Can You Really See Everything?
After seeing You Can See Everything twice in the past week, I am still thinking about what Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s (2026) documentary allows us to know about Elizabeth Holmes, and what it encourages us to believe about Fielder himself. The film brings us close to its subjects, but that closeness raises as many questions as it answers.
One question, in particular, stayed with me: “What does it mean to know?” This question is central to the field of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge; I was originally drawn to this discipline during my dissertation research years. I became interested in how we arrive at what we call knowledge through observation, experience, and the accounts of others. Those sources seem especially worth examining when considering a film about someone we have watched, heard about, and discussed for years.
Many viewers will arrive at the theater, as I did, already familiar with Holmes’s story. Alex Gibney’s (2019) documentary, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley, examined her and her company, Theranos. That same year, ABC News launched The Dropout, a podcast hosted by Rebecca Jarvis. Its reporting became the basis for Hulu’s 2022 miniseries of the same name, with Amanda Seyfried playing Holmes (ABC News, 2022).
In You Can See Everything, we immediately recognize Holmes’s voice, stare, presence, and carefully maintained image. Interviews, documentary footage, and scripted scenes may blend together in our memory. We might feel that we know her without remembering exactly how that familiarity developed.
Sorting out those sources is part of evaluating what we believe about her. So is recognizing when her account of herself conflicts with documented facts.
At one point, Holmes insists that she has never lied. Even when Fielder presses her about ordinary little fabrications, she maintains her position (Ford, 2026). This is a truly extraordinary assertion from someone convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud investors and three counts of wire fraud.
Let’s first consider some facts. The evidence presented at her trial established repeated, knowing falsehoods about Theranos’s technology, finances, and business relationships. Holmes misrepresented what its blood-testing machines could do while knowing their limitations. She supplied misleading financial projections and falsely described the company’s work with the military. These deceptions helped persuade investors to part with their money (U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California, 2022).
The consequences extended beyond investors. Through its partnership with Walgreens, Theranos offered blood collection and testing services at stores in Arizona. Patients received inaccurate results about their health, creating the potential for needless fear, false reassurance, and misguided medical decisions. Arizona’s attorney general alleged that the company misrepresented its testing methods, accuracy, and reliability (Arizona Attorney General’s Office, 2017). Walgreens (2016) ended the partnership, closing all 40 Arizona testing centers and citing the voiding of test results.
Holmes was convicted of defrauding investors though acquitted of the patient-related fraud charges (U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California, n.d.). As the film brought us closer to her, however, I continued to remain aware of the patients who trusted Theranos with their health.
That history provides essential context for the film’s intimate portrait. The documentary’s first half was filmed in spring 2023, during the weeks immediately before Holmes entered prison. She and her partner, Billy Evans, welcomed the filmmakers into their home and daily lives. Fielder’s growing involvement with them becomes an integral part of the story (Fielder & Oppenheim, 2026).
That access promised a fuller understanding of Holmes. It also gave her an opportunity to influence how we see her. Watching someone at home can feel like getting behind a public image, but a camera does not stop people from managing that image.
Erving Goffman’s (1959) observations may help explain what we are witnessing. In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, he examined how people shape the impressions others form of them. We choose what to reveal, how to behave, and which parts of ourselves to emphasize for a particular audience.
This is commonly called impression management. An accessible discussion in Media Studies 101 explains how people use speech, gestures, appearance, and other choices to influence how others perceive them. These efforts can be deliberate or so familiar that we barely notice them (Media Texthack Team, 2014). Someone whose reputation has collapsed, as Holmes’s has, has a strong reason to seek a different public image.
Her openness deserves scrutiny in that light. Welcoming cameras, sharing family life, and displaying vulnerability could all be calculated image management techniques. The invitation to “see everything” may encourage us to lower our guard. We may assume that someone revealing so much must have nothing to hide.
At several points Holmes cries, and her tears deserve attention as well. They may express genuine distress. They may also encourage us to see her as misunderstood or deserving of another chance. Isn’t it possible that genuine emotion and strategic self-presentation can coexist?
Does feeling sorry for someone make their explanation more compelling? It certainly might. Whether it makes that explanation more credible is a separate question.
Anthropology offers another useful concept for considering the Holmes-Fielder relationship: “going native.” Traditionally, the phrase describes the risk of becoming so involved with the people being studied that the researcher loses critical distance. Gale (2010), writing about her own fieldwork, describes the challenge of participating closely while remaining focused on the purpose of her research.
