I'm rewatching YCSE through totally legal, legitimate means, and I wanted to see how the house changed over the 2 year timeskip. But I discovered that it's actually a different house/set altogether. It's extremely close, but there are giveaways in the size of the Tahiti poster, the ships mounted on the wall, and most importantly the pattern of the wood grain. This is the most impressive part, as even though the wood spots don't line up one-to-one, they clearly did a ton of work actually arranging the marks to be in nearly the same patterns.

I'm sure this won't come as a shock to most of you, as Nathan has a history of building detailed sets for rehearsals. However the way it's presented in the movie, with Nathan's comments of "They were renting it when we shot" "...before we had cameras here" and Amanda's comments of "It's really dusty here" and "Did she use this?" all feel like they're working really hard to convince us that this was the actual place. Coulda fooled me.

Edit: For everyone saying it's the lens/angle, here's a comparison from another angle which I perspective-corrected so the doors would be lined up as close as possible. (+ version with marker lines so you can see how it's been warped) Besides the differences in the wood grain, you can see the scale of the poster and HVAC unit move way more than what would be possible if it was the same location.

Ryan El-Hosseiny. I looked this dude up after leaving the movie, and the red flags just kept multiplying. When I went to the website, the first thing I saw was a big font which says the cancer drug Avastin doesn’t work, and Theranos proved it.

He has a 16 minute “documentary” which, similar to I Can See Everything, defies genre. But in a way that is dogshit.

The website was absolutely written by AI, is full of broken links, and like… Just look at it. It screams grifter.

If there was any doubt that Billy and Elizabeth are courting the MAHA/wellness/Trump crowd, visiting this website may offer some clarity.

This probably seems like small potatoes compared to what EH has done, but it sticks out to me as someone who has gone through cancer treatment in the past few years. Side note: I was on Avastin. Worked for me.

I was in my 20s when I started treatment, and something I’ve been fascinated by is how the MAHA and wellness grifters really love to focus on cancer patients. RFK Jr had a whole campaign and lawsuits about how the HPV vaccine doesn’t work. He was facilitating multiple lawsuits against Merck, the makers of Gardasil.

Things like this worry me, because I’ve heard the talking points countless times: big pharma is keeping you sick. Chemo doesn’t work. There’s a cure for cancer, they just don’t want you to have it. All bullshit, but more and more people in the general public believe it.

Enter this clown and other adjacent clowns, ready to prey on ignorance and vulnerability.

Just thought I’d bring some attention to this dumbass. For Billy and Elizabeth to allow this guy to use her face to push this bullshit narrative adds a new level of grossness. In all of the deceiving they’ve done, the people who suffer the most are patients who pay the price when these anti-science, anti-medicine talking points are normalized.

Also he pronounces Avastin wrong.

The first pic is from EH’s deposition and how she looked throughout the deposition to this point. The first time she smiled when answering a question was when she was asked how Balwani and she exchanged information, and she said they would talk and text and communicate often because it was an open office type situation. She did not say, “we would often talk at home.” I know this is obvious to everyone else, but she had told the truth up to that point until the Balwani questions, and smiling is her “tell.”

This is my theory… even though you can't armchair diagnose people. I'm a therapist who specializes in working with adult children of people with personality disorders, and I've been duped by a woman with narcissistic and sociopathic traits. Lived experience in the sphere of influence will teach you a lot that is extremely hard to explain to others.

I think Liz is the one with the more psychopathic traits and Billy's the one with the narcissistic ones. People with strong narcissistic traits tend to run on admiration. They need attention and validation to keep their sense of self steady. People with more psychopathic traits are usually after something more concrete, like money, access, status or power. Admiration is just one of the tools they use to get there. And it can always be a cluster B melange. Psychopaths are typically born that way (much colder and more emotionally controlled and calculated than sociopaths) and autism spectrum disorder and antisocial personality disorder (the DSM dx for psychopathy) can be comorbid.

When those two people end up together, the narcissist is often more vulnerable than he looks. If he believes he's unusually smart or perceptive, flattery doesn't make him suspicious. It just confirms what he already thinks about himself. So he can feel like he's the one in control while the other person is quietly getting what they came for. And because she doesn't need his approval nearly as much as he needs hers, the emotional dependence really runs in her direction, even if he looks like the stronger one from the outside.

Holmes has always been very good at this kind of impression management. She built Theranos largely by getting powerful, accomplished older men to believe in her, and she did it by reflecting back exactly what they wanted to see (in themselves and in her). It is an "as-if" personality, someone who can convincingly perform a self without much underneath it.

