兰斯·奥本海姆和内森·菲尔德执导的《你能看见一切》是一部属于我们这个时代的电影——不仅因为它是罕见的兼具票房吸引力和奥斯卡呼声的纪录片，更因为它直击本世纪文化中某种几乎难以言说的东西。
Lance Oppenheim and Nathan Fielder’s “You Can See Everything” is a movie for our times — not only because it is the rare documentary with box office appeal and Oscar buzz, but because it strikes at something in the culture of this century that almost defies description.
影片聚焦于过去十年Theranos的崩塌，以及像伊丽莎白·霍姆斯这样的人在被认定为商界最大骗子之一后，如何试图修复自己的私人与公共生活。但在更宏观的层面上，影片也关乎我们所有人在自身生活中所感受到的那种啃噬般的不安与日益加剧的艰难——因为我们要在当今这个欺诈经济中周旋，身处一个媒体弥散、算法过滤气泡盛行、人们拥有无穷论坛来讲述自己版本真相的世界。
The film centers on the Theranos debacle of the last decade and how someone like Elizabeth Holmes tries to repair a private and public life after being classified as one of the business world’s biggest frauds. But in a larger sense, it is also about the gnawing unease and increasing difficulty we are all experiencing in our own lives as we contend with today’s grift economy, in a world of diffuse media, algorithmic filter bubbles and infinite forums for people to speak their version of the truth.
《你能看见一切》还聚焦于如今定义商业和创业文化的宝贵信条——“弄假直到成真”。霍姆斯是最肆无忌惮的史蒂夫·乔布斯模仿者之一，连高领毛衣都照搬，她把自己那套魔法思维用在血液检测上，就像别人把它用在应用程序、数字货币、虚拟世界或人工智能上一样。
“You Can See Everything” also homes in on the prized ethos of “fake it ‘til you make it” that now defines business and startup culture. Holmes was one of the most flagrant Steve Jobs clones, right up to the turtleneck, applying her brand of magical thinking to blood testing the way others did to apps or digital currencies or virtual worlds or artificial intelligence.
但当这种魔法思维延伸到欺诈、数十亿美元的投资，以及对医学的腐蚀——而这个领域的根本基石正是“不伤害”——会发生什么？或者，当你相信某项技术有朝一日或许能兑现你今天的承诺，而这与今天真正能够兑现并不是一回事时，又会发生什么？
But what happens when such magical thinking extends to fraud, billions’ worth of investment, and the corruption of medicine, a field whose very foundation is “do no harm?”Or when your belief that a piece of technology might be able to deliver someday on what you are promising is not the same as actually being able to deliver today?
然而，奥本海姆和菲尔德无意深入挖掘Theranos的细节，因为多家新闻调查、电视节目和法庭程序已经做过这件事了。影片只需围绕霍姆斯2023年对《纽约时报》说的一句话展开，就足以开启一种启发式判断——那究竟是根本性的不诚实，还是根本性的困惑——菲尔德用一记杀伤力十足的眯眼，以及拉里·戴维之外最怀疑的“OK”，把这一点演绎了出来。
Yet Oppenheim and Fielder have no interest in a deep dive on the details of Theranos, as multiple news investigations, television shows and court proceedings already have undertaken. It is enough to have the movie turn on a single statement Holmes made to The New York Times in 2023, unlocking a heuristic for what might be fundamental dishonesty or fundamental confusion, as Fielder deploys a lethal narrowing of eyes and the most skeptical “OK” this side of Larry David.
也许，这正是霍尔姆斯最初把菲尔德和奥本海姆拉进这类项目的考量之一。把这段嵌入式拍摄限制在圣迭戈一家客栈的几周之内，霍尔姆斯和她的伴侣比利·埃文斯或许就能在霍尔姆斯入狱前的几周里，演出一幅他们想要塑造的形象。这本质上就是一些品牌几十年来为扭转叙事所做的——也许我们可以称之为“纪录片洗白”。
Perhaps that figured into the calculus of Holmes to bring Fielder and Oppenheim into this sort of project in the first place. By limiting this embedded recording to a few weeks in a San Diego guest house, it might have been possible for Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, to play-act the image they wanted to create in the weeks leading up to Holmes’s incarceration. It’s essentially what some brands have been doing for decades in trying to shift the narrative — maybe we can call this docu-washing.
不过，我们看到的内容里有太多怪异之处，很难揣测这种操纵形象与话语的尝试究竟意欲何为。
There is so much strangeness to what we see, though, that it is difficult to fathom what that attempt at manipulating image and discourse might have been.
霍尔姆斯真的只是一个天真的人吗？她可能属于自闭症谱系，承受着在斯坦福遭性侵后留下的创伤后应激障碍，还是她生命中那些男人斯文加利式操纵的受害者？
Is Holmes really just a naif who might be on the spectrum and suffering from the PTSD of a sexual assault at Stanford, as well as the victim of a Svengali-like manipulation by the men in her life?
比利真的是因为霍尔姆斯的遭遇而逐渐失去对现实的把握，还是这又是一场旨在索取金钱、同情或其他东西的骗局？他对查理·柯克的强烈感情，是“红丸”洗脑的结果，还是在霍尔姆斯服刑期间长期泡在网上的结果？又或者，他是在愤世嫉俗地为一位亲柯克的总统给予赦免搭建框架？
Is Billy really losing his grip on reality because of what has happened to Holmes, or is it one more con designed to solicit money, sympathy or something else? Are his strong feelings for Charlie Kirk a result of red-pilling and being chronically online during Holmes’s incarceration, or is he cynically building a framework for a pardon from a pro-Kirk president?
他们究竟是两个仍然相爱、试图组建家庭的极度困惑之人，还是深深沉浸在他们为霍尔姆斯“后Theranos”生活而约定创造的角色之中？
Are they both two very confused people still in love and trying to build a family, or are they just deeply embedded in characters they agreed to create for Holmes’s post-Theranos life?
即便围绕霍尔姆斯和埃文斯的谜团引人入胜，影片后半段仍毫不犹豫地质问《辍学者》等霍尔姆斯之后的媒体作品——这些作品似乎“根据真实故事”创造出了自己的现实版本。在这里，焦点转向了那些确实创造出一个新霍尔姆斯角色的媒体，它们为了营造更引人入胜的情感现实而在真相上偷工减料。
Even amid the fascinating mystery swirling around Holmes and Evans, the second half of the film does not hesitate to interrogate post-Holmes media like “The Dropout,” which seems to have created its own version of reality “based on a true story.”Here, the focus turns to the media that did create a new Holmes character, cutting its own corners of the truth in an attempt to create a more compelling emotional reality.
戏剧加工并非医疗事故，但当涉及真实人物时，它也可能构成一种独特的恶意。这部影片的巨大力量在于，它不仅将霍姆斯、埃文斯及其关联的骗局经济置于显微镜下审视，还审视了骗局经济的愤怒制造机器——甚至包括影片制作者自身。
Dramatic license is not medical malpractice, but when dealing with real people, it can also be its own form of bad faith. The great power of this film is that it does not just put Holmes, Evans and the associated grift economy under the microscope, but the grift economy’s outrage machine as well — and even the makers of the movie itself.
我们在《你可以看清一切》中看到了一切，但看见并不等于知晓。费尔德和奥本海姆的影片之所以如此有效，正是因为它也懂得这一点。
We can see everything in “You Can See Everything,” but seeing is not the same as knowing. Fielder and Oppenheim’s film is so effective because it knows that too.
伊恩·查菲是一位总部位于洛杉矶的科技与初创企业媒体关系顾问。
Ian Chaffee is a technology and startup media relations consultant based in Los Angeles.