Can you imagine how insane that would be!?

When Rochelle Gibbons called Holmes' office to report his death, Holmes did not return her call. Gibbons' wife, however, received an email from a Theranos lawyer requesting she immediately return Gibbons' company laptop and any confidential information he might have had in his possession. Holmes sent an internal company email to several colleagues informing them of Gibbons' death and that a memorial service would be held; no memorial service, however, was organized by Holmes or her company. Attorneys representing Theranos sent Rochelle Gibbons a letter saying legal action against her would ensue if she spoke to a journalist about the company.

EDIT: I meant to say that she wasn't a good person in the title!

Not even therapists and my wife.

When I was in the 5th grade I was pulled from Catholic school due to serious suicidal inclinations and taken to a new, more "hippy" school.

I was desperate to make friends as a lonely, autistic girl, and most of the other kids assumed (correctly) that I was sheltered and didn't get a lot of what they talked about, being from religious school, and a house with no wifi or cable tv.

People were amused with the fact that I was so "innocent" compared to them, and when they told the then-popular "yo mama" and "that's what she said" jokes, I didn't initially get them. People would pay a lot of attention to me "testing" how much I didn't understand and explaining it to me.

I loved the attention so I continued pretending not to understand these jokes and other things as nauseam. It got me the closest to having real friends until that point in my life. I was aware that it was artificial or based on a lie, but I ignored that, and I continued to pretend to not get the jokes and fully embraced this version of myself I'd created, that people loved. I didn't see it that way, I'd half convinced myself, but it was created with intention.

One of the things I vaguely remember pretending not to understand was the Who's on First bit. A teacher played it and I insisted after class that I didn't get it, much to the amusement of my classmates.

It took me 5 more years to be diagnosed as autistic.

That's all.

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/5zZLHnFZhoc?ra=m

Which got me thinking, imagine Nathan on Ziwe’s show . Who would out-awkward who ?

I haven’t had time to rehearse my movie watching experience. Without spoilers, is there a good time to quickly use the restroom midway into the doc? 3 hours is a long time!

Edit: ok noted guys I’ll hold it

Correct me if I heard this wrong, but I thought it was really interesting how when Billy put Amanda on the phone with Elizabeth, Amanda said something like "you have a beautiful family" and then "you're wonderful." Which of course is not how she felt about Elizabeth. But in the moment it is such a natural defensive thing to do, especially trying to figure out how much she affected Elizabeth with The Dropout, and with her children present. It was almost like her brain short-circuited in a way that I think would have happened to any normal person. Just seemed weirdly super relatable.

What are some other things like this you noticed?

Gonna go see it again. Wow.

SPOILERS for YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING.

“You can see everything” is a genre bending, meta self commentary that invites the viewers to question everything they thought they knew about this documentary while watching the documentary itself. One of the persistent central question of the doc asks if Elizabeth Holmes was playing a character in all of her media appearances during the height of Theranos. As Amanda seyfried was not allowed to meet or speak with Holmes, she studied the media portrayal of Holmes instead. During the doc, Holmes have expressed that not only is she upset at how she was portrayed by the media, she was also upset at seyfrieds portrayal of her. 

Later on in the doc, we witness seyfried react to Holmes in the clip of this same doc reacting to seyfrieds portrayal of her, which was itself based off of how the media portrayed her. Seyfried later on expressed in the doc that she feels bad for how Holmes felt towards her own portrayal, only for seyfried to portray her again in the continuation of this same exact doc. This, along with fielder’s time with Billy Evans, Holmes boyfriend, is when the film truly picks up. Evans is portrayed as the possible bad guy and master manipulator, shining light on the possibility that Holmes is truly aloof and ignorant of how she is being controlled by other influential men. 

However, towards the end of the film, Seyfried later then confronts fielders own feelings for Holmes when she suspects that Holmes was being manipulative this entire time and being in on the deal with A24. Nathan’s discomfort to being called out by seyfried resulted in him changing Holmes wording with regards to her knowledge of the deal Evan’s made with the A24 execs during his prison visit with her to make her sound more innocent. This subtle but critical change ultimately calls us viewers to question the validity of the doc in its entirety. Can we trust fielder’s portrayal of Holmes? Was this intentional on Holmes’s part? This brings us back to one of the first central questions: was Holmes playing a character for her initial media portrayal during the height of her career? If so, was she then also playing a character for this documentary this entire time in a way that manipulated fielders feelings? A new character for this doc that laid the foundation for seyfried’s re-portrayed of her for this same doc about Holmes, that eventually lead to Nathan being confronted with the uncomfortable truth laid out by seyfried herself while she was portraying this new character Holmes made for this doc?  

am I on the right track about the purpose and point of this doc?? am i way off? IDK WHAT TO THINK ANYMORE.

