Nathan Fielder's and Lance Oppenheim's highly acclaimed documentary, 'You Can See Everything,' chronicles the final 34 days of Elizabeth Holmes before her incarceration, extending beyond her report date. This film has not only achieved remarkable box office success, surpassing traditional comic book adaptations, but has also garnered near-perfect scores from critics and audiences alike. Despite its overwhelming popularity and critical reception, its unique stylistic choices, particularly Fielder's visible role within the narrative, could pose a challenge to the Academy's conventional preferences for documentary filmmaking. The potential for the film to be excluded from the Oscar shortlist highlights a recurring tension between audience appeal and the specific artistic criteria often favored by awards committees.
The documentary 'You Can See Everything' has made a significant impact since its secret screening premiere at Telluride. Its narrative, which delves into the controversial figure of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, captures a crucial period of her life. The film's success is evident in its exceptional ratings: a 99 on Metacritic, 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, 4.7 out of 5 on Letterboxd, and a 9.4 on IMDb. Such scores suggest an unprecedented level of public and critical approval, potentially positioning it to surpass long-standing cinematic benchmarks, like 'The Shawshank Redemption,' for the highest-rated film of all time.
However, the journey of popular documentaries to Oscar glory has historically been fraught with challenges. The Academy's documentary branch, established in 2001, has a complex relationship with films that achieve widespread popularity. A notable example is the 1994 omission of 'Hoop Dreams,' which led to significant reforms in the Oscar voting process. More recently, Morgan Neville's 'Won't You Be My Neighbor?' grossed over $22 million and won several industry awards but failed to secure an Oscar nomination in 2018. This history suggests a prevailing theory within the awards circuit: past winners are often perceived as having been 'taken care of,' making subsequent nominations more difficult, with Laura Poitras being a rare exception. A voter's sentiment highlights this disconnect, emphasizing artistic merit over popularity or personal charm, asking, 'Did they make a great documentary? That should be the question.'
The distinctive filmmaking approach of 'You Can See Everything,' where Nathan Fielder appears on screen and the film constantly questions Holmes's authenticity versus performance, directly challenges the traditional 'fly-on-the-wall' style often preferred by the Academy's documentary branch. This artistic decision, while central to the film's narrative and critical success, could be a hurdle for its Oscar aspirations. If the film is surprisingly excluded from the 15-film shortlist in December, such a high-profile snub could galvanize a broader response from the Academy membership. This dynamic is reminiscent of Ben Affleck's directorial omission for 'Argo,' where the wider Academy responded by awarding the film Best Picture. The upcoming Governors Awards will honor Glenn Close and Ridley Scott, while Oscar shortlists for 12 categories will be announced on December 15, following preliminary voting. The final nominations will be revealed on January 21, 2027, leading up to the 99th Academy Awards ceremony on March 14, 2027, hosted by Conan O'Brien.
Despite its critical acclaim and commercial triumph, 'You Can See Everything' faces an uphill battle with the Academy due to its innovative yet unconventional style. The film's immense public support and strong critical ratings underscore a potential divergence between popular opinion and the Academy's traditional criteria for documentary excellence. Should the film be overlooked in the initial rounds, its snub could paradoxically amplify its presence in the larger Best Picture race, demonstrating the Academy's susceptibility to broader industry and public sentiment in unforeseen ways.
