Louis Theroux vs Westboro Baptists

[Pieface]

I'd say that we're fascinated by America full stop, never mind the "crazy" side of it.

One country which I think does suffer from a bit of wacky overkill coverage is Japan. I don't think I've ever seen something covering that country that wasn't focussing on the eccentric.

Didn't Louis only make his move into the US as a documentarian fairly recently? He was concentrated on the UK for a long time...also, the language is why he's focussing on the States and the UK. His style of doc wouldn't work so well with translators - it relies on the relationships he builds, ergo, english speaking countries get his attention only.

You're just jealous cos you're a boring old Canadian, Jonny, admit it.

 

[Balbi]

I think America was the basis for most of his 'Weird Weekends'; the survivalists, pornstars and all of that lot.

It's (possibly) a cultural thing. The U.S groups are usually those who are very passionate about their subject, and envision the documentary as an opportunity to promote their views to a wider (British) audience. The freedom of speech entitled in the constitution allows them to shout about it all they like, whereas in the U.K certain groups have a much heavier element of quiet around their activities as it's seen as 'not done'.

But JC2 was just spinning yarn as usual

 

[mwgdrwg]

This was an interesting thread discussing the Louis Theroux television programme by people who'd seen it. Such a pity is got completely derailed. Why not start a new thread elsewhere to discuss wether or not Brits are obsessed with the evil and fucked up side of America eh?

 

[Dandred]

This was an interesting thread discussing the Louis Theroux television programme by people who'd seen it. Such a pity is got completely derailed.

JC2 usually has no other use than to derail threads

 

[ovaltina]

JC2 usually has no other use than to derail threads

tbh I was thinking that too - he hasn't even seen it! Piss off JC2!

 

[Macabre]

I just watched it on youtube (<--my eyes were actually like that the whole time!)

My bloody normally boils when I watch things like this but the were just so ridiculous I couldn't feel anything against them other than pity. Those poor, poor children being stuck in that horrible situation

 

[stavros]

Nope, no judgement there: he just happened to happen upon these particular american subgroups, as opposed to anti poverty activists, conservationists, surfers, etc etc etc.

The man obviously knows his audience

To an extent yes. I think the aim of the programmes is to try to understand subcultures which on first glance would appear to revile us. Few people would take major issue with anti-poverty, certainly compared with the KKK. However, by ingraining himself within the particular subculture, Louis allows us to see the subtle humanist qualities of these people, ie. the old adage "there's a bit of good in everyone". However, with Sunday's show it was very difficult to isolate where these qualities were exactly. The 21 year old girl seemed to want to exhibit something but ultimately she retreated back into the shell of the lines she'd seemed to have been fed. As I said before, this was the first time one of Louis' shows showed little or no ray of sunshine.

 

[Melinda]

Repeat started NOW on BBC 2 (Wed 23.20)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No idea what "Adam 12" is - am I expected to?

No. Just a tv show.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sounds about right

My point actually was that this dark heart is not shown by mainstream American media particularly so we need to see this other side, which is actually a lot more persuasive and actual than you think. After all the idiot son was voted in twice. And docs like this that show the exaggerated side are pretty rare to be fair, the 'other' side you think we miss is a never ending torrent that invades almost every channel.

I'm talking about the world of documentary filmmaking in particular, but I'm not sure that the mainstream media bombards you with the positive side of America. What would that be: a George Bush press conference? A discussion of the Florida vote scandal? New Orleans and Katrina?

What about mainstream programming: CSI, a show that has one american murdering another on every episode? The Simpsons? South Park? The Miss America Pageant?

Documentaries aren't the news; they're a narrative with a point of view, based upon facts, events or people. And, it seems to me, the point of view of many of these british documentaries, is somewhat uniform.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Goodwin's so soon? The only generalisations in this thread are coming from you Johnny: Urban are a bunch who represent all British people, all British docs are negative lowest common denominator freakshows, Americans are actually all lovely people, etc...

Godwin's law is all well and good, but hitler did exist, he did do things, and sometimes it's apropos to analogize from then to now.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's more the case that people don't want to give them the oxygen of publicity.