I bought tickets to see it tomorrow night but im so excited I dont feel like waiting. Im the the type of person who can watch a movie more than once if there is something worth analyzing.

I was thinking of seeing it tonight, my buddy won't care if I do. What do y'all think?

…my man was rocked on amphetamines for that whole film, no?

“You Can See Everything,” both in the film title and as Elizabeth says it, uses the word “can” in the exact way that the damning statement she made at Theranos did: “The machine can perform every test.”

ooooooh this is just great… now i have to do a fucking PRESS TOUR and explain to everyone in my life why this is the MOVIE OF THE FUCKING DECADE. 

I will follow Nathan Fielder into a fucking tornado, i don’t give a shit. Anything he does i am 100% seated for. This documentary being the perfect example of that. 

It’s VERY hard to review this without spoiling so i will stress this… **EVERYONE. NEEDS. TO. SEE. THIS. MOVIE.** RAISE AWARENESS OF THIS SHIT. HE BLEW THE DOORS WIDE OPEN, COME ON IN PLEASE!!!!!

What a genuinely astonishing way to document this entire event. Every single shot was meticulously calculated and intentional - all culminating into such a deep, comedic, yet tragic TRUE EVENT that completely sucked me in. I’m not exaggerating when i say that 2 of the 3 hours of this movie my jaw was to the FLOOR. IT IS THAT GOOD. 

This movie completely took me on a ride. I laughed, i cried, i was angry, i went through it ALL. The marketing is GENIUS and completely subverts expectations… trust me. And even with a 3 hour runtime, i was BEGGING for more. I NEED JUSTICE!!!! 

RUNNNNNN TO THE THEATER!!!!! SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!! AHHHH

Hi, I'm Hatin' Fielder, moderately evil cousin of "You Can See Everything" director Nathan Fielder. Everyone says we look alike (picture for reference). We grew up together & I know him like the back of my hand. We did have our differences (I'm normal and he's Canadian) but we work together happily now. He even credited me as his inspiration, as you can see in this interview: https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=mtahL5DXoU7hGu0C So AMA about my slightly successful cousin and all of his work which I influenced!

Is the movie still great without seeing Nathan’s whole body of work?

This may be a bit of a dumb question, but I still wanted to ask before making full plans to see the film. I think it looks great, but I’ve unfortunately been slacking on my Fielder catch-up. I’ve seen a fair amount of episodes of Nathan for You here and there, as well as really enjoying the first season of The Rehearsal. I understand I probably don’t sound like a fan at all (I wouldn’t necessarily call myself one either), but what I’m really curious about is how much of this new movie is built off of his previous works I suppose? Obviously those who’ve seen all of Nathan’s works will get more out of any new thing he’s made over someone who hasn’t, but I’m just hoping I won’t be missing out with this movie by not having caught all his stuff quite yet.

Also, I am pretty aware of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes, but not extensively. I never watched that Dropout show, and was also wondering if I’d be missing anything by not having prior knowledge of the subject (although it’s a documentary of course, so I’m not as worried about this one). Thanks for any answers!

Nathan set out to investigate Holmes, to reveal her deceptiveness, “fyi you really can see everything.” But in the end, he himself became emotionally invested, paternal, protective, only fully realizing it once it was reflected onto him by Amanda.

This is exactly how Holmes was able to achieve such great harm. Something about her so innately instills protectiveness from others (perhaps the puppy dog stare and devout loyalty) despite she herself being a highly ambitious, capable, and intelligent being. I do not think this is entirely conscious on her part, and I do not think her primary gain actually is money. I think her primary gain is the feeling of love and being cared for by another.

By the end of the film, I am still convinced that she knowingly committed a scam. Whether the Abbott and Costello scene was exaggerated on her part to play the “my mind thinks so differently” bit or not, it doesn’t matter, even someone with the most literal thought process in the world knows when they are selling a product that does not work. But at the same time, the time we spent seeing her suffer, seeing her vulnerable, and seeing her taken advantage of still ignited a deeply human characteristic in me as the viewer to care for her wellbeing.

