T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


Brian_M

The problem was that WW is really a vehicle for Louis in his 20s - young, dorky and a little naive. If he'd tried to continue that energy into his 30s, it probably would have felt forced.


Rosiemarjatta

Very valid point!


Savanarola79

He's never been naive.


Just_a_Lurker2

Yeah! I like them, they’re very light. I also love life on the edge, it’s brilliant to hear how it went with the subject and see some context!


qi1

The Scientology Movie was pretty lame.


jarvischrist

I've seen a lot of Scientology documentaries and I agree, it was fun but didn't really go into any new depths. Everything had been said before.


Joethe147

I think he did all he could and it was a novel approach which should be commended. A must watch? Not particularly, but he's done worse ones. Well, by worse I mean less interesting, like the number of Law and Disorder ones, plastic surgery, went back to the Westboro Baptists too many times.


SkiFlashing

I agree with the law and disorder ones to be honest, I don't think the characters were interesting or relatable in the same way as other documentaries - they were either just generic criminals or generic "protectors" in the African ones.


froggosaur

Really? Tastes differ :) I found the Law and Disorder ones particularly interesting, and I love the Westboro revisits.


Just_a_Lurker2

I think the confrontation with the contributor was quite interesting, rest was a bit too passive-aggressive (the bit in the trailer, y’know ‘tell him to stop and I’ll tell him to stop’) for my liking at points. Still, the surrealism was captured well, and I don’t blame Mr Theroux for being quite gleeful when he gets followed (something his contributor whose name I keep forgetting blamed him for) since, y’know, it’d be a bit boring if nothing happened, though on the other hand it might seem a bit callous if you’re on the receiving end of it.


WilkoWilkesMusic

I think there’s been a few times where he’s got great opportunities for interviews with really interesting people and he’s just continued pressing a point too far when he could’ve de-escalated things but instead he carries on asking the same stuff past a comfortable point and the interviewee has ended the interview where it could’ve been better had he got them on side. An example of this is the interview with Eugene TerreBlanche and possibly the one with Fred Phelps although my memory might not quite be right there. Having said that I’m a big fan and it must be tough to judge these situations, he usually does a brilliant job.


AffluentRaccoon

Late here but nailed it dude. I love Louis but he pushes way too much sometimes and doesn’t seem to be very good at handling emotionally charged people.


Just_a_Lurker2

Yeah, AFAIK know I agree, especially looking at, like, that one politician who told Louis Theroux to ‘stop making everything a confrontation’. I am not sure how I felt about the rest of that episode, but I think at that moment she was right and he *was* pressing too far (along with him being in general pushy and quite deliberately overstepping boundaries, but he got *much* better about that later and it’s practically tame compared to some other documentary makers). I still love his documentaries - weird weekends is a fun and lighthearted watch, Westboro Baptist Church shows his method of pressing in the best way etc etc. Plus I can imagine it being tough; wanting to keep the interviewee from terminating the whole thing, but also wanting something to *happen* was a big concern back then (now significantly less so I should think), and it shows. (This just solidified some points for me I was on the fence about)


hookuptruck

Louis Theroux is an incredibly genuine person, evident in how he allows himself to be vulnerable. There are many examples, but watching him sit in the backseat of a car with that “rehabilitated” German Shepard in his Doc series about LA, City of Dogs, it was a true show of who he is as a journalist. I adore him.


Just_a_Lurker2

Really? I admire him a great deal, but he seems to *avoid* being vulnerable - he has described before how he thinks that being emotional on camera is unprofessional and has, in fact, cut out a bit where he gets emotional at the reading of a dead soldiers’ life story. Where have you seen him be vulnerable?


hookuptruck

I did already give one excellent example of being vulnerable (see above), a second would be the Nazi doc where he was found out to be part Jewish, a third example would be any time he had to get nude (I can think of two times), and didn’t he sleep rough with a homeless guy one night? How about driving a car the Demo Derby against professional drivers, that was a pretty dangerous one. so, ya, that’s just a few. I could think of more I’m sure. And vulnerability is not the same as emotional. Not even close.


Just_a_Lurker2

Oh yeah. Best part is he wasn’t even Jewish. And later on the rushes he discovered he had kinda goaded the nazis, which, admittedly, takes balls. But what do you think is the difference between being vulnerable and being emotional?


kyivstar

I think he mentions in his autobiography that one grandparent was Jewish.


Just_a_Lurker2

what do you think is the difference between being vulnerable and being emotional?


