It’s been a long time since a documentary made as much of a splash as “You Can See Everything.” Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s exploration of Elizabeth Holmes has sold out numerous theaters nationwide, earned rave reviews, and drawn impossibly high audience ratings. With such a rapturous response after its flashy Telluride world premiere, the awards discussion has officially kicked off, with many asking questions we don’t normally ask about a documentary film, which just goes to show how special this film really is. Will the documentary branch respond to Fielder & Oppenheim’s investigation into the nature of documentary itself? Will the response be strong enough to make it the first documentary ever nominated for Best Picture? These are valid and exciting discussions we’ll debate for months. But a more interesting question is: Can “You Can See Everything” qualify for acting Oscars?
SPOILER WARNING: Needless to say, this article will spoil some surprising elements of “You Can See Everything.” Please proceed only after you’ve seen the film.
Where does the real person end, and the fiction begin? One of the many questions at the core of “You Can See Everything,” amplified by Amanda Seyfried’s shocking but inevitable inclusion. After her portrayal of Holmes in Hulu’s “The Dropout,” Fielder & Oppenheim recruited Seyfried to dig deeper into Holmes’ mindset while also reenacting new scenes from Fielder’s memories with Holmes. It’s a dual role, of sorts. Seyfried largely appears as herself, discussing her experience inhabiting Holmes for the TV series, while Fielder bounces ideas off her. But in the reenactments, she’s very much playing a role, one for which she previously won an Emmy for. Christopher Abbott also joins the fun, playing a version of Holmes’ husband, Billy Evans. Seyfried, though, has received rave reviews for her appearance in the film, with some pundits arguing that she’ll be in contention for a Best Supporting Actress nomination at the 99th Academy Awards.
A24 has officially confirmed it will campaign “You Can See Everything” for multiple Oscar nominations beyond Best Documentary Feature. A24’s FYC campaign includes Best Picture, Director for Oppenheim and Fielder, crafts like Film Editing and Cinematography, and, notably, Best Supporting Actress. Before asking whether the Academy will respond positively enough to warrant such recognition, we must first ask whether Seyfried is even eligible. Can documentaries qualify in the acting categories? According to the Rules & Eligibility for the 99th Oscars, only roles “credited in the film’s legal billing and demonstrably performed by humans with their consent will be considered eligible.” While some may argue this rules out Holmes herself for not demonstrably being human (joking), it seems to confirm that Seyfried can indeed qualify. The film specifically credits her with playing Elizabeth Holmes in the reenactments, not just appearing as herself. No other explicit qualifications seem to rule out a nomination, even though she also appears as herself in the documentary.
The biggest roadblock, however, is Rule 6 for the Acting categories:
“The Actors Branch Executive Committee shall have the right and responsibility to resolve all questions of eligibility, rules, and the designation of award recipients.”
While no rule clearly bars Seyfried from qualifying for Best Supporting Actress, the Actors Branch Executive Committee could rule her ineligible before balloting. It’s easy to understand why that decision may happen. For most of her runtime in the film, Seyfried isn’t playing Elizabeth Holmes. In fact, many of Seyfried’s scenes that have drawn the most praise, such as a shocking dinner table scene with Billy and Nathan, or the fireside script conversation between her and Nathan toward the end of the film, feature the actress as herself, not a clear character, and not one for which she’s “credited in the film’s legal billing.” One could easily imagine the committee declaring such a nomination unfair, or ineligible.
But what of Maria Bakalova, many have asked? She was Oscar-nominated for her role in “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” in 2021, which features documentary-like sequences interacting with real people, not actors. An article recently published on Next Best Picture outlined the parallels and differences between the two. The key difference, as that film’s Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar nomination shows, is that the Academy clearly understood this was a scripted film with lightly improvised scenes featuring non-actors, not a documentary. The two are quite different. Furthermore, Bakalova never appears in the film as herself, ever. She only plays her character, Tutar Sagdiyev. While there’s certainly a fair conversation to have about blurring the line between truth and fiction in “You Can See Everything,” no reasonable person would argue the entire movie is scripted or fictionalized, or that Seyfried was “acting” the whole time.
So, eligible? Most likely yes, pending a final decision from the Actors Branch Executive Committee. But plausible as a nominee? Well, it’s a strong maybe. There’s room for her in a category that’s still shifting a lot. Penelope Cruz is vying to become the first actor to earn two Oscar nominations in a single category, thanks to the Academy’s new rules. Anne Hathaway is riding the wave of “The Odyssey,” while Samantha Morton’s scene-stealing turn could also land her a nomination. How will the Academy respond to “All of a Sudden?” Will Tao Okamoto secure a nomination? Or Sandra Hüller for “Project Hail Mary?” A handful of wild cards remain, but Seyfried could rise to the forefront if she generates enough buzz and accolades. Her recent snub for her Golden Globe-nominated performance in “The Testament of Ann Lee” may also play in her favor, boosting someone who’s been doing such phenomenal work lately and has starred in the box office success, “The Housewife.”
And speaking of the Golden Globes, if you’re curious about Amanda’s precurosr path for this film, the Golden Globes rule that she will not be eligible for a nomination because she’s starring in a documentary. The same applies to the Actor Awards. However, she could still land nominations at Critics Choice, BAFTA, and I’m confident some major critics organization somewhere, such as NYFCC, LAFCA, or NSFC, will give her a boost. Actors within the Academy (still the largest voting branch) may respond well to Seyfried quite literally doing table work with Nathan to better understand the character she’s playing.
No matter how much of a masterpiece you may feel “You Can See Everything” is, there’s no denying this is an enormous long shot for an acting nomination, but an exciting one nonetheless. Fielder also technically acts in the film, playing himself in recreations throughout the movie. Shouldn’t he be considered in the same vein? That sentence feels wild to even say out loud, but despite the extraordinary uphill battle Seyfried faces, she could potentially convince enough voters to make history.
A24 has a genuine chance to get a documentary film nominated for Best Picture for the first time in 99 years of Academy history. If a long-shot campaign for Best Supporting Actress boosts the film’s Best Picture chances, it will be well worth it (Let’s not talk about the Documentary Branch for now; we’ll save that for another article).
Do you think Seyfried has a shot at a Best Supporting Actress nomination? Can “You Can See Everything” get into Best Picture? Please let us know in the comments section below and on Next Best Picture’s X account, and check out Next Best Picture’s latest Oscar predictions here.
