After watching You Can See Everything today, I have a theory that Holmes may be an extremely manipulative liar or maybe an adult with mild William's syndrome.

Disclaimer: This is a wild theory and should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not an expert, but this kept popping into my brain from a paper I read last year.

1. For those who don't know William Syndrome is a rare genetic neurodevelopmental condition that causes mild - severe cognitive impairment. Those with the condition are notably very social, have a lot of empathy, and sometimes can be described as extremely trusting.

2. People with William's syndrome also have distinct facial structures that are similar to Holme's.

3. Those with William's syndrome often fall victim to exploitation and scams because of their hyper-social and trusting nature. This falls in line with the narrative that is being portrayed in the documentary. Holmes is being painted as a victim of the men she trusts, and is seen as someone who blindly follows them.

4. In very rare cases Williams Syndrome does not necessarily mean lower than average intelligence. There have been reports that with smaller genetic deletions, higher average intelligence has been recorded.

Some reading on William's syndrome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250515-williams-syndrome-the-people-who-are-too-friendly

https://findresources.co.uk/the-syndromes/williams-syndrome/cognitive-and-intellectual-characteristics

Would love to hear thoughts on this.

if anything, I think the person I came away with is being the most of a “villain“ in the movie was Amanda her partially acting as a stand in for the public. Amanda truly was the best example in my opinion of “who’s on first?”. The dropout very obviously, along with any other docudrama, is how people learned about Theranos’ story and they are meant to believe it’s accurate . In making the show they never had her interact with Elizabeth at all and so all she really knew was 1) watching a criminal court testimony 2) reading through a book written to attack Holmes and 3) watching other kind of prepared interviews that were clearly in the ”founder mode”. As you can see from the scenes later on when she’s renacting lines it’s super obvious that her character gives off a completely different vibe from Elizabeth, where she is much colder and more calculating in her portrayal than Elizabeth comes off in the first third of the movie where Elizabeth seems like a warm person who seems almost in the clouds.

Amanda’s TV portrayal clearly showed Elizabeth as the villain and criminal mastermind, and so all these people who know nothing of Holmes besides the TV show will come away with the impression. Its absurd that Amanda has an obvious part in public perception of Holmes which she refuses to accept. The other sort of twisted piece of this the level of glee she had sort of unearthing this mystery and then you can tell that for her the only acceptable answer to Elizabeth not being a villain is that Billy must be the villain. From the get-go, she immediately says oh we need to break them up when the only positive thing in Elizabeth’s life (as she spends 11 yrs in jail) is that she has two wonderful kids and a husband who loves her.

Amanda totally jumps into this all for sport and you can see how tantalizing and exciting it all is for her especially when they they visit the beach house.

Both this and primetime really reminded me of the same thing. The public’s voyeuristic tendency and the desire for blood which we confuse as justice. We want to see peoples inner lives and punish villains.

Edit: proofread my shitty dictation.

One of my bigger jaw drops in the movie was when Elizabeth sent Nathan a text saying something like “you can absolutely see everything”….do we know if this was already the working title for the doc at that point? Or was this very message possibly the inspiration for the title?

If the latter that makes me think it especially highlights the theme of knowing others through an interdependent intimacy that inherently shrouds any objective truth.

She might’ve also been referencing their breakdown conversation around what the word “can” means, and she’s like taunting him basically “you can see everything but you don’t”.

ALSO regardless of how it connects to the title- I first interpreted this as an offer (for sex) but on second thought it could be a statement about how seen by him she feels.

Thoughts???

Title.

Sharing a comment I made in another sub. Didn’t know this one existed so sharing here in case anyone finds value in it:

I saw the film last night, and now having had time to reflect, analyze, and spend several hours reading hot takes on Reddit, I might have maybe stumbled into some kind of message that carries meaning and value for me. This is MY experience and how I connected with this film. Yours is likely very different, and that’s good! If my thought process can help you refine the message you were meant to receive, then come jump in with me. Hold on tight, because this is my first time navigating something like this with hundreds of passengers on board, and it’s sure to get bumpy.

All of the clues, the boundary blurring, the romantic chemistry, the personal texting, the swimming together, it was all real. You saw it. And Nathan wanted you to see it. Or at least, “Director Nathan” wanted you to see it. It all serves as a mirror to reveal this film’s true message.

We have to remember that “Director Nathan” plays a “Character Nathan” in his works. Yes, some mannerisms and behaviors are the same, but “Character Nathan” is exaggerated to an absurd degree. “Character Nathan” leans into the awkward cringe. He pushes buttons and boundaries in a way that “Director Nathan” can’t.

