It also stands that this is one of the rare movies that deserves a 2nd watch. (I haven't yet.)

But it's definitely "if I knew this, and I knew that, and even though now spoiled, I'd watch it through a totally different lens." I can't think of another movie you could say that about.

That whole scene was one of the ones that had me laughing in disbelief.

I have two questions that are probably stupid but just humor me.

One, when it seems she texted Nathan "you really can see everything," what was that scene intending to say?

And two, when the two are questioning Liz's boyfriend about his sex life, and he's bragging about how good he is at sex, and then he suddenly acts all awkward and asks to change the subject, what was your take on that? It seemed weird to me.

Quote:

---

And two, when the two are questioning Liz's boyfriend about his sex life, and he's bragging about how good he is at sex,

---

By "boyfriend", you meant husband, father of her kids, and man who holds her POA, right?

(The same one who insisted it was fine for his dck to be filmed, when told he didn't have to, then pitched a giant hissy fit?) That one?

oops, yes

Rigs said:

---

Quote:

---

And two, when the two are questioning Liz's boyfriend about his sex life, and he's bragging about how good he is at sex,

---

By "boyfriend", you meant husband, father of her kids, and man who holds her POA, right?

(The same one who insisted it was fine for his dck to be filmed, when told he didn't have to, then pitched a giant hissy fit?) That one?

---

They are not married

watty said:

---

I have two questions that are probably stupid but just humor me.

One, when it seems she texted Nathan "you really can see everything," what was that scene intending to say?

And two, when the two are questioning Liz's boyfriend about his sex life, and he's bragging about how good he is at sex, and then he suddenly acts all awkward and asks to change the subject, what was your take on that? It seemed weird to me.

---

initially, I thought she was coming onto him when she sent that text

It's what it felt like, but also it was fishy, like something about it didn't seem real. I spent the whole movie wondering a lot about how honest the editing was, and I think that's part of the genius of the movie, this idea that we're seeing everything but actually none of us really know what we're seeing or what to believe. Just like with her whole scandal.

This tweet really got me thinking about the movie on an even deeper level that I already was. What can we believe?

[SPOILERS on You Can See Everything]

People seem to believe that Amanda’s scenes are faithful re-enactments of real moments and dialogue between Nathan and Liz.

This is a wild miss.

Amanda is not Liz. This is made clear throughout the whole film. Nathan likely made up every…

— Jarred Geller (@jarredgeller) October 18, 2026

I think I do too... but it's possible they aren't. The scene at the end where he changes that one word in the script was interesting too. I don't know, by the end, I started almost feeling like all of Amanda and Nathan's stuff was just being acted, like a real movie. It seemed a little too convenient that she would eagerly be so involved. But that might be because it was all just so weird and unbelievable to begin with. I kept thinking, why on earth is this actress spending her time on this?

I just feel like, the more I think about the movie, the more I think the genius of it is that while the first half was somewhat straightforward (though still unsettling as all the weird characters keep you wondering about everything), the second half was Nathan and the crew intentionally crafting a narrative that felt as ambiguous and confusing and possibly dishonest (but maybe not!) as possible, to mirror the life and company that Liz lived/built. To where you come out a little confused, and then going back and questioning everything, and you want to assume it's all on the up and up but then some details are just weird enough to cause doubt.

Trying to be more cryptic here, but that is what made some of us feel somewhat put off by AS in this film. During the conversation AS had with Nathan and Billy, AS claims not to like CK because he comes across as 'performative.' This seems more than a little daft, and maybe lacks some self awareness. Awareness of AS' occupational choice and place in society, but also as time goes on, in this piece.

Was Billy the only authentic, non-performative person with a major role in the whole piece? If so, maybe the only truthful, openly authentic person is also kind of the worst. Everyone else is acting, playing a part, or is 'performative' and we prefer them, at least in some capacity morese than Billy.

Or maybe it was a ruse to trick Seyfriend and have her believe that she's reenacting real conversations between Nathan and Liz. Seyfriend made it a point that her portrayal of Liz in The Dropout were not based on facts and some of the things she acted out were made up because nobody was there when it happened.

But who the hell knows what's real, right?

Quote:

---

They are not married

---

This is what they call a common law marriage at this point.

SteakandPizza said:

---

Or maybe it was a ruse to trick Seyfriend and have her believe that she's reenacting real conversations between Nathan and Liz. Seyfriend made it a point that her portrayal of Liz in The Dropout were not based on facts and some of the things she acted out were made up because nobody was there when it happened.

