A documentary about Elizabeth Holmes that came out of nowhere to post a $17.5 million worldwide opening weekend is now generating a different kind of attention: a fight over one scene involving Charlie Kirk.
According to Breitbart, the film, You Can See Everything, was made in secret by directors Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim over the course of three years, tracing the saga of the disgraced Theranos founder. Most of the movie steers clear of politics, but a single segment has audiences and commentators asking why it was included at all.
The Scene in Question
That segment centers on Holmes’ fiancรฉ, Billy Evans, making the case for Kirk’s conservative message. The film, per Breitbart’s account, frames Evans unsympathetically โ leaving viewers with the impression that his support for Kirk is meant to read as the bad guy’s opinion.
Blake Neff, a producer on The Charlie Kirk Show, raised the issue during an appearance on NewsNation with Katie Pavlich. Neff said Fielder and his collaborators “chose their heroes, they chose their villains,” and argued that many viewers see the segment as the director pandering to the far left, since Evans comes off as a figure the audience is meant to root against.
Megyn Kelly Weighs In
Megyn Kelly was more blunt. She called the scene “fucking ridiculous” and zeroed in on the film’s moral framing, noting that “the person who was shitting all over Charlie is the person who’s supposed to be heroic in this film, and the person who was defending him emerges as the villain of the entire movie.”
Kelly framed the choice as part of a broader pattern in Hollywood, telling her audience that a right-leaning independent or conservative in America “cannot go anywhere without having your core beliefs or people you admire or love dumped on by a Hollywood machine that just doesn’t give two shits about you.”
For all that criticism, Kelly was clear that the objection was limited to that one sequence. She said she very much enjoyed the film otherwise.
A Surprise Hit With a Political Flashpoint
What makes the dispute notable is the scale of the film’s arrival. A documentary assembled quietly over three years, about a figure whose story has already been told repeatedly in podcasts, books and a high-profile television series, might not be expected to open to $17.5 million worldwide. You Can See Everything did exactly that, according to Breitbart, turning a film most people didn’t know existed into a genuine box-office story.
The Kirk sequence sits oddly against that backdrop. For most of its runtime the documentary concerns Holmes, Theranos and the collapse of a company once valued in the billions, material that has no obvious connection to contemporary conservative politics. That the film pauses to weigh in on Kirk โ and, critics argue, to assign his defender the role of antagonist โ is what has turned a segment into a controversy.
The reaction also illustrates how quickly a single scene can come to define a release in the eyes of part of the audience. Kelly’s verdict captures the dynamic precisely: a film she otherwise recommends, and one that has found a substantial paying audience, is being discussed largely in terms of the few minutes it spends on a culture-war flashpoint.
Whether the attention helps or hurts the documentary’s run remains to be seen. What is clear is that You Can See Everything has accomplished something unusual for a secretly produced documentary about corporate fraud: it has become the subject of a political argument.
Source: www.breitbart.com โ https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2026/10/21/elizabeth-holmes-doc-you-can-see-everything-divides-audiences-with-fking-ridiculous-charlie-kirk-scene/