You Can See Everything

About a month before Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes went to prison for defrauding her investors, she and her partner Billy Evans invited a film crew to document their lives at home with their kids. And they didn't make a deal with a conventional filmmaking team. They connected with Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. Fielder’s unusual nonfiction work blurs the lines between truth and artifice, so the resulting documentary, You Can See Everything, depicts Fielder's efforts to figure her out using some very unusual methods. Check out these episodes next: ‘Primetime’ sits you down with sleaze https://www.npr.org/2026/09/25/nx-s1-5979909/primetime-sits-you-down-with-sleaze 'The Rehearsal' is about reality... and surreality https://www.npr.org/2022/08/23/1119071898/the-rehearsal-is-about-reality-and-surreality 'The Dropout' finds the voice of Elizabeth Holmes https://www.npr.org/2022/02/24/1082841597/the-dropout-finds-the-voice-of-elizabeth-holmes Connect with Pop Culture Happy Hour: Letterboxd https://letterboxd.com/nprpopculture/ / Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pchh Our weekly newsletter https://www.npr.org/newsletter/pop-culture Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include bonus episodes and sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org http://plus.npr.org/. See pcm.adswizz.com https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences. NPR Privacy Policy https://www.npr.org/about-npr/179878450/privacy-policy

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  This message comes from Capella University. That spark you feel, that's your drive for more. Capella University's FlexPath learning format lets you earn your degree at your pace without putting life on pause. Learn more at capella.edu.

• 0:19Linda Holmes?

  About a month before Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes went to prison for defrauding her investors, she and her partner, Billy Evans, invited a film crew to document their lives at home with their kids. And they didn't make a deal with a conventional documentarian. They connected with Nathan Fielder, whose unusual nonfiction work blurs the lines between truth and artifice. The resulting documentary, You Can See Everything, is a three-hour look at Holmes and Evans' relationship and at Fielder's efforts to figure her out using some very, very unusual methods. I'm Linda Holmes, and joining me today on NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour is NPR film critic Bob Mondello. Hello, Bob.

• 0:58Speaker 02

  Hey, good to be here.

• 1:00Linda Holmes?

  Also with us is Ronald Young Jr. He's the host of the film and television review podcast, Leaving the Theater. Welcome back, Ronald.

• 1:06Speaker 03

  Glad to be here, Lynda.

• 1:07Linda Holmes?

  Always good to see you both. So Elizabeth Holmes is currently in prison for defrauding the investors in her company, Theranos, out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Theranos claimed to have created a machine that could use a drop of blood from a finger stick to run hundreds of different blood tests. Unfortunately, the machine never actually worked to do what they claimed it could do. Nathan Fielder is behind the kind of gonzo documentary-style shows like Nathan For You and The Rehearsal. He co-directed this film with documentarian Lance Oppenheim, who also made the feature "Primetime" with Robert Pattinson that came out last month. Fielder and Oppenheim connected with Holmes and her partner, Billy Evans, shortly before

• 1:49Linda Holmes?

  she went to prison and spent about a month filming them and their kids. In fact, Fielder eventually moved in with them. After she was incarcerated, you get a more Nathan Fielder-ish kind of off-the-wall project. And that's the stuff that the filmmakers have really tried to keep a secret in the run-up to the movie coming out. We're going to warn you about any spoilers that we do get into about that kind of stuff, so not to worry. I'm going to start with Bob. What did you think about You Can See Everything?

• 2:20Speaker 02

  I came out of the movie sort of bouncing off the walls, and I bumped into Ronald, and I said, what the hell was that? It is very strange and kind of wonderful, and it's almost three hours long and doesn't feel it. By the end of it, I was thinking, first of all, I wanted more, and second of all, oh my goodness. What is remarkable about it is that I feel as if we've been looking at a lot of films lately about tech moguls, right? And that most of them have felt less revealing than this one, which is not a conventional documentary in any sense. So I thought it was really interesting.

• 2:58Linda Holmes?

  Yeah. Ronald, I know you to be a Nathan Fielder completist and superfan, and I am curious how you felt about the movie.

