Oct 16, 2026 · 25 min
A Holmes documentary turns truth into a moving target
You Can See Everything
The panel weighs whether a formally daring portrait of Elizabeth Holmes can remain compelling when it leaves crucial misconduct out of frame.
- 1The film’s strange, nearly three-hour form makes Holmes’s statements feel both revealing and impossible to verify.
- 2Its reenactments and staged interactions create powerful reactions while obscuring how much viewers are being manipulated.
- 3The panel argues that the documentary’s sympathetic portrait may understate the allegations and established details surrounding Holmes’s conduct.
Don't miss
The panel debates whether Fielder’s apparently spontaneous interactions and Seyfried’s reenactments reveal reality or manufacture it.
The brief
Linda Holmes, Ronald Young Jr., and the panel find You Can See Everything compelling and formally inventive, even as its nearly three-hour portrait of Elizabeth Holmes resists easy interpretation.
The discussion turns on what the film leaves out: its existential questions and Holmes’s apparent literalism may complicate the story, but they can also soften the record of Theranos’s alleged misconduct.
Amanda Seyfried’s reenactments and Nathan Fielder’s staged interactions feel startlingly authentic, prompting the panel to ask whether apparent spontaneity can be trusted.
Comparisons with Four Daughters sharpen the ethical question: should a documentary disclose its construction, or can manipulation itself produce revealing real reactions?
The panel’s final concern is that the film’s ambiguity becomes sympathy, leaving viewers to debate not only what is true but what the documentary chooses not to show.