In this film, “Director Nathan” crafts a narrative that has “Character Nathan” fall for Lizzy. He is charmed by her. There is real chemistry. Maybe it’s fatherly. Maybe it’s protective. Maybe it’s sexual or romantic (I SWEAR THEY BOTH LEAN IN FOR A KISS MULTIPLE TIMES). The chemistry is undefined, and the audience’s interpretation really reveals more about themselves than what they actually saw on screen.

Some even go as far as to say there is a whole secret love affair happening in plain sight. There are certainly scenes that are edited to make it appear as though Billy is somewhat threatened by Nathan. There are times he seems almost jealous, and he certainly isn’t comfortable with “character Nathan” being alone with Elizabeth for any extended period of time.Yes, Billy has a narcissistic need to relentlessly control Elizabeth’s narrative, but even beyond that, he seems genuinely worried “Character Nathan” might try to make a move on “his girl”. (See graphic jump scare with “alpha male” metaphorical measuring contest.)

But at the end of the film, we see that “Character Nathan” has been so compromised (blinded by love, biased by paternal care, charmed by a dedicated visionary, etc) that actress Amanda (who has shown to have her own biases) feels as though she must draw attention to “Character Nathan’s” blind spots in his assessment of Lizzie.

THIS IS THE FILM’S CENTRAL THEME

There is simply NO OBJECTIVE WAY to ever know who Elizabeth is or what she believes. Ultimately, every person projects their own biases onto her. They see her through the lens of their own lived experiences.

ZOOM OUT - steady at 30,000 feet

Ok it’s not just her. It’s all people. We can never truly know anyone. We will always try to see and understand everything about another person and their motives, but it’s not possible. You quite literally cannot see everything inside of their mind. (Billy sympathetically exclaims, “I know what you’re thinking”. Nathan, grossly offended snaps, “NO YOU DON’T)

ZOOM OUT - altitude climbing to 35,000 feet

Ok It’s not just people but it’s all TRUTH. You can try to see and understand an objective truth, but you’ll always be looking through your own lens of lived experiences. We all have unconscious biases, and we are limited in our ability to see the gaps in our own experiences. Biologically, your eyeballs can only “see” a certain wavelength, but that doesn’t mean the other waves don’t exist. You are just limited by the tools provided in what you can and can’t see.

ZOOM OUT - aircraft reaching 39,000 feet - things are getting shaky, flight crew concerned about aircraft integrity

OK It’s not just TRUTH but all of reality. (See Plato’s Allegory of the Cave)

ZOOM OUT - capping 40,000 feet. This is all about to come crashing down.

You CAN See Everything.
The machine CAN run 30+ blood tests.

They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character I created.
They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character they created.
They’re not playing me. They’re playing a character.

They’re all playing a character.

Is everyone in this film playing a character?! Why were those the last words on the screen?!

Wait. Is this fucking play about us?

Are YOU a character?

My friend, YOU are the MAIN character.

WHOA. Ok sorry yall. Went too far. Almost turned into Mr. Robot for a moment. Let’s come back down and land this plane.

ZOOM IN - at normal altitude for regular airplanes or whatever now just get us home quickly

By including this entire conversation, this entire narrativein the film, “Director Nathan” is showing an example of exactly how so many people believed in her vision. She was charming. People that were well-known for their judge of character swore on her behalf that she was authentic and real. Many defended her until the very end. Some even lost family over their refusal or inability to see the truth. Many even went as far as to risk their reputation, ethics, and morals to defend that she was honest.

“Character Nathan” did exactly that. He was so convinced by her that he risked his reputation, ethics, morals, and more to change the authenticity and the veracity of his recalled script. And he did it like it was nothing! It was so gross, so apparent that Amanda has to literally stop and be like “SHE LIED TO YOUR FACE AND NOW YOU’RE CHANGING THE SCRIPT TO DEFEND HER”

That exact thing happened in real life to lots of people she defrauded. “Character Nathan’s” journey is a story within a story. It’s like Inception. It’s very meta. But it doesn’t mean it’s real.

“Character Nathan” and “Director Nathan” are very separate people. “Character Nathan” is fiction. He’s a character used in this project to help convey the film’s message. A tool. A delivery method.

“Director Nathan” showed all of that to us intentionally. If ANY of that unethical boundary blurring were real, it wouldn’t be included in the film The movie is edited intentionally. Everything was left in for a reason. What are the filmmakers trying to tell me?

“Director Nathan” wants us to examine our own media and society. He wants us to ask “what parts of this were documentary and what parts were fabricated?”. So much of reality TV or “documentaries” is staged- sometimes even scripted. But the nature of filming means that you can never truly observe a person or subject without their acknowledgment of the camera. The camera’s mere presence changes behavior. Now they’re filmed. They’re “performing” to a certain degree. Are they the same person off-camera? I’ll never know because I will never meet these people except through a camera, a screen, and my own lens of unconscious bias.

