Staff Reports
The surprise-hit documentary You Can See Everything is getting praised for craft and box-office numbers — and slammed by conservatives for one awkward, politically charged moment. Megyn Kelly called the Charlie Kirk reference “fucking ridiculous,” and Blake Neff, producer for The Charlie Kirk Show, accused the filmmakers of picking “their heroes” and “their villains.” That flap is the real story: a left-leaning edit stuck into an otherwise non-political story about Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes, and conservatives are loud enough to make it a cultural debate.
What happened in the Charlie Kirk scene — and why it matters
The scene in question is simple: at a tense dinner, Holmes’ partner Billy Evans defends Charlie Kirk while another guest attacks him. The filmmakers cut it so Evans — the defender — ends up looking unsympathetic, while the critic of Kirk is framed more favorably. That editorial choice isn’t a small mistake. As Megyn Kelly bluntly put it on her show, the moment was “fucking ridiculous.” Blake Neff told Katie Pavlich on NewsNation that the directors “chose their heroes, they chose their villains.” If you remove the spin, the conservative complaint is straightforward: why stick a partisan jab into a character study about fraud and charisma?
Filmmaking or editorial bias? Pick one
Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim made a tight, secretive film that surprised audiences and critics — and that makes the targeted political moment harder to excuse. Call it storytelling if you like, but when a documentary about Elizabeth Holmes becomes a vehicle for a cheap snub at Turning Point USA’s founder, viewers notice. Hollywood has a long history of turning cultural disagreements into character judgments, and this is the latest example. It’s not about art versus commerce — it’s about whether filmmakers should be carte blanche to drop partisan lines into stories that don’t require them.
Box office success doesn’t erase the politics
Yes, You Can See Everything opened far stronger than anyone expected, pulling in roughly $15 million domestically and about $17.5 million worldwide. That proves audiences will show up for a well-made film. It does not prove the film is above criticism. Conservatives aren’t calling for censorship; they’re asking for fairness. If a scene casts one side as the moral center while portraying the other as unserious or villainous, it’s fair to point out the slant — especially when the subject matter is supposed to be about fraud, power and personal collapse, not partisan scoring.
Bottom line: Watch the movie, read the edit
Go see the documentary and decide for yourself — then notice the choices the directors made. Conservatives are right to call out gratuitous jabs when they appear, and liberals should be fine with that pushback if they truly believe in honest debate. Hollywood will keep making movies that please its crowd; the rest of us need to keep showing up, talk back, and refuse to let every cultural moment be turned into a ritual insult. If the directors wanted a political skewer, they should have at least been bold enough to make it clear — not sneak it into a character beat and act surprised when people noticed.
