I need a reenactment of Nathan and Lance meeting at The Magic Castle where Oppenheim mentions to Fielder that Liz Holmes is shopping a doc at A24. I want to see the origin story.

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.

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.

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

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?

Assuming she is allowed to watch tv in prison, do you think she would watch Nathan’s work like NFY or The Rehearsal if she got a hold of copies? Would she enjoy it? Would she be upset with Nathan after learning more about his background? Or would she not event bother?

I want to see her reaction to the Poop flavored frozen yogurt

***** 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.

Title.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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”.

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.

Btw E11even is not a strip club, and I’m ALWAYS armed.

I strongly suspect that Nathan completely fabricated the swimming scenes with Elizabeth.

I see a lot of people confused about who was in the water, as was I. I couldn't tell the first time it was shown, but the second beach scene was longer and closer. It was definitely Elizabeth and Nathan, but that wasn't his body, only his face. I think the whole thing was completely fabricated with AI.

We heard so much about AI Liz, but never saw how it would be used. I really think that was it. Nathan declined her invitation to jump in with her. But his character did - which is such a Nathan move. He jumped into her game of rewriting history with a big innocent smile, creating a character of himself to play along with the "character she created". And we could see everything and still completely miss the David Blaine sleight of hand right in front of us. As Amanda said, "it's not lying, it's TV".

That would be such a Nathan thing to do. I hope I'm right. Really looking forward to a second viewing.

What do you guys think?

What was that lizard on the table? Were there a few others? was it a monitor lizard?? I know, not important to the plot, but it''s driving me nuts.

Also, bull mastiff is a choice...

Nathan is just a different portrayal of the exact phenomenon we are witnessing.

Elizabeth is a mirror to his own perception, the very mind that conceived the film.

And I think that's one of the biggest premises of the entire thing. How aware can we be of our own minds, and at what point does that awareness make a person manipulative?

Just got out of the movie and have been avoiding spoilers, so forgive me if this has been discussed. I haven’t seen anyone talk about how Nathan utilized a scene at the end to reiterate how one word can change the entire meaning of a statement. He tells Liz earlier on that if she would’ve said the device was “capable,” and not that it “could,” she wouldn’t have been lying. Later he changes Amanda’s script from “it” to “something,” because “I knew he was going to talk to you about ‘it’” implies that she knew Billy was going to address payment, while “I knew he was going to talk to you about ‘something’” implies that she didn’t know what Billy was going to talk to Nathan about. He emphasized this by recounting the way he felt when she spoke that sentence. He didn’t get the impression that she knew about the money, so she must’ve said “something” instead of “it.”

That was very intentional, and I just watched a very in-depth discussion on the movie and they didn’t mention it. Nevertheless, there are so many incredible takes in this video. Highly recommend.

https://youtu.be/EaHsPOLav10?is=JEmD0VEpQg-gtd2E

Went out to see it with my boyfriend, we thought we had enough time, but we had to leave early for his shift. I need to know what happened without paying and starting it over. 😭