But who the hell knows what's real, right?

---

My little brain came out of the theater just sort of accepting everything I had seen and assuming 100% of it was true because my brain defaults to that... but yeah, reading reviews and comments and then re-thinking it, that's the question.

Quote:

---

"You Can See Everything" might be the buzziest film of the moment, but before the Elizabeth Holmes-focused documentary made it to theaters, co-director Lance Oppenheim has admitted that fellow director Nathan Fielder was so skeptical about being able to weave a unique enough narrative that he negotiated a "kill switch" with A24 before they began filming.

In an interview with IndieWire, Oppenheim detailed Fielder's kill-switch idea and how it helped the project. While Fielder wanted to pursue the documentary with Oppenheim, he worried that "the story had been told so many times already." (Before the documentary even began production, Holmes' scandal was already the subject of a popular podcast, best-selling book, an Alex Gibney doc and "The Dropout," the Hulu scripted series.)

"Nathan [said to A24], 'Well, do you think if Lance and I were to go and see if there was something there, would you be comfortable with giving us money and essentially just leaving us alone, and giving us a provision in our deal, whatever the money was, that we could just kill it at any time? If we didn't find something, we could just throw it all away, we could throw it in the garbage can,'" said Oppenheim. "And they thankfully agreed."

Oppenheim continued, saying that the "kill switch" negotiation "changed everything," especially as Fielder remained hesitant about how the doc would come to fruition with just 34 days left before Holmes was set to go to prison. The provision also gave them freedom with the project, he said.

"This was the first time where I've ever been like, 'Oh, we actually have room to explore something without any pressure of anyone looking [over us]," said Oppenheim. " I wish I could have that for every project, because then it really feels like you're just operating purely out of curiosity. You can essentially fish."

In another interview with Wired Magazine, Fielder also touched on why he wanted such a provision in the contract.

"I told A24, 'I don't really know what the angle is, but there is something tickling in my brain,'" he said. "She was about to go to prison, so we didn't know what was gonna happen. I was like, 'If you guys want, I'm down to go down and start filming and see what emerges. But we need the ability to deliver nothing to you guys if it doesn't work out.' And they said 'Sure.'"

He continued: "It really meant I didn't have to hold back with her or with them. Making a film, or any project, is very stressful. So if we had to pull the plug because it didn't work out, it would sort of be a relief to me. It's a very nice zone to operate in. Lance and I both thought, 'Well, at the very least, this will be an interesting week or two that we'll have as a story.'"

---

Yeah i feel like while you can't take everything at face value you have to trust that he's not completely making things up. Feels out of bounds of the game.

Diggity said:

---

while I'm sure the reenactments weren't 100% accurate (they never are) I don't think he just make them up completely.

If he was going to do that, he could have made them more interesting.

---

Well, the whole thing was made up, but frankly, what difference does it make in the end?

This movie is a modern day Allegory of the Cave. (Allegory of the Prison?) Maybe Nathan created more shadows on the wall than we appreciate.

cr0wbar said:

---

uujm said:

---

This movie was scripted.

---

Lol, no. Cleverly edited? Yes. If you've watched any of Nathan's work in 'Nathan For You' or 'The Rehearsal' - these people aren't scripted. Billy & EH were not, and neither were the parents. I'd venture to say that 80% of the footage captured in San Diego didn't make the film. He was there filming for ~30 days.

---

Scripted as in exact dialogue, I don't think so. Scripted in that they were going in to this with a preplanned goal, yes I do think so. Setups, staging, editing, acted out scenes - all of it goes into the desire to create an illusion, an inability to separate fact from fiction. I basically look at Fielder as an illusionist, combining absurd scenarios with misdirection with comedy with careful editing of what audience is shown and when. Kind of a social, rather than physical, illusionist. It's unique and interesting, entertaining, but it's illusion. He actually used to be a magician and I think I read he still belongs to some magicians club in LA. I think he is a David Blaine fan, I don't know if his use of flat expression and voice is an homage to Blaine or he's naturally that way and it drew him to Blaine, but there's something there. In this movie, Fielder is like a combination of David Blaine, Andy Kaufman, and Allen Funt.

gigemJTH12 said:

---

FWIW I believed and still believe that those reenactments were legit. No real reasoning other than it just seemed genuine.

---

The fact he couldn't remember a key part of her response to his "did you know about the money?" question well raised some doubt for me. He answered it two ways and it was sort of left to the audience on which to believe although he landed on the more innocent one. I do believe that waffle was intentional on his part to mess with the audience.