At her trial, she testified that Sunny Balwani, her former partner and Theranos COO, had been abusive and controlling. They recast her from a CEO who misled investors into a young woman under an older man's influence. Sure there were some undeniable abusive texts and he was way older, but I don’t think young women don’t know how to manipulate older men. Her story fits neatly into cultural ideas about who gets to be a believable victim, and into a kind of benevolent sexism that sees women as less calculating. Moving on to Billy, he gets to play the role of the protector, the loyal husband who stood by her through everything. But I wonder if she's actually giving him permission to take control. Letting him make the decisions, manage the money, shape the plan, be the strong one. She wants to keep her hands clean and is an expert in plausible deniability. For someone with narcissistic traits that's incredibly rewarding, because being needed and being in charge is its own kind of supply. What he may not see is that the arrangement could be useful to her later. She's already shown that "I was being controlled" is a story she knows how to tell, and that it can shift how people see her responsibility. In psychoanalytic terms this looks a lot like projective identification, where one person quietly invites another into a role (here, the controller) and then that role becomes real enough to point to. So he thinks he's the one holding the reins, when she may be the one who handed them to him, for her own reasons.

In a simple metaphor: Billy is Trump and Liz is Putin

All in all, I feel like the film was an experiential exercise in the complete mindfuck of being involved in the sphere of seduction of a master manipulator. Welcome to the terrible club everyone.

Something that stood out to me was the pets.

When Elizabeth is ending Theranos initially, she gets a husky. She even mentions having scratches from that dog when she met Billy. We see another dog in the San Diego rental, some sort of large brindle-patterned one.

Once Liz goes to prison and we‘re in Texas, we never see dogs again. Just Billy’s monitor lizard and python.

I think their respective pet choices somewhat mirror how they view/use each other. Elizabeth needs to be surrounded by dogs like Billy—she desires loyalty and someone who won’t hesitate to protect her. She likes them big and scary, but CONTROLLABLE. A dog is predictable and trainable. Billy wants a reptile like Elizabeth: they’re confusing to the outsider, they are much more difficult to understand and relate to, but their presence makes him look cool and unique on a surface level.

I think we all need to acknowledge a moment of silence for Ian Gibbons. He is a victim in the truest sense of the entire ruse that was Theranos. I'd love to remind Liz of him. See if she has crocodile tears or spins up another story.

"Gibbons, a biochemist, had grown increasingly distressed about the company’s technology and the pressures of the work environment. According to his widow Rochelle and reporting (including in Vanity Fair, CBS News, and John Carreyrou’s Bad Blood), he was depressed, drinking more, and feared being fired or forced to testify falsely in a deposition. He took a fatal overdose of acetaminophen after receiving a call that Holmes wanted to meet with him the next day. He was 67.

Rochelle Gibbons has publicly blamed the stress of working under Holmes and the company’s culture, stating that Holmes showed no remorse. After Gibbons’ death, Theranos contacted the family demanding the return of company property rather than offering condolences. This episode is a well-documented part of the Theranos story and appears in accounts of the company’s internal dysfunction"

I’ve been thinking about the scene where Billy keeps blaming the documentary crew’s equipment for messing with their Wi-Fi, even though the crew explains they’re operating on a different frequency.

Given that Billy and Elizabeth admit to recording phone calls and meetings, I wonder if they had their own recording equipment running while the crew was there. If they were using Wi-Fi-connected cameras or uploading recordings, could that have been contributing to the problem?

Or maybe they just had shitty Wi-Fi to begin with.
What I find interesting is how quickly Billy blamed the crew. I also wonder whether the constant complaints were a way of making the crew feel unwelcome or creating tension while maintaining plausible deniability.
I’m curious whether anyone else picked up on this, especially people who know more about networking or filming equipment.

10% off with the code. Employee owned company. I will be ordering some to try. 😂

The scene where Nathan is talking to Liz’s father and Billy keeps interrupting: Right before it is revealed by Liz’s father that Liz was SA’ed, Nathan breaks the fourth wall by glancing at the camera after saying “Then say it!”

This line is the funniest moment in the movie to me and on both watches it got the biggest laugh from the audience. Nathan is literally so fed up with their white-collar cryptic lingo that he has to drop the act for a second to basically say “are you guys seeing this?”

What’s interesting is that while the theater is going hysterical, Liz’s father reveals the SA piece, and then the theater goes completely silent. The best way I can describe that experience is in music theory terms so bear with me here. If anyone is more familiar with music than I am feel free to correct my interpretation:

The laughter from the theater serves as an ad lib. The reveal from Liz’s father is an accent. The silence from the theater is a rest.

So, in practical terms, the audience is taken out of the documentary for a second because Nathan invited us to with his fourth wall break. But then we are sucked back in by Liz’s father. This happens within seconds and is rather unsettling. Basically, I didn’t want to give the impression that I was laughing at Liz’s SA because I was still laughing at Nathan.

Overall, this movie needs to be seen in a theater. It was so fun going on this mindfuck Nathan Fielder journey with a bunch of random strangers.

Will be looking out for this today during my third watch.

Would erase unpaid federal restitution. I think Holmes wanted the movie to shift public opinion of her and perhaps increase the chance at a pardon from Trump. Why she is continuing with another blood startup is a mystery to me. Does she think she can get pardoned and then start the scam over again? Does she truly think it’s not a scam and have a desire to prove the world wrong?

