Nathan Fielder and Elizabeth Holmes in 'You Can See Everything' A24 The Telluride Film Festival loves a good secret. For example, the fest doesn’t reveal its film lineup until out-of-towners are already en route to the Rockies, and it doesn’t confirm the identity of its annual kickoff screening until festivalgoers are already seated in the venue — however, enterprising people can usually figure out that information ahead of time. This year, however, the fest had considerable success in keeping secret the identity of a “surprise screening” that was scheduled for Sunday night at 6:15 p.m. local time at the fest’s largest venue, the Werner Herzog Theatre.
Related Stories
Movies 'You Can See Everything' Review: Elizabeth Holmes Doc From Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim Is Fascinatingly Slippery, Dizzyingly Clever
Movies Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim's Elizabeth Holmes Doc 'You Can See Everything': First Reactions
Fest attendees were abuzz with speculation for days. For the vast majority of them, all that was known heading into the screening — for which lines of considerable and perhaps unprecedented length began forming hours ahead of time — was that it was a film (a) with a runtime just shy of three hours; (b) that was not included in the lineup; (c) that had not been screened, or even announced for a screening, at any other film fest; and (d) from which the principal creative talent would be in attendance.
Rumors soon began spreading like wildfire. Some suspected that it would be the world premiere of Digger, the forthcoming Alejandro González Iñárritu/Tom Cruise film, given that Iñárritu has premiered prior films at the fest and Cruise owns a home in Telluride. Others heard that it was something to do with the legendary cellist Yo-Yo Ma, who was scheduled to be in town on Sunday night. And then, as word got out that it was an A24 production, speculation grew that it would be the film that Frank Ocean was long ago reported to be writing and directing for the label.
A few publicists and journalists claimed that the the identity of the film had been confirmed to them, but that they could not share it because they had been compelled to sign non-disclosure agreements. It was all very odd.
On Sunday night, as festivalgoers approached the entrance to the Herzog, they were required to lock their cell phone inside a Yondr pouch. Then, once everyone was seated inside, the theater manager announced that he was as excited as he had ever been for a screening in his 20 years at the fest. And only after that did festival director Julie Huntsinger confirm that the screening was the world premiere of You Can See Everything, a documentary, of sorts — directed by Nathan Fielder (TV’s king of awkwardness and blurring the line between fiction and reality via his shows Nathan for You and The Rehearsal) and Lance Oppenheim (a doc vet turned helmer of A24’s forthcoming Primetime) — about Elizabeth Holmes, the enigmatic founder of the blood-testing technology company Theranos.
* * *
Warning: Do not keep scrolling unless you are okay with encountering details about the film.
* * *
Fielder and Oppenheim confirmed, during a post-screening Q&A moderated by Fielder’s The Curse costar Emma Stone, that they had heard that Holmes and her husband, hospitality heir Billy Evans, were considering cooperating with a doc before she was to report to prison in 2023 to begin serving an 11-year sentence for defrauding investors about Theranos’s blood-testing technology. The filmmakers teamed up with A24 to pitch Holmes and Evans on doing the doc with them, and ended up being granted almost total access to the couple over the 34 days before Holmes turned herself in. (The terms under which that access being granted become a point of contention in the film.)
Meanwhile, Fielder, in a manner not dissimilar to Nathan for You and The Rehearsal, ends up becoming an active participant in You Can See Everything — not something he intended, he insisted during the Q&A — only this time he was not the most awkward person in the room. The film becomes a stranger-than-fiction portrait of Holmes and her relationship with Evans and the truth, and the couple’s insistence on her innocence and plans to essentially reboot Theranos — all while Fielder and his cameras are in their rental home, with Fielder literally living in their guest house. He is even the last person she hugs before boarding her ride to the prison.
Then, in the craziest twist of a crazy film, things get very meta when an A-list actress enters the picture. (The filmmakers and fest requested that her identity be kept secret until more people have a chance to see the movie. Fielder and Stone confirmed during the Q&A that Stone made the introduction.) She agrees to meet with Fielder, becomes increasingly invested in getting to the bottom of his questions about Holmes, and, rather amazingly, winds up becoming a full-fledged collaborator in the film, appearing throughout the rest of it alternatingly as herself, giving commentary on the insanity of the situation, and then in reenactments — long Fielder’s go-to way of making sense of things — as Holmes.
You Can See Everything makes for an immensely entertaining and unexpectedly profound moviegoing experience. (It played through the roof at Sunday’s screening — here is THR’s review and a sampling of reactions.) It’s also unlike anything anyone has done in a film before, as far as I know, in terms of the way that it blends documentary with acting. (2006’s Borat and 2020’s Borat Subsequent Moviefilm might be the closest comps, although they are still very different.) All of which begs the questions: Could this film — which A24 will release in October — be recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? And, if so, how?
The Academy’s rules for the 99th Oscars clearly state that a film like You Can See Everything is eligible. According to Rule Thirteen, Special Rules for the Documentary Feature Film Awards, “An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released nonfiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic, or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial reenactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion, or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.”
But the Academy’s doc branch has long been resistant to reenactments, denying even best doc feature Oscar nominations to several all-time great docs that ventured into that style, including Ross McElwee’s Sherman’s March (1985), Errol Morris’ The Thin Blue Line (1988) and Sarah Polley’s Stories We Tell (2012). And quite frankly, I’m not sure that the doc branch, to this day, is hip enough to embrace You Can See Everything… which leads me to think that the filmmakers and A24 should also appeal to the full Academy for a best picture nomination — members of all of the Academy’s branches get to weigh-in on that caegory — which would make their film the first doc ever nominated for the organization’s top honor. The Academy, as currently composed, seems open to new things — in just the last few years, a non-English-language film won best picture for the first time, a trans person was nominated for an acting award for the first time, etc. So why not take a big swing?
Most importantly, in my humble opnion, and stay with me now: there needs to be a real best supporting actress campaign for the A-list actress (a past nominee in the category) who shows up and elevates the movie from a triple to a home run. But can the actors branch of the Academy, which solely determines the acting Oscar nominees, nominate someone for an appearance in a film that is technically a doc? According to the aforementioned Rule Thirteen, Special Rules for the Documentary Feature Film Awards, “Documentary feature films submitted in this category may also qualify for awards in other categories if they meet the specified requirements and submission deadlines.” That reads to me like the doc branch has no reason to object.
And according to Rule Six, Special Rules for the Acting Awards, “The Actors Branch Executive Committee shall have the right and responsibility to resolve all questions of eligibility, rules, and the designation of award recipients.” I have a hard time believing that the members of the executive committee would block the members of their branch from having at least the option of voting to nominate the actress.
In other words, bring it on! A24 is as smart and savvy as anyone out there. I would bet anything that they are already laying the groundwork for such a push. And I, for one, can’t wait to see what happens.
THR Newsletters
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
Subscribe Sign Up