Her account also shows why reflection matters throughout that process. She describes using a research diary to examine her experiences and return to the work of analysis. Closeness can deepen understanding but, from an academic perspective, researchers must also consider how participation changes their responses and assumptions (Gale, 2010).
That raises a question about Fielder: As Holmes becomes more and more familiar to him, does her account become more believable? Does his attachment to her begin to outweigh his skepticism?
The second half, filmed two years later in 2025, brings Seyfried into the story. In an extension of her miniseries role, she plays Holmes in recreations of conversations Fielder remembers. She also appears as herself, watching footage and discussing Holmes with him. We move back and forth between an actress performing a role and a person apparently speaking her own mind (Fielder & Oppenheim, 2026).
An episode of NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour brought another possibility into focus for me. Host Linda Holmes and critic Bob Mondello questioned whether some of these apparently spontaneous conversations might themselves be scripted. Their discussion sharpened my uncertainty about how to interpret these scenes (Holmes, 2026).
The recreations announce themselves as performances. Their conversations invite us to accept them as spontaneous. But were those exchanges unrehearsed? Or were they scripted, prompted, or shaped around ideas Seyfried and Fielder had already discussed?
Seyfried seems like someone we can trust to ask the questions we would ask. She is involved enough to understand Fielder’s experience but distant enough to challenge him. Her doubts may reassure us that someone within the film is keeping a clear head.
Yet that reassurance deserves scrutiny, too. Could she and Fielder have been working together to create the impression that she is independently questioning him? Is her apparent skepticism another way of guiding our response? I have no evidence of such an arrangement, but a film so concerned with appearances logically invites the question.
If her challenges were planned, we might be watching a carefully constructed image of Fielder as a man whose feelings have compromised his judgment. If spontaneous, they might capture someone recognizing that problem as it unfolds. The conclusions we draw could be similar, while our reasons for trusting them would differ.
At the end of the film, when Seyfried challenges Fielder about his feelings and judgment, the question of objectivity becomes impossible to avoid. Has he become too emotionally attached to assess Holmes clearly? Is he giving her claims consideration they have not earned because he wants to believe in her? Has he gone native?
I even left the theater wondering whether Nathan had fallen in love with Elizabeth.
But I also wondered how deliberately the film had led me to that very question. Had I recognized something in his behavior, or had Fielder and Seyfried helped construct that interpretation?
Goffman’s ideas apply to everyone on screen. Holmes presents herself to Fielder. Fielder and Seyfried present their encounters to us. Her apparent candor deserves the same scrutiny as his apparent confusion and Holmes’s apparent openness.
We do not have to resolve every question about the filmmaking to recognize the evidence of Holmes’s fraud. Assessing Fielder’s relationship with her is harder. We see it through a film he helped make.
Understanding people requires empathy. Deciding whether to believe them requires evidence and a willingness to question our own attachments. By the end, I was asking whether Fielder had maintained that distinction, and whether the film had helped me maintain it myself.
I left the theater with plenty of questions. I suspect you did too.
References
ABC News. (2022, August 5). New “The Dropout” podcast episode features Hulu series creator and star.
Arizona Attorney General’s Office. (2017). 2017 annual report.
Fielder, N., & Oppenheim, L. (Directors). (2026). You can see everything [Film]. A24.
Ford, R. (2026, October 16). You can know everything about You Can See Everything (spoilers ahead!) Vanity Fair.
Gale, N. K. (2010). The embodied ethnographer: Journeys in a health care subculture. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900206
Gibney, A. (Director). (2019). The inventor: Out for blood in Silicon Valley [Film]. HBO Documentary Films; Jigsaw Productions.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Holmes, L. (Host). (2026, October 16). You can see everything [Audio podcast episode]. In Pop culture happy hour. NPR. Episode · Transcript
Media Texthack Team. (2014). Impressions management. In Media studies 101. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/mediastudies101/chapter/impressions-management/
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California. (n.d.). U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al. U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California. (2022, January 4). Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes found guilty of investor fraud. U.S. Department of Justice.
Walgreens. (2016, June 12).Walgreens terminates relationship with Theranos; Will be closing operations at all 40 Theranos Wellness Centers in Arizona.
Wrestling With Medicare
I retired twelve years ago at age 67. Not by choice, mind you, but because my employer at the time, the College of Marin (Kentfield, CA), thought it was time for me to go. I was not entirely prepared for this particular transition. All of a sudden I had to thoroughly examine where I was in life, assess my finances, and make some highly consequential decisions.
One of my tasks involved trying to familiarize myself with the Medicare system. I had enrolled at age 65, but I was not relying on it because I was still employed and had a great employer-supplied health plan. Then, there I was: unemployed. I had to get my ducks in a row.
