In the hit documentary “You Can See Everything”, one of the big controversies is that Elizabeth HolmesThe fiancé pushes the filmmakers to participate in the film’s profits.
Several media outlets described the incident as scandalous, calling the decision inappropriate and reporting that Billy Evansthe “bad guy” of the film ends up waiving the fee.
But, sources tell us, there could be more to the story after the cameras stop rolling.
Page Six Hollywood has learned that Evans is seeking legal representation and recently contacted one of the city’s most reputable attorneys, telling him he expects a cut of the profits.
The high-flying legal eagle did not take the job, we hear. “He wanted to stay out of that one,” a source told us of the prominent litigator who met with Evans.
It’s unclear why Evans is hiring a lawyer, but the source added that Evans is seeking legal representation because he’s supposed to get a certain percentage of the film’s profits and might donate them to charity.
In the hit documentary about Holmes, the convicted Theranos crook’s fiancé (who has been dubbed “the film’s flagship villain” and other variations of the film’s villain) is depicted as brazenly trying to profit from the film in conversations with the filmmakers.
According to a NewsNation article about the film: “In one of the most breathtaking dramatizations of the film, an actor playing Evans explains that he and Holmes would participate in the documentary if they received a share of the profits, which is not a common practice for documentaries. »
(Nathan Fielder And Lance OppenheimThe film mixes documentary images and reconstructions.)
Reports in other media outlets also got hold of Evans, the scion of a wealthy San Diego hotel family, calling for money to be included in the documentary, saying it would be “usually reserved for a promotional piece commissioned by a musician, not a non-fiction film interviewing a notorious subject in depth,” according to the Guardian. “Evans is the one violating documentary standards by requesting profit sharing…” the report states.
An LA Times report on the film states that Evans’ payment was “an arrangement Fielder feared could compromise the integrity of the project. Evans ultimately agreed to forgo the payment.”
But doctors tell us that’s not always the case.
“One of the big revelations of the film is, ‘Can you believe how ridiculous this is’ (that Evans is asking to be paid),” says an independent film producer whose films are regular darlings of the festival circuit and have won major awards. “I participated in 25 documentaries whose subjects recur,” that is to say part of the profits. “There are doctors all the time where people are paid in advance.”
“People get paid every day,” the source said. “Yes, there is an argument in this ‘journalistic purity path’” that subjects should not be paid. “It’s a debate that has been going on forever (in the documentary world) if we follow the formalist rules.”
But the source said: “There’s also a difference between paying (Evans and Holmes) and sharing the money if the movie becomes profitable. It’s going to make an obscene amount of money.”
Again, “I applaud the filmmakers for acting like this is just outrageous.”
(We reached out to Evans for comment and did not receive a response.)
The film about disgraced tech founder Holmes has certainly made money at the box office so far, opening to $15 million in its limited release and expanding to 2,600 screens this weekend. Box office tracking suggests it could fail Michael Moore“Fahrenheit 9/11” as the highest-grossing non-fiction film of all time.
It remains to be seen whether all of this goes into the pockets of Evans and Holmes. Stay tuned..
Gn entert
