You can see it all: Nathan Fielder, Lance Oppenheim on his twists and turns

(This story contains spoilers for You can see everything.)

Less than two months ago, the world was unaware of the existence of You can see everything. Since then, the A24 production has established itself as one of the most successful documentaries of all time at the North American box office and made a strong case to become the first documentary to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. The three-hour film, directed by Nathan Fielder (The repetition) and Lance Oppenheim (Prime time), captured the zeitgeist in his combination of extensive and intimate access to his subjects; his current revelations; and its bold formal choices, from the dynamic cinematography to the structural twist that defines the film’s back half.

It’s also a real discovery for the public: since its secret screening at the Telluride Film Festival during Labor Day weekend, You can see everything generated a deafening buzz while keeping its biggest surprises hidden.

Viewers went to the cinema probably knowing that the film would depict the last month of Elizabeth Holmes’ life with her husband, Billy Evans, and their children, before her more than 11-year prison sentence for fraud began. But the surreal nature of Holmes and Evans’ dynamic, both with each other and with Fielder (who appears on camera), could hardly have been anticipated. Ditto for the final act’s flash-forward that shows Fielder and Oppenheim’s access to the now-incarcerated Holmes slipping away — leading to the introduction of Amanda Seyfried, who won an Emmy for her portrayal of Holmes on Hulu. The dropoutto help them complete the film and piece together key scenes and conversations from their time together.

In one of their first public Q&As since You can see everythingDuring the theatrical release of , Fielder and Oppenheim joined yours truly at the SCAD Savannah Film Festival for a wide-ranging conversation reflecting on these big surprises – while clearly addressing the years-long saga of making a film deep within the bubble of a “real human optical illusion.”

You had a team of seven people moving into their house. How did you think about how you were going to film and capture this? I know Nathan would even be on camera was also a conversation.

SPEAR OPPENHEIM When we started, we didn’t think Nathan would be filmed. It was Elizabeth and Billy: when we were filming in the beginning, they kept asking Nathan questions. It was almost as if they wanted him to gravitate behind the camera, in front of it. So it happened quite organically. One of our operators, Jonathan Mitchell, who has worked with Nathan for a long time, just pointed the camera at Nathan, and I was watching on the monitor. I actually thought it might be useful, in a way – if Nathan became this accidental investigator of these everyday moments, he might try to pull Elizabeth out of the version of reality she was living in and try to bring her back into the one we were in.

The first relay had seven people. I usually shoot with one camera, with David (Bolen), and on this one it didn’t work at all because we were always missing those moments, especially when Nathan would ask a question – if we went from Nathan to Billy or Elizabeth, we would lose the first non-verbal reaction of what’s happening on someone’s face when a question is asked. Nathan said, “This is unacceptable.” No, he didn’t say that. (Laughter.) But he said to me, “We have to get this stuff.” »

NATHAN GROUND For something like this, where you’re assessing the honesty and sincerity on someone’s face, their response before they even respond to me is very important, in trying to determine whether someone is being honest or not, or just what’s going on with them. … Because they were moving around the house, it was about trying to continually incorporate the things that we were missing. We had to remove the cameras more, and we only had two operators for three cameras in this house; there were only two or three people at most, besides me and Lance, in this house at any given time. We had the wide shot that covered the whole house, and then we had these zoom lenses that could also go wide, so we could cover everything that was happening and (we) could zoom in on a tight (shot) from really far away.

Then what started to happen was, before we even drove, they started talking to us. They would try to surprise us off camera and say, “Okay, this is what we’re doing today” or “Do you want to film this?” We thought, “Well, that’s relevant because if they want something to be filmed, then that’s their idea of ​​what happens.” We said, “We need these process conversations.” “We started going in before they even woke up because they weren’t locking the door to their house, and we had the cameras out wide to cover it all. You see it in the movie when Billy says, “We’re going to the gym” or whatever. It’s a totally different scene if you know he thinks that’s something that would be important for this documentary – filming it at the gym – as opposed to it coming from us.

OPPENHEIM Ironically for us, what felt new, in some ways, was adopting the oldest principles of documentary filmmaking, like verité film. As we responded to the situation where we had less and less access to Elizabeth, it led us to adopt other modes of filmmaking, like the director in front of the camera or even what we’re going to do later with reenactments. It’s amazing the way people talk about film, saying it’s this new formal thing, but I’m like, “Oh no, it’s actually the oldest. We’re channeling all the different ways that documentaries have been made.” Ultimately, we do this because we are dealing with an actual human optical illusion. This is who she is.

You talked about healthy disagreements between the two of you, about what was happening and how you interpreted it. Let’s take the “who’s on first” scene as an example: Nathan, what was it like to be there during a weird moment like that, and how would you both talk about it in terms of how it would influence the film? And how do you think about them now?

GROUND There were so many things we were tracking at once. Sometimes those little moments would stick in your mind for a while, but we were there constantly for a month, so some of them were kind of forgotten – and then we remembered them when we saw the footage in the montage. This moment of “who’s first”, everyone was like: “What was “We knew that these moments that we couldn’t understand were interesting because we talked about them a lot. It’s difficult because you’re just there and you’re observing and you can’t cultivate anything. You can’t do anything. You just document.

OPPENHEIM There are also so many moments in all of this where Nathan would say, “I think you’re guilty. Why are we here? Do you want us to leave?” And they said: “No, no, stay. »

GROUND I didn’t say that in the same sentence, wait. (Laughter.) I didn’t say, “I think you’re guilty. Do you want us to leave?” I told him very early on; I lay down so she would know how I felt. But yes, we were aware that it was a mother’s last month with her children. If tensions were ever high and we felt like our presence was unwanted, I would say, “Look, if you regret this decision, we’re going to pull the plug. It wasn’t a thing where we were telling them, “You have to do this,” or trying to convince them to be a part of it.

OPPENHEIM It was the opposite.

GROUND We always said, “We’ll leave at any time.” And they really said “No”.

OPPENHEIM “Stay. Stay for this.”

GROUND That was part of the problem. Sorry for swearing. Normally, I don’t swear often in a professional or even private setting.

OPPENHEIM Before we started filming, Billy showed us a video – because he sometimes filmed things on his phone, like him and Elizabeth on a couch. He would say, “Look at this moment. » It would be a video of Elizabeth crying, and he would say, “We just watched Pride and prejudice. It’s so good. I’m just like, “Are these the kind of moments you want to show us?” What do you want us to see? What are your guys investigating with this?

GROUND Why us? Why are we here? I mean, I love myself enough, but I wouldn’t want me to be here during my last month of freedom, if that makes sense. What was also weird was that we felt like there was a game going on that even we couldn’t understand, but we were like, “Well, let’s move forward with this and see what comes of it, I guess.” »

Do you feel like you have more clarity on this now?

GROUND Hell no.

OPPENHEIM Seeing it with the audience is always very different for me. I feel like I end up having a completely different reaction to the film. It’s like it’s an evolving Rorschach test. But I feel like we witnessed something. We saw a pattern of behavior emerge over the time we had. In other documentaries I’ve made, I’ve spent a lot of time with people – years – but sometimes you don’t really notice a change. I felt like things were happening, and there are…