Critic’s Notebook

We Can Never Understand Elizabeth Holmes, or Nathan Fielder

我们永远无法理解伊丽莎白·霍姆斯,也无法理解内森·菲尔德
Unlike Fielder’s past work, “You Can See Everything” isn’t very funny. Instead, the documentary, co-directed by Lance Oppenheim, is a haunting exploration of the limits of other people’s knowability.
与菲尔德以往的作品不同,《你能看到一切》并不怎么好笑。相反,这部由兰斯·奥本海姆联合执导的纪录片,是对他人可知性之极限的一次令人难忘的探索。
October 17, 2026
A still from the documentary “You Can See Everything” which depicts a closeup of a piercing blue eye.
Illustration by Javier Jaén; Source photographs from A24 / Everett

The comedian Nathan Fielder loves to sit just a hair too close to people. Often, these are people he barely knows. In an episode of “The Rehearsal,” his mind-bending, genre-defying HBO show, in which he helps participants prepare themselves for meaningful life events before they take place, we see Fielder recline in his stocking feet on the twin bed of a young pilot he’s just met, his legs tucked girlishly, as the other man perches uncertainly beside him. In the finale of “Nathan for You,” the Comedy Central show in which he offers ludicrous advice to failing small businesses, he shares a small hotel room with an elderly near-stranger whom he’s helping search for a long-lost love. (“This is kind of a fun trip, huh? Just the boys?” Fielder goads the expressionless senior.) Later in the episode, when Fielder brings an escort back to the room, he scoots near her on one of the beds, making unbroken and unnerving eye contact all the while.

喜剧演员内森·菲尔德喜欢坐得离人极近,往往只差一根头发丝的距离。通常,这些人他几乎不认识。在《排练》——他那部令人费解、打破类型界限的HBO节目中,他帮助参与者在重大人生事件发生前进行预演——有一集里,菲尔德穿着袜子斜靠在一个他刚认识的年轻飞行员的单人床上,双腿少女般地蜷着,而那个男人则局促不安地坐在他旁边。在《内森帮你》——那部喜剧中心频道节目中,他为濒临倒闭的小企业提供荒唐的建议——的最后一集里,他与一位年迈的、几乎陌生的人同住一间小旅馆房间,他正在帮这位老人寻找失散多年的爱人。(“这趟旅行挺有意思的,对吧?就咱哥俩?”菲尔德怂恿着面无表情的老人。)那一集稍后,当菲尔德把一位陪侍带回房间时,他凑近她坐在其中一张床上,自始至终保持着不间断的、令人不安的眼神接触。

There’s something inherently comical about this insistent, creepy overfamiliarity. (It’s not surprising that a screenshot of the bed scene from “The Rehearsal” has become a popular meme.) Fielder’s willful disregard of conventional social norms—his comfort with an atmosphere of discomfort, to the extent that he is able to carry on as if nothing is amiss—elicits laughs in the same way as the punch line of an old joke that I recently heard: a urologist tells his patient he must stop masturbating. “Why?” the patient asks. “Because I’m talking to you!” the doctor responds. (Fielder, of course, is the patient.) But there’s also something puzzling, and unsettling, about the forced intimacy that Fielder likes to enact: it creates a tension that fuels his comedy but that lingers long beyond the laugh. What game is he playing, we wonder, and to what ends?

这种执拗的、令人毛骨悚然的过度熟稔,天然带有某种喜剧性。(《排练》中那个床戏场景的截图成为热门表情包,并不令人意外。)菲尔德对常规社交规范的有意无视——他在不适氛围中的自在,到了仿佛一切如常的程度——引发的笑声,与我最近听到的一个老笑话的包袱如出一辙:一位泌尿科医生告诉病人他必须停止自慰。“为什么?”病人问。“因为我正在跟你说话!”医生回答。(菲尔德,当然是那个病人。)但菲尔德喜欢演绎的这种强迫式亲密,也有某种令人困惑和不安之处:它制造了一种张力,这种张力为他的喜剧提供燃料,却在笑声过后久久不散。我们不禁想问:他在玩什么把戏?目的何在?

In his odd, gripping, and entirely original new documentary, “You Can See Everything,” which he co-directed with the filmmaker Lance Oppenheim, Fielder’s penchant for invading his interlocutors’ personal space is more pronounced than ever before, and, at nearly three hours long, the film gives us ample time to try and figure out his motives, as well as those of his subjects. Unlike his past work, however, “You Can See Everything” isn’t very funny at all. Instead, it’s a haunting exploration of the limits of other people’s knowability. How close can we really get to those around us? Where do we begin and where do they end? Are each of us, ultimately, all alone in the world, mere islands unto ourselves?

