A new film, You Can See Everything, offers a stark look at the cost of visibility in modern society. It follows Billy Evans, a man whose desperation to be seen drives him to perform, manipulate, and distort reality. Source: psychologytoday.com.
The Film’s Core Narrative
The film centers on Billy Evans, partner of Elizabeth Holmes. Evans is not a character in a traditional sense—he is a living embodiment of performative behavior.
His actions are driven by a need to be included in the frame. He interrupts conversations, steers scenes, and parades personal details to ensure attention. This behavior is not just exaggerated—it is central to the film’s critique of social media culture.
One scene shows Evans correcting Elizabeth Holmes as she mixes eggs. The scene is described as brutally intentional. It is likened to a moment in Marcel Proust’s work, suggesting a deep emotional and narrative weight.
Performance Over Truth
Evans and Holmes discuss the resurrection of Theranos in jargon that would embarrass satire. Their dialogue is not about business or innovation—it is about belonging to a group of ‘cool kids’.
They use Silicon Valley language not to convey insight, but to signal acceptance. This performance is inauthentic. It reflects a broader trend where identity is built through mimicry rather than substance.
Amanda Seyfried plays a role that pushes Evans to reveal his sexual confidence. He responds not with maturity, but with anger—vowing to ruin the lives of anyone who has wronged Holmes.
His reaction is not one of self-awareness. It is a declaration of revenge. This moment underscores a key theme: the cost of being seen can become a moral and emotional burden.
What Does This Mean for Society?
Psychologist Monica Vilhauer, who reviewed the film, notes that journalists have long debated whether naming a terrorist rewards them with the very attention they seek. In a similar way, the film suggests that Evans is being given a megaphone by filmmakers Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim—someone already desperate for visibility.
She observes that the film is not merely a story; it functions as a mirror, reflecting how social media platforms reward performance over authenticity. The audience is not watching a documentary. They are watching a performance of reality.
Key Questions Raised
- What was Elizabeth Holmes thinking when she believed a documentary could redeem her? She sees herself as a mother, innocent and unrepentant.
- Did Billy Evans believe he could convince the world he is a powerful figure? Or did he simply want to be seen?
The film suggests that Evans may not have believed in redemption. He may have believed in visibility as a form of power.
His success in gaining audience attention is clear. The film has drawn critical acclaim and online frenzy. This shows how visibility can be achieved—even when it is built on manipulation.
Why This Matters
The film is not just about one man. It is an indictment of a culture that values visibility over truth.
It echoes the ideas of Guy Debord and Jean Baudrillard—both of whom warned that society has become mediated by images. In today’s world, this is more true than ever.
Debord wrote in 1967 that social life is being replaced by spectacle. Baudrillard later described how images replace real experiences. TikTok, Instagram, and other platforms have made this vision a reality.
Evans is not a fictional character. He is a real person whose actions reflect a broader societal trend. The film shows how performance can become a substitute for self-worth.
It also raises a philosophical question: when does the cost of being seen become too high?
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: Whoever is dissatisfied with himself is continually ready for revenge, and we others will be his victims, if only by having to endure his ugly sight.
The film makes this idea vivid.
Evans may not be a villain. But he is a product of a system that rewards attention above all else.
If You Can See Everything wins the Academy Award for Best Picture—despite being a film about performance and manipulation—then the cultural value of spectacle may have already been won.
Monica Vilhauer suggests that the film may not win Best Documentary. But it could win Best Picture. That would be a powerful statement about what society values.
She personally would vote for Backrooms—a film about digital isolation—over this one. That choice reflects a deeper concern: the film may not be about truth, but about the illusion of visibility.
For now, the film remains a powerful commentary on how we live, perform, and are seen in a digital world.
Sources & further reading
Featured image: original publisher image. Via original publisher. Image source
