Louis Theroux vs Westboro Baptists

[Guineveretoo]

I'm not constantly anything about Louis Theroux. I don't know his work. My comment was about the penchant for british documentarians to make documentaries about US crazies, and the apparent appetite of the british public for such documentaries.

But this thread is about a specific programme about a specific group of people!

If it is about other programmes about US society or whatever, I will have to admit that I really can't think of any other than those made by Theroux. You see, I am a bit of a fan of his, so I watch the programmes he makes, and I read the books he writes, and I even go to listen to him at the Battersea Arts Festival! Sometimes he talks about Americans, but not always. Perhaps it is just that, with the population of the USA being slightly bigger than that of the UK, there are more groups out there? I mean, we have our weirdos, but a lot of them do seem to be on their own. Anyone remember that guy with the sandwich board who used to walk around Central London, telling us that we were all doomed for something or other?

In fact, only yesterday, there was a bloke standing on the corner of Oxford Street shouting about freemasonry and holding up placards saying that 10% of judges are freemasons, and 46% of CPS lawyers! Kind of weird, but on his own, not much of a programme?

Anyway, speaking for myself. I don't devour documentaries about Americans. Mostly, I wouldn't even watch them, to be frank. The Theroux ones are only actually watched by a minority audience, too. Neither do I judge the population of the USA depending on what I have seen on telly. If I did, there is no way I would have visited there so many times, and had so many Americans as friends and lovers, let me tell you!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Or possibly watching the documentaries on which threads are based perhaps.

I recommend the Jimmy Savile one highly, truly wierd televison

I'll watch for these Theroux documentaries. Doesn't change my opinion about the british fascination with US crazies, though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But this thread is about a specific programme about a specific group of people!

Yep; then I broadened the discussion.

 

[Balbi]

I'll watch for these Theroux documentaries. Doesn't change my opinion about the british fascination with US crazies, though.

Or the U.S fascination with those darned funny furreners

 

[Guineveretoo]

I'll watch for these Theroux documentaries. Doesn't change my opinion about the british fascination with US crazies, though.

You really are not listening, are you? Most people in this country haven't even heard of Louis Theroux. He is, himself, a bit of a weirdo, who makes minority interest programmes which are shown on BBC2 or other minority channels, and writes books which are never even remotely close to becoming best sellers.

I don't have a particular fascination for "US crazies", and I really don't see how you are coming to this conclusion based on a thread about a very non-mainstream programme maker! You are just weird, really, aren't you? Perhaps you are a crazy?

Shall we get Theroux over there to make a film about you?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Yep; then I broadened the discussion.

But in doing so, you missed the point, and irritated a lot of people, including myself, who do not see Theroux as being a mainstream television person!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Perhaps it is just that, with the population of the USA being slightly bigger than that of the UK, there are more groups out there? I mean, we have our weirdos, but a lot of them do seem to be on their own.

I don't know: off the top of my head, I can think of a number of british groups that could qualify: the BNP, skinheads, muslim radicals, the IRA, the Ulster Protestants, british C&W enthusiasts, soccer hooligans, etc. I'm sure that people who live there can think of lots more.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But in doing so, you missed the point, and irritated a lot of people, including myself, who do not see Theroux as being a mainstream television person!

It doesn't take much to irritate you, does it?

Recall my original comment; "British documentarians seem to like to concentrate on the strange aspects of US culture, and the british audience seems to lap it up."

How and why does that irritate you, unless it's true, of course?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You really are not listening, are you? Most people in this country haven't even heard of Louis Theroux. He is, himself, a bit of a weirdo, who makes minority interest programmes which are shown on BBC2 or other minority channels, and writes books which are never even remotely close to becoming best sellers.

I don't have a particular fascination for "US crazies", and I really don't see how you are coming to this conclusion based on a thread about a very non-mainstream programme maker! You are just weird, really, aren't you? Perhaps you are a crazy?

Shall we get Theroux over there to make a film about you?

When I came across the thread, about a documentarian [theroux], who'd made a docu about a fringe US group, it made me recall how other british documentarians seemed to also like to choose similar topics. What's odd about that, and how is it an attack on theroux?

 

[Cid]

I have watched british documentaries about US crazies.

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.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Or the U.S fascination with those darned funny furreners

They aren't that interested. You wouldn't see a lot of docuementaries in the US about foreign crazies, unless it somehow had a US angle or impact.

 

[Balbi]

Ah, here we come to something.

Unlike our American counterparts, the groups you have named don't want to be on television. They don't see it as a promotion of their ideas and organisations, because they know Theroux deals primarily with wierd bastards. Americans *heart* being on television.

It's a British thing, you might not understand

 

[Cid]

I don't know: off the top of my head, I can think of a number of british groups that could qualify: the BNP, skinheads, muslim radicals, the IRA, the Ulster Protestants, british C&W enthusiasts, soccer hooligans, etc. I'm sure that people who live there can think of lots more.

I think Theroux is probably too shit scared to approach those guys, the thing about working in the states is that people don't really know what they're getting whereas people here are a) more aware of his work and b) less likely to accept a middle class BBC reporter as something of a quirky oddity. Incidentally pratically all of the above groups have had hidden camera style docus made about them over here.

 

[Guineveretoo]

It doesn't take much to irritate you, does it?

Recall my original comment; "British documentarians seem to like to concentrate on the strange aspects of US culture, and the british audience seems to lap it up."

How and why does that irritate you, unless it's true, of course?

