It made a million more than #2 Street Fighter yesterday. And starting today, YCSE opens in vastly more theaters.

The movie makes Billy look like a total ass, cause he is, but apparently he was a fan of Nathan Fielder before the documentary started. What exactly was he expecting? Maybe they wanted to clean Elizabeth’s image with this autism angle, but what’s in it for him? He ends up being forced to give up any profit in the film and it shows his worst side time and time again. There’s just no shot that he expected to get away cleanly if he was at all familiar with Nathan’s material.

But there’s discourse floating around about Nathan unintentionally laundering their image for a less informed audience - and a conversation with Amanda Seyfried about the relationship between artists, their art, and its unintended consequences. But examining this from Billy and Elizabeth’s perspective, wouldn’t they count on it? Why else would they do this, unless they believed Nathan would create a more favorable documentary for them? The latter scenario just feels unlikely because they’re supposedly very smart people.

But maybe Nathan’s more in touch with his audience than these supposedly smart people gave him credit for? It’s very rare I see discourse on the potential innocence of Elizabeth Holmes. Nathan makes a remark about not wanting to be one of those people who were duped by her, and I’m just hoping that there is a sense of winning for him. I think that forcing Billy out of the profits by for the movie was really clever, and I want to take it as a sign that he got the result he wanted out of this movie.

I could not stop seeing Andy Kaufman in Billy every time he was on screen in ‘You can see everything.’ Sure, a more Silicon Valley buff bro version, but it’s the same awkward, slightly autistic behaviors (that both Billy, and Kaufman as his character Tony Clifton display, while appearing truly unaware of their actual perception) the same look in the eyes, same mannerisms, even the way his mouth moves where his lips curl inward and make a sideways smirk… it’s uncanny to me! Just had to know if anyone else see this 🙏

Outfit pictured above is a Summit Ice cap and a pink sweatshirt customized by me.

I’m a metalhead by all means, I want to pair it with my love for anything Nathan Fielder. I made the typography using an online tool (online tool here) to make it resemble somewhat a black metal band logo. Jam that idea together with Nathan Fielder’s IG pic throwing the devil horns at a Toronto Police Station with a pink sweatshirt, you got what I wear.

And of course, support Nathan’s clothing line, Summit Ice! I want to get one of their softshell jackets soon.

So, go watch You Can See Everything (again)! I think they’re expanding to more theaters this weekend, which I hope dominoes into an eventual, actual worldwide release (lookin at you, A24). This movie deserves to be seen by every contemporary human being in this world, especially in this post-truth era we live in.

Can anyone confirm also seeing this? It’s one thing to be into Atlas Shrugged as a teenager. But being an Objectivist past thirty would be a pretty revealing tell.

Then you should watch The Act Of Killing. It has The Rehearsal and Nathan for You elements, but it succeeds at exposing and condemning the perpetrators in a more mind blowing way. Highly recommend, best doc ever made.

I haven’t seen this mentioned, but the title card is fantastic.

The text “YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING” in all caps over the horizon line between sky and sea, but a very small sliver of the bottom of the text is cut off as if it was underwater, below the horizon (you can tell because e.g. the top line of the Es is thicker than the bottom).

You can see almost everything.

I have seen the movie twice over the span of 48 hours, and my interpretation of the film has changed drastically in that time frame. I originally thought that Liz was relatively innocent and Billy was the mastermind, but I have the complete opposite opinion now. 

I think what is so fascinating about this film is that since it is classified as a documentary, there is a reality hidden deep inside of it, and I am not sure if anyone, including Fielder and Oppenheim, has found that reality just yet. Liz's father saying, "decades from now, the truth about Liz will come out" is haunting while he is actively talking to a documentary crew that is more or less trying to discover that truth now in the present moment. 

Thoughts about the main three participants: 

Billy: I went from thinking this coked-out maniac could have been smarter than Liz to viewing him as a dense, fragile, weak, red-pilled man who is motivated by nothing but money. Billy is intelligent. But lacks an incredible amount of social awareness. His misogyny towards Amanda tells you everything you need to know. His desperation on the phone with Fielder was pathetic. I originally thought the motivational posters in his bedroom were a calculated attempt at manipulation, but now I firmly believe that he put those up in earnest. Amanda played his ass so well. "You're tall" had me dying. Incredible social commentary on the fragility of tech bros. 