• 3:07Speaker 03

  I loved it. I thought it was a great documentary, full stop right there. But then, actually, no, semicolon, I think also it was a great Nathan Fielder project as well. I think if you break it up, especially and talk about the first half, which we are doing now, it felt very much, I could tell the choices that Lance Oppenheim was making in terms of how the documentary was shot. But when you insert Nathan Fielder and you have him asking questions that I was very familiar with, his style, he asks the question that is hanging in the air, which a lot of people don't really do. He says, why did you do that? Well, what were you thinking? Why are you picking at your face? Are you nervous?

• 3:49Speaker 03

  Like, he'll ask those questions as they pop into his head, which kind of pressed this documentary immediately into a more uncomfortable and unsettling direction that I really enjoy because I want the answers. As a curious person, I do want to know why. And if you're a person that wants to know why, I think you're really going to enjoy this documentary. Now, I know they took some liberties with kind of the story of Elizabeth Holmes, and I know you, Lynda, as a Linda Holmes, I'm sorry, Linda Holmes, as an Elizabeth Holmes completist. I just now made that connection now, Lynda.

• 4:18Linda Holmes?

  I know. I always feel like I should say Elizabeth Holmes, no relation.

• 4:21Speaker 03

  Yes. But I know you, as an Elizabeth Holmes completionist, have a different idea of how they're presenting the Elizabeth Holmes material.

• 4:28Linda Holmes?

  Yeah.

• 4:29Speaker 03

  But I know as a documentary, just as a person who knew enough about Elizabeth Holmes to understand what was happening, I really enjoyed it.

• 4:35Linda Holmes?

  Yeah, I would say I was really not necessarily looking forward to seeing this film because I tend to be a little bit of a Nathan Fielder skeptic. It just doesn't resonate with me, his style, his sense of humor. It's just not my thing. I have had some questions about the ethics of some of the stuff that he did on The Rehearsal and things like that. But I am, as you said, I am an Elizabeth Holmes completist. I have read the John Kerrybrew book, Bad Blood. I have seen the Alex Gibney documentary, which is called The Inventor. I did watch The Dropout, which is the scripted show on Hulu, and listened to two different podcasts about Elizabeth Holmes. And I tend to follow this story very, very closely. I will say, when I heard it was three hours long, I was like, oh, my gosh, I got to watch a three-hour Nathan Fielder thing about Elizabeth Holmes.

• 5:20Linda Holmes?

  This movie was much less boring than I was afraid it was going to be. I agree with Bob. I was not bored. There's a phrase that lawyers use about documents, about contracts in particular, which is this idea of the four corners, which is if you just look at the four corners of a document, you don't look at context, you don't look at, like, what are the conversations around it? You don't try to kind of interpret it using outside material. You just look at the four corners. If I just look at the four corners of this documentary, I think it's really well done. I think it's quite compelling in a lot of places, and it offers moments of genuine insight, I think. If I take it as an effort to tell the true story of Elizabeth Holmes, I think it's extraordinarily misleading in a bunch of different ways, mostly because I think if you go into this

• 6:05Linda Holmes?

  movie not really knowing what she's accused of doing, you will walk out of it not really knowing what she was accused of doing, not really knowing the full nature of what she was accused of doing. So as a documentary about her, I would not trust it. I would take it with a grain of salt. And I'm not even sure that Nathan Fielder would say you should take it as a completely, I don't know if, what he would say about whether you should really take this as the true story of Elizabeth Holmes. So I have very, very complicated, mixed feelings about this movie.

• 6:35Speaker 02

  I'm actually relieved to hear that because, I mean, it's interesting. You think you are understanding things at a variety of points, and then something happens and you realize that, oh, it just got more complicated, and you're not actually understanding what's happening. I mean, she sometimes doesn't seem to be understanding what's happening. When I watched the Gibney-Musk documentary, I was frustrated by it because I felt like I wasn't learning anything new. With this, I'm neither a completist about Fielder nor about Holmes. So I come to it cold and was watching it and was having trouble getting a grip on things

• 7:17Speaker 02

  and then realized that having a trouble getting a grip on things is the point of what he's doing.

• 7:23Linda Holmes?

  Yes.

