Elizabeth

TELLURIDE, Colo. — The Telluride Film Festival has always enjoyed keeping a secret. Tucked away in the Colorado mountains with nary a red carpet or paparazzo in sight, the low-key film festival doesn’t announce its lineup until the day before opening and surprise additions have long been a fixture of the event.

But even by Telluride standards, organizers went to unusual lengths this year to keep their biggest surprise under wraps. They had carved out a prime Sunday evening slot for a world premiere that, fingers crossed, would remain unknown until the audience was seated inside the theater. Festival director Julie Huntsinger offered only a few clues beforehand. The film involved some “very known names,” she told The Times. “Do not miss it. Your jaw will be on the ground for the entire length of the film.”

For three days, trying to crack the mystery became Telluride’s unofficial parlor game. Was it Aaron Sorkin’s “The Social Reckoning”? Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part Three”? Alex Gibney’s Elon Musk documentary “Musk”? By Sunday, the mounting speculation had become fodder for jokes: Introducing his new movie “Club Kid” earlier in the day, writer-director-star Jordan Firstman announced that the evening’s TBA would be a newly restored print of Jerry Seinfeld’s 2007 animated film “Bee Movie.” “Just kidding,” he added. “I love Jerry.”

The festival kept the suspense going right up to showtime. Before entering the Werner Herzog Theatre on Sunday evening, hundreds of moviegoers were required to lock their phones in pouches to prevent spreading the word. Inside, they were warned that security guards equipped with night-vision goggles would be watching for anyone who managed to keep a phone accessible.

Taking the stage, Huntsinger made one last plea for secrecy. “What happens in Telluride stays in Telluride,” she told the crowd, before bringing out Nathan Fielder, the deadpan comic mind behind the reality-bending television shows “Nathan for You,” “The Rehearsal” and “The Curse.”

What Telluride had been guarding so carefully was “You Can See Everything,” a nearly three-hour documentary about convicted Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, co-directed by Fielder and documentary filmmaker Lance Oppenheim. The film, which A24 will release theatrically in October, had been made largely in secret over three years.

“For those of you who don’t know who we are and are disappointed, I apologize,” Fielder, joined onstage by Oppenheim, told the crowd to laughs. “But hopefully by the end of the film, you’ll be slightly less disappointed.”

The movie begins 34 days before Holmes is due to report to federal prison, with Fielder, Oppenheim and a small crew given extraordinary access to her life with her partner, Billy Evans, and their young children. Holmes and Evans embrace what they call “radical transparency,” opening their home to the cameras in hopes of convincing the filmmakers — and eventually the world — that the public has fundamentally misunderstood her.

But as anyone familiar with Fielder’s reenactment-heavy work can imagine, “You Can See Everything” quickly becomes something far stranger than a conventional documentary. Fielder finds himself drawn from behind the camera into the story, struggling to determine whether Holmes and Evans are being candid with him or manipulating him. From there, the movie takes a series of increasingly surreal turns, including elaborate reenactments involving a Hollywood actress (her arrival is too good to spoil) that further scramble the line between reality and performance.

During a post-screening Q&A moderated by Emma Stone, who co-starred with Fielder in the darkly comic A24 series “The Curse,” Fielder said that his own inability to get a firm grip on what he was witnessing became one of the forces driving the project.

“We’re all smart and we’re really working at the top of our intelligence,” he recalled thinking as he and the crew tried to make sense of their time with Holmes and Evans. “Why can’t we make sense of what’s happening in this house?”

The project began, appropriately enough, with a magic trick.

Oppenheim said he and Fielder were at the Magic Castle in Los Angeles several years ago when a magician asked the audience to name a celebrity. Someone called out Elizabeth Holmes. Afterward, Oppenheim told Fielder he had heard through a friend of a friend that Holmes was looking for someone to document her life.

Fielder had read John Carreyrou’s “Bad Blood,” the bestselling 2018 account of Theranos’ rise and collapse and initially saw little reason to make another documentary about Holmes.

“I thought the story was really fully told,” he told the Telluride crowd. Holmes, however, had largely disappeared from public view, and Fielder was curious about what she might have to say for herself.