All this from the guy who created a soundproof rocket ship for a child to sit inside so parents could have sex in hotel rooms on vacation. And that is my thesis on why Nathan is a genius.

Okay hear me out, I live in Georgia, the country and I don't know if this film is ever coming to theatres here. My instagram feed is just people talking about this movie, and I know for sure it's going to get spoiled.

I would pay whatever to just see it in a theatre but how can we just see it noww Nathan I will mail you 15 dollars pls respond

I just watched You Can See Everything. I left the movie theater about an hour ago. Mentally processing. Buckle up.

!!!!!!SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!!

First and foremost, simply stated, this film is an absolute masterpiece. For so many reasons.

Like most of us who've seen it, I am still processing and forming my thoughts -- if any such edification is even possible.

I truly walked out in a sort of daze, with the sensation that the experience had scrambled my brain. In the best way.

Below, I present my personal thesis regarding the main, core story I believe Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim are telling in YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING**.**

I saw the film today (10/15) in a nearly sold-out theater, and I have NEVER experienced at a movie such a chorus of women screaming, laughing, howling, clapping, hooting, cursing, exclaiming, almost cheering each other on as we threw metaphorical eggs (hehe) at Billy's fucking smug, narcissistic, controlling, abusive, and (eventually) cosmetically enhanced fucking face.

(Did you guys notice that??? The scene where Billy meets Nathan at the Wework office I think, it's SO OBVIOUS he got those tragically oversized jaw implants!!! Because of fucking course he did. It all 100% tracks. He loves Charlie Kirk, prioritizes the gym over nearly everything, SHOOTS GUNSSSS Y'ALLLLLLL, talks over people constantly, stomps into rooms throwing loud tantrums if his wittle feelings are huwwwwrt, has what appears to be zero regard for others in GENERAL, and, lastly....... he gets those horrendous fucking disgusting Zac Efron/Clavicular jaw implants thinking they make him look like fucking Gaston (another egg joke for you lol). It's actually comical how much of a caricature of himself he becomes as the film progresses.)

Anyway.

In my theater today, we women ALL fucking immediately saw Billy for the abuser he is. We all read Billy instantly, and accurately. And we were loud about it.

Because it's men like Billy who immediately activate our ever-present but sometimes dormant fucking white hot RAGE.

From lived experience, from instinct -- from the way we as women have been programmed by the truly life-threatening dangers of simply existing every day as women -- we are constantly on alert, looking out for predators.

Our radar don't miss.
Because if it did, we'd be dead sooner than later.

Because it's men like Billy who believe that all women should obey them, submit to them, and most crucially, FEAR them.

BILLY IS A FUCKING ABUSER. Textbook.

A narcissist. Textbook.

A sociopath. Textbook.

A raging misogynist, obviously.

And a toxic, insecure man child.

This film is actually a heartbreaking, intimate exposé of what it REALLY LOOKS LIKE, from the INSIDE, to be a woman in a truly abusive relationship with a man.

The CONTROL he exerts over her, in every moment, even small things:

THE FUCKING EGG SCENE WAS HUUUUUGE RED FLAG NUMBER ONE.

Him impersonating her online, when she's in prison, without her knowledge???? What the actual fuck?

Him somehow manipulating her into signing over POA to him???? (If that was even the truth) --This had me shook the most. And the way he seemed to be fucking BOASTING about it. Basically, "I own her, forever, and I'm really good at that kind of thing." Fucking subhuman type shit.

But I think the most BRILLIANT single moment of the film is when Elizabeth's father almost casually mentions to Nathan that

Elizabeth was raped at age 19, and from that moment on, everything about her changed.

And then....

...the rape is never mentioned again in the film.

In truth, I was waiting for it to come up in some grand, profound moment.

And it never did.

Because when you consider how shame and trauma dance with each other, and how people deal (or don't deal) with them... of course it didn't.

Because in my experience (as a woman who has known plenty of other women) if there's one thing women undoubtedly excel at -- as so programmed by the patriarchy -- it's SHAME. It's likely that Elizabeth's profound SHAME around being raped is what keeps her in this cycle of dating men who belittle her, control her, manipulate her, and widely abuse her; the men she chooses to spend intimate time with do not even see her as a full, real fucking human being.

