Breakout documentary “You Can See Everything” has become a cultural phenomenon, inspiring internet memes, lookalike contests and widespread discussion following its theatrical success.
The three-hour film plunges audiences into the surreal world of Elizabeth Holmes, the former Silicon Valley entrepreneur imprisoned for making fraudulent claims about her supposedly revolutionary blood-testing technology.
Beginning one month before Holmes reports to prison, the film has attracted considerable attention for its darkly comic, deadpan approach, led by mock inquisitor Nathan Fielder.
Holmes’s rise and fall as a prominent woman in the technology industry has long attracted media attention. However, the documentary offers audiences a different perspective on the scandal and the people surrounding it.
“I’ve followed this story a lot over the years”, said filmgoer Alexandra Lesnik, 29, after attending a packed afternoon screening in Brooklyn. She said it was her first time watching a documentary in a cinema and described the production as a fresh perspective on the story.
Another viewer, Nathan Sayers, 53, said he had read extensively about Holmes before the film’s release but was encouraged to watch it by the buzz among his friends. He subsequently ranked it among his top five films.
The documentary has also generated discussion among university students. Kate Rennebohm, an assistant professor of film studies at Lawrence University, said students regularly approached her after class to discuss the film, while others contacted her unexpectedly.
Blending reality television, mockumentary and exaggerated naivety, Fielder gradually explores the contradictions surrounding Holmes, a convicted fraudster whose insistence on her own truthfulness remains central to the film.
Audiences are left questioning whether Holmes genuinely believed she had developed a medical breakthrough or whether she was influenced and manipulated by those around her.
New Yorker Avery Smith, 27, said the story continually changes, as does the identity of its apparent villain, making the viewing experience particularly unpredictable.
The film has moved beyond the conventional documentary format, according to Nora Stone, an assistant professor of film production at the University of North Alabama.
With persistent Oscar buzz and approximately $80 million in domestic box office earnings, the production has also benefitted from the marketing reach of studio A24. Its growing popularity has extended into online discussions, where viewers continue to debate its characters and underlying themes.
Columbia University researcher Geoffrey Lokke noted that the filmmakers’ request for audiences not to reveal spoilers had added to the film’s intrigue and mystery.
For Rennebohm, Holmes represents something broader than an individual business scandal, reflecting a culture of self-delusion and denial within Silicon Valley and the wider technology industry, particularly during the age of artificial intelligence.
Stone similarly views the documentary as a reflection of the wider political climate, describing it as a representation of the post-truth era.
Through Holmes’s story, the film raises questions about power, accountability and the ability to maintain a carefully constructed version of reality, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. — AFP
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