在他与电影人兰斯·奥本海姆联合执导的这部奇特、扣人心弦且完全原创的新纪录片《你能看到一切》中,菲尔德侵入对话者个人空间的癖好比以往任何时候都更加明显,而这部近三小时的影片给了我们充足的时间,去试图弄清他的动机,以及他拍摄对象的动机。然而,与以往的作品不同,《你能看到一切》一点都不好笑。相反,它是对他人可知性之极限的一次令人难忘的探索。我们究竟能多接近身边的人?我们从哪里开始,他们又在哪里结束?我们每个人,归根结底,是否都孤独地存在于这个世界上,不过是彼此隔绝的孤岛?

The documentary starts in medias res, with a man’s face in tight closeup as he speaks on the phone. This is Billy Evans, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and the life partner of Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder and onetime C.E.O. of the health-care startup Theranos, who, in 2022, was convicted of four counts of fraud. (Holmes deceived investors by making false claims about the capabilities of Theranos’s proprietary blood-testing device, which, she said, could detect a whole slew of ailments with just a pinprick’s worth of blood.) It’s now April, 2023, just more than a month before Holmes is set to begin serving her eleven-year federal prison term, and Evans, as he tells whomever is on the other end of the phone line, thinks that people need to understand who Holmes really is. If they did, they certainly would see that she is “so true and so good,” as he murmurs to her, a bit later. To that end, the couple have invited Fielder, Oppenheim, and a film crew into their Del Mar, California, beachfront rental, to document their lives with “radical transparency” and “as much access as possible.”

这部纪录片以直入主题的方式开场:一个男人的脸以极近特写出现,他正在打电话。这是比利·埃文斯,一位硅谷企业家,也是伊丽莎白·霍姆斯的人生伴侣。霍姆斯是声名狼藉的医疗创业公司Theranos的创始人兼前首席执行官,于2022年被判四项欺诈罪名成立。(霍姆斯通过虚假宣称Theranos专有血液检测设备的能力来欺骗投资者——她声称该设备只需针刺般的一滴血就能检测出大量疾病。)现在是2023年4月,距离霍姆斯开始服十一年联邦刑期仅剩一个多月。埃文斯对电话那头的人说,他认为人们需要了解霍姆斯的真实面目。如果他们了解了,就一定会看到她是“如此真实、如此善良”——稍后他这样对她低语。为此,这对伴侣邀请菲尔德、奥本海姆和一个摄制组进入他们位于加州德尔马的滨海出租屋,以“彻底的透明”和“尽可能多的接触”来记录他们的生活。

The film finds its subjects at a very fraught moment. Holmes, who is still nursing the younger of the couple’s two small children, is filing challenges to her conviction and taking calls about what to expect in prison. Evans, meanwhile, is focussed on getting “the band back together” to continue developing, with Holmes’s help, a new device providing low-cost blood-testing, which he refers to as “Theranos 2.0”—a startling example of Silicon Valley hubris, considering how well 1.0 turned out. For the couple, however, this makes sense—Holmes, they both insist, is completely innocent. (The implication is that her former partner in both love and business, the much older Ramesh [Sunny] Balwani, Theranos’s C.O.O., who was convicted of twelve counts of fraud, is the one responsible for the company’s wrongdoing.)

影片在拍摄对象处境极为艰难的时刻找到了他们。霍姆斯仍在哺乳两个年幼孩子中较小的那个,同时就定罪提出上诉,并接听关于监狱生活的咨询电话。与此同时,埃文斯则专注于“把乐队重新聚起来”,在霍姆斯的帮助下继续开发一种提供低成本血液检测的新设备,他称之为“Theranos 2.0”——考虑到1.0版本的结局,这堪称硅谷傲慢自大的惊人例证。然而对这对伴侣来说,这一切都说得通——他们两人都坚称,霍姆斯是完全无辜的。(言下之意是,她昔日的情人与商业伙伴、年长她许多的Theranos首席运营官拉梅什·“桑尼”·巴尔瓦尼——被判十二项欺诈罪名成立——才是公司不当行为的责任人。)

