Is You Can See Everything (2026) Woke?
You Can See Everything · 2026 · Directed by Nathan Fielder · $15.6M domestic
Woke Score
CriticCritic Score
Audience
Based
Critics rated this 71 points above its woke score. Among Based films, this critic score ranks #2 of 356.
Answer: No
Woke Score 28/100 · Verdict: Based
Strongest markers: Eat the Rich (38) · Lecture Energy (18) · Feminist Agenda (12)
Representation Casting
Score: 0/100
This is a documentary populated by real people who exist independent of any casting philosophy. No deliberate representation calculus is detectable or applicable.
LGBTQ+ Themes
Score: 0/100
No LGBTQ+ themes, characters, or subtext are present in any reported element of the film.
Feminist Agenda
Score: 12/100
Holmes is a woman whose story has attracted ambient discourse about media framing of women in tech and crime. The film does not advocate for her as a feminist symbol, and its posture toward her is scrutinizing rather than celebratory, but the conversation exists in the margins.
Racial Consciousness
Score: 0/100
The subjects are white Silicon Valley elites and the film raises no themes of racial identity or consciousness.
Climate Crusade
Score: 0/100
No climate themes, environmental messaging, or ecological subtext are present.
Eat the Rich
Score: 38/100
The film's most substantive social dimension: it directly exposes Silicon Valley wealth insulation, white-collar impunity, and the spectacle of a convicted fraudster launching a new startup while preparing holographic self-preservation projects. The contrast between Holmes' lavish pre-prison lifestyle and the consequences faced by ordinary people is a concrete structural element of the film.
Body Positivity
Score: 0/100
No body positivity themes or messaging are present.
Neurodivergence
Score: 0/100
No neurodivergence themes or framing are present in the film.
Revisionist History
Score: 0/100
The film does not reframe historical events through a modern ideological lens. It documents recent, well-established facts about a living convicted person.
Lecture Energy
Score: 18/100
Fielder's on-camera confrontations with Holmes carry a moral prosecutorial weight, and the film's overall architecture argues that Holmes' refusal to acknowledge reality is a symptom of something broader about post-truth culture. It is observational enough to avoid full sermonizing, but the argument is present.
Synopsis
Thirty-four days before she's sent to prison, notorious Silicon Valley founder Elizabeth Holmes invites a skeptical film crew to document her every move. What begins as an intimate portrait of an enigmatic felon becomes a mind-bending three-year journey into the abyss.
Why it received this score
Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim's *You Can See Everything* arrives as perhaps the most methodically uncomfortable documentary of the decade, which is saying something in an era when discomfort has become a genre unto itself. The film's premise is deceptively simple: spend 34 days with Elizabeth Holmes before she reports to federal prison, watching a convicted fraudster attempt to curate her own legacy in real time. What Fielder and Oppenheim actually deliver is something closer to a three-year anthropological expedition into a specific strain of American delusion, the kind that arrives in a Patagonia vest and speaks in the cadences of TED Talk sincerity.
The film's most pointed social observation is structural rather than stated. Holmes and her partner Billy Evans exist in a sealed ecosystem of inherited wealth and Silicon Valley adjacency, a world in which a federal fraud conviction functions as a minor scheduling inconvenience between the holographic self-archiving project and the planning stages of what critics are already calling Theranos 2.0. The film does not need to editorialize about white-collar impunity. It simply points the camera and waits. Fielder's decision to move into the couple's guest house, gradually transitioning from observer to participant to something resembling a persistent auditor of reality, gives the film its strange moral spine. He presses. Holmes deflects. The exchange repeats across months with the hypnotic rhythm of a very expensive therapy session that is not working.
The meta-layer involving Amanda Seyfried, who portrayed Holmes in *The Dropout* and appears here after Holmes is shown watching that dramatization, is either a stroke of documentary genius or a hall of mirrors with a gift shop at the end. Both readings are probably correct. The film's progressive reception has leaned heavily on its indictment of tech-culture narcissism and the unequal application of legal consequence, and those themes are genuinely present in the material. They are earned by the footage rather than imported by the filmmakers' politics, which is a distinction the film's detractors may be underestimating. This is not a lecture. It is an extremely long, extremely patient, extremely unsettling stare.
Analysis generated by our Consciousness Algorithm
Critic Reviews
“Almost immediately, it’s evident that You Can See Everything pushes the boundaries of documentary filmmaking, and somehow, even after 174 minutes, it leaves us hungry and curious for more. ”
“A triumphant, riveting, and continually shape-shifting piece of creative non-fiction with curiosity and a playful sense of uncomfortable humor that will be no surprise to anyone familiar with Fielder’s work, it’s the kind of documentary that is persistently inquisitive and skeptical: both about its alarmingly wide-eyed subject who often refuses to blink, and the process of documentary filmmaking itself.”
“Fielder and Oppenheim’s film blurs the lines of reality and fiction in ways so akin to those that exist in the modern state of pop culture. Ethical boundaries are always on the bleeding edge of a Fielder project and that is no different here.”
“In interrogating their own fraught relationships with that age-old question of “what is truth?” Fielder and Oppenheim still undeniably and unsettlingly force us to examine our own preconceptions and firm belief in our ability to discern the subjective and the objective.”
Related rankings
Consciousness Markers
This is a documentary populated by real people who exist independent of any casting philosophy. No deliberate representation calculus is detectable or applicable.
No LGBTQ+ themes, characters, or subtext are present in any reported element of the film.
Holmes is a woman whose story has attracted ambient discourse about media framing of women in tech and crime. The film does not advocate for her as a feminist symbol, and its posture toward her is scrutinizing rather than celebratory, but the conversation exists in the margins.
The subjects are white Silicon Valley elites and the film raises no themes of racial identity or consciousness.
No climate themes, environmental messaging, or ecological subtext are present.
The film's most substantive social dimension: it directly exposes Silicon Valley wealth insulation, white-collar impunity, and the spectacle of a convicted fraudster launching a new startup while preparing holographic self-preservation projects. The contrast between Holmes' lavish pre-prison lifestyle and the consequences faced by ordinary people is a concrete structural element of the film.
No body positivity themes or messaging are present.
No neurodivergence themes or framing are present in the film.
The film does not reframe historical events through a modern ideological lens. It documents recent, well-established facts about a living convicted person.
Fielder's on-camera confrontations with Holmes carry a moral prosecutorial weight, and the film's overall architecture argues that Holmes' refusal to acknowledge reality is a symptom of something broader about post-truth culture. It is observational enough to avoid full sermonizing, but the argument is present.