GEOFF BENNETT: Screenings of the new documentary "You Can See Everything" are selling out across the country, and it's opening at more theaters today.

The film is co-directed by Lance Oppenheim and Nathan Fielder, and follows Elizabeth Holmes, the convicted founder of the blood testing company Theranos, just weeks before she goes to prison for conspiracy and fraud.

But the intimate access and the questions it raises are big reasons why it's the talk of this fall movie season.

Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown has more for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

ELIZABETH HOLMES, Former CEO, Theranos: I don't have anything to deceive you on.

Of course I'm not deceiving you.

JEFFREY BROWN: "You can see everything," it was a promise made by Elizabeth Holmes to comedian and filmmaker Nathan Fielder.

And the result is a highly unusual and provocative film.

In 2023, just 34 days before she was set to begin serving an 11-year prison sentence, Holmes and her family invited Fielder and a film crew to their San Diego beach rental.

At one time, Fielder even moved in.

Elizabeth Holmes, seen in the film, joined by her partner, Billy Evans, and two young children, is very different from the public persona many remember, the woman with black turtlenecks and red lipstick who promised to revolutionize health care through her start-up Theranos that claimed it could use a single drop of blood to run hundreds of tests.

Holmes was touted as the youngest ever self-made female billionaire.

But it all came crumbling down after the company's device turned out not to work, and she was convicted of defrauding investors.

For their part, Fielder and co-director Lance Oppenheim have produced an entirely unconventional documentary.

NATHAN FIELDER, Filmmaker: I hope you're hungry for nothing.

JEFFREY BROWN: Before this, Fielder was best known for playing a deadpan version of himself in projects that blend reality and fiction, like "Nathan For You" and "The Rehearsal."

NATHAN FIELDER: I think we're going to get along pretty well.

JEFFREY BROWN: "Off-the-charts bonkers, a movie that defies categorization," just some of what critics are saying of a film filled with plot twists, unexpected turns, no spoilers here, and questions of truth and perception.

ELIZABETH HOLMES: Why would I deceive you?

There's no -- there's no reason for me to do that.

NATHAN FIELDER: OK.

All right.

OK, good chat.

JEFFREY BROWN: And joining me now is Alissa Wilkinson, film critic for The New York Times.

Thanks for being with us.

So why do you think this film is resonating so much?

Is it the subject, the filmmaker, the nature of the film itself, all of the above?

ALISSA WILKINSON, Movie Critic, The New York Times: I think there are a couple of reasons.

I think the subject obviously really is of interest to people, because she's been represented in pop culture so much.

Nathan Fielder is also someone that a lot of people love, including myself.

The kind of some things that he makes are unusual.

But I think that, when you go see the film, you understand that it's actually playing with your sense of reality and how you watch documentaries.

And I think for a lot of people that's really provocative and interesting.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, so let's walk through some of those briefly.

Nathan Fielder himself, as we said, he's not a traditional documentary maker.

He's not a journalist.

What is -- what do you think he's up to here?

What do you see him doing?

ALISSA WILKINSON: I think of Nathan Fielder as kind of a performance artist who is interested in how audiences watch things.

He started his career as a producer on "Canadian Idol," and so has been thinking about reality TV and the ways that we interact with what we think is real and what might not be real on television.

And this is moving it over into a film context.

And I think that his attempt in here to make us think about how we're watching things and what we believe to be true and how we're manipulated in those things is very relevant to the Elizabeth Holmes story, but also more broadly relevant to the way that we watch basically anything that's presented to us on a screen these days.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, so then there's Elizabeth Holmes herself, who, as you said, has fascinated people for a long time, been the subject of docudramas, investigations, and so on and so forth.

What portrait of her emerges?

ALISSA WILKINSON: Honestly, I went into seeing this movie assuming I knew everything about Elizabeth Holmes.

I'd watched the documentaries.

I'd watched "The Dropout," which was the Hulu television show about her.

I kind of thought I knew who this person was.

And I think I was constantly second-guessing my perception of her as I watched the film.

And that for me is kind of a novel experience.

The film is much bigger than just Elizabeth Holmes, but I think the first half really gives you a sense of why people might have been taken in, and maybe makes you question whether you think you -- they were taken in or whether she was doing something else entirely.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, as you know, since the film came out, some of the people who were involved in the investigation and bringing out a lot of the facts early on have been speaking up to make sure that -- to remind us of the facts, right, and of the guilty verdict.

Here's John Carreyrou.

He's an investigative reporter who helped expose Holmes and Theranos in the first place.

JOHN CARREYROU, The New York Times: There's a unwillingness to take any sort of responsibility in Elizabeth Holmes.

There's this subtle blaming of other people that I find incredibly manipulative, because she's doing that at the same time as she's trying to get you to feel sympathy for her.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, we should say, I mean, in my reading of his review, he seemed to like the film, but he's worried about it humanizing her too much.

Is there any sense, or do you think that this is why she might have agreed to take part in this in the first place?

ALISSA WILKINSON: Yes, there's discussion in the film between her and her partner, Billy Evans, about whether this is a film that -- they have invited people into their home in order to say that they are very open and they're very vulnerable and they're very honest.

I don't think that's the picture that emerges of her at all, but certainly you watch it and you have a different perception of her by the end.

JEFFREY BROWN: How do we look at this film?

Is it pushing the boundaries of documentary?

Is it even right to call it a documentary?

ALISSA WILKINSON: It's absolutely a documentary by the definition that I use.

It's shaping a story out of reality.

That said, there are documentaries dating back to the beginning of documentary, 100 years ago, that are also calling into question what is real and what is not.

I think of the great documentarian Frederick Wiseman, who passed away this year, who always told me in interviews that, "I don't make documentary, I make fiction," because he feels like he takes reality and shapes a story out of it.

And, here, this is pushing that to the limit, but what I love about it is that it's making people think about the fact that every documentary they watch is using those same tools.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Alissa Wilkinson of The New York Times, thank you very much.

ALISSA WILKINSON: Thank you.