• 7:24Speaker 03

  I like the spectrum that we have here. We have a half Fielder, half Holmes, and then zero on both, which I think works well. I appreciate what you're saying about it being misleading. I probably know about half the information that you know about her, Lynda. And I feel like when I left, the questions that Nathan was asking in the documentary felt so existential, they made me think more broadly and less specifically about her and more broadly about what truth is more existentially. And I say that to say, if you think more about what a lie is versus whether or not Elizabeth Holmes is a liar, I think you leave with probably more warm feelings about the discussion that is had as a result of this documentary. But you're absolutely right.

• 8:08Speaker 03

  There were a few times in there where I thought, is he about to break news about how she approached Theranos? And when I realized that that wasn't the case in the second half of the documentary, I felt better. And I say that because there's a part in the movie where there's a popular comedy bit that's referenced. And when that happened, my head kind of blew wide open. Nathan Fielder shows her this comedy bit, and then they talk about it. And I feel like that discussion made me think that maybe we were about to get some news broke to us about how she understood what was happening. But you're right, that's not the case. So that could be a little misleading.

• 8:40Linda Holmes?

  So what Ronald is talking about, you know, Nathan Fielder shows Elizabeth Holmes who's on first, and the idea is she doesn't get it. And his takeaway from this is that she's very, very literal. And his suggestion is maybe the fact that she's very, very literal explains things that appeared to be dishonest coming from her.

• 9:00Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 9:01Linda Holmes?

  But maybe they were just very, very literal. And when I say misleading, what I mean is Nathan Fielder could have gone back to extensive reporting about things she said that weren't true.

• 9:12Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 9:13Linda Holmes?

  About very specific things, about military contracts that Theranos had, about other things that are not easily explained by this idea that maybe she's just very literal. So it's like, I find it a fascinating idea, and I agree with you, Ronald, a fascinating conversation about the nature of the truth that I don't think applies to the real her at all. And that's the stuff that I found frustrating, is that there's a kind of a, when she says, I never lie, she sort of says, I've never told a lie in my life. He kind of treats that as something that he can only decide whether he thinks that's the case.

• 9:48Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 9:49Linda Holmes?

  Based on his interactions with her and based on a couple of little things that he notes that she said in the press. There's so much information about her. It's very easy to evaluate.

• 10:00Speaker 03

  Right.

• 10:01Linda Holmes?

  Whether that's the case or not. And I felt that's where I found it frustrating. I felt like we actually do know the answer to some of these things that he presents as fascinatingly unknowable. So that's when I say, take it with a grain of salt as a thing about her. But I think when you look at it as a movie, it's lit really beautifully. I kind of got tired of the extreme closeups, which is their, their kind of language for trying to get at what an odd persona she has. But I think, as I said, there are some moments of genuine insight. There's an incident in the kitchen, you know, that involves scrambled eggs that I think is really well chosen

• 10:40Linda Holmes?

  as a moment of insight about the relationship that Billy and Elizabeth have. I think it's the bigger sort of, as Ronald said, these existential questions of like, you know, is she ultimately unknowable? I would say no. And he only can present her as fascinatingly unknowable because he leaves out all of the stuff that would let you know. So in that sense, within the four corners of the movie, it's really well done. As I said, the lighting is beautiful. There's a lot of really clever editing. We're going to get in later to the more weird stuff.

• 11:16Speaker 03

  I said, oh, man, you could have made this a series. Go longer, make it the rehearsal season three. What are we talking about here?

• 11:22Linda Holmes?

  I do want to ask you both, does this movie win the Oscar for best documentary? I assume it does.

• 11:27Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 11:28Speaker 02

  I would say that's a possibility. I have not seen all of this year's documentaries yet. I have a bunch to catch up with. It's certainly the most arresting one.

• 11:36Linda Holmes?

  I think it's being brilliantly marketed. And I think there is, as Bob said, going to be a conversation about whether it qualifies as a documentary. I don't know exactly what the filmmakers' ethics, and it's clearly not a standard process for making a documentary. I don't know if there are going to be questions about whether it really qualifies as one. And that's the stuff that we're about to get into. So let's do that. After the break, we're going to get into the second half of the movie, which is this kind of spoiler section. So we'll be right back.

• 12:07Speaker 00

  Stay tuned for the following announcements and messages from our sponsors.