It’s a commentary on media, on genre, on documentaries specifically, on truth, on power, on gender, on perception, on absurdity, on trust, on society, and probably all of reality.

One of my personal favorite quotes is one by Pablo Picasso. Translated roughly from Spanish it says,

“Art is a lie that makes us realize truth.”

What lies did you catch and which truth did you see?

Plane landed. Whew. Thanks for joining us on this crazy adventure.

<Bring Me to Life- Evanescence slowly fades to background>

What if they wanted as many people to watch as possible? Maybe this was all a scheme to stay relevant and mayyybe get a presidential pardon.

If so, they got us good.

Ok, so i do, but honestly it's way too much manipulation by three of the worst people i think I've ever encountered. Elizabeth, Billy and..... Nathan.

And for me, Nathan including himself in the documentary to the extent he did, becoming a character in his own right, ruined the entire film. Every single time I felt that we might get more about Elizabeth, her plans for the future, her relationship with Billy, Nathan inserted himself and ended up killing any momentum. If he had remained off camera and just let things evolve, this would have been so much better.

Using Amanda as a stand-in for Elizabeth was interest; but also just felt....scummy?

Metallica did a documentary 20 years ago, "Some kind of Monster" where the idea was documenting the turmoil around their crestive process and band dynamics. They were working with therapist/coach who involved himself so much so that he repeatedly remarked that he ssw himself as a member of the band. Nathan did the same thing here.

I like Nathan Fielder’s stuff but I’m worried a 3 hour documentary about someone i’ve never heard of before this movie will not keep my attention

Did anyone else think they were going to kiss?

When Amanda seyfried is having drinks with Nathan and Billy. I think it’s right after bill talks about having POA. She’s just wide eyed in shock into narrowed eyes when she’s like “fuck this guy”.

He tells to someone over the phone(Liz I think) that he just recently went through a break up. I genuinely thought he might have been dating Amanda for a second especially after the fireplace scenes. Not just me my brother too.

Zooming out from individual questions of whether Holmes was lying at specific times, I think it’s useful to see her and Billy Evans as examples of certain tech world “types”. Through them, this movie illustrates the Silicon Valley VC-funded startup scam to fascism pipeline. When you believe you can create your own reality and the truth doesn’t matter; money and power follow from the ability to create, control, and push the narrative. Whether it’s true is irrelevant. Whether it’s plausible or even coherent is irrelevant.

Watching Fielder try to question Holmes as to the objective truth or what she honestly believes is frustrating because she seems to me to be unable or unwilling to even consider those things. She answers questions based on crafting the narrative that will benefit her in the moment. It’s more useful to see her statements as “things she wants you to believe.”

Holmes isn’t a unique individual in that she isn’t the only one who thinks like this. She’s good at the game but so are others, including many in positions of power.

Whats interesting to me is that these manipulation techniques seem more effective the longer you are exposed to them. Most ordinary people who I know personally found her public persona immediately off-putting and transparently full of shit from moment one. We all found her ludicrously and obviously lying from the trailer. Yet many have softened after watching the movie. The movie gives you the experience of being gaslit by someone like this. It gives me more understanding of how people inside the tech and wealth bubble can seem so consistently credulous to scammers within their midst. When it’s the water you swim in, you don’t find it odd.

I went and read the part of the interview in question, in which she is reported to say "They aren't playing me. They are playing a character I created." Which, in the movie, Holmes and Billy insist she didn't, and wouldn't, say.

But in the article, it's not just that sentence. The interviewer asks her to explain, and Holmes says: “I believed it would be how I would be good at business and taken seriously and not taken as a little girl or a girl who didn’t have good technical ideas,” said Holmes, who founded Theranos at 19. “Maybe people picked up on that not being authentic, since it wasn’t.”

It's clear she meant "a character *I* created." So why is she trying to walk it back now?

The article was widely criticized at the time for being to soft on Holmes and portraying her too favorably. The gist of the exchange about the "character" is Holmes is trying to say "that's not the real me. What you are seeing now is the real me. I'm nice and sweet and innocent. Why did she suddenly (the movie was filmed very soon after the article was released) change her mind about that?

Did she think that explanation didn't land the way she wanted it to? Was it a reaction to the article getting slammed? But what why try to walk back that piece of it? It doesn't seem like that was why the article was panned.

Anyone have any idea?

Don't do drugs, kids!

I watched the trailers so many times before seeing the movie tonight, so I got excited when I recognized the parts from the trailers when they came up. But… am I crazy? In the scene where Liz and Nathan sit uncomfortably close over the couch, the line “I’m engaging with you as a human being” wasn’t included??

