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
A Hyperallergic review of You Can See Everything, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, argues that the film blurs documentary and performance art. The review focuses on Fielder’s 34 days with Elizabeth Holmes and her family, while leaving open how much of the film’s apparent intimacy reflects deliberate staging or interpretation.
A Hyperallergic review of You Can See Everything, the 2026 documentary directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, argues that Fielder’s on-camera involvement makes him look less like a detached observer than a performance artist working inside his own film. The review centers on his 34 days filming Elizabeth Holmes and her family, and presents that interpretation as a critical reading—not a confirmed account of the filmmakers’ intent.
According to the review, Fielder spends 34 days filming and questioning Holmes, her partner Billy Evans and their two children. He eventually moves into the guesthouse of the family’s California beachfront rental shortly before Holmes begins an 11-year prison sentence. The review does not provide a release date or further production details beyond identifying the film as a 2026 documentary.
The review says Holmes and Evans describe their participation as an effort at “radical transparency” and hope to persuade the public that Holmes is innocent. They explain that they selected Fielder because he “thinks outside the box.” Those descriptions are attributed to the couple in the film; the review does not treat their account of Holmes’s innocence as established fact.
For the critic, Fielder’s presence changes what the camera records. The review describes a scene in which he films Holmes and Evans embracing from a distance, and another in which a hand appears to stroke Holmes’s shoulder before the camera reveals Evans sitting on her other side. It also cites Holmes texting Fielder, “fyi you can totally see everything.” The critic reads these moments as making the title’s promise of openness ambiguous: the film raises questions about who is watching, what is being shown and how Fielder’s proximity shapes the encounter.
Fielder’s Presence Changes the Frame
The review’s central point is that documentary access is not neutral. By moving close to the people he films and eventually staying on the property, Fielder becomes part of the situation rather than simply recording it from outside. That presence may affect how the family behaves and how viewers interpret the footage.
Reading the film through performance art offers a way to discuss that effect. The reviewer compares Fielder’s prolonged eye contact with Holmes to Marina Abramović’s 2010 work The Artist Is Present, and invokes a definition of performance as an intervention unfolding in real time with the artist’s body at its center. This is the critic’s framework, not a statement that Fielder or the directors have classified the film as performance art. The distinction matters because the film’s ethical and artistic questions depend partly on whether viewers see Fielder as witness, participant or both.
The film also places that formal question alongside Holmes’s conviction and impending imprisonment. The review says the family hopes the documentary will persuade audiences of her innocence, while the critic asks how that goal interacts with the access granted to Fielder. The source does not establish that the film changes public opinion or offers new evidence about the case.
Popular right now
eufy E25 Robot Vacuum and Mop Combo with HydroJet Roller Mop
Hisense 85 U6 Pro Series Mini-LED ULED 4K UHD HDR Gaming AI Smart Fire TV (85U6SF Pro)
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Theranos to the Camera
Holmes founded Theranos, which claimed its technology could perform a wide range of blood tests using only a few drops of blood. The review describes that technology as falsely claimed and identifies Holmes as a convicted fraudster. The 11-year prison sentence provides the immediate timeline for the filming: Fielder’s stay at the rental took place shortly before she was due to begin serving it.
The critic situates the documentary alongside works in which artists make their own actions and the responses they provoke part of the work. The examples named are Abramović’s The Artist Is Present, Chris Burden’s Shoot (1971), Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece (1964) and Carolee Schneemann’s Interior Scroll (1975). These references explain the review’s comparison; they do not establish that You Can See Everything was conceived as an artwork in that tradition.
The piece is a film review, and it contains spoilers, as its editor’s note states. Its argument is interpretive: it asks whether Fielder is documenting the family or performing a role that shapes the documentary, without claiming a definitive answer.
“Is Fielder a documentarian, or is he a performance artist playing one?”
— Hyperallergic reviewer, posing the film’s central question
Intent and Intimacy Remain Open
The review does not establish whether Fielder intended the film as performance art, or whether its director’s presence is best understood as a formal strategy, a consequence of the access he received, or both. The comparison to Abramović and other performance artists belongs to the reviewer.
It is also unclear from the source material how the family’s stated goal of persuading viewers of Holmes’s innocence shaped the final edit, how the film presents competing perspectives, or what Holmes and Evans hoped to achieve beyond the review’s account. The moments of apparent intimacy described by the critic do not confirm a romantic relationship or private intent between Holmes and Fielder. The article supplies no response from Fielder, Oppenheim, Holmes or Evans to its interpretation.
The Film and Its Reception
The immediate next step is for audiences to watch You Can See Everything and assess the scenes the review describes in the film’s full context. The source identifies the documentary as a 2026 release but gives no specific release schedule, screening information, additional interviews or forthcoming statements from its directors or participants.
Further reporting could clarify how Fielder and Oppenheim describe their approach, what access arrangements shaped the filming, and how the family’s stated aim relates to the documentary’s finished presentation. Until such information is available, the claim that Fielder is a performance artist in disguise should be understood as the review’s argument, not a confirmed description of his role or intentions.
Key Questions
What is You Can See Everything?
It is a 2026 documentary directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. The review says it follows Fielder filming Elizabeth Holmes, her partner Billy Evans and their children.
Why does the review compare Fielder to a performance artist?
The reviewer argues that Fielder’s extended proximity to the family makes his presence part of the situation being filmed. The comparison is the critic’s interpretation, not a confirmed statement of the directors’ intent.
How long did Fielder film Holmes and her family?
The review says he spent 34 days filming and questioning them, and later moved into the guesthouse at their California rental shortly before Holmes began her prison sentence.
Does the review confirm that Holmes and Fielder had a romantic relationship?
No. The critic describes scenes that invite viewers to imagine intimacy but says the film does not confirm it. The review provides no evidence establishing a romantic relationship.
What is still unknown about the film?
The source does not give the filmmakers’ response to the performance-art interpretation, detailed information about the editing or access arrangements, or specific release and screening details. Those points remain unclear from the report.
Source: hyperallergic.com