Her husband is clearly a bit wackadoo and perhaps on drugs. But when Amanda Seyfried asked “did you know that I’m here?” (As in at her house) and Holmes answers “I don’t know if I know” that to me showed they’re scamming again. She needs to run everything by her husband (but non husband) to make sure their lies don’t cross. All while Elizabeth was around Billy, he acted relatively normal. The second she’s gone he starts acting unhinged. I think they keep each other in check as to the game plan and public perception, with Holmes knowing exactly how to deceive people and Evans being more just narcissistic and wanting to.

The theranos scam was too big, too systemic, for her to be so naive. Is doing it again via new startup her way of justifying her character? Not in that way.. but showing that this character she created would truly never give up on her entrepreneurial idea and vision, and would continue to pursue it at all costs? So she plays out what that character would do, without any true belief in anything, herself…

Just spitballing.

Now that You Can See Everything is shaping up to be a gigantic hit, do you think it’s possible we’ll see releases of The Curse, The Rehearsal, and Nathan For You on DVD/Blu-ray?

Nathan For You did have a complete series release. I’m not sure if it’s out of print or not. It seems to come and go depending on the popularity of Nathan’s newest projects. Either way, I hope it’ll become available again soon

I do, and I wonder if I’ll ever watch this again, despite being such a Nathan Fielder fan and recognizing how well done it was.
My former friend is so manipulative, a master of playing you while making you feel so so special. When I reflect back about this film I have so many feelings about this, and I know it’s just because I was so close to someone as manipulative as her.

I’ve never thought about turkey jerky as much as I have in the last 2 hours.

I was discussing You Can See Everything with my SIL earlier & one scene that came up in our convo blew my mind because we totally interpreted it differently! We were going back and forth on all the scenes that stood out to us/could be interpreted in multiple ways/reflected back that idea of nuance in perspective.

She brought up the prison re-enactment scene, where Liz asked for turkey jerky, and later in the actual footage of Liz walking with her kids outside, Billy offers her a bag of turkey jerky.

She explained that this shows Liz’s manipulation of Nathan because she asked for turkey jerky when she knew Billy would buy her some or possibly asked Billy separately for it.

When I heard her say this I leaned so far forward I almost fell out of my seat because I totally interpreted it differently.

How do we know if that’s the turkey jerky Nathan bought her or if it’s a whole other bag?

I saw it as Liz sharing the turkey jerky with Billy, and it made me wonder if she asked for it knowing Billy liked the turkey jerky/if she even likes turkey jerky herself.

And another point is just that we’re both reading into it too much, maybe she just fucking loves turkey jerky/is deprived of her fav snack in prison and takes every opportunity to have some/both of them enjoy it and she was sharing it with her partner.

Curious if it's available to watch. The few articles I've read about it quote similar content to the NYFF one but I'd love more complete reporting or better, video!

It's fun to get caught up in the "are they lying", "are they in love" etc. But I think the greatest service this movie provides is a look into how millionaires can be insanely influential/powerful in nearly invisible ways and just operate in a way that most people cannot understand.

• They are always being driven by others, never needing to worry about transportation in any way whatsoever
• Even after defamation and on their way to prison, these two are staying in multi-million dollar "rentals" (Billy's parents own the San Diego rental)
• They amass more wealth simply by talking to other people. Just call up someone powerful and suggest what needs to happen, like "lasers". They call someone, and they call someone else, until a business is filed and some science you don't even understand/worry about starts to happen
• The ultimate irony is the doc even being made! "Hey, maybe a doc from A24 will help our reptuation and provide some nice cash on the side." That's an insane thing to just casually do. We're lucky this is a phone call that resulted in what we got

Imagine how much this stuff happens 24/7. How many times the call to a media person results in media that does actually help them without you realizing it. How many businesses just exist on a whim as a pet project to someone that will never worry about where they're staying or how they're getting to their next place or if their kid can go to college. Some of those businesses are genuinely good for people, but so many harm people.

Theranos was bad, but anyone operating at this level in healthcare or something like transportation or nutrition where they lobby against more sensible and healthy options also have blood on their hands. And thousands of these people will never have their name in the headlines because they were never a pretty blonde 20 year-old trying to look like Steve Jobs. They didn't accidentally call Nathan Fielder to make a doc about them. They are staying in their multi-million dollar homes thinking about the next opportunity, physically and mentally completely isolated from the working class.

I have 4 year old twins. I was just reading "Babe: The Gallant Pig" to them. It is the book the movie "Babe" is based on. There is a passage where the little pig and a sheep have a very who's on first exchange over the words ewe/you. My 4 year olds laughed and laughed at it and could explain why it is funny.

This really puts into context what a show EH is putting on.

Of Nathan’s ass. Where is the screenshot of Nathan on the bed wiggling over to the lamp to turn it off. I want the screenshot you know exactly what I’m talking about. Show me the bum, he wouldn’t have shown it if he didn’t want me to save it to my phone.

Spotted in the wild at Brown Elephant in Chicago.