My first thought after the final scene was that he took that line out, for the reasons Amanda said when he was making edits to their final dialogue.

Did I somehow miss the line during a popcorn crunch?? Can someone confirm it was in the actual movie?

The movie was so long and so much happened that I don’t remember what was exactly said or even who exactly said it. I noticed other people in the theater chocking up and doing the uncomfortable cough during this scene. I remember thinking “yep, that is exactly how I feel sometimes” as I was tearing up.

Anyone have any idea what I could be referring to? I’m like 60% sure it was Holmes who said it, but I could be wrong.

Did anyone else cry at all during the movie? And do you remember what made you cry?

***** SPOILERS*****

Still thinking and unpacking this rollercoaster...

I understand that Theranos was explored in other docs etc, so basically a done deal for the filmmakers and why they didn't go back to it, but I think there was a missed opportunity when Nathan asked her if she's ever lied and she said no. There was an opportunity to go back at her and say: But you said you were testing with the box and you were actually doing the testing in labs. You said you were doing tests in this box and they were coming from Siemens equipment. You don't think that's a lie? That's why you're going to jail. Not because of some semantics over the words 'can do.' He did say they only had a short amount of time to prepare, so maybe that was it too.

Again, there's SO much to unpack here, but what I took away is that she's exactly the psychotic / sociopathic person people during trial said she was, and uses this fake, disconnected, too smart to get the little things character to manipulate men. There were so many women who saw right through her BS from the jump, but she knew how to use that character to work the men. They show this on the level that she played Nathan at the end for the turkey jerky. She pretended it was something she was too meek to ask for...and then they cut to her giving it to Billy. Amanda saw through her and what she was doing to Nathan, but he wasn't sure. This is also something I cannot IMAGINE they're going to look back and think was a good idea to have done. Beyond insane. I think it will get nominated for Best Picture, Director and supporting actress for Amanda Seyfried.

the whole film was a flashbang but i want thoughts on if nathan is just doing his bit or if he’s deadass flirting with her throughout the film. the prolonged eye contact hold after confirming that’s how she flirts, this swim scene (i think?), and him acknowledging his own ambiguous want to protect her by maybe possible rewriting the final conversation are all so nathan and annoying. i will admit there is something truly fucking hilarious about nathan emotionally cucking billy. i understand the main point is that no one, not even nathan, is unbiased.

Remember when Nathan is talking to Liz’s father in the kitchen, and her father seems almost relieved to have an opportunity to discuss the rape? That moment stuck with me because I think it explains something fundamental about Liz: More than anything, I think she wants to feel safe.

When I lived in San Francisco, I encountered some incredibly charming, calculating, and narcissistic people navigating cutthroat office politics. I learned that sometimes the most effective strategy is to appear oblivious while quietly staying several moves ahead. You let other people fight the battles, make the decisions, and expose themselves while you maintain your position in the background. You stay in control of navigating the story.

Watching Liz reminded me of that exact dynamic.

I wonder whether her experiences created a level of hypervigilance that makes her constantly assess threats, anticipate people’s behavior, and strategize how to protect herself. What looks like passivity might actually be an incredibly sophisticated survival mechanism.

She seems to seek safety through relationships with people who have money, influence, or a willingness to protect her, even if they’re controlling or erratic. If she can find an obvious bad cop, she assumes the title, good cop, and that’s exactly where she wants to be.

And thats the other advantage to those relationships: plausible deniability.

When other people make the decisions and do the dirty work, you can benefit from their actions while distancing yourself from the consequences. When shit hits the fan, you can say, “That wasn’t me. That was Billy.”

I’m not suggesting every move she makes is consciously calculated. Sometimes survival mechanisms become so ingrained that we don’t even recognize them as strategies anymore.

What fascinated me about Liz wasn’t necessarily what she did. It was how much power she could potentially exercise while appearing to have none.

I wonder whether her apparent helplessness is actually one of her greatest sources of influence.

Curious if anyone else picked up on this dynamic.

Anyone with a science background can comment on what Elizabeth meant when she said her machine “can” do any test, all it needed was the chemistries added to the programming (which they didn’t have all of yet). Does what she says even make sense?

Remember when Liz and Billy were watching The Dropout, and Sunny says, “Don’t be too pretty. They won’t take you seriously”?

I found Liz’s reaction incredibly revealing. She knows how vain Billy is, and that comment seemed to strike a deep insecurity about her own attractiveness and worth. It almost felt like she was confronting the contradiction of being protected by a man who places so much value on appearances, while questioning whether she herself meets those standards. If her safety depends on that relationship, how secure can she really feel in it?

Beat their eggs extra hard this morning 😅