Jump to content

Louis Theroux documentaries


Holden McGroin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I watched Behind Bars and the Paedo one recently. Very enjoyable.

 

I then started watching "The most hated family in the US" last night on youtube. Complete mentalists.

 

Any others worth a watch?

 

Most of them are as it goes.

 

I tend to find obscure docs on google video and start to believe whatever nonsense they are peddling.

 

Passes the time. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched Behind Bars and the Paedo one recently. Very enjoyable.

 

I then started watching "The most hated family in the US" last night on youtube. Complete mentalists.

 

Any others worth a watch?

 

 

 

yeah, saw this one a while ago as its one of my fav programs. totally agree with you. COMPLETE mentalists but i guess thats what religon can do sometimes B)

 

i also liked the one when he was investigating U.S. wrestling. Funny!!! :):D:blush:

Edited by AvatarAxeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched Behind Bars and the Paedo one recently. Very enjoyable.

 

I then started watching "The most hated family in the US" last night on youtube. Complete mentalists.

 

Any others worth a watch?

 

All of them

 

Take a look at his Wiki Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the one with the Aryan Nation guy who was a massive Are You Being Served? fan :)

 

He wasn't a big fan of Mr. Humphries tho B)

 

JohnInman.jpg

Edited by Sonatine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, saw this one a while ago as its one of my fav programs. totally agree with you. COMPLETE mentalists but i guess thats what religon can do sometimes B)

 

I loved the way Louis was constantly probing the young lady her about boys. She was clearly in need of a good rogering but wouldn't admit it due to her faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

They are all good. He is a very clever man and very good and making himself look stupid to whoever he interviews. The south african one is good, the wrestling one and the heroin one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are all good. He is a very clever man and very good and making himself look stupid to whoever he interviews. The south african one is good, the wrestling one and the heroin one.

 

 

Whilst simultaneously revealing himself as a faux objective film maker. Don't get me wrong, I do like a lot of his stuff, but often when I watch it (particularly the older ones, not so much with the newer ones), I cant help feel like he is an incredibly patronising passively righteous knobber. Especially ones such as with Jimmy Saville and Anne Widecombe, which seemed to present them as being evidently outside of the in-joke that Louis and the viewer share. I enjoy them, but I cant escape this silent condescension of his. I remember reading an interview with him last year where he said something like 'I don't like being strident and polemical' - but what he does... there seems something underhand about it sometimes. He is polemical, but not stridently, and it is his refusal to vocalise what his body language, questions to the subject, and editing of the programme suggests that he feels about the topic that gives it both an enigmatic 'cleverness' and a overarching feeling that there are distinct intellectual boundaries between him and the subject and that his superiority is achieved through latent disingenuousness that is only picked up by the viewer after editing. His recent shows have been better, as there seems to be less... sensationalism and a little bit more, honesty on his part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst simultaneously revealing himself as a faux objective film maker. Don't get me wrong, I do like a lot of his stuff, but often when I watch it (particularly the older ones, not so much with the newer ones), I cant help feel like he is an incredibly patronising passively righteous knobber. Especially ones such as with Jimmy Saville and Anne Widecombe, which seemed to present them as being evidently outside of the in-joke that Louis and the viewer share. I enjoy them, but I cant escape this silent condescension of his. I remember reading an interview with him last year where he said something like 'I don't like being strident and polemical' - but what he does... there seems something underhand about it sometimes. He is polemical, but not stridently, and it is his refusal to vocalise what his body language, questions to the subject, and editing of the programme suggests that he feels about the topic that gives it both an enigmatic 'cleverness' and a overarching feeling that there are distinct intellectual boundaries between him and the subject and that his superiority is achieved through latent disingenuousness that is only picked up by the viewer after editing. His recent shows have been better, as there seems to be less... sensationalism and a little bit more, honesty on his part.

 

Passive agressive. The only one where it didn't work is when he visited the redneck nazi's (he looked genuinely uncomfortable and scared in some parts).

Edited by Park Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passive agressive. The only one where it didn't work is when he visited the redneck nazi's (he looked genuinely uncomfortable and scared in some parts).

 

Aye. Also thought in the Nazi Pop Twins one he genuinely seemed really pissed off with what the wifey was saying. This is him doing what he does well:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReGNYZhnZUM

 

around 2:30 when he tells her she is outvoted by civilised thought. :lol: proper pwned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Whilst simultaneously revealing himself as a faux objective film maker. Don't get me wrong, I do like a lot of his stuff, but often when I watch it (particularly the older ones, not so much with the newer ones), I cant help feel like he is an incredibly patronising passively righteous knobber. Especially ones such as with Jimmy Saville and Anne Widecombe, which seemed to present them as being evidently outside of the in-joke that Louis and the viewer share. I enjoy them, but I cant escape this silent condescension of his. I remember reading an interview with him last year where he said something like 'I don't like being strident and polemical' - but what he does... there seems something underhand about it sometimes. He is polemical, but not stridently, and it is his refusal to vocalise what his body language, questions to the subject, and editing of the programme suggests that he feels about the topic that gives it both an enigmatic 'cleverness' and a overarching feeling that there are distinct intellectual boundaries between him and the subject and that his superiority is achieved through latent disingenuousness that is only picked up by the viewer after editing. His recent shows have been better, as there seems to be less... sensationalism and a little bit more, honesty on his part.

I lyked him wot he did. Is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.