> But how does it do it? What tools does it use to that effect? I appreciate that this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous, but what makes this unique from other documentaries that deal with ambiguous subject matter?

If you’re that interested in getting these answers, you probably should watch the film

Nah, that would never work.

The article makes it clear that most people didn’t get out of the movie what the author got out of it

Unfortunately, it has such a limited release that most people who want to watch it outside North America won't be able to. No one has been able to explain why it has had such a limited release.

Seems like most documentaries from my point of view in Spain. Seems we won't be able to see this in cinemas until February sometime, and before that it'll probably be available via other channels. In the end, most interested will have seen it before February already, so when times come around, not that many people see it. So the cinemas adjust future viewings since not that many end up seeing them, as it takes so long time to arrive here.

Been like this with most mainstream documentaries like this one.

> this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous [...] with ambiguous subject matter?

There's a big difference in ambiguousness and ambivalence, especially in documentaries. "Ambiguousness" represents an uncertain logical conclusion, whereas "ambivalence" stands in for (the strength of) conflicting forces.

I'd wager that an ambiguous documentary would be close to being unwatchable, and I can't remember that I've seen any. Since I've yet to see You Can See Everything, unfortunately I can't comment about it in any way.

Maybe just for not spoilers?

If you’re watching this film, you likely already know who Elizabeth Holmes is. There isn’t going to be any Sixth Sense style plot twists.

Without having watched the film, I'm sure they can make it look like Sunny Balwani was the guy in charge, or something like that. I don't even know the whole story of Theranos and never followed it with much interest - startup scams are a dime-a-dozen. HP's acquisition of Autonomy always struck me as such a tale: CFO takes the fall for CEO and CTO for a $11 b acquisition that a few years later was worth a tenth because of accounting fraud and when he gets out the CEO gives him a sinecure; then the week of CEO and CTO acquittal the latter gets killed in a bicycling accident and the former dies when a tornado sinks his yacht.

Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes are interesting characters, true, but there's so much nuts in tech, it's just fertile ground for stories.

That is literally expression of YOUR bias and prejudice.

The story is so much more than a startup scam. It's about large numbers of supposedly savvy men being duped by a kid. What kind of kid could and would do such a thing?

It seems that everyone interviewed about this story has their own red flag moment -- the point where they knew that something was way off, and that they should stay far away. Silicon Valley VCs being the prime example. It is incorrect to say that Theranos was a VC company, it was more funded by angels who were incapable of objectively judging what was being proposed.

At Stanford a prof (important to say: a woman) who knew that the idea was technically infeasible. (And interesting to contrast with another very senior prof -- a man -- who left his tenured position to join Theranos). I remember reading a New Yorker profile of EH years before Theranos blew up, and the story described how she had all of these extremely powerful old men on her board: George Schultz, Henry Kissinger. That was my red flag moment. Yes, they are brilliant and powerful, but they are also clueless about biotech and medical tech. So why get them involved? Something seemed very off to me. Lots of people knew that something was very off, and yet ...

> I'm sure they can make it look like Sunny Balwani was the guy in charge

Nope. He's barely even in the film. It's not a normal documentary.

I’ve watched the film. There are things that happen during the filming of it, involving the people making the project, that I would indeed classify as big spoilers and knowing them beforehand would lessen the experience.

This is very wrong.

besides the topic that is being explored is deception so its expected the documentary Will use a rethorical or film technique that has some connection to that theme of deception?

> Yes, this is a documentary about a person.

I respectfully disagree. It's post-postmodern performance art. It's like a box of Post cereal with a Post-It note on it nailed to a post in from of the lamppost at the corner of Meta's headquarters in the metaverse. It's a relentless onslaught of origami tesseracts made out of pages from a Baudrillard book that an NYU student used to roll a cigarette of imported European tobacco while they post on Xitter in all lowercase. It's pure never-been-stepped-on A24.

I'm glad I saw this film in theaters as the people laughing and shouting was part of this experience but I'll never watch it again, i.e. it was good but definitely not "fun". I agree with those who say that excising the final third would've made it tighter.

> It's post-postmodern performance art.

Well at least now I know it's not going to be funny, and is way too long.