The Truth Left Off-Screen: What Nathan Fielder’s Elizabeth Holmes Film May Leave Viewers Wondering

  

 

Some documentaries leave audiences with clear answers. Others leave behind a collection of uncomfortable questions that become more difficult to ignore after the credits roll. Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s You Can See Everything, a documentary about former Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, belongs firmly in the second category. By offering an intimate look at Holmes shortly before she began serving her prison sentence, the film invites viewers into her private world while challenging them to decide how much of what they see they can believe.

But the film has also drawn criticism from someone who knows the Theranos story from the inside. Tyler Shultz, a former Theranos employee who helped expose the company’s problems, says the documentary is missing some important context. His criticism raises an important question: what important truths do audiences lose when filmmakers choose to be ambiguous instead of simply telling a story of events?

A Different Kind of Documentary

Released in theaters in October 2026, You Can See Everything takes an unusual approach to its subject. Rather than simply revisiting the rise and collapse of Theranos, the film follows Holmes during the period leading up to her imprisonment. Fielder and Oppenheim gained access to her home and documented moments involving Holmes, her partner, Billy Evans, and their family.

It’s what makes the film compelling, but it does lead to complications. Viewers unfamiliar with the Theranos scandal may find themselves concentrating on Holmes's personality rather than the evidence that established what happened at her company.

According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, Shultz believes the film gives insufficient attention to important details about Theranos and its technology. He has described the production as an entertaining work of art while questioning whether it should be understood as a reliable documentary account.

The Problem With Leaving Out Context

To understand why Shultz objects, it helps to remember what made Theranos such a significant scandal.

Holmes founded the company with a promise that its technology could change medical testing by running many tests from a tiny blood sample. That vision attracted a lot of money and a lot of attention. But investigations uncovered serious problems with the company's testing practices and its claims about its technology.

"The way they show the Theranos device in the documentary, it's hard to know what the technology was really capable of," Shultz says. In one key scene, Holmes demonstrates the device and describes its capabilities to Fielder. Their discussion degenerates into a dispute about the meaning of the word "can" and whether theoretical possibilities should be regarded as established technical achievements.

Without sufficient context, a complicated technical failure can become a philosophical argument about language, intention, and misunderstanding.

Did the Film Invite Viewers to Reconsider Holmes?

One of the documentary's central questions concerns whether Holmes understood the difference between what Theranos promised and what its technology could deliver.

The film does not simply provide a conventional explanation and move on. Instead, viewers can see the conversations play out, watch Holmes react, and ponder how she's telling her own story.

That uncertainty appears to be part of the filmmakers' artistic approach. Yet it also explains why the film has generated criticism.

A person's confidence, composure, or emotional presentation cannot independently establish whether their statements are accurate. In a story that involved scientific claims and a criminal conviction, the difference between personal impression and verifiable evidence is worth special attention.

The challenge is not that filmmakers should never explore a controversial person's perspective. It is that an intimate portrait can influence public perception even when it does not provide the complete historical record.

The Whistleblower's Perspective

Shultz’s critique is especially potent because he was not just an outsider looking in on Theranos. He worked for the company and became involved in exposing its problems.

His view is different from the filmmaker meeting Holmes through a camera lens. Fielder’s documentary is about the struggle to know someone through one-on-one interaction, but Shultz stresses the importance of looking at the larger record of events.

Fielder’s artistic appeal has also been recognized by Shultz. His concern is that the film’s unusual approach could make uncertainty itself the biggest revelation, even if there’s existing evidence that answers some of the questions around Theranos.

Artistry vs. Accountability

Documentaries are about choices. What scenes to include, what questions to ask, how much background information to give, and where a story should end are up to the directors. Even if the events are recorded as they happen, the film that results is still a constructed narrative.

The spotlight on Holmes’s personal world in “You Can See Everything” offers an intimate portrait of a person whose public image was formed by a massive corporate scandal. That contrast can be interesting but can also detract from the people who were affected by the company’s actions and the evidence that exposed its failings.

Things to Remember as a Spectator

The most useful response to the controversy is not necessarily to dismiss the film or to accept every criticism without question. Instead, viewers can appreciate that different forms of storytelling are used for different purposes.

An experimental documentary can investigate uncertainty, behavior, and the boundaries of human judgment. Meanwhile, investigative journalism and court documents help establish what evidence supports which claims and what conclusions have already been reached.

Viewers can both enjoy Fielder and Oppenheim’s unusual filmmaking and reflect on Shultz’s objections. They are able to see the Holmes story without replacing the documentary record of Theranos. Most importantly, they can distinguish between a question that remains genuinely unresolved and a question that the available evidence has already answered.

The Truth Beyond the Frame

Ultimately, You Can See Everything raises a question that extends far beyond Elizabeth Holmes: can a film show someone closely without helping audiences understand the full truth about them?

Shultz’s critique suggests that the answer depends on what is not included in the frame. A camera can record expressions, conversations, and private moments, but it cannot automatically explain their meaning or supply every piece of missing context.

The most revealing documentary is not always the one that leaves viewers with the greatest mystery. Sometimes, it is the one that helps them understand which questions remain open—and which facts should never be lost in the telling.

The truth, after all, is not determined by what a camera happens to capture. It is a matter of evidence, of context, of willingness to look beyond the screen.