So, okay, the challenge was to figure out Medicare for real. It was not easy. I discovered an astonishingly complicated bureaucracy filled with unfamiliar terminology, competing plans, enrollment periods, coverage rules, and financial consequences. “Fuck. I don’t have time for this” (I thought). Of course, I had to make the time.
To understand the basic choices, I bought the 2014 edition of Medicare For Dummies. For I was truly a dummy. I learned there was Original Medicare, as well as Medigap, prescription-drug coverage, and Medicare Advantage plans. I ultimately went with Medicare Advantage. (These days, 55 percent of eligible Medicare beneficiaries do the same.) The choice offered some welcome familiarity because its premiums, provider networks, copayments, and other mechanics tended to resemble my employer-provided insurance.
I have remained with the same insurer ever since I started. For the most part, I have been satisfied with both the coverage and customer service. But satisfaction does not eliminate the need for vigilance. Every year during open enrollment, I have compared plans, confirmed that my doctors remain in network, reviewed prescription-drug coverage, and calculated the likely overall costs.
This year has been more frustrating than usual, though. I found that some of the Medicare Advantage providers are different than previous years. My plan is changing its name and increasing its monthly premium by 75%. My prescription coverage is also becoming less generous. A couple of generic meds I routinely take are being moved into a more expensive tier, now subject to a $600 annual deductible, something I have never faced before.
In addition, two more issues have arisen. In the last week, my insurer denied coverage for an epidural steroid injection in my spine, a routine procedure I have received before. It also denied reimbursement for my chiropractic visits, even though I have submitted receipts and received reimbursement for approximately the last four years. Today, I spent a stressful hour on the telephone trying to resolve these issues. That hour represents only the latest installment of the time and energy required to obtain benefits I believed were already included.
I pay attention. I read the annual notices of changes. I know how to work through a bureaucracy, and I am not afraid to ask questions or challenge a decision. Even so, this process is fucking exhausting.
This leaves me deeply concerned for other seniors who may struggle to understand complicated documents, make difficult telephone calls, use online comparison tools, or navigate an appeals process. Television commercials constantly remind us to “check our coverage,” as though it were a simple task. In reality, it takes time, confidence, persistence, and often outside help.
I don’t believe that Medicare beneficiaries, or indeed any person, should need to become insurance specialists merely to preserve access to familiar doctors, medications, and treatments. A plan can change its premiums, drug tiers, network, and benefits from one year to the next. Authorization and reimbursement decisions can arrive without warning, leaving the hapless patient to untangle every difference. This can be crazy-making!
What’s an old guy to do? Aging brings enough challenges on its own. Wrestling with Medicare should not be one of them.
Soundtrack Suggestion
You know that old trees just grow stronger
And old rivers grow wilder every day
Old people just grow lonesome
Waiting for someone to say, “Hello in there, hello”
(“Hello in There” — John Prine)
LCC Board of Education Testimony — October 7, 2026
Here are my remarks made before the Lane Community College Board of Education on October 7, 2026
Members of the Board, President Bulger, President Hadley: Good evening.
My name is Jim Arnold. I am a retired college administrator and former part-time LCC faculty member.
I’m here tonight to speak about the College’s treatment of Richard Riordan. On Sunday, I emailed you my essay summarizing the federal court’s opinion. I hope you had time to review it.
To summarize, briefly:
Richard repeatedly criticized LCC administrators and you, the Board, over program cuts, budget decisions and the data used to defend them. The College responded by banning him from seven properties and blocking his registration until the end of the century.
On September 28th, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane ordered LCC to remove the enrollment hold and allow Richard to return to classes. Although the ruling was preliminary, McShane found that Richard was likely to succeed on his claim that LCC retaliated against him for speech protected by the First Amendment.
The court also found nothing in the record showing that Richard posed a threat. Judge McShane called LCC’s safety argument “anemic and unconvincing” and its sanctions “unreasonable and legally unsupported.”
My recommendations to you are straightforward.
First, commission an independent review to determine who approved the sanctions, what evidence they relied on, why Richard was NOT told what rule he had broken, and why he had no fair chance to respond. Publish the findings and require President Bulger to respond publicly.
Then act on the findings. Correct any unsupported claims in Richard’s file that could harm his education or future employment. Determine what consequences, if any, are warranted for the administrators responsible. And adopt protections requiring notice, access to evidence, a prompt hearing and a fair appeal before any extended campus ban or registration block.
But do not use the review as an excuse to delay what is already due: an immediate public apology from President Bulger and the Board to Richard and the community.