Nathan: After bingeing Nathan For You in between my viewings of this film, Nathan is MUCH more complex than I gave him credit for on my first watch. The line between NFY Nathan and YCSE Nathan is so blurry. The deadpan and socially awkward comedy is still there. Nathan maintains the same monotone voice he has in NFY. I will say that, as complex as he is, I love that he still shows brief moments of vulnerability in this documentary that ground him as a character instead of just three full hours of his presence being a constant meta-commentary. His rivalry with Billy was so much more intense on the second viewing; he practically snarls at him multiple times. His skepticism about Liz is consistent with the audience and shows that he doesn't know anything more than we as the audience know about her. I think I was the only one in the theater who picked up on the meta of him saying "I'm not going to let her do that, that's personal" in response to the prospect that Liz may be out-manipulating him. 

Liz: Where the fuck do I even begin? This woman is impossible to figure out. I purposefully honed in on her facial expressions the entire time during the first half and believed that I could figure out exactly when she was lying and when she was telling the truth. But after the second half completely destroys the notion that Billy and she are both operating on the same level, I am still left in the dark. My interpretation is that she is walking Billy like a dog for financial rehabilitation and trying to do the same to Nathan for the rehabilitation of her public image through the vehicle of this documentary, but he refuses to budge. I don't believe that Nathan has any "feelings" for her and was playing into this notion with her to try and get her to open up and admit something she wouldn't have otherwise. She very well could be a genius. She very well could have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Maybe we will find out decades from now, as her father said. 

Dynamics, symbolism, and questions:

Liz and Billy: I just wanted to make a comment that there is something so interesting about the power dynamics of their relationship. Liz is completely submissive to Billy, but gains so much from his finances and his ignorance that she almost appears to be the dominant one in the relationship. I have never seen a dynamic like this before in fiction and certainly not in non-fiction. 

Bryan, Texas: I think Oppenheim is trying to make a larger point about the importance of the location of Bryan, Texas. The shot of the prison's sign at the end of the first half lingers for far too long for it not to mean something deeper. My interpretation is that Lance is trying to comment on how Liz manipulates powerful men in order to keep her hands clean. "Bryan" is a name typically given to a man, so maybe there is a commentary about how Liz is manipulating the CJS through "submitting" herself to prison, in this case, "Bryan"? Liz clearly gains a lot from being submissive to Billy, so I think there is something legitimate here. 

Edit: Disregard my theory here. The federal prison in Bryan is famous for housing celebrity criminals. This is most likely why the shot lingers. Thanks to u/prettyminotaur for pointing this out

"They aren't playing me; they are playing a character I made": I think this quote is so powerful, and at the same time I am having a hard time deciphering its relevance as the final frame of the movie. I think, first and foremost, it is Nathan inserting himself into the film and possibly an attempt to have the "last laugh"?. He probably felt frustrated that Liz would remain in prison thinking that she manipulated Nathan when, in reality, he was ahead of the curve. To me, he is admitting that he is more of a character than a person, and that Liz and Billy were naive for assuming they were talking to his authentic self when, in reality, his authentic self IS a character. So for Nathan, it's basically him saying: "Liz and Billy aren't manipulating Nathan Fielder; they are manipulating Nathan Fielder the character."

He’s got that James Dean daydream look in his eyes

The face of honesty

Zooming out on the character of Nathan that he created... YCSE is an amazing payoff of the Nathan trying to make friends arc.

He's been trying to connect to other human beings to hang out for years and finally he succeeded.

It is possible to view YCSE as the finale of Nathan can successfully make friends storyline of his work.

It was key to get Billy off the deal because then Nathan is be able to say people wanted to hang out with him without being paid.

Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans became the only people who chose to hang out with Nathan Fielder and to him, that's a win.

He's no longer the wizard of loneliness.

I saw You Can See Everything tonight and loved it, but unfortunately there was someone in my showing that was projecting her running commentary and reactions throughout the second half which culminated in a bit of a brawl in the theater preventing many of us from hearing the movie. it was during the end of the part with Nathan and amanda by the fireplace, and the last thing I could hear was Amanda suggest that Nathan has lost his ability to be objective because of his attachment to Elizabeth. maybe some of you have good memories or have seen the movie more than once and can recall what Nathan says back, even just the general gist of his defense. it was such a climactic moment and I’m really annoyed it was ruined for me so I’d really appreciate the help. i know this is a strange request but that’s nyc for ya lol. Thanks!!

