You Can See Everything Could Totally Disrupt This Year’s Oscars

A24’s You Can See Everything is the rare kind of movie that makes everyone rethink everything, providing no easy answers to its biggest questions about jailed CEO Elizabeth Holmes and/or reality. It’s also the rare kind of movie that, despite not fitting into any obvious boxes, has been accumulating a massive amount of Oscar speculation for directors Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim — not to mention the documentary’s surprise star.

Money + Critical Approval = Academy Awards?

Making $15 million during its opening weekend, You Can See Everything set box office records with the largest debut for a movie opening on less than 1,000 screens since 2006’s Borat. It also had the largest grossing opening weekend for a documentary since Michael Moore’s 2004 blockbuster Fahrenheit 9/11. (Not to kick Tom Cruise while he’s down, but yeah, it outgrossed Digger.)

Beyond its financial success, the critical reception has been overwhelming: The movie has received a 98% approved rating both from critics and audiences on Rotten Tomatoes (and if you track Rotten Tomatoes scores, you know how rare a thing that is). It is also currently the highest rated feature film on Letterboxd, ever (only beaten out in the ratings by a Radiohead concert movie and the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers).

This kind of critical and financial success, naturally, leads to Oscars talk. As of writing, the awards prediction site Gold Derby lists You Can See Everything as 11th on its list of potential Best Picture nominees, with Fielder and Oppenheim listed as eighth on the Best Director contenders list. And it’s still early yet — those rankings may shift upwards dramatically in the weeks to come. Should the movie succeed in either or both categories, it would make history as the first documentary to do so.

Only one problem…

“The Doc Branch, They’re Petty, Petty Little Bitches”

Although the movie’s Best Picture and Best Director odds are looking good at the moment, don’t necessarily anticipate it receiving a nomination in the category where it might be the most obvious fit. Yes, as innovative and unusual as You Can See Everything is, it without question meets the definition of a documentary feature film, per the official rules.

To use the Academy’s words, it is “a theatrically released nonfiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic, or other subjects,” and is “photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial reenactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion, or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.” The movie also more than meets the other qualifying factors: It received a theatrical release during the required window of time, and it is longer than 40 minutes (by a long shot).

Just because it’s eligible doesn’t mean it’ll be selected, though. As Nate Jones breaks down for Vulture, the major obstacle You Can See Everything faces in terms of the Oscars is the Academy’s Documentary Branch, a group of roughly 700 people who are the ones who actually determine both the short list of nominated films as well as the final collection of nominees. From the official rules, here’s how the shortlist is created:

All active and life members of the Documentary Branch will be invited to view the eligible submissions in the category and will be required to see a minimum number as defined by the current procedures. Members will vote by secret ballot in the order of their preference for not more than fifteen motion pictures. The fifteen motion pictures receiving the highest number of votes shall advance to the next round of voting.

A similar procedure, again limited to Documentary Branch members, is used to narrow down the 15 shortlisted movies to the final five, which are then the final nominees. Only then does the full Academy get to vote on the contenders (and even then, they only get to vote in the category if they watch every film nominated).

And as Jones writes, “No other branch takes such delight in going its own way, regularly giving a cold shoulder to titles the rest of the industry adores. No other branch’s members prioritize their role as combatants in an ideological battle — in this case, over what a documentary should be.” Or, to quote Jones’s doc expert Zara Meerza, “I was with a friend before this who’s a doc person… Her exact words were ‘The doc branch, they’re petty, petty little bitches.’”

In Jones’ analysis, past nominations for Documentary Feature Film heavily emphasize issue-focused documentaries over ones with even the slightest bit of star power or popular appeal: American Symphony, Will & Harper, and My Mom Jayne all stand as examples of otherwise acclaimed movies that were ultimately snubbed by the branch’s voters. The qualities that make You Can See Everything feel like Best Picture bait — its innovation, its mainstream success — also make it feel less than likely to succeed here.

But Could It Get an Acting Nomination? Or Two?

[Editor’s note: This section contains massive spoilers for You Can See Everything. Don’t read any further unless you’ve seen the film.]

You Can See Everything begins with Fielder and Oppenheim’s cameras following Holmes and her family — including her partner Billy Evans — in the 34 days leading up to Holmes serving jail time for fraud. During this portion of the film, Holmes reveals her reactions to the way her story has been depicted in pop culture, including the Amanda Seyfried-starring Hulu series The Dropout. (Short version: Holmes doesn’t enjoy any of it.)

After Holmes goes to jail, Fielder turns to Seyfried herself in his ongoing quest to understand Holmes better — showing her footage of Holmes watching The Dropout and getting insight into her process as an actor. He also casts Seyfried as Holmes in a series of reenactments (his favorite thing). Those scenes could, theoretically, justify nominating Seyfried for a Supporting Actress Oscar.

Seyfried, when appearing in the film as “herself,” ends up bringing in the kind of outside perspective the film desperately craves. (One of the movie’s biggest laugh lines is Seyfried reacting to Billy Evans, saying something along the lines of “He’s fucking nuts.”) Meanwhile, the footage in which the actress shifts into character for the reenactments does highlight why she won an Emmy for playing Holmes — it’s dark, fully committed work.

In addition to her Emmy win for The Dropout, Seyfried is a past nominee for 2021’s Mank and a frequent contender in the awards race — so not an unknown at all to Oscar voters. And the Academy rules for actor eligibility, it turns out, are very loose, stating that “only roles credited in the film’s legal billing and demonstrably performed by humans with their consent will be considered eligible.” Seyfried is credited on screen for her performance, and she’s a human being. Check and check.

It’s worth noting, too, that she’s not the only actress this year to whom a ruling like this could apply: The documentary Everyone to Kenmure Street (my favorite movie from the Sundance 2026 virtual lineup) also features Emma Thompson giving an incredible performance in a series of reenactments.

There is one rule in this section that could affect Seyfried and/or Thompson’s chances: “The Actors Branch Executive Committee shall have the right and responsibility to resolve all questions of eligibility, rules, and the designation of award recipients.” In short, if the Actors Branch Executive Committee doesn’t think Seyfried’s appearances in You Can See Everything should count, then they can disqualify her.

It would not be shocking if, come next spring, some new rules about acting eligibility are introduced. But by the currently listed rules, Seyfried is currently in play for an Oscar nomination. She is not eligible for the Screen Actors Guild’s Actor Awards — there is a clear rule there excluding documentaries.

The funny thing about all of this is that if Seyfried is eligible for her acting in You Can See Everything, Fielder technically should be as well. But that’s a nomination that would raise a lot of questions about how much of Fielder’s work on screen should be considered acting in the first place. Perhaps Fielder and Oppenheim will be content with making the kind of history they’re already making. That feels like enough.

You Can See Everything is in theaters now.