Elizabeth Holmes Documentary Opens to $15 Million as Whistleblower Challenges Its Portrayal

You Can See Everything follows Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes during the 34 days before her prison sentence began, according to Inc.com. Directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, the documentary turns that access into a nearly three-hour film.

The project arrived with unusually little advance exposure. Deadline Hollywood reported that the public had not known it existed less than two months before its opening. Secrecy and a meme-driven marketing campaign helped turn an intimate documentary into a theatrical event.

The film opened on October 16, according to Mashable. By October 18, IndieWire reported a $15 million opening weekend. The BBC subsequently put its release at 855 screens across the United States and Canada, while The Hill reported 2,000 sold-out shows.

Coverage disagreed about the precise box office record. Screen Rant described a 14-year record, while The Daily Beast called it the biggest documentary opening since the 2013 concert film One Direction: This Is Us. CNN described the biggest documentary opening in more than 20 years. The supplied reports do not resolve those differing comparisons.

On October 19, Variety reported Fielder's account of a call from Holmes in prison shortly before release. She repeatedly told him, "I Trust You." That same day, IndieWire reported that Fielder had initially been skeptical he could break new ground on the Holmes story and negotiated a kill switch with A24.

The scrutiny was not confined to filmmaking. On October 19, Forbes reported Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz's allegation that Holmes "completely misled" Fielder about the company's technology in one scene. An opinion essay published by STAT News also challenged Holmes's truthfulness in the film.

By October 20, the attention was spilling into other viewing. Variety reported a 186% viewership increase for The Dropout, Hulu's 2022 limited series starring Amanda Seyfried as Holmes. On October 21, Forbes reported a 400% surge the day after the documentary opened. Those figures describe different viewing periods, rather than necessarily conflicting results.

Also on October 21, IndieWire reported Oppenheim's account of a major change early in production: Fielder had not originally been meant to appear in the documentary, but decided to co-direct, go on camera and alter how it was shot.

The film is now both a box office success and the subject of a dispute over what its access reveals. Shultz's criticism concerns a specific claim about Theranos technology, not simply whether Holmes comes across sympathetically. Forbes separately framed the film's central concern as deception, potentially including Fielder's own role.

Awards discussion has gathered pace, though speculation is not a nomination. Deadline Hollywood raised possible Oscar recognition, including an acting category, while /Film argued that a nomination the film deserves is unlikely. The coverage establishes growing interest, not an awards outcome.

The unresolved issue is how the film's portrayal will hold up against specific challenges from people familiar with Theranos. Shultz's allegation, reported by Forbes, leaves a concrete question about how Holmes's account of the technology is presented and tested. The supplied coverage does not establish a resolution.