The Elizabeth Holmes Phenomenon: How ‘You Can See Everything’ Is Shattering the Oscar Rulebook

SPOILER ALERT: This article contains major spoilers for “You Can See Everything,” now playing in theaters.

In the history of the Academy Awards, there are lines drawn in the sand—rules that define what a "Best Picture" is and what it is not. For 98 ceremonies, the documentary category has remained a silo, a respected but cordoned-off wing of the motion picture industry. But A24’s latest juggernaut, You Can See Everything, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, is currently bulldozing those walls.

Following the Theranos founder through the final 34 days before her incarceration and continuing its lens-work into her post-sentencing life, the film has arrived not just as a piece of cinema, but as a cultural earthquake. With a staggering $15 million opening weekend—a figure that dwarfs the lifetime grosses of most nonfiction features—the film is testing the limits of institutional flexibility. As it sits with a record-setting 99 on Metacritic and a 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the film has become the most debated, discussed, and critically acclaimed project of the decade.

Main Facts: The Anatomy of a Disruptor

You Can See Everything is a hybrid beast. By blending cinema verité with unsettling, high-fidelity recreations, Fielder and Oppenheim have created a work that refuses to be categorized. Its IMDb score of 9.4 (as of Monday, Oct. 19) places it in direct competition with Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption for the title of "Highest Rated Film of All Time."

The film’s awards campaign, spearheaded by A24, is nothing short of audacious. Beyond the expected push for Best Documentary Feature, the studio is submitting the film across the entire board: Best Picture, Director, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Makeup and Hairstyling, Sound, and Original Score.

At the center of this storm is Amanda Seyfried. Reprising her Emmy-winning portrayal of Elizabeth Holmes from the limited series The Dropout, Seyfried appears in the film as both herself and the subject. This meta-narrative layer—where the actress who "became" Holmes is now documenting the real woman’s descent—has opened a path for her to be considered for Best Supporting Actress. If nominated, it would be a historic moment: an actress recognized for playing two distinct entities simultaneously, one of which is a real-life figure she has already been celebrated for portraying.

A Chronology of the 34 Days

The narrative tension of the film is rooted in the "34 Days"—the final countdown before Holmes reported to prison. Fielder and Oppenheim’s cameras capture a vacuum of power. We see the crumbling of a facade in real-time, underscored by Ari Balouzian’s haunting original score.

• The Lead-Up: The documentary begins with the immediate aftermath of the trial, focusing on the domestic environment shared by Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans.
• The Recreations: As the days tick down, the film weaves in scenes featuring Christopher Abbott as Evans. These aren’t mere reenactments; they are stylized, deliberate distortions of memory and reality, forcing the audience to question the reliability of the "truth" being presented.
• The Departure: The final act, which follows Holmes as she transitions into the penal system, marks a shift in the film’s tone from a corporate tragedy to a study of profound isolation.
• The Aftermath: By continuing to roll cameras, the directors capture the chilling silence of a life stripped of its artifice.

Supporting Data: The Institutional Maze

The path to the Oscars is paved with the policies of various guilds and voting bodies. Because You Can See Everything defies traditional classification, it has sent the awards circuit into a state of bureaucratic panic.

The Guild Breakdown

• Directors Guild of America (DGA): Fielder and Oppenheim are eligible for the top prize. Because the DGA separates documentary and narrative categories, they are positioned to potentially take a slot from major studio directors like Christopher Nolan.
• Producers Guild of America (PGA): The film is eligible for both the Theatrical Motion Picture award and the Documentary prize. This is a crucial bellwether; a win here would signal that the industry is ready to treat the film as a legitimate Best Picture contender.
• Critics Choice Awards: This remains the most welcoming harbor for the film. It is the only major precursor that allows the film to compete in every category, including acting, providing the most significant window to build momentum before the Academy ballots are cast.
• The SAG/Actor Awards Hurdle: Currently, the awards formerly known as SAG do not recognize documentaries. However, internal whispers suggest that a special committee is reviewing the film’s "narrative recreations" to see if it can be reclassified to allow Seyfried and Abbott to be recognized.

Official Responses and Strategic Maneuvers

A24 has been strategic in its silence, letting the film’s critical reception do the heavy lifting. While Nathan Fielder is eligible to submit as a performer, sources have confirmed he will not. This is a calculated move to avoid the "actor playing himself" trap—a category that has historically seen zero success in the Academy’s voting history. By focusing the acting campaign solely on Seyfried and, to a lesser extent, Christopher Abbott, the studio is narrowing its focus to maximize the odds of a nomination.

The Academy itself has remained tight-lipped. Under current rules, no documentary has ever been nominated for Best Picture. Yet, the "zeitgeist factor" is powerful. There is a growing sentiment among industry insiders that the film’s technical mastery and cultural impact transcend its genre classification.

Implications: The Future of Documentary Cinema

The implications of You Can See Everything are monumental. If the Academy breaks precedent and nominates a documentary for Best Picture, it effectively dismantles the hierarchy of cinema. It suggests that the "how" (the process of filming) is less important than the "what" (the truth being captured).

Some studios are attempting to frame the season as a battle between the traditional blockbuster—exemplified by Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey—and the documentary experimentalism of Fielder and Oppenheim. It is the classic "David vs. Goliath" narrative, but with a twist: in this version, David is armed with a camera and a legal loophole.

The irony of the film’s title is not lost on anyone. Elizabeth Holmes once promised that a single drop of blood could reveal the status of the entire body. Now, the industry is looking at this film and struggling to identify what, exactly, it is looking at.

As the voting season approaches, the governing bodies of these awards ceremonies are essentially forced to choose: do they uphold the walls of tradition, or do they acknowledge that the rules of storytelling have fundamentally shifted?

If the film continues its trajectory, we are not just looking at a contender for the 99th Academy Awards. We are looking at a permanent shift in how we define "nonfiction." By the time the red carpet is rolled out, the industry may find that the rules it once relied upon are as hollow as the promises of the Theranos lab itself. We are, quite simply, in uncharted waters. Whether the industry survives the crossing remains to be seen.