MovieChat Forums > Stephen Fry in America (2008) Discussion > Perspectives from Americans watching thi...

Perspectives from Americans watching this

posted 13 years ago by jeremy_brett_fan
7 replies | jump to latest

I interested to know what other Americans watching this thought. Below are some of my considerations.

Firstly, as an Illinoisan from one of the many cities in Illinois that is not Chicago, I was slightly disappointed that he only visited there. But this is a minor, personal point.

He mentioned a few times that the U.S. has such vast, open spaces and seemed to be awed by this fact. I may be a minority in this, but I hate the areas of America that are vast and empty. I come from a big city but currently live in a small town, and I feel like if I leave it I'll just fall off the face of the earth because there aren't any other cities for a bit over an hour in any direction.

Also, a big thing that I disagreed with was Stephen saying that Americans feel like they're a part of the Democratic process. When I watched Mitt Romney answering people's questions, I just assumed that he was spouting political bullsh*t to placate them and get votes. I may be particularly cynical, but I've never seen a politician talking with "ordinary Americans" and not assumed it was for political expediency.

[–] lowmorale 13 years ago

I noticed that political point, too. I was kind of taken aback, but he was visiting NH during primary season, and he may have misinterpreted the craziness that surrounds that time/place with how we really are on a whole. I just interpreted it as more of a "what Americans could be". Also, as he mentioned Mark Twain on his trip up the Mississippi - it was entirely lacking a simple visit to Hannibal, though he did point out poverty in St. Louis.

[–] Lady_Lane 12 years ago

I've been watching the series on Netflix, excited to see what Stephen would make of my native state of Oregon. I finally reach the "Pacific" episode to find: spotted owls and Bigfoot. Then he skips off to Seattle and I'm majorly disappointed. True he did highlight our gorgeous forests, but I was certain that he would at least visit Eugene or Portland (seriously, how could he have resisted all the weirdness there?).

Oh well--still love Stephen.

[–] wrwt2 12 years ago

I actually thought it was a very fair portrait of america, yes he skimmed over some states, but he was only taking a six week tour. Coming from the south I thought his tour of some of the southern parts was quite accurate, very charming, yet slightly racist(I've meet people like the old racist grandparents). I also thought he very easily could have turned this into a series making fun of americans, but instead was very respectful and seemed to be charmed by a lot of the quirkiness of the culture here.

[–] wayne_witt 12 years ago

I was very pleasantly surprised with it. I get the all-too-frequent feeling that Americans are mocked around the world for ignorance, sloth, and for being myopic in our own views of the world. I was bracing for a series that rooted out all the nutcases and weirdos to display to the world as a showcase of what makes up America.

What I saw, however, was an amiable man (Fry) touring a great nation and meeting wonderfully pleasant people to talk about this land. The production really seemed to strive to find "true" Americans insofar as they represented a normal segment of the population, for the most part. He spoke to them without an agenda, meaning he wasn't trying to work an angle on his visit with them so they could get video of the people acting a certain way which they could then pass off as "normal."

He really touched on the big points that define each state. Maine was lobstermen; Illinois was Chicago (as a Chicagoan, I reject OP's assertion that there's more to Illinois other than Chicago, j/k); he gave ample time to the Rockies, etc.

Obviously some states were overlooked entirely, such as Maryland. Some states got very brief and under-appreciated attention like St. Louis, Missouri focusing on bums. Other states left out some major points of interest entirely, like Kennedy Space Center in Florida, instead focusing on his dislike of Miami's architecture.

There are other things to nitpick over, but all in all I found it to be an excellent series. It's certainly something I've recommended to my friends to watch.

What makes it stand out to me, as opposed to other documentaries you might see, is that this one does not strive to find unique or unusual points of interest; there's no search for the diamond in the rough that will make the show memorable for an outlandish figure. What Fry is looking for is the essence of America. He wants the cliche and stereotypical figures; he wants to know why a state is known for something and present a piece of that story. He's looking for the quintessential rather than the extreme.

[–] rmm413-1 9 years ago

I thought he definitely went out of his way to find the atypical and unusual at times. Is voodoo really the quintessential aspect of Louisiana, rotting bodies the key aspect of Tennessee, modern witches the norm for Massachusetts, Bigfoot believers typical of Oregon, or acting out spy games what Nevada is known for? He was searching for what he and his producers thought would be good entertainment, not necessarily what was actually a good representation of what the U.S. is most typically like. That's OK. I thought the series was still quite interesting and worth watching. To be sure, foreigners could learn a lot about this country from it, but I was afraid while watching it they might view a lot of things in the series as more common and "normal" in the U.S. than they actually are.

[–] squeemu 9 years ago

I haven't seen the show, but I'd like to comment on your thoughts about our vast, open spaces. I'm from a big city (Los Angeles) but I LOVE the expanse of wilderness that exists in this country. I find myself visiting the southwest or open spaces of the pacific northwest often. I prefer living in the city, but the natural beauty of this country is outstanding and great to visit often.

I guess to each their own.

[–] haldurgz 7 years ago

I'm a native-born New Yorker, but I've lived in a few different parts of the country (NJ, Jacksonville FL, Pasadena CA, Columbus OH), and I've traveled a bit and visited other parts of the country.

One thing that you have to come to grips with is that there's only so much that you can see and experience in 6 hours. So all you are getting are one or a couple of sights from each state. When you travel, you have a choice of either spending a lot of time in one place, to really get to know it. Or you can take Stephen's approach, and try to fit in a few spots here and there. It really cannot possibly give you a realistic view or feel for any particular region of the country, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to have some fun while giving a really shallow overview. It is what it is.

It would be like a show talking about London and only discussing Fish and Chips, and Big Ben. It might be fun and interesting if done with a sense of humor, but it's really not telling you what London is like.