You can see everything is the cinematic event of the fall. Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim’s documentary proved to be a powerful blend of zeitgeist cultural ideas and its own discourse-generating machine about the value and nature of documentary filmmaking. The screenings are sold out and everyone wants to discuss and argue about each scene in great detail. It’s a testament to the fact that even with a running time of three hours, every moment feels like it could be ripped out and discussed as if it were the skeleton key to the entire premise. But there is one particular scene that I can’t put down and that I think is definitely worth examining in depth in order to uncover some truths about the film and the actors involved. This is the scene in which Billy Evans, Elizabeth Holmes’ partner and father of her two children, shows pork.
Obviously, I’m not the only one who wants to bring up this scene, which occurs when Evans decides to shower in front of the filmmakers. This inspired numerous conversations, including with Oppenheim himself, who confirmed that the scene was Billy’s idea and that he had simply shot it in front of the cameras, without any prompting or even prior discussion. But this raises an obvious question: why? What was the thought process here? And what does that say about Billy in general? All we are left to do is speculate and theorize. Please understand that this is for journalism’s sake only.
Theory #1: Billy is proud of his penis and wants to show it off.
This is perhaps the most obvious answer, but it’s also the least interesting. Many people are proud of their dicks, even those who have ones that don’t look at all impressive. Being an exhibitionist about it is really just one facet of excessive pride in general. Guys like him are also proud of their bank account, the type of car they drive, their business cards, whatever. This is the attitude of those who are heavy with ego, and the penis is a metonym.
In the scene just before showing the pig, the cameras are with Billy as he practices for what I’m sure is only the first time all day. Before you even really get into him as a person, it’s obvious that Billy is a Silicon Valley “type” of rich asshole. A guy who speaks in jargon and internet memes, who structures his life around things he’s learned from The Joe Rogan Experience. Even though he’s trying to play it cool, there’s no doubt he wanted a lot of this documentary to feature him working out. That’s all well and good, but this kind of guy also wants to show off his penis in the most flattering circumstances possible, rather offering a brief glimpse while it’s flaccid and wet. There’s more going on here.
Theory #2: This is Billy’s way of showing that he and Elizabeth really aren’t hiding anything.
That was the first thought I had when I saw Billy’s little William. Oh, is this his way of telling everyone that he is such an open book that you can even see his uncut text? penis. This is obviously stupid, but it’s the kind of thought process most scammers have. A classic distraction technique to change the subject or relay an image of authenticity or vulnerability. We see this kind of behavior in the performative affability of other Silicon Valley tech moguls. Introducing destructive ideas and concepts but with a smile and a friendly attitude, because no one so charming and so willing to put himself in the heat of public opinion can actually be evil and destructive. Maybe they should be given a second look or the benefit of the doubt.
Much of the couple’s behavior is aimed at positioning themselves not as criminals or monsters, but as tech gurus who were unfortunately too early with their genius, both in the science of their blood technology and also as visionaries and inventors. Steve Jobs was deified a long time ago, even before his death, and Holmes and Evans are both his disciples, bringing to Jobs his self-confidence and determination to try to bend reality and truth to their whims. No one in Silicon Valley is ever wrong, just tragically misunderstood. And really, if the last ten years of American life have proven anything, it’s that the only difference between fraud and success is how long people can continue to invest in you.
Theory #3: Billy is trying to establish himself as the alpha in this situation between him and the documentary team.
Another thing that becomes evident as the film progresses is this push and pull of the power dynamic that occurs between Evans and Fielder. Fielder constantly asks questions and encourages his subjects to explore their thoughts further. This is a problem for Evans who, despite the film’s premise, is eager to control the narrative as much as possible. He’ll disrupt interviews if he’s worried about their depth, he’ll use the kids as a distraction in a few moments, or he’ll simply announce, most hilariously, that he and Holmes have things to do that the cameras can’t get into.