• 12:12Speaker 04

  This message comes from Dell. Shop now during the Dell Top Tech Event and find award-winning tech like the Dell XPS 13 Laptop with long-lasting battery life and impressive performance powered by Intel Core Processors. Visit dell.com/deals. This episode is sponsored by Carvana, which offers the following message. Carvana Value Tracker lets you see what your car is worth, understand how the value changes, and sell your car when the time's right. Try it now on carvana.com.

• 12:43Speaker 00

  This message comes from AT&T. Right now at AT&T, you can get the new iPhone 18 Pro for $0.00 with eligible trade-in. It has the ultimate pro camera system and a big leap in battery life, so you can turn this deal into a long-lasting connection. Connecting changes everything. Requires trade-in of $230 or more and eligible plan. Terms and restrictions apply. Subject to change. Visit an AT&T store for details.

• 13:07Linda Holmes?

  All right, here we go. We are going to talk about how Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim handle returning to this project with Elizabeth Holmes in prison and about how the focus changes and the kind of the methods change. Are we ready? We are ready. Okay, you have heard. In the second half of the film, we see Fielder's working relationship with Billy Evans, Elizabeth Holmes' partner, get a lot more fraught. The film picks up two years after she was incarcerated. Evans is working on a new company. He's raising money. It seems like he's sort of collaborating with her from prison about it. But Fielder gets a sense that he's actually making all the decisions himself. Earlier in the film, before Elizabeth goes to prison,

• 13:50Linda Holmes?

  we see a scene where Billy Evans, Elizabeth Holmes, and Nathan Fielder watch some of the dropout, which is the Hulu mini-series we mentioned, where Amanda Seyfried plays Elizabeth Holmes. So in a very, very Nathan Fielder-esque move, Nathan connects with the actress Amanda Seyfried. She joins Fielder in exploring his kind of fascination with Elizabeth Holmes. The two of them do reenactments of moments that weren't filmed, that happened between, you know, Nathan and Elizabeth. And they sit around, Seyfried and Fielder sit around, kind of speculating together about how her relationship with Billy Evans actually works. Seyfried also intermittently suspects that maybe Fielder has developed a little bit too much of a soft spot

• 14:35Linda Holmes?

  for Elizabeth Holmes, while he says he's just very unsure what to think. Bob, how did this sort of turn in the film work for you?

• 14:47Speaker 02

  Well, it's unbalancing. I mean, when it happens, you start to think, wait, what? It's the majority of the reason that I came out saying, what was that? Meaning, is this a documentary? And what are we doing? My problem with it is that I wasn't always sure that it wasn't scripted. Right? I kept thinking, okay, that works if they arrived at it independently and it just sort of happened in front of the cameras, which is how it looks. But she's a terrific actress, right? And when she's there, I'm not sure I can. It throws everything into question. I was already questioning how much I could accept what Elizabeth Holmes was saying.

• 15:28Speaker 02

  Now I'm questioning how much I can accept of an avatar for Elizabeth Holmes saying about Elizabeth Holmes. Amanda Seyfried's reactions to Billy and his relationship with Elizabeth Holmes are more insightful than Nathan Fielder's. And so I found that interesting, although if he wrote them,

• 15:50Linda Holmes?

  Right.

• 15:51Speaker 02

  then they're not. And I, so anyway, I don't know what I'm seeing there, which is what throws me off balance in an interesting way, right? I kind of liked it. I just, you know, I spend so much time in movies thinking, I know what's going to happen next, that it is so refreshing to see something where I don't. That part was kind of wonderful.

• 16:10Linda Holmes?

  Yeah.

• 16:11Speaker 03

  Yeah, so I feel like, and this is probably where being battle-tested by Nathan Fielder really would benefit you for watching this, because the conversations that he's having with Seyfried before they do the reenactments, and we all know reenactments are a pretty regular part of documentaries. I would say not regular, but they have been used. It's not unusual to see a reenactment in a documentary. I think what Nathan Fielder is very good at is because he builds a relationship with Seyfried, you then begin to wonder, are these conversations they're having around the reenactments, are those real? And for me, as someone who's watched a lot of Nathan Fielder, I think those were pretty real. Those felt pretty authentic to me.

• 16:54Linda Holmes?

  How do you know?

• 16:55Speaker 03

  I said, pretty real, and I said they felt pretty authentic. So I left a little room for doubt.

