As of this writing, You Can See Everything has the second highest Best Picture odds (which would make it the first documentary to even be nominated) and is the highest rated movie on Metacritic of the decade. It would be fair to say the hype is immense.
So, does it live up to the hype? Perhaps fitting for a Nathan Fielder project, the answer is complicated and depends on your perspective. For those who are fans of Fielder’s existing work, the answer will be a resounding yes. Fielder goes far beyond just capturing the subject in front of him. He delivers all the awkward and funny moments you’d expect, driven by Fielder’s small observations and deadpan style. (Plus, some male nudity.) He opens the door for—but does not force—some insane people to say some absurd things. Even if you aren’t a big fan of Fielder’s other work, the movie is often hilarious. In other words, if your reaction to this movie announcement was “this is the best shenanigan Nathan Fielder has come up with yet,” you will love it.
If you were drawn to the film because Fielder seems like a fascinating choice to draw out the truth about who Elizabeth Holmes really is, then you might leave feeling a bit more mixed. To be sure, there is still plenty of good, even great. Most interesting are the questions that Fielder brings up about documentary as a form. Of course, the biases a documentary creator holds will impact any film they make, but Fielder brings this observation to the forefront. He openly acknowledges that he may be compromised and charmed by Holmes, an expert manipulator, and doesn’t give the audience any clear answers as to how impartial of a film he has delivered. The film’s title, purposely, stands in contrast to the central points of the film: it can be easy to be taken in by a manipulator, it is very hard to know someone’s real intentions, and you should be careful before concluding that you really can see everything about a person or story.
But there are some aspects that are less satisfying. For one, Fielder (whether intentional or not) has some shortcomings as a finder of “truth.” He spent a month with Holmes in the lead up to her incarceration but, honestly, doesn’t get a whole lot out of her during their time together. Figuring out how to salvage an interesting film from this (and Fielder absolutely does) is both a limitation to the film as a pure documentary and part of what makes it so unique as a work of art. In particular, there’s a key statement from Holmes that she makes to Fielder while they were filming together that ends up driving the entire second half of the film. Yet, Fielder didn’t follow up on that question whatsoever when they were together and waited until she was in prison (and no longer accessible) to do so. As someone who does want to see Holmes’ veneer of BS broken through, it’s frustrating.
It would be fair to wonder whether Fielder purposefully wanted to deliver a documentary that had some ambiguity. I’m not sure how to feel about that. Does a documentary maker have an obligation to deliver the truth to the best of their ability, or can their film strive to make artistic points at the expense of pursuing the truth? You Can See Everything doesn’t lie, but I left wondering if Fielder did not pull on certain threads or show us some things for the purpose of creating a more interesting film. I direct no blame towards the makers of American Psycho if braindead looksmaxxers misunderstand its message, but, because it’s billed as a documentary, something feels much more morally grey about the fact that people watching You Can See Everything without prior knowledge of Holmes will leave the film with a far more favorable perception of her than the truth should allow.
In all, as a piece of art, You Can See Everything is brilliant. It will leave you thinking and talking about it for days. Whether it is a good documentary, I’m not so sure.
Rating: 4/5
Recommendation: Must see for everyone. An extra must see for any fans of previous Nathan Fielder work.