Nathan Fielder's Elizabeth Holmes Movie Is a Hit, and the Debate Over Its "Ambiguity" Is Getting Loud

Nathan Fielder’s“You Can See Everything”isn’t a typical Elizabeth Holmes project. Instead of actors and reenactments, Fielder embedded himself with Holmes, her partner Billy Evans and their children for about a month before Holmes reported to prison. The result is a box-office hit that’s now in the Best Picture conversation, and Holmes and Evans reportedly approached A24 directly to get it made.

The controversy is about what the film does with the truth. Slate’s science-journalist critic, a longtime Theranos follower, says the movie’s ambiguity genuinely softened her view of Holmes, even though the film skips grounding details like the $28,000-a-month beach rental and a private jet to prison that’s framed like a road trip. Tyler Shultz, the Theranos whistleblower, calls it“a piece of art with the intent of creating ambiguity,”and John Carreyrou, the journalist who exposed the fraud, describes the saga as“a ruthless cover-up of a breathtaking fraud, and she was at the controls.”Meanwhile, some viewers have started recasting Holmes as a victim, complete with ironic merch.

Holmes was convicted in 2022 of defrauding Theranos investors with false claims about blood-testing technology. The film doesn’t change that fact, but it does raise a bigger question about how documentaries frame truth and whether sympathy can be engineered through what’s left out. Where do you land: is this brilliant art, or a soft launch for a reputation reboot?