The buzzy new A24 film “You Can See Everything” is a one-of-a-kind documentary. It features a psychic clash between two masters of deception with distinct skill sets. In one corner is Nathan Fielder, a comic and creator of a number of popular shows, including “Nathan for You” and “The Rehearsal,” which bizarrely blend fiction and reality and involve manipulating strangers. In the other corner is Elizabeth Holmes, the notorious once-billionaire founder of Theranos who was convicted of defrauding investors in one of the biggest business scams of the 21st century.
The premise of the film is that Holmes invites Fielder — who directed the film alongside Lance Oppenheim — to spend enormous amounts of time with her and her family 34 days in 2023 before she begins an 11-year prison sentence for committing fraud. She says her goal is to prove her innocence through transparency. “I know I didn’t commit a crime,” she tells Fielder. And she intends to prove that, somehow, by allowing a camera crew to surveil her life in a rented home in Southern California for about a month.
The entire arrangement is hilarious and absurd on its face — why would Holmes invite Fielder of all people into her life in an effort to clear her name? Why would showing her behavior in this contrived reality TV-like setup be effective at countering the stigma of her crimes? And what could Fielder unearth about Holmes that the public might not know?
The central source of tension driving the film is captured in its ultra-viral teaser showing Fielder and Holmes sizing each other up with their faces just inches apart, prompting the viewer to ask: Who is getting played here?
“You Can See Everything” is a movie about how hard it is to ascertain the truth, the limits of perception and the unknowability of other humans. It serves as a highly entertaining and at times trippy comment on the way people cynically use narrative as power in post-truth, huckster-ruled America. It’s also at times rather shallow, closer to a cheap trick than a provocation about the elusive nature of truth.
The first part of the movie is all about Fielder spending time with Holmes and her fiancé, Billy Evans, along with their two babies. Holmes and Evans’ bid for “radical transparency” involves extended scenes of mundane daily life — eating, childcare, walking on the beach. In what appears to be a demonstration of just how open they’re willing to be, Holmes breastfeeds in front of Fielder and the camera crew; in another scene, Evans showers in front of the camera — with nothing left to the imagination. Yet at the same time, both of them are constantly evasive when answering questions, using “I don’t know” to respond to questions that they clearly know the answers to, or asking for straightforward questions to be rephrased in order to buy time for new evasions.
Holmes’ intent isn’t that complicated a question, and she isn’t merely misunderstood.
The film further embraces the paradox of the whole “transparency” setup by letting us observe and listen in on Holmes and her (unnervingly controlling) partner’s attempts to co-direct the documentary, and to put on a show of trying to woo investors for an improbable successor company to Theranos. Altogether, it’s a compelling mix of stagecraft and manufactured reality. And it only gets weirder as the movie progresses.
The part of the movie that’s unsatisfying is Fielder’s fixation on getting Holmes to admit to understanding what she did wrong. Holmes resolutely insists that she not only doesn’t think she did anything wrong, but that she has never lied in her adult life. Equally striking is that she claims to not even understand why people believe she lied about what her infamous Theranos blood testing machine — which never fulfilled the advertising that said it could conduct hundreds of diagnostic tests with just a few drops of blood — could do.
The focal point is the ambiguity of her meaning when she says she really believed the machine was capable of doing things it had not yet demonstrated the capacity to do. Fielder seems to entertain the idea that this may be a communication problem that originates in Holmes’ mind. He shows her a video of Abbott and Costello’s famous “Who’s on first” comedy routine to illustrate how people can talk past each other by perceiving the same words differently, and she claims to have no comprehension of it. Evans insists this is proof that she just “thinks differently.”
The implied meaning of Fielder’s inquiry appears to be that we cannot know what Holmes truly believes, and thus we cannot rule out a kind of psychological innocence surrounding her intent.
While Fielder is also hard to read, it does seem that he takes her denialism seriously — and in A24’s press notes he admits, “When I watch the footage back I see myself genuinely conflicted and struggling to make sense of these moments and what was happening.” But the only reason the question appears meaty for the audience is because the filmmakers have deliberately narrowed the information we can use to bear upon this question. Many people who watch this movie will not be familiar with the details of the Theranos fraud case, or may have forgotten them. But reportage and the legal proceedings against her demonstrate unequivocally that this isn’t all just a big misunderstanding about the meaning of a couple of words.
Trial evidence and investigative media reports showed that Holmes knew her machine was not producing accurate or reliable results and that she covertly used traditional machines to produce results her machine could not — and passed off many of those results as her own machine’s performance. To woo investors, she falsely claimed that the technology was used on the battlefield in Afghanistan. She admitted in court that she personally affixed the logos of big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer to reports that would falsely indicate that those companies had endorsed Theranos’ technology. She has admitted that her company advertised her blood diagnostics machine as being able to do more than 200 tests — while it could only do 12. Not only did Holmes rob investors of huge sums of money, she also gave tens of thousands of patients incorrect diagnostic tests that had dangerous real-life consequences for them.
In other words, Holmes’ intent isn’t that complicated a question, and she isn’t merely misunderstood. She is without question a full-on scammer.
To me, her wide-eyed denials and incomprehensible tentativeness in this movie are an obvious and ludicrously ham-fisted attempt to lie once more, to win back public opinion. In addition to sapping her arc of its suspense, it also then pushes the audience in a strange direction. The narrative of Holmes as an oddball idealist who might just be misunderstood is an essential part of the movie’s engine — which mostly points to her troublingly domineering partner as the real villain of the story.
But two things can be true at once: She’s deceptive, and her partner is also a bad guy. Yet I suspect the narrative of the movie is likely to be received as quasi-exculpatory of Holmes in the eyes of some audience members.
Some might say that Fielder deliberately allowed Holmes to work her “magic” on the public. But magic doesn’t work when you can see the mechanics of the trick.
Whether wittingly or not, the way Fielder tries to make Holmes more mysterious than she is also reminds me of a broader social problem we have in American life: our struggle to tackle how flagrant lying has become a norm in politics and our information environment. Many political observers — including me, at times — are vexed by the question of politicians’ intent when they spread false information, use language that insinuates an incitement to violence or bigotry, or defend modern day genocide. This process often involves giving bad actors the benefit of the doubt as we weigh their subsequent denials. Some of that problem simply can’t be solved, because stated intent, in the abstract, is irrefutable. But a part of the solution is often watching what people do — instead of what they say.
The post What you can’t see in ‘You Can See Everything’ appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply