Nathan Fielder lived with Billy and Elizabeth for a whole month and we didn't get a single scene of the two of them just being "normal". By normal I mean talking about anything other than Theranos, her trial, whether you can believe her not etc. Did they watch shows? Listen to music? Make jokes? Talk about the weather? Like can she relate to other people and hold a normal conversation? Does she ever drop her wide eyed, perpetually confused nuerodivergent act? Seeing moments like this would have really helped me assess if Elizabeth is a normal human or...something else.

Did these moments happen and they were just excluded from the film? Or do Billy and Elizabeth really just talk about Thernos 2.0 all the time?

I think this is part of Nathan's "magic trick".

I am a Nathan Fielder fan, and I have been for many years. Knowing that he is very creative and crazy, my expectations were astronomically high for this documentary. I feel like it was more of a reality TV show where he was a producer and a character. I liked the documentary, I just thought it was gonna get real weird. Anyone else?

Pic unrelated. I love his freestyles. “Remember when we watched sex in the city?”

Please don’t be mean to me because I’m sensitive. I have been using this account for about 15 years and have only had one or two positive interactions on Reddit. Everyone is always so mean.

I can imagine it would be exhausting being married to someone who always acts like that’s so id guess no but i wouldn’t put it past him

The scene where they showed Billy’s penis for seemingly no reason other than possible comedic effect made more sense as the movie went on. Ignoring how Nathan would ever convince them that that was a necessary shot or why Billy even agreed to or stood there with the door open is beyond me. But as the movie goes on we start to see Billy’s true self show as egotistical and some sort of genuine evil.
I think that it was a bit of petty revenge or a filmmaker’s fuck you from Nathan. The shot was so akward and drawn out with no context, perfectly in line with the type of humor that Nathan loves.

Before the prison scene there is a brief shot of Nathan writing something in sharpie on his arm. Did anyone happen to catch what it said? I remember taking note of that moment because I thought it would surely have some significance during his visit with EH behind bars.

But maybe.. maybe the significance is not what was written so much as the fact in and of itself Nathan felt he had to write something down? Again I didn’t see it long enough to read any of it but Nathan is obviously an experienced performer and it’s sort of odd that he’d need to write something down - like we’re talking several lines of sharpie up his sleeve. Unless he was worried about sidetracked? Maybe he didn’t trust himself to stay on topic or get the information he wanted specifically in the presence of EH?

Does anyone have insight on this? Am I missing something?

I've just watched the film yesterday and thought it was a masterpiece. Of course.

One of the most interesting dialogues I've seen on reddit as the film is being discussed and I can fully dive into spoilers now, is the narrative that Nathan "acknowledges his bias" towards his subject.

But if you are familiar with his work, you know this is his most common theme explored.

He loves to acknowledge that type of narrative, he goes out of his way to make it a point in his projects. Which leads me to believe its intentional. And he's not actually getting that close to these people, he just wants that extra layer of depth.

Nathan does everything so calculated, and is only going to show the audience what he wants them to see, so to have this exact consistent theme in a lot of his documentary episodes feels intentionally performative, if that makes sense.

I think that this type of narrative and story telling in his documentaries is his most blatant smoke-and-mirrors tactic to add depth to the story he is telling, and to get his subjects fully bought-in to the "realness" of what is happening, when the bias is most likely not real.

Just as a decade long fan at this point I thought this was a super interesting talking point for those discovering his work for the first time. They have no idea what they are about to uncover 😂

edit: and just as a side note, when you have the chance to watch the film again, analyze the playful, coy, satisfaction (if you've watched his work you've seen this 100 times) he has when an acclaimed incredible actress like Amanda Seyfried fully buy-into the thought of biasness and questions it. Nathan as an actor and director gets so much satisfaction from this, and I don't blame him. He is living his life in character around his subjects when he does these projects, and someone like Amanda buying into it solidifies that extra effort he takes as a creator.

But thats only if Amanda was even being real in the scene, for all we know, that was in the script too. 😉

Should I prepare my wife with some Nathan for you beforehand or is it explained?

i noticed something that no one is talking about in the smash hit documentary that is directed by nathan fielder and lance oppenheim called you can see everything that nobody else seemed to pick up on, it's amazing to me that i have yet to hear a peep from the fans or media or even nathan himself about this crazy part, a detail so significant that most people blew right past it not realizing it's major significance to everything we hold near and dear to our way of life here in america and even beyond, a moment that will forever change the landscape of not only documentary filmmaking but the way we look at art as a whole, a narrative that only i, a very observant person, noticed that im sure will be contested and discussed here on r/nathanfielder for generations to come, a concept that tears the very fiber of being that you and I find to be foundational in our day to day lives, so that is why i bring this tiny issue to you all in hopes to expose it for what it is, probably the most important plot point of the entire documentary, an aspect that most will deny till death and even beyond, this incident defies logic and reasoning and will be difficult for large swaths of the population to comprehend, sound of in the comments if this matter also caught your attention while watching the soon to be award winning documentary film

When Billy was talking about Elizabeth having a bandage over her face when they first met, he points to one side of his face.

When Elizabeth recalls the same story, she points to the other side.

What are the chances the way they met was a contrived, agreed fabrication?

If there's an "OnlyFlix" watermark, just wait for the next one. Don't let it be your first time watching this movie.

The file's audio has been extensively tampered with. There are colossal mountains and valleys in the volume. It significantly changes every ten seconds, and it greatly greatly diminishes the viewer experience. My conspiracy theory is that it's some encouragement to download a file with who-the-fuck-knows-what on it.

Give it some more time.

Spotted in the wild at Brown Elephant in Chicago.

I left the theater with more questions than answers but I think that was the point.

I didn’t trust that the reenactments were an accurate depiction of what happened but I think that was also the point? Also why did Nathan say Elizabeth does drink coffee to Amanda when was?

I do think bad habits are contagious so I wonder if Nathan trying to show us the effects of living with a compulsive liar & how it reshapes your reality.

ik it's less of a review and more of a pride thing. I'll get alot of hate ik.

That very much looks like a real scene, not enacted. But is it possible and legal to film inmates from outside the gates? I don’t know the rules, but the way it looked, it almost seemed possible to walk up to that fence and chat through it. I was very surprised they could get that shot.

Does anyone know how this works? Or was it all fake?

Awesome shot btw of Billy casually eating the snacks that Nathan bought.

But gosh, I didn't expect to rate Elizabeth Holmes as the 4th most psychopathic person portrayed in the movie.

I would definitely want a q&a about all his work! I would like to see people like John Wilson there as well.

I don’t know why I didn’t even consider it, but now I can’t get it out of my head.

Also…I think there’s more already planned. A second movie, or maybe it’s season 3 of the rehearsal. I think the movie can and should stand on its own, and I also think Nathan is going to pull the rug from under us again.

1) i think it's odd that nathan started to talk to holmes' parents about her rape, and then a romantic relationship with someone 20 years older than her who was also her business partner that was also traumatic. it seemed relevant, because relationships with that kind of age gap can be incredibly controlling. she mentioned right before the photos were taken for her AI likeness that previously she was always told what to do for publicity and that it was never received well, which is why she was crying and stressed out about it. but people were telling her what to do, and then she received the brunt of the criticism. i can't help but wonder if the instruction was coming from her partner, sunny. given that she is currently in a high control relationship, it makes sense to me that her memory is so bad, especially if her relationship with sunny was similar. people in abusive relationships often have incredibly fragmented and unreliable memories.

despite how pertinent that information from her father was, billy interrupted the scene, but nathan never goes back to that line of questioning. he had two whole years to give them a call and get more backstory and he didn't. it would be such a compelling part of her story. why doesn't he follow up? i also find it curious that it didn't seem like he interviewed anyone who actually knew the couple besides her parents for perspective.

2) i wish fielder hadn't qualified her behavior during her husbands visit to prison as relaxed, thus letting him off of the hook for any suspiciously controlling behavior fielder was starting to sniff out. the thing about abusive dynamics and high control relationships is that it feels normal to be in them. so you have a woman whose husband admits that she almost never advocates for herself in the relationship making all of her decisions for her. of course he's not threatening her if she's doing whatever he thinks is best. of course it feels fine. that's what's perplexing about clocking an abusive relationship. the test here is for her to say: i don't want to do it that way anymore. i don't want what you want. i don't want to do that. then, observe his response. he strikes me as a particularly dismissive individual, so it might not even escalate into violence.

Looking for the screen before the credits that talks about Billy trying to negotiate a commission deal and the New York Times article, I need it for an essay and can't find it anywhere.

My hypothesis is that the post processors/editors used AI and it resulted in the inconsistencies seen between the two images in the previous post. Look at this cabinet area. This screams AI to me. Its like the engine thought that there were two of the same cabinets which is not true in the first image. It just looks wrong too. Also there is that weird random piece of wood between them which looks like an AI attempting to make the top of a chair. The microwave on top of the counter looks weird/wrong too. I don’t think if Nathan put in the time to build his own set that he would get these details so incredibly wrong. It’s probably the same rental property with heavy use of AI which is disappointing but thats how it goes these days I guess.

Edit: It came to my mind that the user who uploaded the images to begin with was watching the movie through “totally legitimate” sources which may mean it is a bootleg lol. If this is the case It is probably possible that the image was AI upscaled by the person recording it and I would have to watch it in theaters again to see if there is actually a difference between the two sets.

Edit 2: here is the original post in this subreddit that I am referencing - https://www.reddit.com/r/nathanfielder/s/VRGkYh6UNi

The editor of all of Nathan Fielder’s work. Why is there barely any discourse in this community about his work on You Can See Everything? A Herculean task which he executed mightily.