Because, as I have stated and demonstrated several times, I am a fan of Louis Theroux, and the statement was made on a thread about him, when you admit that you know nothing about him, and have never seen his work

This site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1488890.stm although out of date, might explain a bit about him and why his documentaries are not actually documentaries, and perhaps explain why I find it irritating that you are lumping him in with something unrelated.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ah, here we come to something.

Unlike our American counterparts, the groups you have named don't want to be on television. They don't see it as a promotion of their ideas and organisations, because they know Theroux deals primarily with wierd bastards. Americans *heart* being on television.

It's a British thing, you might not understand

I think usually, documentarians misrepresent themselves a little to these fringe groups. They come across as if they care, when what they intend to do is slag them off.

I'd bet that documentaries have been made about all those groups, maybe not by british filmmakers. A good documentarian finds a way to win the trust of the subject.

 

[Cid]

You can watch a fair amount of his stuff online at alluc.org btw.

 

[Balbi]

Johnny is all about the unrelated stuff which he puts forward as an interesting line of debate on the topic at hand. Then we all dance merrily around him until it's time for his bed time, and the topic is abandoned some ten pages longer and so far away from the original point that the whole thread is rendered useless.

It's crude but effective.

JC2 = Fred Phelps

 

[Guineveretoo]

When I came across the thread, about a documentarian [theroux], who'd made a docu about a fringe US group, it made me recall how other british documentarians seemed to also like to choose similar topics. What's odd about that, and how is it an attack on theroux?

Firstly, he is not a documentarian as such, secondly, he doesn't make documentaries as such and thirdly, I didn't say it was an attack on Theroux, I said it was irritating because you were going on and on about something quite irrelevant to the thread and, in so doing, repeatedly showing your ignorance about someone of whom I a bit of a fan (although unlike someone else in this thread, I don't actually want to marry him!)

 

[Cid]

I think usually, documentarians misrepresent themselves a little to these fringe groups. They come across as if they care, when what they intend to do is slag them off.

I'd bet that documentaries have been made about all those groups, maybe not by british filmmakers. A good documentarian finds a way to win the trust of the subject.

Well as I said most have had undercover docus made about them here.

Johnny is all about the unrelated stuff which he puts forward as an interesting line of debate on the topic at hand. Then we all dance merrily around him until it's time for his bed time, and the topic is abandoned some ten pages longer and so far away from the original point that the whole thread is rendered useless.

It's crude but effective.

JC2 = Fred Phelps

Hehe, pretty much... I like arguing with Johnny though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Banned in the UK!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think Theroux is probably too shit scared to approach those guys, the thing about working in the states is that people don't really know what they're getting whereas people here are a) more aware of his work and b) less likely to accept a middle class BBC reporter as something of a quirky oddity. Incidentally pratically all of the above groups have had hidden camera style docus made about them over here.

I don't think he could make a "weird weekends" type programme about any of those groups. He is pushing it a bit with the American crazies, in fact. When he first came to popular attention, his programmes were about people like Jimmy Savile, and Paul Daniels, and that boxer who lives on the southcoast and has a dead posh voice with a lisp, but treats his wife and family really badly (I watched the progamme, but can't remember his name! ), and the Hamiltons, and even Anne Widdicombe.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

BNP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3900381.stm

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think usually, documentarians misrepresent themselves a little to these fringe groups. They come across as if they care, when what they intend to do is slag them off.

I'd bet that documentaries have been made about all those groups, maybe not by british filmmakers. A good documentarian finds a way to win the trust of the subject.

One of the really strange things about Theroux is that he genuinely does make friends with a lot of the people about whom he makes programmes, and keeps in touch with them. He wrote a book about that, too, and revisited some of them.

 

[Cid]

Banned in the UK!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/

There are plenty of others, check out Donal Macintyre/Macintyre undercover.

 

[Balbi]

Banned in the UK!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/

I'd not class this as a documentary, but as a 'Worst Car Crashes' or 'Goalkeeping Errors' video. Just a violent form ot it.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Banned in the UK!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/

Is it really banned in the UK? It just seems to be footage of lots of football hooliganism, which we certainly see plenty of on the news

Not at all sure of the point you are making here, if any....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Johnny is all about the unrelated stuff which he puts forward as an interesting line of debate on the topic at hand. Then we all dance merrily around him until it's time for his bed time, and the topic is abandoned some ten pages longer and so far away from the original point that the whole thread is rendered useless.

It's crude but effective.

JC2 = Fred Phelps

Well, how many pages of 'ooh, did you see those crazies?!' could you stomach, before wanting to talk about something with a bit of substance?

What this thread is now, is a debate about the nature of british documentary filmmaking. If you liked the thread better in the first three pages, well, you shouldn't bother posting now.

 

[Guineveretoo]

BNP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3900381.stm

That's right - that was mentioned. There have been quite a few documentaries about this bunch seen on telly already.

Again, not sure of your point....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There are plenty of others, check out Donal Macintyre/Macintyre undercover.

I was responding to the poster who said that these UK groups didn't figure in documentaries, because unlike US groups, they didn't want the publicity.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Well, how many pages of 'ooh, did you see those crazies?!' could you stomach, before wanting to talk about something with a bit of substance?

What this thread is now, is a debate about the nature of british documentary filmmaking. If you liked the thread better in the first three pages, well, you shouldn't bother posting now.

That's what you are trying to make it into. Some of us are trying to stop you from doing so, and are resisting your attempts to hijack the thread

Doing quite well, too. Shame I have to sleep soon - I could do this all night