A24 must be allergic to making bad films. I say this with a particular air of sincerity because it seems as though this studio can only produce films of a high or mid-high quality. “Uncut Gems,” “Primetime,” “Backrooms” and even “Marty Supreme” are all films with superb camera work, competent acting and typically an engaging story. Being an A24 film is a badge a movie can wear proudly on its chest and one that tells the audience, “Hey! You’re in for a good time!”
But as you all surely know, with expectations come eager moviegoers, and with eager moviegoers come spent dollars and spent time. If the film fails to exceed or even meet expectations, a poor director somewhere in Hollywood gets executed and we can’t have that, can we? So the question is, is this film, “You Can See Everything,” another win for our good old A24? Yes! I’d say so, and we’ll get into that now.
“You Can See Everything” is an interesting film, as it is difficult to describe its plot presentation. Essentially, the entire film is a documentary about the days leading up to the arrest and subsequent 11-year prison sentence of Theranos founder and local fraudster Elizabeth Holmes, who, in her withdrawal from the public eye, has allowed the film’s directors, Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, to film her and her partner, Billy Evans, along with their two children in a rented beach house. In many recreated scenes, Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans are portrayed by Amanda Seyfried and Christopher Abbott, respectively.
It’s a fascinating piece of filmmaking, which acts as a legitimate documentary, with the majority of the events depicted in the film having actually occurred in real life. Since the subjects of the film have largely disappeared from the public eye or have been incarcerated, the film uses reenactments to show us what happened, much like a docudrama. Something I have not seen in quite a while and found refreshing is that this film is 75% silence. Not normal silence, but reflective silence.
Much of the film is focused on its director, Nathan Fielder, who, while asking Elizabeth and Billy questions, consistently feels as though he is actively being manipulated. He believes that the pair aren’t being entirely forthcoming with him, especially when Holmes continues to deny she ever did anything wrong and Evans attempts to build a new company off the fraudulent technology from Theranos. A lot of this frustration is later explored in the film when Fielder is speaking to Seyfried over the transcripts of his and Holmes’ conversations. At the same time, those conversations don’t give much away, leaving the audience in suspense, all the while filling our ears with spine-chilling music that I’d argue doesn’t fit the film, yet works beautifully with it.
Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the audience reactions when I went to see this film. I saw this on a Tuesday and there were plenty of people in the theater. There was quite a lot of laughing in the audience. I cannot blame them because this film can be a tad goofy at times. Fielder has an odd habit of looking like a lost child in wide shots of contemplative silence. Amanda Seyfried’s wide-eyed, grinning expressions also got a few laughs out of the audience, but so did the silent scenes, which got me thinking further.
Films such as these are usually relegated to the fringe; they are the brainchildren of European avant-garde filmmakers inspired by Scandinavian film artists. I couldn’t believe this was a mainstream release. Watching this movie in a theater that also played films like “Scream 7” just felt wrong. The eerie music, the long shots of silence and the deep introspectiveness of the main character all build this air of sophistication and brilliance. I by no means imply that this film is wrong for it, but I do wonder if mainstream audiences are ready for movies that break conventional standards of American film writing and cinema that leaves the audience wondering hours afterward, “Was she really lying?”
I’d certainly like to think so, but I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?
