TL;DR
Get art and craft supplies delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Hyperallergic’s review of Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s 2026 film You Can See Everything questions whether Fielder is only documenting Elizabeth Holmes or also performing within the documentary. The film follows 34 days with Holmes, her partner Billy Evans and their children, but the review says it does not confirm the intimacy or motives it invites viewers to imagine.
A Hyperallergic review of You Can See Everything, Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s 2026 documentary about Elizabeth Holmes, argues that Fielder’s presence turns the film’s act of observation into part of its subject. The review asks whether he is simply documenting Holmes or acting as a performance artist playing a documentarian—an interpretation, not a confirmed description of the filmmakers’ intent.
The film follows 34 days of filming with Holmes, her partner Billy Evans and their two children. According to the review, Fielder eventually moves into the guesthouse at the family’s California beachfront rental, shortly before Holmes is due to begin an 11-year prison sentence for defrauding investors and patients through Theranos. The company had falsely claimed its technology could run a wide range of tests using a few drops of blood.
Holmes and Evans frame their participation as an effort at “radical transparency” and hope to persuade the public that she is innocent, the review says. They explain that they selected Fielder because he “thinks outside the box.” The review describes scenes in which Fielder watches the couple from a distance and sits beside Holmes on a couch. It says the film briefly encourages viewers to wonder whether there is an intimacy between them, but does not confirm that suggestion.
The review also points to a text from Holmes to Fielder reading, “fyi you can totally see everything.” It treats the message and the film’s title as prompts to question who is watching, what the participants want revealed and how Fielder’s proximity may shape the behavior on camera. Those questions are the reviewer’s reading of the film, rather than reported findings about the participants’ private intentions.
When the Filmmaker Enters the Frame
The review’s central point is that Fielder is not presented as a neutral observer at a distance: his decision to stay near the family makes his own presence part of the material viewers see. That matters because documentary footage can be shaped by the conditions of filming, including who is present, how close they are and how participants respond to being watched. In this case, the film’s access to Holmes and her family becomes inseparable from the question of how that access was obtained and used.
By comparing Fielder’s prolonged eye contact with Holmes to Marina Abramović’s performance The Artist Is Present, the reviewer offers a framework for thinking about the film’s form. The comparison is an interpretation, not a claim that Fielder or the filmmakers have classified the project as performance art. It gives readers a way to understand why the review treats Fielder’s actions and the audience’s response as part of the documentary’s subject, rather than as background to it.
The distinction also helps keep the film’s implication separate from evidence. The review describes an effect of ambiguity, but does not establish a relationship between Fielder and Holmes beyond their documented interactions during filming. The film’s tension, as the critic sees it, comes partly from leaving viewers to examine that uncertainty.
Popular right now
Sony WH-1000XM4C Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones, Black
Dyson V8 Cordless Vacuum
TCL 85-Inch QM6K Series QLED Mini LED 4K HDR Smart Google TV
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Holmes, Theranos and the Film’s Access
Holmes founded Theranos, which promoted blood-testing technology that it claimed could perform many tests from a small blood sample. The source says those claims were false and identifies Holmes as a convicted fraudster. The review places the filming shortly before her prison sentence was due to begin, situating the family’s appeal to the public against the legal consequences of the Theranos case.
The critic connects Fielder’s role to performance art, describing the form as work that unfolds in real time and often puts the artist’s body at the center of the action. The review cites works by Abramović, Chris Burden, Yoko Ono and Carolee Schneemann to explain why an artist’s conduct and the responses it produces can be central to a piece. It applies that idea to Fielder’s participation, while presenting the connection as the reviewer’s critical argument, not an official label for the film.
““fyi you can totally see everything.””
— Elizabeth Holmes, in a text message quoted in the review
What the Film Leaves Unconfirmed
The source is a film review, not a report of new legal findings or a verified account of private relationships. It does not establish that Fielder and Holmes shared an intimacy, despite describing scenes that may invite viewers to imagine one. Nor does it establish that Fielder intended to make a performance-art work or that the filmmakers endorse the reviewer’s interpretation.
The review’s account does not provide further details about the documentary’s release, audience response or the current status of the family beyond the period it describes. The claims about the couple’s goals and their reason for choosing Fielder are attributed to their account in the film, not independently verified motives.
Further Details on the Film
The source material provides no announced follow-up, response from Fielder or Oppenheim, or additional production information. The immediate development is the publication of Hyperallergic’s critical reading of the film. Readers seeking a fuller account of its scenes and arguments can consult the review itself; any claims about the filmmakers’ intentions or the participants’ relationship would require further evidence or direct comment.
Key Questions
What is You Can See Everything?
It is a 2026 documentary directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim that the review says follows Elizabeth Holmes, Billy Evans and their two children during 34 days of filming.
Does the review say Fielder is officially a performance artist?
No. It asks whether Fielder can be understood as a performance artist playing a documentarian. That is the critic’s interpretation, not a confirmed description of Fielder’s role or the filmmakers’ intent.
What do Holmes and Evans say about taking part?
According to the review, they describe the documentary as an effort at “radical transparency” and hope it will persuade the public that Holmes is innocent. The review attributes that aim to the couple.
Does the film confirm a relationship between Fielder and Holmes?
The review says it does not. It describes scenes that may lead viewers to imagine intimacy, but does not present that implication as established fact.
Source: hyperallergic.com