• 17:00Linda Holmes?

  Yeah, no, I'm genuinely asking.

• 17:01Speaker 03

  I don't, but I will say, from the other work that I've seen of his, in which he is playing a character, this felt the least character-y Nathan Fielder that I've seen. There was times in which I was looking at him and seeing faces from him I'd never seen before. Genuine befuddlement with what's happening in front of him. And then when he's trying to break this down to Seyfried, you could tell that he's actually grappling with what had just happened. And now she's becoming a sounding board for him to tease it out. That's how I interpreted it. And so for me, those parts felt authentic. But to your point about whether or not this is a documentary or a feature, like just a regular feature film at that point,

• 17:43Speaker 03

  it does get a little, I would say, muddled, gray, even nuanced. In that case, to say, are we still watching a documentary? And I think that the short answer is yes, question mark, because they're still talking about something that was documented, even though it's not in the traditional sense, if you will. So, and I'm telling, again, Nathan Fielder stan, and I also feel the same feelings that you have, Bob. But I also, I still, it didn't stop me from enjoying it.

• 18:10Linda Holmes?

  Yeah, I have to credit our showrunner, Jessica Reedy. We had a conversation about, a long conversation about this movie, during which she reminded me of a documentary that was out not too long ago called Four Daughters, which involves this family of women who are talking about some traumatic experiences in their family and the way their family works. And it uses reenactments with actresses, with professional actresses. And it's very transparent, not just about saying, we're doing these reenactments and interacting with the real women. And they're very, they kind of take you right into it, right? And we talked about how there are actually a lot of documentaries

• 18:50Linda Holmes?

  that use various sort of unconventional formats to try to get at something true. You could think about something like The Act of Killing is another one, right? Where you're putting people in a very unnatural situation. In that case, you know, sort of reliving killings that they've been part of. There are a lot of documentaries that use these unconventional formats. What I wanted, that I didn't get, or that I don't feel confident I got, and I think Ronald and I agree about this, what I don't think I am completely confident about is what is Nathan Fielder even claiming is absolutely unscripted, right? Bob mentioned, are these, I started to wonder whether some of this was scripted. Is Nathan Fielder even claiming it's not scripted?

• 19:35Linda Holmes?

  Because I think he's always been very hesitant to really lay out a set of rules, right? Here are the rules that I follow. And it's not that everybody has to follow the same rules. It's that I'm uncomfortable with anything that is presented as a documentary where I don't know what rules you're applying to your own work. Like, I don't know what you're representing, to be the truth here. When you get to these kind of late-in-the-film conversations between Fielder and Amanda Seyfried, I'm not even sure, like, they feel to me like scripted scenes, but I don't know whether he would say, well, sure, that's a scripted scene, but it represents a real conversation we had or a kind of a version of a real conversation we had spontaneously. I have no idea. And because I have no idea,

• 20:20Linda Holmes?

  it's hard for me to feel like I'm taking anything away from those conversations. I do want to talk a little bit about how much it feels to me like the second half of the movie was so affected by. This discovery that Billy Evans was, and at least is as presented in the film, is a really controlling and really kind of interfering sort of person. They have him interrupting an interview that Nathan Fielder is doing with somebody else, essentially because he objects to what the person is saying. Billy says that he has power of attorney over Elizabeth, which is, you know, I do

• 21:02Linda Holmes?

  not know whether that's common with people who are in prison, but it doesn't-

• 21:06Speaker 02

  Concerning.

• 21:06Linda Holmes?

  It's certainly treated as potentially concerning by the filmmakers, right? Also, Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans, it turns out, approached A24 about making a documentary. The film actually depicts, in a reenactment, a meeting they had with the directors, Lance Oppenheimer and Nathan Fielder, as well as representatives from A24. And we learn that A24 agreed to give Evans a share of the profits. At the end of the film, we learn that he eventually agreed to give up money, any money that he was owed, under that provision. With all this said about Billy and how he kind of tries to run the show, did you find what they presented about him and the nature of

• 21:48Linda Holmes?

  their relationship to be interesting, persuasive? Did you have questions about it?

• 21:53Speaker 02

  I think the great advantage of what Fielder does is that everything he does is persuasive.

• 22:00Linda Holmes?

  That's a good point.

