Oct 20, 2026 · 56 min · 14 segments
You Can See Everything is one of the strangest films about Elizabeth Holmes yet, and in this episode two psychiatrists try to make sense of it. We explore what Nathan Fielder’s interviews bring out in…
Greg MalzbergHostand uh part of that is important to note because i think the film itself you can see everything from nathan fielder and the lance oppenheimer right says name that's right or oppenheim okay uh it's also a projective test you can see this already in the online discourse about this film And I think it's because it's purposefully ambiguous.
All ambiguous things are projective tests.
They let us let our guard down and then we put ourselves into it in our perception of it.
Right.
We assume that our favorite patterns are our way of being is what's happening and what we're seeing.
yeah when you say projective tests Rorschach is like the archetypal projective test so it's an ambiguous stimuli and then you bring your own stuff to it in a sense uh when you said it was psychoanalytic what did you mean
well um well before I go to that I just want to say when you watch this film then you should understand that what you're getting from it what you're seeing is yourself that's what I think anyway so uh in terms
I don't want to get too much into that, but I also found that Nathan's interviewing style in the film was kind of interesting.
If you watch his persona in the rehearsal or in Nathan For You, it's a very different Nathan, in my opinion.
This one, I presume, is closer to who he actually is, but also still a character of some kind, maybe.
I don't really know, but he's more direct.
And his interviewing style, I think, capture really well the psychoanalytic techniques of clarification and confrontation.
We discussed this in another episode elsewhere.
Even if his interaction with other people in this film doesn't have the other major aspects of therapeutic work, it's still kind of a therapeutic film trying to uncover what is really lurking beneath and motivating people to do what they do.
So if you haven't seen the film and you want to see the film, maybe wait until you see the film to listen.
He did such a great job of, you know, it seemed almost at times where it was like this battle of who's going to go first.
But you could, he would use his face in really, really well to kind of get the other person to talk and i think him and elizabeth would almost have showdowns at time where they were just kind of stare at each other and uh i think we'll talk about elizabeth's affect and her mental status exam in a bit but i i loved the way that he uh used silence and the way that he he brought out uh um he used his words very sparingly but really powerfully
Yeah.
I mean, it's to the extent that I would say it's almost, um, utilizable as a teaching film for therapists, psychiatrists, forensic interviewers, uh, you know, and on top of the interviewing style, you can even see that there are defenses.
People are deploying psychological defense in the film.
Um, that doesn't need to be overly technical.
and uh part of that is important to note because i think the film itself you can see everything from nathan fielder and the lance oppenheimer right says name that's right or oppenheim okay uh it's also a projective test you can see this already in the online discourse about this film And I think it's because it's purposefully ambiguous.
All ambiguous things are projective tests.
They let us let our guard down and then we put ourselves into it in our perception of it.
Right.
We assume that our favorite patterns are our way of being is what's happening and what we're seeing.
yeah when you say projective tests Rorschach is like the archetypal projective test so it's an ambiguous stimuli and then you bring your own stuff to it in a sense uh when you said it was psychoanalytic what did you mean
well um well before I go to that I just want to say when you watch this film then you should understand that what you're getting from it what you're seeing is yourself that's what I think anyway so uh in terms
I don't want to get too much into that, but I also found that Nathan's interviewing style in the film was kind of interesting.
If you watch his persona in the rehearsal or in Nathan For You, it's a very different Nathan, in my opinion.
This one, I presume, is closer to who he actually is, but also still a character of some kind, maybe.
I don't really know, but he's more direct.
And his interviewing style, I think, capture really well the psychoanalytic techniques of clarification and confrontation.
We discussed this in another episode elsewhere.
Even if his interaction with other people in this film doesn't have the other major aspects of therapeutic work, it's still kind of a therapeutic film trying to uncover what is really lurking beneath and motivating people to do what they do.
So if you haven't seen the film and you want to see the film, maybe wait until you see the film to listen.
He did such a great job of, you know, it seemed almost at times where it was like this battle of who's going to go first.
But you could, he would use his face in really, really well to kind of get the other person to talk and i think him and elizabeth would almost have showdowns at time where they were just kind of stare at each other and uh i think we'll talk about elizabeth's affect and her mental status exam in a bit but i i loved the way that he uh used silence and the way that he he brought out uh um he used his words very sparingly but really powerfully
Yeah.
I mean, it's to the extent that I would say it's almost, um, utilizable as a teaching film for therapists, psychiatrists, forensic interviewers, uh, you know, and on top of the interviewing style, you can even see that there are defenses.
People are deploying psychological defense in the film.
Um, that doesn't need to be overly technical.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