Part of a free and democratic debate, is knowledge about what's actually going on out there.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I have a question for JC2:

Do you think the reaction to the documentary would have been any different - that we would have "lapped it up" any less, had it been about a group of British religious extremists?

Hard to say. Judging from what other posters have said, documentarians don't seem to want to give british extremists the oxygen of publicity, so it's not something that happens very often.

But I suspect you'd have been interested in that also. People are interested in the bizarre. But a bias can be formed in a viewer, when all he sees concerning a place, is the bizarre elements of it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

tbh I was thinking that too - he hasn't even seen it! Piss off JC2!

Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.

It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.

And their message is bleak, because they labour under a shared psychosis. It's interesting to listen to these people: they're erudite, they train as lawyers, they're presentable, they smile a lot; but their 'religion' - well, I think Louis got it right. It's hate based, and the hate springs from the old grand dad. He's poisoned his family in a very effective way.

So what we have, is a documentary about a poisoned, diseased family. Nothing broader than that. They aren't a cult that's growing, because in their book, everyone but them is going to hell. Billy Graham is going to hell. Diana is already there. The kids won't be getting married, so the cancer will die out with time. And the message they preach won't spread, because it's illogical, and out of touch even with the religion that supposedly spawned it.

So tell me: what did you learn about the human condition from that film; what novel take on the world did it give us? I think the answer is; nothing. I think what we got, was 'look at the crazies'. And it's interesting to look at crazies, but not particularly illuminating.

What's the definiton of pornography again: something about a thing that's designed only to shock and tittilate, with no other inherent value. Like the National Enquirer, the Daily Mail; shock without substance.


Do you want a documentary that possesses nuance in its exposition of an american family? Try 'Crumb', from 1994.

 

[Cid]

Excuse me for quoting myself, but:

Yes, but we don't just get those... In fact there're relatively few of them shown. The docus that recieve big airtime tend to be political (eg the Adam Curtis ones) and often these focus on negative aspects, but applied worldwide rather than just to the US. In fact there were some particularly poor docus shortly after 9/11 that painted the US in a positive light. But that's about the USG, not the US people. On a more human level there are a fair few films that look at things which appeal to mass culture - people suffering disfiguring illnesses etc, the history of gangsters but these tend to be shown on channel 5 which no-one really takes eriously.

Conversly the BBC has made some very good docus about American life, as an example BBC4 had a New York week not long ago which was excellent... I didn't watch all of it but the docus I did see were excellent, the one that particulary stood out was once upon a time in New York about the way that the punk, disco and hip-hop grew simultaneously in the '70s and '80s. There's loads more out there ofc, imagine has covered prolific artistic figures; Arthur Miller, Brian Wilson, Brando, Warhol etc, BBC4 has done loads of stuff on the evolution of modern music (which often relates to marginalised sectors of American society) - even Bill Oddie's spent his time looking at wildlife in the states. All of these have shown the people of America in a positive light, though many criticise the government.

 

[tiki]

Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.

It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.

And their message is bleak, because they labour under a shared psychosis. It's interesting to listen to these people: they're erudite, they train as lawyers, they're presentable, they smile a lot; but their 'religion' - well, I think Louis got it right. It's hate based, and the hate springs from the old grand dad. He's poisoned his family in a very effective way.

So what we have, is a documentary about a poisoned, diseased family. Nothing broader than that. They aren't a cult that's growing, because in their book, everyone but them is going to hell. Billy Graham is going to hell. Diana is already there. The kids won't be getting married, so the cancer will die out with time. And the message they preach won't spread, because it's illogical, and out of touch even with the religion that supposedly spawned it.

So tell me: what did you learn about the human condition from that film; what novel take on the world did it give us? I think the answer is; nothing. I think what we got, was 'look at the crazies'. And it's interesting to look at crazies, but not particularly illuminating.

What's the definiton of pornography again: something about a thing that's designed only to shock and tittilate, with no other inherent value. Like the National Enquirer, the Daily Mail; shock without substance.


Do you want a documentary that possesses nuance in its exposition of an american family? Try 'Crumb', from 1994.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Huh! What, did somebody say something.