Meeting her only deepened that curiosity. Sitting across from Holmes, Fielder said, he found her “sort of honest and charming,” even as his brain was warning him, “No, don’t trust.” That disconnect — between what he knew about Holmes and what he felt in her presence — became central to the movie.

A24 gave Fielder and Oppenheim unusual freedom to pursue the project without any deadline or obligation to turn what they captured into a finished film. If nothing came of it, Fielder recalled being told, “you can just throw everything away.”

Holmes founded Theranos in 2003 and became one of Silicon Valley’s most celebrated young entrepreneurs by claiming the company could perform a wide range of medical tests using only a few drops of blood. The company collapsed after investigations exposed serious problems with its technology and business practices. In 2022, Holmes was convicted on four counts related to defrauding investors and later sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison.

As shown in “You Can See Everything,” once Holmes reports to federal prison, the filmmakers’ access to her changes dramatically, with Evans — who takes over Holmes’ Twitter feed and assumes power of attorney over her decisions — becoming their main conduit. Fielder said the relationship grew strained as Evans tried to exert greater control over the project. Neither Holmes nor Evans has seen the finished movie.

Fielder is hoping to keep the film’s biggest surprises under wraps. During the Q&A, he told the Telluride audience he hoped future viewers could experience the film without knowing where it was headed. Stone seconded the request.

“You won’t be upsetting me,” Fielder joked. “You’ll be upsetting Oscar-winning actress Emma Stone.”

Fielder said that even after three years immersed in her world, he still doesn’t know quite what to make of Holmes — or how much of what she says can be believed.

“I really am struggling to this day to understand exactly what I experienced in this,” he said. “I don’t quite know what I went through.”

As the crowd filed out of the Herzog, one reaction seemed to recur more than any other: “That was wild.”

WASHINGTON — Elizabeth Hanford Dole, a former Cabinet secretary and the wife of Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, received speaking fees from 1991 through 1994 in excess of $875,000–much of it from groups with a stake in policy matters pending before Congress, records show.

The fees have enhanced substantially the couple’s joint income, which totaled about $600,000 in 1994, according to income-tax returns and annual financial disclosure statements. Mrs. Dole, a national figure in her own right, last fall took a temporary leave as president of the American Red Cross to support her husband’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Sen. Dole has filed income-disclosure statements with the Senate for the last four years saying that all of Mrs. Dole’s speaking fees were contributed to a Red Cross charity account–except for “taxes, a contribution to a retirement fund and speech-writing expenses.”

However, a Times analysis of the records shows that the Doles have retained a substantial part of Mrs. Dole’s speaking fees:

From 1991 through 1994, the Doles kept $147,663 in cash from Mrs. Dole’s fees–after speech-writing costs and federal income taxes were paid.

An additional $243,830 was placed in Mrs. Dole’s retirement account, as the senator stated in his financial disclosure forms. The couple contributed $405,513, or 46%, of the fees to the Red Cross charity account for troubled youths during 1991 through 1994. But only in 1993 did Mrs. Dole donate all of her speaking fees to the charity–minus taxes, expenses and a contribution to her private retirement fund.

In 1994, the most recent year for which financial records are available, the Doles kept $47,421 in cash from Mrs. Dole’s $184,775 in speaking fees and placed $63,505 into Mrs. Dole’s retirement account.

Dole Comment

Asked for comment, aides to Dole did not dispute The Times’ findings. Reading from a prepared response Thursday night, Dole campaign spokeswoman Christina Martin said:

“We are not aware of a reason to amend the senator’s [financial disclosure] statements at this time. Sen. Dole has filed amendments in the past and would do so again, should a review prove such a step is necessary. The senator is a firm believer in full disclosure, as is demonstrated by his release [last week] of tax returns dating back 29 years.”

The annual disclosure forms signed by Sen. Dole warn that civil and criminal sanctions can be imposed if a senator “knowingly and willfully” makes a false statement.

Nelson Warfield, Dole’s chief spokesman, said the senator is not influenced by Elizabeth Dole’s acceptance of speaking fees from groups with business pending before Congress.

