MovieChat Forums > Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America in Crisis (2011) Discussion > Why?

Why?

posted 13 years ago by Film_o_philiac
6 replies | jump to latest

Like Louis Theroux, I am also interested in "What makes people tick.", I am a "documentarian", whereas Louis would call himself a journalist, the difference I hear you ask?. Well to answer you in short, [i]There really isn't much of a difference[i], but usually, it denotes your educational beliefs and experiences.

I am slightly perplexed as to why Louis would feel the need to quantify this specific group with a second visit and allow them to represent themselves again. It's raises many questions in my head, questions that I hope to one day pose to Louis himself, as I sometimes question whether he actually had any power over the reason for this documentary in the first place.

The subject of the Westboro Baptist churches beliefs lie within the systematic discrimination of homosexuals and I assume that the discrimination doesn't stop there. But where the sickening reality of their actions actually takes hold of us is their brainwashing of their children.

With a group of individuals who seem to thrive on the ill representation of their beliefs, why would anyone allow them the podium that they so desire?

I often wonder if Louis has studied acting in the past and I also wonder if he has studied the likes of Stanislavski and Brecht, as he seems to characterise himself in the strangest fashion. If you would like to experience this, watch his documentaries back to back, you can see the different styles of his character come through depending on which person he interviews. He seems to be like a Chameleon, who changes and blends in with the surrounding environment. Which in itself is slightly paradoxical due to the fact that his own function is to be a "Fish out of water!".

Personally myself, I would have attempted to document people's reactions from the surrounding community, spoken to the people who they directly effect. Shown them under a light that they might not want to have been shown under, surface the rats if you like...

Above all though, I would have ensured that their delusions where not represented. As for every 1000th person that this documentary would have reached and abhorred there will have been one person who this documentary would have reached out to.

Hey, go easy.. I do actually suffer with Dyslexia.

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

(* spoilers *)

I thought the video was about what could be expected. He did interview ex-members of the group, and he did inquire of current members how they dealt with that.

I think it's well-known what outsiders think of WBC, so I don't fault him for skipping over that. It's only an hour show.

I was surprised that apparently they think the end times are here, and that they're going to be banished from the US (as if anyone is ever banished from the US...) and will be magically accepted by Israel or Jordan. Now THAT is some massive delusion, thinking they could access either of those places and live to tell the tale. People don't counter-protest there, when you insult them. They gather a mob and throw rocks at your head in both countries. They take their religion deadly seriously.

I don't find anything unusual about the interview style. I don't see Louis as a chameleon. He seems fairly typical of an interviewer, when presented with a nut case. You don't want to lose access, or lose the interview, so you have to proceed a bit gently and indirectly. So this is why he says things like "I'm confused" in that one scene, where he obviously wasn't confused. He was just trying to subtly say "hey, dude, you're a nutjob and a crappy parent, and it's killing me trying to keep a straight face in front of you". He's basically giving the guy more rope to hang himself with, which of course the guy gladly does.

I wish more had been done with Jack. The guy is obviously gay or trans, and has been misled by religious bigots in his life that he shouldn't be, and somehow found the WBC message to be the one to follow (and why not, nobody believes the Bible like WBC). I don't think the future looks good for him.

[–] thegazmus 13 years ago

Chameleon? Of course he is, thats why hes such a brilliant interviewer.

His job is to put them at ease and as much as is possible to let the people he is documenting act naturally so that he can give a realistic view of their lives...were left to work out what we think of them for ourselves, thats how it should be. He does occasionally give his opinions of how terrible he thinks people are but I never get the impression that its an attempt to anger or change their minds. Its more that he voices the opinion that the viewer would most likely have and lets the interviewee address them directly.

He could have added more footage of the community's reactions to them, but I don't think its necessary. We easily get the idea that everyone else hates them and that they don't care, he doesn't waste time with too much of that and gets on with his job, which is documenting the family goings on.

I much prefer his style to those people who go in with a clear agenda that they strongly agree/disagree with the person they are interviewing and that they are there to basically confront them...this seems to be what OP would be attempting. Its fine for people like Michael Moore with his style...but Louis's style is completely different, he is unbiased and incredibly objective and its his appeal.

I do get that there might be a dangerous line he walks between being unbiased and giving dangerous people a chance to preach their insane views with a massively wider audience to that which they would normally get...but meh.

[–] johnsge1 13 years ago

Did you watch the same film as the rest of us? His oppositional agenda is crystal clear from the moment he begins talking. He is not subtle or clever. He openly challenges their beliefs and tells them they are wrong. He is not interested in putting them at ease. Just because you may agree with someone doesn't mean they have "no agenda" ...they just happen to share yours.

I think some subtlety in going about this and the previous docco would have done a lot to actually find something in this mess worth reporting on. Does it really matter why pathologically ridiculous people behave ridiculously? The greater issues here are those he barely touches on... the questions of civil liberties: right to protest vs. rights to privacy, hate speech vs. free speech, and the very definition of said hate speech vs. that of religious "belief," dogma, etc. Added to that the obvious (though completely ignored in these films) connection that many other religious denominations, Christian and otherwise, exhibit and promote less radical but still very real homophobia and intolerance without it being interpreted or implied as abuse or a hindrance to their children.

Louis doesn't care about that. He seems more interested in looking like the only rational one in a group of loony tunes... something that should rightly be a hollow victory in such company.

[–] bite_me_loser_86 13 years ago

I agree with you. It actually annoyed me that he revisited them to make another documentary, because it is so obvious what attention whores they are, they LOVE the spotlight, love to hear themselves talk. All of the members spew the exact same talking points, and they all have an annoying habit to interrupt whomever they're talking to midsentence to quote the Bible and spew hateful rhetoric. They're impossible to have a civil discussion with, except possibly some of the younger members.

Even the ex-camera guy, whose daughter left the church LOVED the attention. Even though he pretended to be upset with Louis' intention he certainly didn't mind to be on camera.

I did however think Louis did a better job at challenging them this time. He actually caught them in a few inconsistencies that I thought were pretty good, like how he asked one of the younger Phelps members why she was so upset about the prospect of that Dutch camera team guy going to hell since she is supposed to rejoice over ALL God's judgement. You could tell the girl was pretty flustered when talking about it, she obviously had a crush on the dude and even though she tried to pretend they were just acquaintances that kept in touch you could tell for the first time that she knew she was caught in an inconsistency. Nice to see.

[–] Guardia 12 years ago

Yeah but you sound like you already have an agenda - something a documentarian should discard before filming anything.

Louis never seems to have an agenda. He is so generous with his subjects, and only ever challenges a posteriori.

Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

[–] timw-254-400540 12 years ago

I really liked seeing what happened to the people who left.

He had 2 very different depictions, too. On one hand, the first girl knows the family is a cult. On the other, the other girl desperately misses her parents, and her parents miss her, too.

It was very good to see both points of view, and I hope one day, the families can reunite. Although, with the first girl, I am actually scared of her father. He does not seem like a loving guy. The mom, you can tell - is loving. She is hiding it with her coldness. The second family is all loving but keeping it a secret.