 

[Firky]

Religion is regarded by the many people as true, and by others as false, and by a select few, the rulers as useful. Such as Fred Phelps.

Didn't watch it however. I like Louis Theroux I just can't be arsed with the whole obsession of watching Americans make prats of themselves.

 

[cosmic commando]

So tell me: what did you learn about the human condition from that film; what novel take on the world did it give us? I think the answer is; nothing. I think what we got, was 'look at the crazies'. And it's interesting to look at crazies, but not particularly illuminating.

Theroux showcasing such an extreme example did make me question how much of myself is me and how much is the family I grew up with, in a way I've never questioned before. What peculiarities have I picked up, and don't question thanks to Ma, Pa, etc.

I can say, well, my family is not the extreme of the Phelps family, and my upbringing was exposed to more diversity, but still, it's that unsettling feeling of being a product, of possibly just as ridiculous/ignorant/misguided forces .

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Theroux showcasing such an extreme example did make me question how much of myself is me and how much is the family I grew up with, in a way I've never questioned before. What peculiarities have I picked up, and don't question thanks to Ma, Pa, etc.

I can say, well, my family is not the extreme of the Phelps family, and my upbringing was exposed to more diversity, but still, it's that unsettling feeling of being a product, of possibly just as ridiculous/ignorant/misguided forces .

Good observation.

 

[Firky]

Some might even say it was well observed.

 

[Melinda]

I watched the repeat. I was disappointed in Louis. I thought he was poor.

His one trick pony act was seen through by that evil old bastard Phelps and whats worse is Louis knew it. He had the fear (why??) and was properly intimidated by a man whose beeb bullying people over 40 years. Louis knew that going in, why not prepare better?

 

[Guineveretoo]

I'm talking about the world of documentary filmmaking in particular, but I'm not sure that the mainstream media bombards you with the positive side of America. What would that be: a George Bush press conference? A discussion of the Florida vote scandal? New Orleans and Katrina?

What about mainstream programming: CSI, a show that has one american murdering another on every episode? The Simpsons? South Park? The Miss America Pageant?

Documentaries aren't the news; they're a narrative with a point of view, based upon facts, events or people. And, it seems to me, the point of view of many of these british documentaries, is somewhat uniform.

This is a strange statement from someone who clearly has little notion or experience of the sort of television programmes, including those about the USA, which are shown in this country!

You said, yourself, that you had never seen a programme made by Theroux, for example.

Perhaps I am wrong, and you have seen lots of other programmes, but I don't think so. You seem to have decided a position based on mere speculation and because of a thread about a particularly quirky programme maker, and are not interested in discussing that position

 

[Guineveretoo]

Hard to say. Judging from what other posters have said, documentarians don't seem to want to give british extremists the oxygen of publicity, so it's not something that happens very often.

But I suspect you'd have been interested in that also. People are interested in the bizarre. But a bias can be formed in a viewer, when all he sees concerning a place, is the bizarre elements of it.

Actually, these extremists DO have documentaries and news programmes made about them, including hidden camera programmes, which have been pretty mind blowing. What was discussed was the fact that Louis Theroux is not likely to seek out the BNP for a cosy, friendly, chat in the way that he does with the individual British weirdoes he has focussed on.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.

It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.

And their message is bleak, because they labour under a shared psychosis. It's interesting to listen to these people: they're erudite, they train as lawyers, they're presentable, they smile a lot; but their 'religion' - well, I think Louis got it right. It's hate based, and the hate springs from the old grand dad. He's poisoned his family in a very effective way.

So what we have, is a documentary about a poisoned, diseased family. Nothing broader than that. They aren't a cult that's growing, because in their book, everyone but them is going to hell. Billy Graham is going to hell. Diana is already there. The kids won't be getting married, so the cancer will die out with time. And the message they preach won't spread, because it's illogical, and out of touch even with the religion that supposedly spawned it.

So tell me: what did you learn about the human condition from that film; what novel take on the world did it give us? I think the answer is; nothing. I think what we got, was 'look at the crazies'. And it's interesting to look at crazies, but not particularly illuminating.

