You Can See Everything is less interested in solving the Elizabeth Holmes mystery than in examining how difficult it is to understand another person. Nathan Fielder’s documentary follows the Theranos founder during the final weeks before she surrendered to federal custody in Bryan, Texas, then expands into a stranger, more self-conscious investigation of truth, performance and manipulation.
A documentary built on uncertainty
Holmes founded Theranos, the health technology company that claimed its device could perform a wide range of blood tests from a single drop. The company collapsed after Holmes was convicted of defrauding investors in 2018. This film does not revisit that scandal as a conventional case study. Instead, it watches Holmes at home with her partner and children while Fielder tries to work out what she believes, what she is presenting and whether those two things can ever be separated.
The approach will be familiar to viewers of The Rehearsal and Nathan for You: ordinary documentary observation gradually becomes an elaborate examination of the filmmaker’s own methods. For newcomers, the film can be an uncomfortable introduction. Fielder’s fascination with social behaviour often produces humour, but it also puts the audience in the awkward position of watching people reveal themselves without knowing how much of the situation is being shaped.
That interest in constructed experiences may appeal to readers who enjoy the way interactive entertainment reveals its own systems. RETROCADE’s arcade industry coverage explores similar questions about design, performance and audience perception.
Holmes, Evans and the problem of belief
The film presents Holmes as both a convicted fraudster and a person whose behaviour can seem vulnerable, confused or emotionally opaque. Those impressions are constantly undermined by the history surrounding her. A disputed account of her public persona, the language she uses to explain Theranos and the way she responds to direct questions all sit beside the possibility that trauma, neurodivergence or coercive relationships may have affected how she communicates.
None of those possibilities cancels out responsibility. The film’s tension comes from refusing to provide a clean answer. Holmes may sincerely understand events differently from the people around her; she may also be capable of deliberate deception. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and Fielder is willing to let that contradiction remain unresolved.
Her relationship with Billy Evans adds another layer of discomfort. Holmes is serving her sentence and facing the consequences of the Theranos case, while Evans remains outside prison. The documentary repeatedly suggests that he controls the way their life is presented, becoming guarded when Fielder asks questions or seeks access to Holmes’s family. Moments involving domestic routines, staged-looking emotion and a shared vocabulary make the audience wonder whether the couple are simply unusual, deeply co-dependent or following a rehearsed account of their lives.
The film also references Holmes’s account of being raped while at Stanford, a traumatic experience that may have influenced later relationships. Fielder discusses the subject without turning it into a simple explanation for her choices. An interview with WIRED offers additional context about the making of the documentary.
When communication becomes the subject
One of the film’s most revealing ideas concerns the gap between what people say and what others hear. Holmes’s defence of the word “can” becomes a miniature version of the entire Theranos argument: a statement may be technically possible, yet listeners can reasonably understand it as a promise that something is already working.
That distinction is not merely verbal. Headlines, interviews and dramatic reconstructions all create meanings that may exceed the intentions of the people who made them. The documentary repeatedly asks whether Holmes is misunderstood, deliberately evasive or both. It never completely settles the matter, leaving viewers to sit with suspicion rather than rewarding them with a final revelation.
The film also raises questions about Holmes’s self-presentation. A New York Times report has been associated with the claim that her public identity was a “character”, though Holmes disputes saying that. The documentary leaves that dispute hanging over every apparent confession and emotional reaction.
Amanda Seyfried changes the film
The second half deliberately breaks from the observational structure. Amanda Seyfried, who played Holmes in The Dropout, joins Fielder and recreates scenes he could not capture directly. Her presence gives the audience a surrogate: someone who can watch the footage, react with disbelief and challenge the filmmaker more openly than he can challenge his own subjects.
Seyfried’s involvement also exposes information about Evans seeking payment from the production and about the way Holmes and Evans describe their relationship. When the pair use strikingly similar phrases in different situations, the film begins to resemble an investigation into a shared script. The repeated language makes their story feel coordinated, even if the audience cannot prove exactly how or why.
Her conversations with Fielder also reveal his possible emotional investment. He may have begun the project intending to observe Holmes, only to develop sympathy for her or become concerned about the influence Evans has over her public image. A later sequence in which Fielder enters cold water, echoing an earlier rule he had set for himself, turns that private conflict into a symbolic ending.
Is the filmmaker compromised?
Fielder is not positioned as a neutral investigator. His discomfort, curiosity and apparent attachment become part of the material. The documentary hints that he may have withheld or softened information because he came to care about Holmes, while also showing enough questionable behaviour to keep that interpretation unstable.
That makes the film different from a straightforward examination of the Theranos collapse. Anyone expecting a definitive explanation of what Holmes knew, when she knew it or who controlled the company may leave frustrated. The film is more interested in the limits of evidence and the way every account is filtered through memory, performance, editing and personal experience.
For a related look at how carefully chosen hardware shapes an audience’s experience, RETROCADE’s arcade video collection offers a different kind of behind-the-scenes perspective.
What the title means
You Can See Everything sounds like an invitation to complete access. In practice, the title becomes a warning. Seeing a person’s home, relationships and private conversations does not mean knowing their motives. The film also plays with the difference between what someone can do and what they actually will do, turning a small piece of language into a question about promises, capability and interpretation.
Even the title’s presentation can be read in more than one direction: “You Can See Everything” or “Everything You Can See”. That ambiguity captures the documentary’s central argument. The audience receives plenty of information, but information is not the same as certainty.
Final thoughts
You Can See Everything is best approached as an experiment in uncertainty rather than a definitive Elizabeth Holmes biography. Its first half observes Holmes’s final days before custody; its second half uses reenactment, commentary and Fielder’s own doubts to question what documentary truth can achieve.
The result is uncomfortable, often darkly funny and deliberately incomplete. It does not prove whether Holmes is naïve, manipulative, traumatised, calculating or some combination of all four. Instead, it shows how quickly viewers build explanations from fragments, and how difficult it is to separate a person from the stories others construct around them.
The film’s emphasis on constructed spaces may also interest readers considering their own entertainment setups. RETROCADE’s arcade machine buying guide explains how to assess a cabinet, while the arcade machines collection covers upright options for home play.
Leave a Reply