You Can See Everything review: performance art, not a documentary

I just saw You Can See Everything, the film about Elizabeth Holmes and her husband Billy Evans that puts Nathan Fielder front and center, and I did not love it. I realize I'm in the vast minority on this one. To me, it was "3 hours of no one giving a straight answer," and that includes Fielder, which bothered me.

I realize evasion is Holmes and Evans' MO. I'll keep this spoiler free, but I have a few points to make about the gender dynamics, the couple at its heart and whether it belongs in the documentary category at all.

Amanda Seyfried and the gender dynamics of Elizabeth Holmes

The most interesting thing to me was the gender dynamics. I thought it was brilliant to include Amanda Seyfried, and not for her recreations. When Seyfried played Elizabeth Holmes, she still seemed like a regular person. Holmes, by contrast, has an intentional mask.

Holmes adopts a wide-eyed, dumb blonde stance with big blue eyes, the kind of act most women would think is too stupid to work. Yet it does, and that's what fascinates me. I think most women look at Holmes the way Seyfried does and conclude she's lying. Most men, like Fielder, want to believe she's genuine. That was one of the most interesting things in the film for me.

Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans as "the Bonnie and Clyde of liars"

I think Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans are "the Bonnie and Clyde of liars." I think they both know exactly what they're doing, particularly because of the conversation with Holmes from prison at the end of the film.

There's also some discussion in the film about whether something unethical is going on with Billy Evans regarding the documentary itself. That's all I'll say about that.

Why I think Nathan Fielder's film should not count as a documentary

I thought Fielder was unethical in giving himself such a front and center starring role without doing any real journalism. Because of that, I would not categorize You Can See Everything as a documentary. I would classify it as performance art instead.

That's fine. But I think calling it a documentary is very misleading.

My Critics' Choice vote: disqualify it, but nominate it for best picture

I'm a Critics' Choice member, and I vote on these things. I think You Can See Everything should be disqualified from the documentary category. I would still nominate it for best picture, though.

It shouldn't win. But it deserves the nomination because of what a lightning rod it is with audiences, and because it has gotten to so many people.