“Take it From Me” is a TODAY series where experts use their wisdom to explain trends or make recommendations within their fields. In this edition, a licensed therapist with a degree in cognitive neuroscience weighs in on “You Can See Everything.”
Spoilers ahead for “You Can See Everything.”
If you walk into “You Can See Everything” expecting answers, you might come out of the theater with more questions.
And if you walk into “You Can See Everything” as a clinical psychologist who studies body language and facial cues, you immediately get another ticket. At least that was the case for Morgan Starr-Riestis, who, as of Oct. 20, saw the movie twice since its Oct. 16 release.
Starr-Riestis, a therapist who has a specific training in nervous system regulation, body language and facial cues, says the movie is an “unsettling” experience.
“We’ve learned to track each other’s facial expressions and micro expressions. To be honest, as somebody that’s trained in this, it was hard to read, especially the first half of it,” she tells TODAY.com.
The documentary, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, opens 34 days before Elizabeth Holmes surrenders to prison for four counts of fraud related to her work with Theranos.
Already attracting Oscar buzz (unexpected, considering a documentary has never been up for best picture), critics are calling it “a fascinatingly intimate portrait of a deluded or disingenuous scammer.”
Famous for becoming the world’s youngest female billionaire, Holmes was convicted by a jury in a California court of four federal charges of wire fraud for misrepresenting to investors what Theranos’ blood-testing Edison machines were actually capable of doing.
Fielder attempts to investigate whether Holmes knowingly defrauded investors — whether she intentionally lied. Holmes dodges the characterization, attesting she has never told a lie before, not even a white lie. Another telling moment involving a famous comedy sketch might indicate she doesn’t pick up on social cues.
But viewers are divided as to whether Holmes is as naive as she seems. And insiders are not convinced by Holmes’ feigning innocence. John Carreyrou, the former WSJ reporter who shattered Theranos’ image of a revolutionary blood-testing device through his reporting, is skeptical, as is whistleblower Tyler Shultz. Carreyrou called it a “great film,” but said there’s “no chance” Holmes was just “along for the ride” with Theranos. Shultz wrote in a review for Stat News, a health and science publication, that she’s “still lying.”
For psychologists, it’s no surprise the film leaves audiences twisted as to who to trust. Is it Fielder, who turns himself into a character? Is Holmes somehow under the sway of her fiancé, Billy Evans, with whom she shares two kids?
Starr-Riestis caveats that body language isn’t always an accurate read of how someone is feeling. “Some people who have trauma histories or grew up around an angry caregiver, for example, can actually be hyper-sensitive to micro expressions more than someone who didn’t because they learned from a young (age) a certain furrow of a brow might be dangerous,” she says.
Not everyone is good at picking up social cues, too. “There’s also a wide range of reasons why someone might not read facial expressions as well — autism as an example,” she says.
Still, with those caveats in mind, here’s what she found on both watches of “You Can See Everything,” all six hours of it.
The ‘Dissociative Gaze’
Starr-Riestis called Holmes’ wide, unblinking stare during conversations with Fielder an example of the “dissociative gaze.”
“When our eyelids are pulled back like that and we’re unblinking, that’s usually a sign of fear or overwhelm. When you pair it with a smile, the mismatch is naturally unsettling. Our nervous systems just register it as something off,” she says.
A ‘Socially Disorienting’ Conversation Style That ‘Leaves Us on Alert’
The conversation style between Fielder and Holmes is unusual enough for it to be notable. Fielder’s style is “socially disorienting,” she says.
“He lets pauses hang, keeps his delivery flat, and doesn’t smooth over awkward moments the way most instinctively do. Normally, those small social cues tell us how to feel, so without them we’re left to read every interaction raw,” she says.
On Holmes’ end, her “words, tone and expression often don’t seem to match: warm, caring content delivered with a steady, still, intense gaze.”
“When someone’s verbal and nonverbal signals don’t line up, our nervous system registers the mismatch before we can name it, and we go on alert,” she says.
Amanda Seyfried’s ‘Warmth’ Is a Contrast
For Starr-Riestis, the movie changed in the third act when Amanda Seyfried unexpectedly enters the scene. Seyfried played Holmes in the Hulu series “The Dropout.” She reprises the role in “You Can See Everything” and also interacts with Evans, Fielder and Holmes (via a prison phone call) directly.
“What was a refreshing change was having Amanda’s facial cues. She’s so easy to read. You can watch the way her eyebrows rustle when she’s disturbed,” Starr-Riestis says.
Seyfried’s “warmth” is “absent in both Nathan and Elizabeth,” Starr-Riestis says. “To have both him and Elizabeth in the same room, you’re void of a lot of the normal social cues.”
Billy Evans ‘Staring Off’ and ‘Leaving the Room’
Starr-Riestis paid attention to Evan’s movements in the movie.
Evans, who met Holmes before she was indicted, frequently clashed with Fielder in the name of trying to protect Holmes. But some — including Seyfried — say he was controlling.
“You could see him staring off a lot. It felt like he was really trying to keep his anger in,” she says.
She says it seemed like he was trying to “be on his best behavior,” but he “had a hard time hiding it.”
“He would need to leave at certain points or remove himself because it felt like he was just keeping it all bottled (in),” she says.
‘Not Enough Cues’ to Find Out What’s Real
The movie leaves viewers feeling like they don’t know who, or what, to trust.
“I don’t have enough cues to figure out what’s real in this situation,” Starr-Riestis says.
The movie points to an “uncomfortable truth” she says we need to live with: “Each of us are living in our subjective universes.”
“I see it as a Venn diagram. There is overlap in our experience to where we can agree on things and have some sort of shared truth,” she says. “But you can’t see into someone else’s brain and perspective and perception. We can only know a portion of the truth.”
