How ‘You Can See Everything’ Exacts Hollywood’s Revenge on Big Tech
A new wave of films and documentaries is scrutinising technology leaders, including Elizabeth Holmes, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman. The article argues that these works give storytellers a chance to challenge the people whose companies and ideas shape public life, and to draw attention to the consequences of their power.
Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s *You Can See Everything*, about Holmes, follows the releases of *Musk* and *The Social Reckoning*, while Luca Guadagnino’s *Artificial* is due in cinemas at Christmas. The films take different approaches: *Musk* examines surveillance and political influence, *The Social Reckoning* depicts Meta as profiting from division, and *Artificial* portrays Altman’s rise and the sidelining of safety concerns voiced by OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever. The article sees public attention and reputational pressure as a form of influence, though it says this is not the same as winning financially.
- New films scrutinise powerful technology leaders.
- They spotlight concerns about surveillance, division and AI safety.
- Public attention can create pressure, but not necessarily change financial outcomes.
New here? Start with this
Technology companies shape how people communicate, get information and use new services, giving their leaders influence over public life. Some, including Elizabeth Holmes, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman, have also become subjects of films and documentaries.
These works draw on real people and events but use different approaches to examine business decisions, political influence and concerns about technology’s effects. They can bring those issues to a wider audience and put leaders and companies under public scrutiny, though that does not necessarily affect their financial success.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Films scrutinising technology leaders can make the consequences of concentrated corporate power more visible, bringing questions about surveillance, social division and safety to a wider audience. By challenging influential figures’ public narratives and prompting scrutiny, storytellers may give the public a form of influence even when they cannot change those companies’ financial success.
The case against
Dramatised accounts can simplify complex decisions and present contested interpretations as settled, potentially harming reputations without giving the people portrayed a fair chance to respond. The films’ critical framing may also substitute compelling stories for careful examination of evidence, while reputational pressure alone may have little effect on corporate power or conduct.