-called grift economy. In an era dominated by fragmented media and filter bubbles, individuals increasingly craft personal versions of truth. Holmes exemplifies the fake it ‘til you make it mentality pervasive in startup culture. Her approach mirrors that of Steve Jobs, evidenced by her signature turtleneck, and exhibits a dangerous form of optimism.

Holmes’s approach led to significant financial investments and ethical breaches in medicine, a field that prioritizes the imperative to do no harm. The film questions the ethical implications of promising future technological potential without current capability.

Oppenheim and Fielder opt not to recount the well-documented details of Theranos. Instead, they focus on Holmes’s statement in 2023 to The New York Times as a lens into possible deception or misconception. Fielder’s skeptical reaction underscores this examination.

Holmes and her partner Billy Evans’s choice to collaborate on this project hints at a strategy to shape their narrative. By confining filming to a few weeks in a San Diego guest house, the couple potentially attempted to project a controlled image before Holmes’s incarceration, a tactic akin to rebranding efforts by corporations.

The film introduces complex questions about Holmes and Evans’s motivations and identities. Are they genuine victims of circumstances, or are they manipulating public perception for sympathy or financial gain? Is Evans’s apparent detachment a strategic play for a potential pardon from a political ally?

The latter half of the film critiques portrayals in media adaptations like The Dropout. Such adaptations often twist reality to craft a compelling narrative. The film suggests that this dramatic license can misrepresent real people, posing ethical concerns.

The documentary effectively scrutinizes not just Holmes and Evans, but also the broader grift economy and the documentary genre itself. While we can see everything in You Can See Everything, the act of seeing does not guarantee understanding. The film itself acknowledges this distinction.

Ian Chaffee’s insights into technology and media underscore the film’s relevance. As society continues to navigate complex landscapes of truth and fiction, documentaries like You Can See Everything become crucial in unpacking these themes.