“No one gains Bob Dole’s favor by hiring his wife,” Warfield said. “In the senator’s words, he hasn’t the foggiest idea who she speaks to.”

Clearly, Mrs. Dole’s career in Washington makes her a sought-after guest speaker. Before joining the Red Cross in 1991, she was an appointee of five presidents–serving as a member of the Federal Trade Commission in the 1970s and as secretary of labor and secretary of transportation in the 1980s. Mrs. Dole, a lawyer, has won praise for her leadership of the Red Cross–and she did not accept the $200,000 salary paid by the organization during her first year as president.

Business Dealings

Yet in an election year when the past transactions of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to loom as a problem for the president, attention also is focusing on the business dealings of the wife of the senator from Kansas, who polls show is the front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Mrs. Dole referred questions posed by The Times to Warfield, the presidential campaign spokesman.

“Mrs. Dole has an extraordinary record of public service which spans over 20 years,” Warfield said. “This is in itself the reason so many people request her as a speaker.”

Mrs. Dole, who married the senator in 1975, typically has accepted speaking engagements for fees ranging from $12,000 to $35,000. Now 59, she employs the services of a booking agency and often speaks on the need for volunteerism or the shape of America’s labor force.

As a member of the executive branch during the ‘70s and ‘80s, Mrs. Dole did not accept speaking fees. She did receive $100,026 of the payments in 1988–when she temporarily left federal office to assist Sen. Dole’s presidential campaign. Sen. Dole, meanwhile, accepted fees totaling $1.4 million from 1981-91. In addition to his Senate compensation, tax records show that Sen. Dole during those years contributed $337,328 to a private pension plan–a nest egg paid for by his speaking fees.

Moreover, although Sen. Dole professes no knowledge of the groups to which his wife has spoken–many of them should be familiar to him.

At least 16 of the groups that retained Mrs. Dole to speak from 1991 through 1994 maintain lobbying offices in or near Washington and have business pending before the federal government. Records also show that four of the groups that paid to hear her earlier had hired Sen. Dole–before congressional rules in 1993 began cracking down on the controversial practice of senators and House members accepting such payments.

One of the biggest groups is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Assn.–a Washington trade group that represents the largest makers of prescription-brand drugs. The organization lobbies Congress on a range of issues related to drugs and medical devices–and worked to defeat President and Mrs. Clinton’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

Both of the Doles have accepted speaking fees from the drug manufacturers’ group. In 1992 the group paid for all travel expenses, including three nights of winter lodging in South Florida, for Sen. and Mrs. Dole. On that trip the senator accepted a $2,000 fee–the maximum then allowed under Senate rules.

In 1993 the drug makers invited Mrs. Dole back to Florida–and paid her a speaking fee of $20,000 plus travel expenses. Her appearance came at the same time the pharmaceutical group was working against parts of the Clintons’ health care proposal.

On the same weekend that Mrs. Dole addressed the group’s board of directors, the executives approved “an immediate, comprehensive mobilization of company employees, retirees, shareholders and suppliers to operate telephone banks” to challenge one aspect of the Clintons’ health care reform proposal, according to an executive summary prepared by the association.

“The effort,” said the summary, “was to encourage people to call or write members of Congress with the message that government price controls on prescription drugs would chill the development of new lifesaving, cost-effective medicines.”

Warfield, the Dole campaign spokesman, declined to comment specifically on Mrs. Dole’s speaking fee from the pharmaceutical association or other groups. Jeffrey C. Warren, spokesman for the pharmaceutical group, said Mrs. Dole “was an attraction on her own, because of her own achievements.” Warren said that the group hired Sen. Dole to speak in 1992 because of his knowledge of politics and “where things are going.”

Representatives of most of the groups that hired Mrs. Dole said that they chose her because of her experience. Some, however, also said that they retained Mrs. Dole because of her connection to one of the most powerful figures in Washington–her husband.

“That certainly makes her a little more interesting, definitely,” said Pat Areno, an executive for the Building Owners & Managers Assn., which paid Mrs. Dole $20,000, plus expenses, to speak at a conference in San Diego in June 1994. “You can’t ignore that it’s a factor. That is certainly part of her draw and her appeal.”

