Amanda Seyfried: ‘No approval. Whatsoever’ for You Can See Everything

By Marcus Bennett

Rolling Stone reports that the documentary You Can See Everything is on course to cross $80 million at the domestic box office after nearly a month in theaters.

In their first joint press interview for Rolling Stone, directors Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim spoke with Oscar nominee Amanda Seyfried in a spoiler-filled discussion. Seyfried said she began filming without telling her agents or signing a deal with her lawyer.

Fielder said the idea of approaching Seyfried arose two years after he and Oppenheim shot their beach-house scenes with Elizabeth Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans. The directors were unsure how to continue. Fielder said Seyfried’s Emmy-winning portrayal of Holmes in Hulu’s The Dropout remained relevant to people in Holmes’s orbit, including her parents.

Fielder obtained Seyfried’s number through Emma Stone and described a 30-minute Zoom call. He offered to show her the footage that became the film’s first half and then talk. Seyfried recalled that Fielder had 90 minutes of footage for her to review. She had only seen The Curse, although her sister was a fan of Nathan for You.

Seyfried thought Fielder wanted advice about her research and experience portraying Holmes. After the Zoom, she said Fielder’s energy and the time he had spent on the project persuaded her to participate. Nobody knew the filming was happening. Her first scenes showed her watching the beach-house footage and introduced her about halfway through the documentary.

Seyfried completed those scenes before notifying her agent and lawyer. She said the reversed order was not normal and that nobody controlled what she was doing with Fielder and Oppenheim. Her lawyer then set a protective deal in place retroactively. At that stage, the group was not considering reenactments.

Fielder agreed that Seyfried had undertaken only to watch the material and discuss it. Their conversations then shifted toward asking her to play Holmes again. The plan was to recreate some of the filmmakers’ initial off-camera conversations with the real Holmes and conduct those exchanges on camera.

Fielder said the documentary would not show Seyfried scripts or discuss scenes in advance. The performers would talk on camera, with anything arising potentially entering the film. He stated: “People should know that [Amanda] had no creative control over this project. Anything that was filmed… [Amanda had no approval over anything].”

“No approval. Whatsoever,” Seyfried stressed. She said fear sat behind the decision. She worried about damaging her career, becoming entangled with Evans, saying the wrong thing or perpetuating negativity around Holmes. She said the drive to act outweighed those risks and occupied the literal front seat of her decision.

What does Seyfried’s account change for documentary ethics?

One thing Seyfried wanted after seeing the footage was to meet Evans. She said she needed answers about who was pulling the strings and how he behaved around the filmmakers. She described the interactions in the footage as distasteful. The material had produced strong negative feelings, so she became a self-appointed detective. She said the prospect felt exciting, scary and questionable.

Her opinion of Evans only worsened after they met. At his home, Seyfried and Fielder joined him for a confrontational dinner. Evans insulted Seyfried’s acting, and the pair argued over Seyfried’s criticisms of Charlie Kirk.

Before dinner, Seyfried had met Holmes and Evans’s children and was cuddling their dog when Holmes called from prison. Seyfried said someone asked whether the caller was really Holmes. She replied that the caller had to be Holmes because the film was a documentary.

Dinner escalated. Seyfried said Evans became aggressive and appeared unhinged, though she chose the word aggressive because it was more diplomatic. She said the moment left her jaw visibly on the floor. She did not want to provoke him, but she concluded that the gloves were off.

Seyfried said there was no reason for Evans to be so aggressive and that he had disrespected her. She said she had to argue her position. Her objection centered on Evans’s use of Holmes as a tool, even though Evans described himself as building monuments of love to Holmes.

She wanted to defend herself and set the record straight while maintaining enough rapport for Evans not to kick them out. She also said Evans might respect Holmes, but his behavior did not.

What changes is the standard for candid documentary performance. Fielder and Oppenheim withheld scripts and advance scene discussions to preserve spontaneity, but Seyfried entered as an adviser and left with no approval over what was filmed.

Their approach requires clearer consent before cameras start. Seyfried’s confrontation with Evans shows the dispute: she said he had disrespected her and was using Holmes as a tool.