I saw the movie “You Can See Everything” last week and I came away with a different understanding than what I arrived with1. Elizabeth Holmes is difficult to write about because of the slippery history that winds and turns over almost two decades, like a proverbial labyrinth with false endings and turnarounds. (A history that we are still learning in 2026.) I believe Elizabeth Holmes can be “explained” with a fact her father, Christian Rasmus Holmes IV, stated to Nathan Fielder. Christian believes “this all started” when Elizabeth was raped at a Stanford fraternity house when she was 19 years old in 2003.
At no point was this incident elaborated on, so I do not believe she received the treatment she deserves to process the trauma that influences her involuntary behaviors. The main focus of the movie is the fraud that had happened and Elizabeth's insistence that she was telling the truth. I'm not going to argue that there isn't fraud: fraud was committed and she needs to serve time in jail. But now with the the additional context that she was sexually assaulted with apparently no support in recovery can provide insight on her inner-world and other behaviors. Unfortunately I think the target demographic of this movie (Fans of Nathan for You, rubberneckers of Silicon Valley drama and fraud, etc… i.e. male leaning groups) will miss this.
Fawning is a manner of behavior where a person copes with a “perceived danger” by people-pleasing and “keeping the peace” to avoid conflict and harm. They debase themselves for security and stability because they are driven by fear. This, combined with a perspective of what some may consider to be “autistic social cues,” is what makes Elizabeth's situation unique as the figure head of a startup.
We do not know the rest of Christian Holmes's perspective about what happened to Elizabeth in 2003 because of how controlling Billy Evans was during the filming. For instance, we do not know if she was sexually assaulted by a stranger or an existing friendship when he had just began college. What we do know is she withdrew from college and used that tuition money to start her company in the same year. In the movie, Christian Holmes is clearly aware in 2026 of the problems this caused but it's doubtful how supportive he was in 2003. It's possible that in 2003 he wanted her to “just” get over it and roll the money into something useful.
Fawning behavior can manifest itself as bending your truth or changing how you are to meet the expectations of someone in a power position that exert a perceived danger. Elizabeth herself, weeks after the incident at the fraternity house, could have portrayed herself as “just wanting to get back to normal,” which her parents would have validly supported. She could have felt guilt about that money for Stanford being “wasted” and “just” needs to make a new plan that makes everyone happy with her to have a “perfect” life.
This fawning pressure, combined with messiness of how language can be with the high pressure of
startup-culture, can yield exchanges like what Elizabeth said to Nathan about an hour into the
movie. Paraphrasing: This device can perform all protocols from the cloud. Each
protocol is
for a
certain chemistry. When more chemistries are determined, more protocols can be added to the
cloud
for the device to use.
2 The
problem is the word can
versus
will
in the reality of
what is
possible now versus later. This sort of confusion is an every day occurrence for
people who have
characteristics associated with the autism spectrum. Nathan, with his Nathan for You show,
understands comical missteps related to communication and probably assumes this makes him the ideal
expert to speak to the infamous fraudster. Meanwhile, Elizabeth is convinced that she is the avatar
of blood chemistry: at no point in the movie does she explain the science behind her creation
(meanwhile
Billy mainlines YouTube study-sessions) beyond saying simply what the device does.
A benefit of autism is the outside perspective for pattern recognition. It allows for “high-functioning” individuals to “fake” expertise until they get the gist of the full definition by relating similar patterns from other experiences. This fluency is probably what made it easy for her to not just speak to Henry Kissinger and George Schultz but convince them. These men are not experts in “blood chemistry” but they'll gladly hear a well-prepared presentation by a wunderkind with all the markings of Silicon Valley success.
What's missing is recognizing the apparatus behind her. The venture capital male presence that refuses “no” as a reality and accepts “can” as “will.”