没有什么比“无限制接触”的念头更诱人了。当被观察对象既神秘莫测又备受瞩目时，这种诱惑更是难以抵挡。一个人面对镜头的时间越长，人们就越有可能发现其言行中的矛盾或谎言，甚至笃定自己已经揭开了真相。对于加拿大电影制作人兼喜剧演员内森·菲尔德而言，2023年5月伊丽莎白·霍姆斯入狱前，他花了34天时间待在她的家中，其目的想必就是探寻真相。霍姆斯因与其创办的血液检测初创公司Theranos相关的欺诈与共谋罪被判11年以上的监禁。
THERE IS nothing more seductive than the idea of unfettered access. When a subject is mysterious, slippery and high-profile, it is even more enticing. The longer a person is in front of a camera, the likelier one is to spot an inconsistency or a lie, or feel resolved they have found out the truth. For truth-telling was surely the goal of Nathan Fielder, a Canadian film-maker and comedian, when he entered Elizabeth Holmes’s home for 34 days before she reported to federal prison in Texas in May 2023. She had been sentenced to more than 11 years for fraud and conspiracy related to her blood-testing startup, Theranos.
菲尔德执导的纪录片《一切尽收眼底》精彩地展现了观察者与被观察者之间的微妙张力。（该片将于10月16日在美国上映，11月在英国上映。）菲尔德与联合导演兰斯·奥本海姆与“莉兹”——即霍姆斯本人——以及她的伴侣比利·埃文斯和他们的两个年幼孩子一同住进了位于圣地亚哥的海边小屋。那些主动敞开家门的人看似毫无隐瞒之事，但这种坦诚本身会不会也是一种伪装呢？这部纪录片让观众始终充满好奇，全神贯注地观看下去。
“You Can See Everything”, Mr Fielder’s documentary, is an enthralling display of the tension between observer and observed. (It opens in American cinemas on October 16th and in British ones in November.) Mr Fielder and his co-director, Lance Oppenheim, moved in with “Liz”—as well as her partner, Billy Evans, and their two young children—in their oceanfront cottage in San Diego. Subjects who throw open their door would seem to have nothing to hide. But is their openness itself a disguise? The documentary keeps viewers guessing—and riveted.
这部影片分为两个部分。第一部分中，观众会看到一连串精彩绝伦却又超现实的紧张场景：比如霍姆斯坚称自己成年后从未说过一句谎话，而菲尔德则不断盘问埃文斯是否遭到了霍姆斯的欺骗。菲尔德反复试图让霍姆斯就大小事宜给出明确答复——比如Theranos的设备是否真的能“完成任何检测”（霍姆斯称自己被误解了），又或者她是否听懂了一段著名喜剧段子里的笑点（显然没有）。
It is a film of two acts. In the first, viewers witness a brilliant and surreal sequence of intense and often uncomfortable scenes: Ms Holmes insisting that she has not once told a lie in her entire adult life, for example, and Mr Fielder quizzing Mr Evans on whether he has been scammed by Ms Holmes. Time and again Mr Fielder tries to pin his subject down on matters big and small, such as whether Theranos’s device really could “perform any test” (she says she was misinterpreted) or whether she understands the joke in a famous comedy routine (apparently not).
霍姆斯常常含糊其辞，她的回答听起来就像美国中央情报局在作证时使用的“格洛玛式”回应方式——既不否认也不确认相关信息的存在。
Often she obfuscates; her replies sound like the “Glomar” response the CIA gives in testimony (neither denying nor confirming the existence of material).
当霍姆斯女士报到入狱时，菲尔德先生仍对她感到困惑。但她之所以如此小心，是因为她是个骗子吗？还是因为她被普遍认为是骗子，以至于她深怕在自己说的任何事情上犯下哪怕是最微小的错误？许多电影制作人可能会在这种模糊的基调下结束项目。菲尔德先生却不然，他雄心勃勃地展开了一场精心策划的第二次冒险，邀请那些被霍姆斯女士的轨道所吸引的人们协助，试图解开这个谜题。这使得影片成为一场壮观的戏剧。菲尔德先生模仿莎士比亚的手法，在戏中上演一出戏（再套一出戏）。
By the time Ms Holmes reports to prison, Mr Fielder remains baffled by her. But is she being careful because she is a liar? Or is she so universally believed to be a liar that she deeply fears making even the smallest error in anything she says? Many film-makers might have ended the project on that ambiguous note. Mr Fielder, instead, ambitiously embarks on an elaborate second adventure, enlisting the help of others who have been sucked into Ms Holmes’s orbit, to try to solve the riddle. This makes for spectacular theatre. Mr Fielder apes tactics from Shakespeare, staging a play within a play (within a play).
这部影片呼应了“记者与凶手”这一类型的其他杰出作品。正如热门播客《连环杀手》的主持人莎拉·科尼格所挣扎的——“除非他自信到妄想的地步，否则一个有罪的人为何会同意让我做这个报道？”——菲尔德先生也无法理解，霍姆斯女士为何会让他如此深入，除非她真的相信人们对她有误解。然而，与魅力十足且可能不诚实的对象建立亲密关系，却滋生了一种新的怀疑：那就是记者或电影制作人自己可能被蒙蔽了，而无论是被采访对象还是叙述者，都不可信赖。
The film echoes other great works of the “journalist and the murderer” genre. Just as Sarah Koenig of the hit podcast “Serial” struggled with the “bare fact of why on earth would a guilty man agree to let me do this story, unless he was cocky to the point of delusion”, Mr Fielder cannot understand why Ms Holmes would let him so far in unless she truly believed people have the wrong perception of her. Yet intimacy with charming and potentially dishonest subjects breeds a new suspicion: that the journalist or film-maker has been taken in, and that neither subject nor narrator can be trusted.
《华尔街日报》记者约翰·卡雷罗，正是他帮助揭露了霍姆斯女士的欺诈行为，他在优秀著作《Bad Blood》中写道：“她散发出一种现实扭曲场，迫使人们暂时暂停怀疑。”到了《你可以看到一切》的结尾，菲尔德先生似乎开始相信霍姆斯女士所说的至少一些内容：例如，她爱她的伴侣和家人，尽管她为了拍摄这部电影，放弃了她本可以与他们共度童年最后时光的日子。也许相信她会让菲尔德先生成为一个傻瓜。但在这过程中，他可能被欺骗的同时，也展现出他作为电影制作人的卓越才华。■
John Carreyrou, the reporter at the Wall Street Journal who helped uncover Ms Holmes’s fraud, described in his excellent book, “Bad Blood”, how “she emitted a reality distortion field that forced people to momentarily suspend disbelief.”By the conclusion of “You Can See Everything” Mr Fielder appears to believe in at least a little of what Ms Holmes is selling: that she loves her partner and her family, for instance, even though she gave up the last remaining days she would spend with them during their childhoods to make this film. Perhaps believing her makes Mr Fielder a fool. But in the process of potentially being duped, he has also revealed just how brilliant a film-maker he is, too. ■