What's the definiton of pornography again: something about a thing that's designed only to shock and tittilate, with no other inherent value. Like the National Enquirer, the Daily Mail; shock without substance.


Do you want a documentary that possesses nuance in its exposition of an american family? Try 'Crumb', from 1994.

Well done for watching it!

What did you think of Louis' style and way of working?

I am not sure that anyone on this thread or elsewhere said that we were learning anything about the human condition. As you say, it was made quite clear that we were looking at one family with a few outsiders attached. As has also been pointed out, a lot of Louis' programmes have been about ONE person, or a couple, not even a family! I don't suppose anyone who watched the programme about Jimmy Savile thought that he was an ambassador for his generation, or even that all British pensioners are like that

 

[Guineveretoo]

I watched the repeat. I was disappointed in Louis. I thought he was poor.

His one trick pony act was seen through by that evil old bastard Phelps and whats worse is Louis knew it. He had the fear (why??) and was properly intimidated by a man whose beeb bullying people over 40 years. Louis knew that going in, why not prepare better?

As I said earlier in this thread, I beleive, I was surprised at how nervous Louis appeared to be when speaking directly to "Gramps". He handled it really badly, and didn't even ask interesting or useful questions, and allowed Fred Phelps to ignore the questions he asked and to run rings round him.

Maybe it is because Louis can't cope with that type of questioning of someone he hasn't spent time with. When he spent time with the white extremists a few years ago, he asked much more searching questions, but he had hours with them over several days before doing so?

 

[Melinda]

As I said earlier in this thread, I beleive, I was surprised at how nervous Louis appeared to be when speaking directly to "Gramps". He handled it really badly, and didn't even ask interesting or useful questions, and allowed Fred Phelps to ignore the questions he asked and to run rings round him.

Thats the part I found disappointing to watch. Phelps had him for breakfast. Asking the same question over and over. I was willing him to ask something interesting too.

Phelps had dont his homework,and Louis hadnt I feel.

 

[Structaural]

Godwin's law is all well and good, but hitler did exist, he did do things, and sometimes it's apropos to analogize from then to now.

Shush, you lost, my hyperbolic friend.

You'd do better to seek out the docu you're criticising in a vacuum and be able to comment with some intelligence rather than generalising wildly with weak and inappropiate analogies.

 

[rhod]

Hard to say. Judging from what other posters have said, documentarians don't seem to want to give british extremists the oxygen of publicity, so it's not something that happens very often.

Yeah, why do we have to settle for Jon Ronson interviewing legendary moderates Omar Bakri and Ian Paisley all the time ?

 

[Structaural]

Part of a free and democratic debate, is knowledge about what's actually going on out there.

The knowledge is out there, it exists, I've watched it. I'm glad it's not on all the time. The opinions of idiots, whilst I won't disallow them a voice, are hardly particularly worthy though.

 

[Structaural]

Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.

It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.

And their message is bleak, because they labour under a shared psychosis. It's interesting to listen to these people: they're erudite, they train as lawyers, they're presentable, they smile a lot; but their 'religion' - well, I think Louis got it right. It's hate based, and the hate springs from the old grand dad. He's poisoned his family in a very effective way.

So what we have, is a documentary about a poisoned, diseased family. Nothing broader than that. They aren't a cult that's growing, because in their book, everyone but them is going to hell. Billy Graham is going to hell. Diana is already there. The kids won't be getting married, so the cancer will die out with time. And the message they preach won't spread, because it's illogical, and out of touch even with the religion that supposedly spawned it.

So tell me: what did you learn about the human condition from that film; what novel take on the world did it give us? I think the answer is; nothing. I think what we got, was 'look at the crazies'. And it's interesting to look at crazies, but not particularly illuminating.

What's the definiton of pornography again: something about a thing that's designed only to shock and tittilate, with no other inherent value. Like the National Enquirer, the Daily Mail; shock without substance.


Do you want a documentary that possesses nuance in its exposition of an american family? Try 'Crumb', from 1994.

Oh you did, well done

You seem to want a particular view, yourself, in the documentaries that are made. Theroux deals with the fringes of society so that's what you get. I'll look out for Crumb.