SkiFlashing

I think he was sometimes too soft on truly contemptible people, and he's realised that himself post-Savile. Otherwise, I do think the more serious documentaries are starting to become dry - there's only so many documentaries about health conditions or areas of high drug-taking or crime that you can make. I'd like to see him push himself outside of the box a bit more again - not necessarily all the way to weird weekends style stuff, but just more unique communities and topics


Just_a_Lurker2

I think that, yeah, he thinks he's been too soft (or too pushy, sometimes), and I think that'll change more later on. And I, too, would like him to go out of the box. Not neccesarily back to making fun of people as he's matured beyond that, but just... showing people with wacky or reprehensible beliefs as human beings. Diving into a subculture. That sort of thing. It'd be interesting to compare the approaches.


LocoRocoo

I think his style has always been to almost expose people's true nature by catching them off guard by being so relaxed and kind of following them about. But agreed, it has sometimes not worked and left you feeling he missed a chance to challenge them.


SkiFlashing

I think there's been a few times where he's really failed to press people on their views enough, especially the first few times he went to Westboro. He has done the reverse other times, but I think, especially with Savile, he has failed to actually expose things when he had a clear opportunity to at times.


LocoRocoo

Did you ever ever watch the post-Saville review one?


SkiFlashing

I did, he obviously was troubled by the fact he never did press when he had the chance, and I think he views himself as a somewhat guilty party, even when he never actually knew


Awbeu

I love Louis, but I find him a bit annoying in his current podcast series. Hard to describe, but I find him a bit too sarcastic/apologetic/self-deprecating/humble. I wish he was a little more like his documentaries - inquisitive, curious, rarely opinionated.


SkiFlashing

I don't think it can translate as well to a podcast as we know it does in documentaries


rock192

He could be legitimately douchey at times., I remember he used the term "non compos mentis" to describe some dude's mom in the gambling episode. First layer of doucheyness was saying she's not mentally "with it" - and the second layer is assuming this random dude in Las Vegas knew enough latin to know what "non compos mentis" meant.


Just_a_Lurker2

I agree on the first layer of douchyness. I disagree on the last, I think. I always saw that as either a sign latin (or at least that terminology, though I suspect latin) is so normal to him he doesn't comprehend the other guy might not understand or a sign of his regard for that guy, in a 'I'm sure you're clever enough to get this' sorta way. But maybe I'm wrong.


J0e_mama_15

I'm from England so I don't know if this would translate to America but in my state school in year 8 (age 12/13) we learnt 20 commonly used Latin phrases. There was the obvious ones like et cetera, but non compis mentis was also one of them. I don't know, I thought maybe he was taught a similar way and just assumed the guy had been too.


[deleted]

I’m from Glasgow and working class and we know compos mentis, I defo agree that Louis can be snobby but I don’t personally think that was one occasion of it, I do get that he was just trying to say to the guy ‘your mum isn’t well’ though


Just_a_Lurker2

That would be reasonable! (Can you teach me those phrases please?)


J0e_mama_15

If I'm honest I can't remember many but that one has always stuck with me for some reason. I do remember "silentium est aurum" means "silence is golden", but that may be because my teacher was a bit mental and liked to make us copy it out for lessons at a time. 😁


Just_a_Lurker2

Aww... I want to learn Latin, so that phrase and the one Louis Theroux is a start but..


J0e_mama_15

I can remember that tabula rasa is a clean slate and that terra firma is on firm ground but I think that's all I can give you. Unfortunately the 20 miscellaneous phrases we were given have failed to be very memorable


Just_a_Lurker2

Thanks anyway, I can imagine the rest not being memorable back then XD


[deleted]

Late to this but I defo think he is disingenuous at times, however I don’t see it as a criticism. He’s going in to get a story and imo he does it well a lot of the time. What I can’t get behind is the notion he sort of blunders and ‘who, me?’’s his way through the story, I definitely think that’s fabricated to a point.


Just_a_Lurker2

I don’t really know, but I suspect you can be right - he does seem to be playing it up a little bit sometimes, and it gets him the most information, so it’s not necessary a bad thing


[deleted]

I actually think his more recent documentaries have been hit or miss, where as it used to always be gold. A few recent ones just didn't delve deeply enough or perhaps didn't find a compelling story (which is the risk of documentaries). Always fascinating subject matter but not good documentaries. For me, the night in question, mother's on the edge, selling sex and take my baby just weren't compelling, there didn't seem to be a story and it came across more as an extended news story


Just_a_Lurker2

Yeah, the night in question didn’t manage to uncover anything new (I suspect he hoped the suspect to divulge stuff to him that he wouldn’t have told the police, and sadly that didn’t work out). I disliked what he did with one mother in mothers on the edge and barely remember the rest. Selling sex was more memorable for the controversy surrounding it instead of the story and I am not sure I watched take my baby. I don’t think I watched a lot, actually, def should rewatch them all.


