Billy Evans disputes shower-scene account in You Can See Everything

By Grace Kim

Billy Evans, the romantic partner of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, disputed Lance Oppenheim’s account of the nude shower scene in You Can See Everything. On Monday, during an “Ask Me Anything” on X, Evans called any suggestion that he wanted to be filmed naked a “false narrative.”

The sequence appears early in the documentary. It shows Evans completely nude in a shower and apparently aware that he is being filmed.

The Times described Holmes as disgraced and said many viewers had come to see Evans as the documentary’s antagonist. Oppenheim and Nathan Fielder directed the film.

The same report described the documentary as arguably the year’s buzziest film. Oppenheim told GQ that the idea for the scene emerged during a car ride back from the gym.

He recalled telling Evans, “We will give you some time to shower.” Evans then asked, “Want to film me showering?”

Oppenheim said he offered to film the scene without showing Evans’s genitals. “I offered to film him in a way that could avoid seeing his genitals, but Billy said he didn’t care about being seen naked,” he told GQ. On Oppenheim’s account, Evans proposed the filming and accepted visible nudity.

Evans pointed in the opposite direction. Writing on X, he instructed users to “trust the ‘sources’” cited in a recent People article.

People reported that the scene “wasn’t Billy’s idea.” It also said Evans had agreed to participate only “with an understanding they would keep it PG,” referring to the filmmakers.

People attributed those quotations to a single source “familiar with the situation.” Oppenheim’s version, by contrast, comes from his own recollection of a conversation with Evans.

Evans endorsed the People report on X without naming its source or recounting his exchange with Oppenheim. The dispute therefore turns on two linked questions: who proposed the shower footage, and what Evans believed the filmmakers had promised.

The published accounts do not resolve those questions. Oppenheim says Evans asked to be filmed and accepted visible nudity. Evans calls that version false and cites a report based on one anonymous source.

Neither version explains precisely how the supposed PG understanding arose, if it did, or whether anyone discussed the difference between filming naked and filming genitals.

What does this dispute change for documentary viewers?

It changes how viewers read the scene’s production, not what appears on screen. The early sequence still shows a nude Evans apparently aware of the camera. What is now contested is the consent (agreement to be filmed) behind it: an explicit proposal, according to Oppenheim, versus a limited understanding of a PG arrangement, according to the account Evans endorsed.

The accounts described here include no filming agreement and no second source for the People quotations. Any reconciliation would need to address who proposed filming, what Evans expected from the PG condition, and whether the filmmakers accepted that condition.