A friend designed and 3D printed Edison machine popcorn buckets for opening night.

This is the promo we needed it.

Hello, I live in a country where You Can See Everything releases digitally one month before releasing in the cinema. I really want to watch it ASAP, but I know some films are much better when watched in the cinema.

So is it the case with this one, or is it not going to make much difference?

Thanks!

Furious with myself that I didn’t make a 3-D ear but still happy with the cartoon mouse essence that was captured!

Black Phillip butter dish - $48
Thomasin Tree Topper - $48
The Witch coloring book (with pencils) - $28
The Witch Screenpkay Book - $60

I thought nothing would top Ludwig Göransson’s Can You Hear the Music from Oppenheimer but here we are. What a haunting and chilling track to play all of us walking out of the theater after watching a masterpiece.

Per Google:

“Balouzian avoids traditional, functional chord progressions (like a standard I-IV-V-I) that offer immediate resolution. "V8" and surrounding tracks lean into minor and modal scales (often favoring the eerie, slightly dark character of the **Dorian mode** or the unstable **Phrygian mode**). By utilizing flat seconds or raised sixths, the music triggers an immediate psychological reaction of being "off-kilter".”

Why is there no merch for you can see everything? Is it planned? I really want to see what collabs they do with this movie, I have $55 in credit burning a hole in my pocket. Curious why there is nothing as of now for a movie that has blown up like it has.

Anybody heard if they are working on something or is this normal procedure? Seemed like the Primetime stuff dropped really fast after premiere.

Spoilers ahead!! Reposting this from nathafielder sub bc I want more You Can See Everything fans to talk to haha

Disclaimer: I’m sick in bed so I’m just gonna rant about this in stupid way, dont read if annoyed by long posts and bad writing lol

Here we go—this movie has spurred more discussion with my friends and family than any movie I’ve ever seen and it’s incredible - I think the “Who’s on First” scene is absolutely legendary, and I wanted to write about my current theory here to discuss it with anyone who wants to - open to being absolutely totally wrong

So… at first I was thoroughly manipulated by Holmes, and I think this movie is brilliant at demonstrating -how- so many people were (and continue to be) manipulated - how much we want to give the benefit of the doubt to people, even when we KNOW with years of evidence someone is a sociopathic compulsive liar… a lot of us will always want to see the best in people or try to assign coherence to incoherence to grasp at a stable sense of reality. The true genius of this film is showing how instantaneously our sense of “consensus reality” collapses when people are not doing their due diligence to be honest (whether this is for entertainment purposes which we often celebrate e.g Nathan Fielder, or scam/narcissistic delusion of grandeur purposes which we condemn for being anti-social e.g Billy/Elizabeth… really fascinating philosophical/ethical questions to be talked about endlessly but I will only touch on that in this post)

Okay!! So, many of us in my viewing party came away from the movie believing she really didn’t understand the joke and she’s just Different - believing the narrative Nathan (or the character Nathan is playing… who ever knows in the end?) was excited to demonstrate in the scene - the character of Nathan believes Elizabeth in the scene that she wasn’t lying about the machine and just truly believes the wording “you CAN test everything” - Nathan is trying to see how much she truly believes her own delusion or if she is aware she’s lying - at this point he/his character is out to test her neurodivergence (for lack of better words) in a way by showing her this clip
But after revisiting it - the main thing I believe we’re witnessing is someone caught in her own game, paralyzed reaction-wise because she is not completely understanding what Nathan is expecting of her at first so she is speechless at points

That’s why when the joke is explained to her she continues acting confused/dumb, instead of what most people would do, having a reaction of “ohhhh”
Even if she did not understand the joke (I saw someone say she could have been fatigued/pressured/confused which is feasible even for an intelligent person to watch that for the first time and not “get it”), when she was explained the joke, her reaction continued to be baffling because she’s playing into this facade/lie/character she’s playing for this movie (who she’s hoping will be redemptive character and potentially save her from years in prison so there’s a lot riding on her “performance” here) - she’s pretending to be a ridiculously honest person who never lies and just somehow doesn’t understand basic human language
It’s this same kind of baffling behavior that appears alien to a lot of us that led to her telling Amanda seyfried - “I don’t know if I knew” that she would be there at Billy’s house - so much if not all of what she says is designed to be as elusive/enigmatic/dodgy as possible

I saw an essay about this movie that I wasn’t able to read bc of pesky substack paywall but the title was “what a guilty person thinks an innocent person would act like” and I thought that was a fantastic summary, except it’s beyond that - it’s what a guilty, sociopathic, extremely neurodivergent, uniquely brilliant and bizarre person (also product of extreme capitalistic delusion and obsession) would think an innocent person would act like - and so sometimes those actions come across as bafflingly dumb or confusing, because her motivations/her brain IS drastically different than many of ours and that is why she fascinates us just the way people like Ted Bundy do etc
So she’ll lie in incredibly seemingly stupid ways (like claiming never to have lied in her life), while still being a brilliant master manipulator