• 22:00Speaker 02

  You buy it in the moment. You just question it afterwards. And that is really my reaction to this movie. I was still puzzling it out as I left the theater. I think I went in, I should say this, I went in with the idea that I was going to do a piece about how tech moguls of various sorts were being depicted in films this year. And-

• 22:23Linda Holmes?

  Yeah.

• 22:24Speaker 02

  On that basis, because I'd seen Musk and I'd seen Social Reckoning, and I'm looking forward to seeing Artificial, which is about-

• 22:31Linda Holmes?

  Sam Altman.

• 22:32Speaker 02

  Sam Altman of OpenAI. Those are differently calibrated to, I haven't seen The Artificial yet, but the other two are calibrated to take down these very wealthy individuals. I was thinking, as I was watching this, that any of these individuals coming out of it could point to these movies and say, well, look how unfairly we're being treated, right? And so that's kind of how I was looking at the film and thinking, well, this isn't fair to them in a lot of respects. On the other hand, it is persuasive. It is good movie making in a way that the other ones haven't been so far. Yes, it's persuasive,

• 23:12Speaker 02

  but I expected it to be persuasive. I don't find that ultimately. What is the alternative word for persuasive that says, yeah, but I'm still doubting it?

• 23:22Linda Holmes?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 23:23Speaker 03

  I feel like there's a part of me that wishes that we had more time so that I could break down to you several other Nathan for You sketches that are just as uncomfortable as this, if not more. But the one thing I will say that is common about all of those, and I won't go into them in detail, is that oftentimes Nathan will create an experience that inside of it, you find a little bit of truth, where somebody will get upset, or somebody will cry, or somebody will say something very revealing about themselves, in which you could tell Nathan, who is still being a character, is like, uh-oh, I just got this person to confess to something on accident, or whatever. And at that point, as the viewer, you have to then say, is this real, or is this not real? And I've watched

• 24:08Speaker 03

  them dozens and dozens of times and had that question come up again and again. And I feel like the one thing that gets me about the second half is his relationship with Billy Evans and how that relationship is depicted in this film. For me, that was the most unsettling part of this. And it was probably, of all the things I was questioning in the film, this was the one thing I felt like I was questioning the least, because it was based on things coming out of Billy Evans's mouth.

• 24:36Linda Holmes?

  One of the things that's interesting about the way that this movie ultimately wraps up is that I came out of it as somebody who, as I've said, is so preloaded with details about things that she's been accused of doing that are not reckoned with in this film at all. I walked out of it thinking, because all of those things were not dealt with and were not kind of made clear, I walked out thinking, this is way too sympathetic to her, way too sympathetic to her. And also, because I think Fielder, one of the sort of little maybe jokey, maybe not, things that they're playing with, is this idea that maybe he has, and I may be reading into this, but I feel like one of the little jokes of the

• 25:19Linda Holmes?

  movie, is that maybe he has like a little bit of a crush on her, or maybe he's developed a little bit of a crush on her.

• 25:25Speaker 02

  I thought that, too.

• 25:26Linda Holmes?

  I think that you end up in a situation where, at the end, it sort of, the movie kind of shrugs its shoulders, and it's like, well, you know, maybe he's being too easy on her, but maybe he's just discovered something fundamentally true. And I ended up thinking, again, as I said at the beginning of this conversation, if you didn't know all the things that she was accused of doing, you wouldn't learn them from this.

• 25:51Speaker 02

  Mm, yep.

• 25:52Linda Holmes?

  Well, I think no matter how you look at this movie, we all thought it was fascinating and raises a lot of really interesting questions, and I think it's going to engender a lot of conversation over the coming months. That brings us to the end of our show. We'll be back with what's making us happy on Monday. Bob Mondello, Ronald Young Jr., thank you so much for being here. This was fascinating.

• 26:13Speaker 02

  Thank you for having me.

• 26:15Speaker 03

  Thank you so much for having me.

• 26:17Linda Holmes?

  This episode was produced by Hafsa Fathama, Liz Metzger, and Mike Katzif, and edited by our showrunner, Jessica Reedy. Hello, Come In provides our theme music. Thank you for listening to Pop Culture Happy Hour from NPR. I'm Linda Holmes, and we will see you all next time.