In 2015, biomedical entrepreneur Elizabeth Holmes was Silicon Valley’s golden girl, lauded as the youngest and richest self-made female billionaire thanks to the company she founded, Theranos, which was valued at $9 billion at the height of its success. Then it all came crashing down when accusations of fraud surfaced about the company’s signature blood-testing device, culminating in a sensational trial where Holmes was convicted on four counts and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
The Return of Elizabeth Holmes to the Screen
Holmes is back in the headlines thanks to a new film, You Can See Everything, which depicts the final days before Holmes, having exhausted her appeals, went to prison. Co-directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, it is a surreal, absurdist piece that has largely been received with gushing enthusiasm and no small amount of hype, with some declaring it the best film of the year. A few contrarian voices have emerged over the past week with much-needed reality checks, but there is no denying the film is destined to be an awards-season darling.
The reviewer notes a reluctance to join the widespread acclaim, stating that while the film has its moments and the second half is highly entertaining, there is nothing here to warrant all the breathless hyperbole. For all their much-touted access, Oppenheim and Fielder have produced a surprisingly shallow film that runs in circles, yielding very little fresh or novel insight—into Holmes, personally, or much else.
Debating Interpretations and Accountability
The review acknowledges that manufacturing ambiguity is the intended point and that much of the film’s appeal lies in how much fun people have afterward vigorously debating their interpretations of key scenes. However, the critic argues that there is no real mystery here, noting that Holmes is still spouting all the same talking points and self-justifications, still playing the victim, dodging accountability, and affixing blame on anyone except herself, just as she did all the way through her trial.
The review concludes by questioning the ongoing fascination with the subject, asking why a convicted fraudster is still deemed worthy of our attention.