“The world believes a reality about me that isn’t true,” Holmes tells Fielder. He isn’t convinced by her protestations (“there is a lot of evidence that points to the fact that you defrauded investors and also deceived, you know, regulators and the public and patients,” he says), and he skulks around darkly, his surveilling presence casting a pall on the Holmes-Evans ménage. In scene after scene, Fielder, who fully moves into the house, grills the pair, together or separately—in their kitchen nook, in their marital bed, on their living-room couch—often at such proximity that they can surely feel his warm breath on their cheeks. A bit of this is still comical, and it certainly serves as a self-conscious callback to Fielder’s popular reputation as a possibly sinister weirdo. Running roughshod over domestic conventions, he sometimes seems like the couple’s overgrown son, recalcitrant and lacking in boundaries. (I laughed when, a few hours before Holmes is scheduled to surrender to the authorities, the comedian finally offers to give the couple some space so that they can “have sex,” and proceeds to go sit in his car with the music blasting—a move that reminded me of his “Nathan for You” scheme to create a “sex box,” in which parents can have intercourse while on vacation with their children.)

“世界相信了一个关于我的、并不真实的现实,”霍姆斯对菲尔德说。他并不相信她的辩白(“有大量证据表明你欺骗了投资者,也欺骗了监管机构、公众和患者,”他说),他阴郁地在房子里四处游荡,他那监视般的存在给霍姆斯-埃文斯的家庭生活蒙上了一层阴影。在一场又一场的戏中,菲尔德完全住进了这栋房子,对这对伴侣进行盘问,有时一起问,有时分开问——在他们的厨房角落、在他们的婚床上、在客厅沙发上——距离往往近到他们一定能感受到他温热的呼吸拂过脸颊。其中一些仍然具有喜剧效果,而且这无疑是对菲尔德广为人知的“可能心怀不轨的怪人”形象的一种自觉呼应。他肆意践踏家庭常规,有时看起来就像这对伴侣的巨型儿子,桀骜不驯、毫无边界感。(当霍姆斯按计划向当局自首前几个小时,这位喜剧演员终于提出给这对伴侣一些空间,让他们可以“做爱”,然后坐到自己的车里把音乐开到最大——这一幕让我想起他在《内森帮你》中设计的“性爱箱”方案,让父母在与孩子度假时也能进行性行为——看到这里我笑了。)

Mostly, though, we’re dealing with dead-serious business here. This is certainly the first time that a Nathan Fielder project has reminded me of a Bergman film, and that might be at least partly because of Oppenheim’s involvement. In his previous documentaries, such as “Some Kind of Heaven” and “Spermworld,” and in his recent narrative feature “Primetime,” Oppenheim is a stylish visual thinker and a master of vistas; in “You Can See Everything,” he turns largely to the vista of the human face. With the help of David Bolen’s eerily beautiful cinematography, Oppenheim, like Fielder himself, aims to get as close as possible, homing in, “Persona”-style, on the protagonists’ features, expressions, and gestures as a kind of window into their souls.

但大多数时候,我们面对的是极其严肃的事情。这无疑是内森·菲尔德的项目第一次让我想起伯格曼的电影,而这至少部分归功于奥本海姆的参与。在他之前的纪录片中,如《某种天堂》和《精子世界》,以及他近期的叙事长片《黄金时段》,奥本海姆是一位风格化的视觉思考者和远景大师;而在《你能看到一切》中,他主要转向了人脸这一“远景”。在大卫·博伦那诡异而美丽的摄影帮助下,奥本海姆和菲尔德本人一样,力求尽可能靠近,以《假面》式的手法聚焦于主角的面容特征、表情和姿态,将其视为通往灵魂的窗口。

Holmes’s soul, however, remains a cipher. Who is this woman, with her wide, unblinking, cornflower-blue eyes, with her frequent tears and earnest proclamations, who keeps insisting on her utter sincerity—going so far as to say that she can’t remember telling a single lie? “She’s really weird. She’s just not normal,” Evans tells Fielder, while attesting to Holmes’s honesty, but the idea of full transparency—the notion that one can and will see everything about another person if there is willingness on both sides to do so—is both troubled and troubling in the film. The more access Holmes allows, the less Fielder is, seemingly, able to know her.