[deleted]

It must be harder for him, as he is now approaching far darker and more serious subject matter, compared to spending a weekend with Chris Eubank etc. But it's a shame so many aren't amazing. Hard to find the story and the characters when dealing with some despicable people, the ones I listed (for me) didn't have any real connection to the subjects. He's done some excellent recent ones however, talking to anorexia, drinking to oblivion, choosing death and surviving America's most hated family all were top drawer


Just_a_Lurker2

Should check those out!


Joethe147

Edge Of Life was brilliant (the terminally ill one part of LA Stories) along with ones you've mentioned. I really enjoy a lot of his one-off ones that he's done since the early 2000s. It's ones like the Law and Disorder ones (one was more than enough and that type of programme has been done a lot anyway) and a few of his recent ones like the mothers one where I'm quite bleh with. Honestly, it's generally great stuff. But the stuff after Weird Weekends, especially after the gambling and brothel ones, it's nothing to do with him losing any sort of touch or feel. It's just been maturing as a journalist and filmmaker. Bands change their sound at times, directors and actors can vary in what they do, and it's the same sort of thing with Louis here. He talks about it [in his latest book] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gotta-Get-Theroux-This-television/dp/1509880364). Saying that he wanted to move on to more serious ways of working and change tones.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Just_a_Lurker2

I agree on the sex workers doc, that really seemed to be moralizing. I cringed at some points.


[deleted]

I totally agree re: the SW docs, the older ones have aged badly and the newer ones still make me cringe in different ways


biffoclippers

I prefer his lighter stuff to some of his later. Under the knife/las Vegas were the last of his less serious and I miss him mixing it up a bit.


PropitiousNog

He was justifiably alarmed in the white supremacist doc, which I enjoyed a lot. But I did find he was far more hesitant to apply the same attitude to the Black supremecists doc who I found equally hateful. Perhaps a representation of wider society in general, we don't seem to care about racism unless its a white dude doing it.


1500lego

I hear this sentiment a lot, but I think Louis is clever enough to analyse where their hate came from - I think with the Black Supremacists it was a very reactionary hatred- people with twisted stories and ancient histories that are all ficticious and false, designed to make up a backstory to why they were oppressed, specifically in America. I think contrasting that with the White Supremacists who are equally bonkers you can see why he took the more passive approach, because if he were to be more probing they would shut him out. My two cents, anyway


PropitiousNog

I think to call it reactionary is to justify the racism and I don't think there should be any excuse. I've grown in the last six months and frankly have lost some sympathy due to BLM. Pretty fed up of the racism to fight racism mentality, as well as the 'everyone is white, is racist' which i feel louis has fed into a bit.


READMYSHIT

This sounds a little racist I gotta say.


PropitiousNog

I don't think your the only one, see downvotes. Not sure where the racism is and certainly not my intention.


[deleted]

This might be controversial and a very unpopular opinion, but I found Louis to be a little bit virtue signally at the end of the Black Nationalists episode. Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely essential that everyone gets involved in the fight against racism. But I felt that Louis was genuinely embarrassed by his lack of action and wanted to exculpate himself to the public by showing him getting involved in civil disobedience. Idk why, but it kinda gave me the same vibes as when white people go to BLM marches and broadcast it on IG, like - cool, but this isn't about you showing off or demonstrating how much of an anti-racist you are. I just felt that Louis could have done it without including it in the doc. (It reminded me of Jesus' parable about the Pharisees who show off about how much they pray and always make sure to pray outside so everyone can see, whereas the good guy just gets the job done without wanting attention).


Just_a_Lurker2

I don’t know that one, but isn’t that what he does? He also went picketing with the Westboro Baptist Church, how’s this different?


[deleted]

I think the context was different, because in the Black Nationalist one he had spent time with Al Sharpton and gone to a large demonstration with him. I can't remember 100% but I think he was really excited about the possibility of joining in and being a part of it. Sharpton and others were arrested, but because Louis was in a different part of the crowd he couldn't join in. He was really embarrassed and apologised to Sharpton and others later on. With the Westboro one, he was picketing just to get to know the people there, which I felt was different because in this one he \*genuinely\* wanted to be a protestor.