LCC cannot claim to value free speech while punishing criticism that makes its leaders merely uncomfortable. It is time to admit what went wrong, repair the harm and make sure it Never. Happens. Again.
Thank you.
Federal Court Corrects an Injustice
Since spring 2025, I have written five essays* about Lane Community College, examining its divided Board, troubled governance, strained labor relations, budget choices and loss of public trust. Unfortunately, evidence of institutional dysfunction continues to mount. The latest example concerns the College’s treatment of an outspoken student and a Federal judge’s response. It raises basic questions about free speech, administrative power and accountability.
Richard Riordan is an LCC student who challenged the administration and the Board of Education at public meetings and via email. He questioned program cuts, budget decisions and the data used to defend them. LCC responded by banning him from seven college properties and blocking him from registering for classes. On September 28, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane ordered LCC to remove the registration hold and let Riordan return to campus for academic purposes.
The College called these actions a trespass notice and an enrollment hold, bureaucratic labels that obscure their severity. Riordan risked arrest and prosecution if he entered LCC property. His enrollment hold was set to last until December 31, 2099. In practical terms, LCC had expelled him for life.
This ruling is not final. It is a preliminary injunction, an order that applies while the lawsuit continues. Even so, McShane found that Riordan is likely to succeed on his claim that LCC retaliated against him for speech protected by the First Amendment. That is a serious rebuke to President Stephanie Bulger, her administration and LCC’s elected Board.
I am a retired college administrator and former part-time LCC faculty member. Though not a lawyer, I read McShane’s opinion closely and attended every Board meeting where Riordan spoke during public comment. I found him outspoken, rambling, persistent and often sarcastic. McShane described him as “annoying, long-winded, aggressive, hyperbolic, and grandiose.”
But the judge also found “nothing in the record” showing that Riordan posed a threat. He said Riordan’s statements were hyperbole, jokes and political rhetoric, not real threats of violence.
The court’s account of LCC’s response is troubling. During a campus conversation about an upcoming Board meeting, Riordan told Vice President Shelley Tinkham he was “ready for the spin.” Public Safety Director Lisa Rupp then filed a report on Tinkham’s behalf claiming Riordan had “accosted” her. LCC’s Threat Assessment Team then began monitoring Riordan without his knowledge. Dean Carl Yeh and Rupp later told him to stop sending mass emails and to “be careful,” but did not identify any college rule he had broken.
LCC also relied on an email meme and Riordan’s self-deprecating comparison of his writing to a “drive-by shooting.” McShane found that the College took those statements out of context and turned them into threats. He wrote that LCC’s misrepresentation “approaches dishonesty” and said the College appeared to be “covertly building a case” against Riordan.
The judge was just as direct about the harm LCC caused. He wrote that its actions effectively expelled Riordan and would discourage an ordinary person from speaking out. He called LCC’s safety argument “anemic and unconvincing” and its sanctions “unreasonable and legally unsupported.” He said the College’s conduct looked “much like blacklisting.”
McShane accepted that some officials may truly have been afraid. But feeling afraid is not proof that someone poses a threat. The judge allowed Riordan to return for classes but barred him from attending Board meetings in person or approaching the officials named in the suit. He said those limits were meant to calm the situation, not to suggest LCC’s fears had an objective basis.
That difference matters. LCC must act when a threat is credible. But fear alone cannot turn protected political speech into threatening conduct. Before punishing a student, the College must consider the student’s words in context and separate discomfort from a serious threat of violence. Officials may need to remove a student briefly when there is credible evidence of immediate danger. Any longer campus ban or registration block should require written notice, access to the evidence, a prompt hearing and a fair appeal.
Those safeguards are necessary, but they are not enough. President Bulger is responsible for the administration she leads. If she approved these actions, she must answer for a serious abuse of power. If she did not know senior officials were building a case against a student critic and pushing him out of college, then she failed to supervise them. Neither explanation is acceptable.
The Board should commission an independent review to determine who approved the sanctions, what evidence they relied on, why Riordan was not clearly told what rule he had broken and why he had no fair chance to respond. The findings should be made public, and Bulger should be required to answer them.
The Board must then act on those findings. LCC should correct any unsupported claims in Riordan’s records that could hurt his education or employment. The Board should also determine what consequences, if any, are warranted for the officials responsible.
But an independent review should not become an excuse to delay what is already due: a sincere public apology from Bulger and the Board to Riordan and the community. Accountability requires admitting what went wrong, repairing the harm and making sure it does not happen again. Until Bulger and the Board do that, LCC’s claims to value free speech and student rights will ring hollow.
*Here are links to those five publications.