We are all curious where the delusion ends and the deception begins - but she has to be a certain level of deluded to even care this much about deceiving people for the success of her visions/status etc, so there’s no way to entirely tell when she is sincere, because she is pathologically incapable of being sincere most if not all of the time (which I honestly perceive to be tragic, which adds another level of pathos that can allow her to manipulate people like me lol)

Why she’s so endearing to me in a weird way: she’s like a little kid obsessed with the fantasy of a science fair project that will “change the world” even though it’s literally not possible - she seems to get off on this Vision being achieved at all costs, she has this childlike-quality about her, her passion/fixation is just so fascinating… then it also seems like some amount of bizarre sadism or getting off on deception is involved because she could have pivoted and put her efforts into hundreds of other (far more ethical) possibilities and she hurt and harassed and silenced so many people (listening to The Dropout is illuminating to say the least)

Anyway, this scene is incredible to me because she’s kinda “playing autistic” in a certain way, or playing at a certain level of naïveté for sympathy - and Nathan has also “played autistic” for humor/storytelling purposes in his work; but at the same time I believe both of them are neurodivergent in their own unique ways (all our brains are crazy y’all idk) and Nathan also plays with that line of - is this really him or is this not, how much of this is real, how much is not? How does that affect our perception of ethics involved and what are people’s ethical responsibilities? What is “real” anyway? And how tf do we have justice/societal ethics if we don’t know how to answer those questions Etc ugh amazing movie

I also just wanna say, our entire government and the American capitalist system in general rewards and produces shit like this constantly - we have a scam artist as president, EH is the perfect representation of the capitalistic horror of late stage capitalism, she does not exist in a vacuum
America’s cooked y’all… at least we have some incredible artists making the dystopia entertaining for some of us

Last thing because I don’t want to spend my whole day on Reddit and make multiple posts about this haha:
The Amanda seyfried line “it’s really dusty in here” (or whatever) talking about the newly revealed set is spinning out a bit, thinking about how much of this is scripted or not, how much we aren’t seeing in the edit and how at the mercy of Nathan and lance’s “lies” (for the sake of entertainment/art) we are as well… never been so thoroughly mindfucked by a movie dude, and it just keeps going
I feel so lucky to have seen this in theaters, what a ride dude

Okay, if you read this: wow, thanks. Let’s go outside now lol

(Potential Spoilers: WARNING)

—————————————————

Does anyone have a good source and/or knowledge of when the hotel scenes towards the end of the film were shot? I’m curious because I ran into Nathan Fielder around the corner of the Chelsea Hotel earlier this year. It was during a Knicks playoff game so it would’ve been around May I believe.

After seeing the sequence of him in the hotel (which looked like it could’ve been the Chelsea from the room decor), it would be cool to know I bumped into him in the middle of him trying to connect with Elizabeth in prison.

Get your tickets now at https://shotgun.live/events/everything-everywhere-drag-dinner

EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT LORE! 🥯✨

In another universe, you might miss this drag dinner. But not this one. 👀🌌

Swipe and meet the cast of Everything Everywhere All at LORE! Hosted by Tucker AYE ALXNDR, featuring Scarlet Vixen, Camellia Crush, and Molly ALXNDR.

The cast is taking the stage and bringing to life characters, chaos, and countless universes!

Expect hot dog fingers, everything bagels, googly eyes, and plenty of surprises along the way. Grab dinner, get a drink, and prepare for a night where anything can happen, anywhere, all at once.

🎟️ Get your tickets now at LOREatl.com. The multiverse is waiting!

Tuesday, November 3 // Upstairs @ LORE // 21+
Doors 7 PM, Show 8 PM

To those who argue that Nathan sees through Holmes and recognizes her as a master manipulator, what evidence in the film actually supports that interpretation?

Both Nathan and Amanda express sympathy for her. Amanda even believes Billy is the problem and suggests they should break the two of them up.

By the end of the film, Nathan explicitly says he believes the love between Holmes and Billy is genuine. Earlier, he spends considerable time suggesting that her communication may simply be flawed, that she struggles to express herself, and that she may have chosen the wrong words.

So where, specifically, does the film by the end establish that Nathan sees through her supposed manipulation? What dialogue or scene supports that conclusion?

Because from what I can see, you’re attributing an interpretation to Nathan that the film itself doesn’t support. You’re presenting your own reading as though it’s something the character actually says or believes.

Just saw and I enjoyed the movie, very well made and intriguing. I wanted to discuss takeaways about Elizabeth Holmes based on what was shown and not shown about her in the documentary.