Control is a major theme of You can see everything: who has it or who thinks they have it and who tries to maintain it becomes a subject of debate and consternation. Fielder is sometimes particularly frustrated by the way Evans tries to make the narrative disappear. Evans clearly has a vision of how this project is supposed to play out in his head, or perhaps he believes he can outwit or control a comedian. And maybe there’s some psychological taunting going on in that little shower where Billy lets it all hang out, as if to say, “Don’t forget who the real man is.” » It makes sense: Evans is bigger, more assertive, more aggressive, and he obviously has something worth showing off. Goodness knows, Fielder has expressed his penis anxiety in his art before — in a highly NSFW way — so it’s not crazy to think that Evans could fuel that flame.
There is palpable tension between Fielder and Evans throughout the film. At different points, it feels like the two men are literally fighting over what’s best for Holmes. Fielder obviously distrusts him even more than Holmes, but he also benefits from how easily they dismiss him as a comedian. Evans, between his technical jargon and suspicious sniffing, likes to use therapeutic language to feign disappointment in Fielder’s method (heh) and also subtly mention the number of guns he keeps on him in a highly paranoid manner. If he’s not a guy who watches Andrew Tate videos and Nick Fuentes streams, I don’t know who else would be. And a man like that aims to project a literal dick measuring contest fueled by a sigma male grindset. Unless of course…
Theory #4: Billy officially invites Fielder (maybe Oppenheim too?) to a group with him and Elizabeth.
You can see everything is full of tension between this sort of triangle, and that tension can often be a bit sexually charged. There are moments when Fielder acts fascinated or protective of Holmes – and whether this is a conscious construct to be built into the filming process or a genuine reaction on his part, we are aware that something is going on between them. Even though Evans can play the dynamic with competitive aggression, there’s also a twinge of sexual curiosity in his eyes, recognizable to anyone who’s ever been hit by a couple with the my partner and I noticed you across the bar type of game. Is this too much? Well, think about this: why were these guys chosen to make this documentary?
In the film, it is mentioned that Holmes and Evans had spoken to different studios about a project documenting his final days before surrendering, and when Fielder and Oppenheim’s idea became a possibility, they were open to it. At one point, Evans claims to have shown Holmes Nathan for you and argued that it might therefore be the right choice. Now to everyone who watched Nathan for you, what about this show would make them think Fielder was the person for the job? As Fielder helpfully points out, and I’m obviously paraphrasing, Isn’t it funny that I did a show where I worked with fraudulent companies and you go to jail for a fraudulent company? Fielder openly wonders why he was given this access: it makes him curious and a little anxious. He wonders if he only got the job because he’s not someone who is expected to understand the science or details of what Holmes is accused of. He also wonders if they see him as someone who can be easily manipulated. And part of this manipulation might lie in a very subtle type of seduction. This is, after all, what some people accused Holmes of doing in order to get the funding she secured for Theranos.
Now, I’ve always found this argument about Holmes a bit… tasteless. Wow, a skinny blonde 20 year old woman managed to convince a group of old men to give her money? What powers of seduction she must have. But I think this question of seduction is imperative when it comes to the shady rich of Silicon Valley and how they perceive comedians. If you’ve been paying attention to these wealthy ghouls who consider themselves the technological elite, you might notice that they have a strange fixation on comedy and entertainment. It’s hard to know why this is the case, but perhaps it’s as simple as understanding that natural charisma is something that they all lack (and have lacked since they were children) and that they wish to acquire it in some sort of vampiric way, which can also be in a highly sexual way.
Could Evans have believed that bringing a comedian of Fielder’s stature into their circle, seducing him into their dynamic and their lives, would cleanse her in a healthy way and reinforce their oath of innocence to the masses at large? Is it despicable? Does that give him too much credit? Is this little peek at his low-hanging fruit in the shower a literal version of what happens to Hollywood actors and comedians who come into the orbit of these tech gurus, both current and aspiring, who are…
Gn entert
