'You Can See Everything' Leaves Viewers More Uncertain About Holmes Despite Unprecedented Access, and Shows We Too Would Have Been Charmed
Source: Caroline D'Agati. "6 Questions I Still Have After Watching 'You Can See Everything'." October 22, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says that even though the film gives huge access to Elizabeth Holmes and runs nearly three hours, it leaves you with more questions than answers about who she really is. She lists unanswered puzzles, from her fiancé's behavior to her dog and her daughter's name. Her biggest takeaway is that Holmes is so charming that we would probably have been fooled too.
Conclusion
Despite its length and extraordinary access, 'You Can See Everything' clarifies nothing about Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos, or the nature of truth, leaving viewers with unresolved questions and the humbling realization that they too would have been taken in by Holmes.
Premises
- The film gives extraordinary access to Holmes and her fiancé Billy Evans, who maintain that she never lied and doesn't know what went wrong, yet it runs almost three hours without resolving any of the central questions about her.
- Key figures and behaviors in the film are ambiguous and can be read in opposite ways depending on the viewer's perspective, such as Evans being either controlling or protective, as shown by his interruptions, his control of Holmes' social media, and his carrying a firearm.
- The film leaves important questions unasked or unanswered, such as whether Holmes thinks about Ian Gibbons, what her cross necklace means, what happened to her dog, and why her daughter is named 'Invicta.'
- Holmes appears charming and sympathetic on screen, which makes it plausible that she could have won over investors, employees, and the media.
- Because the viewer experiences Holmes' persuasiveness firsthand, the viewer concludes they would have failed the 'we should have seen through her' test, which is consistent with whistleblower Tyler Shultz's remark that 'you want it to be true so badly.'
Assumptions
- A good documentary should clarify its subject and resolve the central questions it raises.
- The author's reaction to the film (uncertainty, charm) is representative of how viewers generally respond.
- Small details such as a necklace, a dog, or a child's name are meaningful clues to Holmes' character or sincerity.
- The film's on-screen Holmes is an authentic enough representation to infer how she came across to investors and others.
- Interpretations of ambiguous behavior (like carrying a gun) divide along political or cultural lines.
- Holmes' charm, rather than other factors such as incentives, hype, or lack of due diligence, is the main explanation for why people were fooled.