Elizabeth Holmes is a very clever woman. She was an honors student in chemical engineering at Stanford, which demonstrates high intellectual engagement. Eager to start her own company, she dropped out to form Theranos, which sold a device purported to be able to run a multitude of medical analyses using just a drop of blood. Numerous professors told her the device could not work (and in fact it did not work), but she pressed ahead anyway and charmed bigwigs and VCs into backing her firm.
When WSJ reporter John Carreyrou started an investigation in 2015, Holmes initiated a hardball campaign to stop Carreyrou from publishing, which included legal and financial threats against both the Journal and the whistleblowers. In 2022, a federal jury convicted her of investment fraud, and she was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Holmes is an accomplished liar, as documented by Forbes (“Watch Elizabeth Holmes Lie To Forbes About Theranos”). There is no ambiguity here.
Enter equally clever filmmaker Nathan Fielder and his colleague Lance Oppenheim. In the month before she shipped out to prison, Holmes and her partner Billy Evans invited Fielder and Oppenheim to their home for extended interviews. Holmes used this as an opportunity to groom a sympathetic image of a sincere, vulnerable mother of two young children, who is facing tragic separation from her family. Did she actually lie, or was she just confused? Does her mind simply work differently than most people? Oh dear, it is so hard to know…
Fielder exploits inconsistencies in her statements, and Evans’ unpleasant abusive behavior, to weave a web of “ambiguity” around the Elizabeth Holmes story. Fielder parlayed this into in a critically-acclaimed documentary, “You Can See Everything.” Fellow blogger Mike Madkowsky captures the strong impressions on audiences made by this movie: The singular dominant theme, for my money, was the grand telephone game that “truth” is distilled through as it skips from source to source, medium to medium. By the end of the film you may find that, like me, you have updated your priors a half dozen times, left with your hands up in the air as the crushing weight of subjective reality threatens to abandon you in a fog of nihilism.
But Mike also supplies a reality check: “Then you get home, rewatch the documentary (“The Inventor: Out for Blood”), scroll through a few bullet points of the actual case and remind yourself that no, this person is very much a crook.”
People who actually know the truth are dismayed. The WSJ investigative journalist John Carreyrou acknowledges that the film is “great” art, but Forbes reports that in a post on X:
Carreyrou pushed back against viewers who find Holmes to be “unknowable” or “ambiguous,” noting she went after himself and Theranos whistleblowers “with everything she had,” saying she ran a “ruthless cover-up of a breathtaking fraud, and she was at the controls.”
Tyler Schultz was a scientist in his early twenties, just starting his career, when he joined Theranos. Within a few months he discovered that the device the company was hawking did not do what it was claimed; this put patients’ health at risk. He first tried to address the problems through internal channels and government oversight, before finally going to the press. Theranos counterattacked viciously, threatening to blacklist him from ever working again in his field and costing him $400,000 in legal bills to defend himself.
Schultz has responded to the film in an accessible 6-minute interview on YouTube, Theranos whistleblower says he nearly jumped out of his seat watching Elizabeth Holmes documentary. He states that the woman portrayed on the screen is absolutely not the actual Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. He states that Holmes knowingly lied (he gives example). A centerpiece of his criticism is that the medical device that Holmes shows on the film is NOT the device that Theranos sold back in the day. The original device was indisputably a complete fake. By trotting out some completely new device and claiming that it “could” (what does THAT mean??) do wonderful things, Holmes deftly muddies the waters. And Fielder is completely complicit in this muddying. Indeed, the muddiness is what makes the film. Schultz lays out his case in detail in an article in STAT. The Schultz article starts off:
“You Can See Everything” is a hilarious, thrilling, fascinating, beautiful piece of art. What it certainly is not is a documentary, and it’s dangerous to pretend that it is.
I’ve had the displeasure of watching disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes at work not just over a three-hour film, but over the entirety of my adult life. I was an employee turned whistleblower at Theranos, my grandfather sat on her board, she came to my family holidays and birthday parties. I met her when I was 20, she went to prison when I was 32. I wish I could have told director Nathan Fielder what I told John Carreyrou when he started investigating her: Do not underestimate Elizabeth Holmes.
The rest of the article is paywalled, but AI will summarize it for you if you ask. See also a Forbes article on the subject.
It seems the only real ambiguity here is whether filmmaker Fielder was too dumb to know Holmes was gaming him, or too ambitious to pass up an opportunity to exploit his encounter with a set of intriguing, dishonest people. Claude summarized it for me this way: Holmes gets a softened image, Fielder gets an enigma, and the audience gets a fog that the court record and the whistleblowers had already cleared.
Some film critics have run out of superlatives in gushing over this film (e.g., “An Astonishing Achievement That Changes How We Experience Cinema“ ). So, let’s give credit to Rick Romancito of the Taos News for calling it straight:
“You Can See Everything” has been praised for reimagining the documentary genre, but to me it merely muddies the waters between fiction and truth.