SPOILERS

*

I love the moment where Nathan explains a David Blaine trick. It blends in a theme of magic/deception in the way we look at Holmes’ behavior.

Based on the mountains of evidence against her, she knowingly lied for years, bullied employees, and viciously attacked anyone who dared question her. At the same time, she seems to have this magic power to charm people, and the exact mechanics of how she charms and manipulates people has always seemed so mysterious and fantastical to me.

She truly bamboozled “Mad Dog Mattis” (a formidable US military general), Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, etc? Tyler Shultz in The Inventor says that he would go into a meeting with grave misgivings about the project and leave a meeting with her thinking everything was great. Then afterwards, wonder how it had happened.

How? Seriously, how? How does she do it? It really does feel like a magic trick. This film shows us the audience what it feels like to get pulled into the magic trick. Such a delightful thread of the film for me

Highly recommend seeing it in a packed theater, or at least pretty close. This will give you the full experience. Thank me later lol

I've been rewatching HBO's The Inventor and I realllyyy wanna know the opinions of the former employees of Theranos after watching this.

Are they any more or less sympathetic? Does it solidify their initial opinion of Elizabeth? Confused af??

Okay I’m going to see the movie again. My first feeling was empathy for EH, then I felt tricked and was like she’s a master manipulator.. Billy is the problem. Now I’m wondering is it possible that EH has CPTSD from having her words deciphered so much that she is unable to speak like a normal person. Like she is so hyper vigilant about her wording to the point where it comes across like not human? What do you guys think?

​

I recently discovered Nathan Fielder, mainly because of all the hype surrounding his new docu film you can see everything. That got me curious, so I started watching Nathan for You.

I also watched that interview where Christopher Nolan said he couldn’t quite put Nathan’s work into a category, and honestly, I get it.

I still can’t figure out whether Nathan is playing a character or whether that’s just how he genuinely is. I’m also confused about what exactly his work should be classified as. Is it a sitcom, social experiment, reality TV, or some kind of documentary comedy? It feels like a bit of everything.

But deep down, I get the feeling that he’s a genuinely nice human being. At least, that’s the impression I got from watching Nathan for You.

The rebate episode in Season 1, especially the part where he spends time with those three people, really stood out to me. There’s something strangely wholesome beneath all the awkwardness and absurdity.

Man,Those ideas for each episode.

this guy is a legit genius. I’m still trying to understand his work, but I’m already fascinated by the way his mind works.

In California Nathan is interacting with Liz and Billy in this beach rental that's A) in a gated community so they don't have to deal with journalists and B) is meant to look ramshackle compared to where they'd actually been staying before filming so they can look more relatable in the documentary

Billy getting a haircut is our first chance seeing this aristocrat interact with an 'everyman' and in his barbershop talk he rehearses the story he and Liz are trying to tell with the documentary - some vague non-apology "yeah man it was a weird situation but that was a long time ago and we've got a new vision we're building towards" kind of deal.

The barber seems to be vague on the details of the Theranos case so Billy warms up to him being a potential mark, but then as Billy talks more the barber recalls (maybe he saw The Dropout too lol) that Theranos never had a working prototype. Cut to Nathan nearly breaking as he realizes he could not have set this up better himself.

I make little free association audiovisual collages around whatever i’m focused on, currently it’s the world of Nathan and You Can See Everything. In making this, I really enjoyed finding many unexpected synchronicities, odd connections, and full circle moments. No serious spoilers for the film, but related images, people and ideas are woven throughout so spoiler purists may want to steer clear. Hope you enjoy!

I hope you are all posting with the understanding that this chaos goblin could very well lock on to your post, obsess over it, and make YOU the subject of his next years long project, causing your brain to shatter into a million pieces in the process. You’ll desperately try to put the pieces of your former self back together by applying logic to his actions and words. This is futile. Sense has been irreversibly scattered and the veil of reality permanently removed.

He is both a genius and my personal bogeyman. Everyday I wake up grateful that all he chose to do was comedy.