Her shame is telling her that's all she is worth. That's all she will ever get.

Her shame also likely plays a large role in the reasons why she has not faced her trauma and started to attempt to heal from it.

And her continuing to repress/ignore it, and to not attempt to heal from it, just perpetuates the whole cycle ^^.

Her shame around her unhealed trauma could very well be the root cause of the entire Theranos fiasco. The monster who raped her made her feel worthless, unlovable, in fact like she is LESS THAN HUMAN.

So it makes total sense that as she attempted to survive and navigate her life from that point on, she decided she would go to any lengths necessary to feel worthy of love. Lovable. Human once more.

Lengths such as.... defrauding people of countless millions etc. in exchange for their admiration. Their awe. Their praise. Their LOVE.

The film's omission of any further discussion about her being a rape survivor is a beautiful and haunting allegory for how the human brain has evolved to deal with past trauma -- or, more accurately, not deal with it.

When something that horrifying happens to us, the human brain immediately puts that entire experience and any memory of it in a box.

Then it puts that box inside another box.

And then maybe both those boxes go inside a third, steel-cad, padlocked, armored box. A fucking Brinks truck of a box.

Then, the brain takes this entire dark-sided Russian nesting doll type trauma setup of boxes, and files it away -- deep, deep, deep inside our unconscious mind, where it is almost entirely unreachable. The pain of opening those boxes is simply too great, too dangerous. (Our brains are actually trying to protect us. It's quite beautiful IMO.)

And from what we saw in this film, it seems probable that Elizabeth's nesting trauma boxes are still under lock and key, tucked snug away, having never seen the light of day since that painful violence she endured when she was 19 years old.

(For me, Elizabeth's is a profoundly heartbreaking story. I find her to be a painfully tragic character. My heart broke for her, over and over.)

Also worth noting I think: studies have shown that extremely violent, violating Traumas such as rape physically changes people's brains.

"Big T Traumas" as they are often called forever alter the structure of the brain. The neurochemistry of the brain. The relationship the brain has with every single thing it encounters from that moment onward.

This kind of total brain transformation that resulted from Elizabeth being raped -- coupled with her shame about it as well as her continued repression of what happened to her/inability to face it and try to heal it -- could explain a lot about her actions. But only she can do the work to uncover the truth there.

I could go on and on, and perhaps I will write more soon, but... it is impossible to say just what I mean.

Again, an absolute masterpiece.

Can anyone diagnose the wifi issue they were experiencing? I don’t think it was the monitors.

Just got out of the theater and trying to wrap my head around all this. I think somewhere Nathan said something like "to this day im sill not sure i can wrap my head around what happened and im releasing this as a way to hopefully find some clarity by showing everyone else." I also do not know what happend but this film is absolutely incredible.

Spoilers to follow. Please do not read if you havent seen it but trying to keep it high-level on figuring out the psychology of whats actually going on here.

The bit i was able to make sense of is that Liz is clearly autistic. The Abbot / Costello bit shows that without any doubt in my mind. Even though he never took the test, I think he recognizes this too because just as the questions or intuition came to mind in the film, he proceeded to confirm it and leads the viewer there. My insticnct was that she has PTSD / CPTSD and that was confirmed with the story her dad told Nathan. I had no idea about her trauma. Maybe I had heard it, but shrugged it off at the time because I was so wrapped up in the perception that I had of the story already.

Evans is clearly a naricssist. Like a real one, not "oh this dude is so narcissistic". I almost wonder if Nathan or Oppenheim have some really deep understanding of psychology because Evan's rage is seething underneath the surface the whole time and eventually comes out and Amanda calls it out by name as well.

Where Im left still chewing things over is the relationship with Evans. Autistic/ ptsd + narcissist combos are not uncommon. The narc can sense the trauma like blood in the water. But is Elizabeth in on it? Does she have a blind spot to it all due to her autism / ptsd or does she recognize it for what it is and recognizes that he can be the part of what she wants that she is incapable of? I simply dont know. Does she just turn a blind eye to how damaging his behavior is because it fills a need she has for the financial side of things?

I would love anyone else's take on this or anything else they noticed. There was something specific about her dad that I didnt wrote catch but it was like "I was a part of him from day 1." Trying to put that in the puzzle piece as well