My preconceived notions about her was that she was clearly a sociopathic con artist prior to watching the film.

However, as the documentary went on, we find out a few things about her that we didn't quite understand:

1. She was raped.

2. She actually did and still does believe in her blood test machine

3. She can show empathy

4. She has faith

5. She loves her baby

6. She may suffer from some form of mental illness or be on the autistic spectrum

7. She is submissive to the men she is with in her life and lets them make decisions for her- Sunny Balwani may have been controlling her at Theranos and telling her things to say and believe

Each of these things did make be fully empathize with her during the movie, and it also carved out a motive and portrait of her in my perspective.

However, what the movie doesn't show is just how outrageous this scam actually was and how incredibly dangerous and detrimental it would have been had it not been exposed and whistleblown on.

1. It wasn't just the investors and white collar money crimes of scamming people that Holmes and the company was involved with.
2. The blood tests did not work. They were giving inaccurate results, but Holmes and company pushed them through to Walgreen's anyway.
3. They also cooked the books on the blood tests. When the whistleblower discovered that half of the lab of dozens of employees all tested positive for syphilis, and explained it, the doctor of the company lied about the % of the accurate results at 95% when it was actually 65% and then at best 80%.

See this is serious. They pushed syphilis tests that were wrong to stores so patients who had syphilis, which can be deadly if untreated, didn't know they had it, could then spread it, while people who didn't have it thought they had it and were probably nervous and experiencing all kinds of social concerns in their private lives.

1. They hired private investigators to harass and stalk the whistleblower, and he had to spend 500k dollars to defend himself in court against them. It was Harvey Weinstein's lawyer who was after him. They tried to ruin his life, despite his grandfather being on the board of directors.

.....

See, I think this information is really important to know as an audience member of this documentary because it does get you, well at least me, to sympathize with her a little bit. From the documentary, I see a SA-victim, who created a dissociative identity of sorts to create a new life to escape the trauma, who was submissive to men like Sunny who may have controlled her decisions, and who may have had autism or delusions because she didn't understand the machine didn't work and had comprehension/communication limits.

And this might all be true.

One moment that stood out was how she lit up, changed body language and genuine joy seemed to suddenly come over her as she began showing Fielder the blood test machine. I think this was a real change in her psychology to a time in her life where she loved to present her device and her idea of what it could do. But it came across as disassociative. and I think that was the "character" that she created- her "presentation" to the public about the company and device.

But so can it be true that she was either born or became a sociopath and had no conscience about running a scam company based on lies, who would fire people who confronted her on the ridiculously faulty science, or would greenlight sending a P.I. that was harassing a whisteblower, and sending erroneous syphilis machines out to the public that were dangerous and harmful to them. This is my conclusion based on the film: it's both.

I think the whistleblower youtube video by 60 Minutes is required viewing to better understand the scope and magnitude of just how bad the situation was.

Then, in hindsight, I think it's easy to see in the documentary that she didn't feel any remorse or feel like she did anything wrong; she was just upset she got caught and had to pay. And while I do agree with her new partner that this type of lying and deception is commonplace among entrepreneurs especially in Silicon Valley, most of whom never face legal punishment, I think it's time that they start to. If anything, more of these types of Wall Street scam artists and businesspeople who operate like this should be exposed.

Anyway, what did other people take away from this movie compared with what they knew about the case and Holmes prior to watching, and what was your takeaway after seeing it?

The only part of it that seems genuine is some of the opening portion where he is at their house. Everything else is clearly acted/rehearsed and felt fake. The only believable dialogue in the whole movie was

You have all these moments that are supposed to feel candid, but the lighting is perfect and there are cameras from 4 angles with perfect focus, catching every actor(and I mean that literally, not just Amanda) right on cue. The only two moments that felt legit were when Nathan was interviewing her Father and the other interview with the Theranos 2.0 "scientist". Those were the only people in the movie that seemed to not be in on it.

The scene where Billy claims to be permanently armed seemed fake. The scene where Amanda shits on Charlie Kirk seemed fake. All of Nathan and Amanda seemed fake/rehearsed.

But all the discussion around the movie seems to be about EH and whether or not she had believable motives when it doesnt even feel like the real focus of the movie. Maybe it started out as a documentary, but morphed into this weird artsy project for Nathan. Idk, the whole thing felt bizarre and overly dramatic.

(I don't watch Nathan Fielder shows) The beginning of the movie was interesting, with the kind of questions Nathan was asking them, but after that, it didn't feel exceptional in any way, I nodded off a lil. I'm not into reality shows either, so I don't feel it's interesting to watch generic bad people do generic bad people stuff. Also 3 hours? come on that's too much for this story. Maybe a good movie to watch for some people, but no way can this be the best movie of the year