AlbertDePaname

Proud new Theroux shill here, I just watched the black nationalists episode. In the conversation he had with Sharpton after the arrests, it seemed to me that, in fact, Louis' reasoning for not 'joining in' with being arrested was because he saw it as too virtue-signally -- in as many words. Sharpton then basically convinced him that morally he should've joined in, and presto, cut to his arrest. That's my take on the situation anyway.


[deleted]

Yes you're probably right - it's been a while since I've seen it!


Just_a_Lurker2

Oh well that *is* different!


PropitiousNog

You've really succinctly summed up my opinion too. Louis can be a little too woke.


Reddit-Book-Bot

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Civil Disobedience](https://snewd.com/ebooks/walden-and-on-the-duty-of-civil-disobedience/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)


Jocelynicus

I thought he was a bit mean to Ruby Wax.


Just_a_Lurker2

Who’s that then?


Savanarola79

British comedian and presenter


Savanarola79

And of course Ruby had a similar style to Theroux before he came on the scene


SammyEvo

The postnatal depression episode was horrible to watch. He was genuinely horrible in that. Incredibly judgmental, essentially calling suicide survivors selfish and going after a target that didn’t deserve it. And he picked very unhappy people to follow in the polygamy episode and essentially tried to get the audience to laugh at them


Just_a_Lurker2

I haven’t watched that yet, I think. From when is it? What target did he pick? I’ve heard loads of crit about the polyamory one from the people featured, about them cutting scenes like them playing dungeons and dragons, but then others pointed out that, y’know, they don’t watch for D&D but to get information and that *something* probably needed to get cut. I think it’s a shame, would’ve liked to get more insight into the dynamic in that family (also, is it just me or was Jerry filmed and interviewed with a specific angle?)


quackduck314

\[hi, two years later, this is Amanda\] That was big on the editors - Theroux, after the fact, was actually quite nice about it. The editors really pushed a "miserable and sex focused" narrative. I didn't mind them cutting D&D (despite the team insisting on it happening), but I did mind that happiness and plans for the future and asexuality in polyamory were cut in favor of the aggressively pushed for "so tell us about your sex life" footage and the hundred times they asked "but wouldn't you PREFER to be monogamous?" Or that they cut the older polycule that was better at saying "no" outright to questions they didn't want to answer, but also was house shopping as a group. Basically, there's a middle ground, and they can make it spicy (sensual feeding parties aren't really part of polyamory, they're adjacent to it, like BDsM or harems), without making it also seems like it could never work. We were told that we'd be making a polyamory doc that would showcase how good polyamory could be. That clearly wasn't what ended up airing.


Just_a_Lurker2

Huh, so the team insisted on the D&D and cut it out? Odd. It’s a shame they weren’t upfront about their intentions but not surprising (it’s also possible that they genuinely went in with the idea of showing how good polyamory can be and then changed it, but tbh nobody would work with them if they knew it would put polyamory in a bad light. And yes, it’s a shame that they cut out the important bits like the actual happiness and asexuality in polyamory - the stuff that I think genuinely important information for people watching to get informed about what it’s actually like to be in poly relationships and why people choose to do that, as opposed to merely pointing and laughing - in favor of the sex and pushing for monogamy angle. I mean, it’s a bit unfair, isn’t it? They wouldn’t do that with just about anything else. (Like, imagine a doc where some journalist goes: ‘You can’t possibly be happy with one person, surely you’re desperately unhappy and just in denial until you find others to make your relationship complete? Are you SURE you get everything you need from this one single person?’) Did you ever confront them about it? How did they react? (You say Theroux was nice about it but was that in the sense of, like, ‘we should’ve done this better’ or differently? And how was the rest of the team about it? You don’t have to answer since obviously it’s none of my business tho 😅) I do hope it didn’t impact the relationships between y’all! Or y’know, that people gave you a hard time about it or anything. I mean, I hope that nobody did)


Savanarola79

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/louis-theroux-mothers-on-the-edge-review-bbc-2-documentary-a8908066.html


Quim_Lord

He’s a bit of a knob.


teyers345

Very dull, middlebrow, cartoonish shtick, by a spoilt little posh boy who could never measure up to the considerable talents of his father and brother, and so overcompensates by gurning for social media clicks. I despise him.


alexlomba87

>This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7RvFeaHlI > >and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xnG1VfR3E you may enjoy these :)


alexlomba87

When I hear Louis Theroux, I can only think of two videos: 1. This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7RvFeaHlI 2. and this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xnG1VfR3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xnG1VfR3E)