然而,霍姆斯的灵魂始终是一个谜。这个女人究竟是谁?她那双睁得大大的、一眨不眨的矢车菊蓝色眼睛,她频繁的泪水和诚挚的表白,她不断坚称自己绝对真诚——甚至说自己不记得说过一个谎?“她真的很奇怪。她就是不正常,”埃文斯对菲尔德说,同时为霍姆斯的诚实作证。但“完全透明”这一理念——即只要双方都有意愿,一个人就能够也将会看到另一个人的一切——在这部影片中既是成问题的,也是令人不安的。霍姆斯允许的接触越多,菲尔德似乎就越无法了解她。

One pathway to enter another person’s consciousness is through the figure of the double—or Fielder, at least, seems to think so, when he tries to understand Holmes via the lens of his own subjectivity. “I’m a bad communicator,” he tells her at one point. “I don’t know a lot of words. Is that what you’re like?” (He also echoes a common reaction to his own tactics in the course of his career, when he wonders whether Holmes is “fully sincere” or “the most manipulative person who ever lived.”) Later in the film—and be warned of some spoilers from here on out!—he attempts to understand his subject by engaging with another double of hers, the actress Amanda Seyfried, who portrayed Holmes in the 2022 Hulu series “The Dropout.” It also becomes clear that Holmes and Evans see themselves as doubles of each other, claiming that the connection between them is practically telepathic.

进入他人意识的一条路径是通过“替身”这一形象——至少菲尔德似乎是这么认为的,当他试图通过自身主体性的透镜来理解霍姆斯时。“我是个糟糕的沟通者,”他在某个时刻对她说。“我词汇量不大。你也是这样吗?”(他还呼应了人们对他职业生涯中自身策略的常见反应,当他猜想霍姆斯究竟是“完全真诚”还是“有史以来最善于操纵的人”。)影片稍后——从这里开始要提醒你注意一些剧透!——他试图通过接触霍姆斯的另一个替身来理解他的拍摄对象:女演员阿曼达·塞弗里德,她在2022年Hulu剧集《辍学生》中饰演了霍姆斯。影片也逐渐清晰地表明,霍姆斯和埃文斯将彼此视为对方的替身,声称他们之间的联系几乎是心灵感应式的。

Is this type of thinking delusional? Does it, at the very least, involve some mangling of an individual’s dearest, most private core? “You’re a very talented actress, very good performer, but, you know, you’re not her,” Fielder tells Seyfried, a rare admission by the comedian that his method has limits: a double, however convincing, may obscure its subject just as much as it reveals her. He recounts a conversation he had with Holmes, in which he compared his uncertain feeling while talking to her—was she telling him the truth or fooling him?—to a magic trick that he once saw David Blaine perform. Blaine appeared to be driving an ice pick through his hand, which viewers assumed relied on smoke and mirrors. In fact, Fielder says, Blaine was literally stabbing his hand, puncturing his own flesh to create the illusion of an illusion.

这种想法是妄想吗?它是否至少涉及对一个人最珍视、最私密内核的某种扭曲?“你是一位非常有才华的女演员,非常出色的表演者,但是,你知道,你不是她,”菲尔德对塞弗里德说。这是这位喜剧演员罕见的承认——他的方法有其局限:一个替身,无论多么令人信服,可能在揭示其对象的同时也同样遮蔽了她。他讲述了他与霍姆斯的一次对话,在对话中他把自己与她交谈时的不确定感——她是在对他说真话还是在愚弄他?——比作他曾经看过的大卫·布莱恩表演的一个魔术。布莱恩似乎用冰锥刺穿了自己的手,观众以为那靠的是障眼法。事实上,菲尔德说,布莱恩是真的在刺自己的手,刺穿自己的肉体来制造一种“假象的假象”。

Watching this scene, I thought of Theranos’s promise to provide people with crucial medical knowledge through a tiny blood sample. This promise, as we now know, was fraudulent. No puzzles were solved; blood, it turned out, would not tell, and the mysteries of the self remained locked within it. Fielder, too, resists being known: after spending weeks trying to get into his subjects’ heads, he dismisses the possibility that they’d be able to get into his. “I know what you’re feeling,” Evans tells him, at one point in the film. Fielder’s response is immediate, and notably heated: “No, you don’t.” ♦

看到这一幕,我想起了Theranos的承诺:通过微小的血液样本为人们提供关键的医疗信息。这个承诺,正如我们现在所知,是欺诈性的。没有任何谜题被解开;事实证明,血液不会说话,自我的奥秘仍然锁在其中。菲尔德同样抗拒被了解:在花了数周时间试图进入拍摄对象的头脑之后,他否定了他们能够进入他的头脑的可能性。“我知道你在想什么,”埃文斯在影片中某个时刻对他说。菲尔德的回应是即时的,而且明显带着火气:“不,你不知道。” ♦

2 free previews left — register to get 30 translations a month