A spokeswoman for the American Health Care Assn., which lobbies Congress on behalf of nursing-home owners, said that the group paid Mrs. Dole $20,000 to speak in 1991, irrespective of Sen. Dole’s status.

“I suppose her connection with the senator helps create a visibility and makes her attractive, in that sense,” said the spokeswoman, Linda Keegan. “It really isn’t what motivated us to bring her in as a speaker.” The association in 1988 paid Sen. Dole $2,000 to speak.

Other Groups’ Fees

Fees from other groups with business before Congress that have retained Mrs. Dole to speak include:

* The National Electrical Contractors Assn.–$20,000, plus all of Mrs. Dole’s expenses for attending the group’s May 1993 event at a coastal Georgia resort. The group is lobbying to loosen worker safety and health requirements and to abolish the Davis-Bacon Act, which forces contractors on public projects to hire more expensive, union labor. Mrs. Dole’s speech “focused more on her Red Cross activities,” according to John M. Grau, chief executive of the contractors group.

* The accounting firm of Ernst & Young–$16,000, plus Mrs. Dole’s expenses for attending a 1991 gathering in Chicago. Ernst & Young at the time was facing congressional scrutiny and criminal investigations related to its auditing of some savings and loans, including Lincoln Savings & Loan, that failed in the 1980s at a cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars. Without admitting wrongdoing, Ernst & Young in 1992 settled charges of inadequate auditing at the S&Ls; by paying the government $400 million.

The firm since 1992 has lobbied for legislation that would limit the liability of accounting firms in their work for corporations and financial institutions. The legislation was enacted recently when the Senate and House overrode a veto by President Clinton. Sen. Dole was among those who supported the legislation, which was part of the congressional Republicans’ “contract with America.”

The Ernst & Young executive who arranged Mrs. Dole’s 1991 appearance has left the firm, according to Patrice Yngracia, a spokeswoman, who would not identify the former employee. Yngracia said that Mrs. Dole spoke to a group of “hospitality” industry executives who were clients of Ernst & Young.

* The American Logistics Assn.–$20,000 in 1993. The Washington-based association represents Fortune 500 companies and smaller firms that sell food and recreation facilities for the U.S. military. “Our goal is to defend this military resale system as it exists,” said Donald E. Ledwig, the group’s president. Ledwig said that Mrs. Dole spoke on the need for volunteerism. Arrangements for her speech, he said, were made before he joined the organization.

Travel Agent Speech

Another example of how the interests of Mrs. Dole’s speaking-fee clients can intersect her husband’s role as a senator involves a dispute between the nation’s major airlines and the travel-agent industry.

In November 1994, the American Society of Travel Agents arranged to have Mrs. Dole address the group’s international conference, in Lisbon, Portugal. The group paid a speaking fee of $35,000 and covered all of Mrs. Dole’s air fare and lodging.

In February 1995, several major airlines struck a blow to the travel-agent industry by announcing that they would strictly cap commissions paid to agents for booking domestic flights. American Society of Travel Agents lobbyists reacted immediately–seeking support in Congress and enforcement of antitrust law by the Justice Department.

On Feb. 22, 1995, Sen. Dole called for the Justice Department to examine the matter.

“There are more than 350,000 travel agents in the United States who will be adversely affected by the airlines’ decision. . . ,” Dole wrote in a letter to Assistant Atty. Gen. Anne K. Bingaman. “It is clear that the timing and substance of the airlines’ decision deserve a careful review by the antitrust division.”

Dole’s letter, obtained by The Times, was co-signed by Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), chairman of the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said that the antitrust division is monitoring the dispute.

A spokesman for the travel agents’ association, Steve Loucks, said that Mrs. Dole spoke for about 20 minutes in Lisbon. He said that her services were “sponsored” by a member of the association, MasterCard.

Loucks said that Mrs. Dole was retained because of her background in federal policy, adding:

“Certainly, being the wife of, at that time, the minority leader of the Senate made her a very attractive property to bring in to Lisbon.”