I still find it hard to believe that Louis went into his first documentary on Savile not having heard rumours inside the BBC from someone... anyone. The moment I could see Louis was probably actually hiding his embarrassment was with the woman near the end who had been molested while in a church service. When pressed about why he didn't pick up on something during his time with him and if he felt that he himself had been 'groomed' Theroux states he suspected there was a secret, but didn't know what it was and it's like a quiz that's only obvious if you know the answers.
Really?
If John Lydon was laconically mentioning in the 70's saying he knew 'all about Savile' and his 'dirty secrets' Louis, in his years of working at the BBC and people like Rantzen coming in after the fact saying they knew, had he not one idea in his head about any of it? In Louis Met... The scene in the car to the train station was his last chance to broach that and tells me he was very much aware about the gossip from the beginning. If he had revealed that to the woman, during what was probably a very emotional time, she would have torn him to shreds I feel.
When I saw the documentary again, before the abuse allegations were made public, I noticed there was a rather shabby and rather dank looking man who was described as something like Savile's 'sorter' or the like (I'd have to watch it again). I just assumed prostitutes due to a certain amount of innuendo in the conversation and the fact growing up I've always thought he was a bit of a creepy *beep* anyway. I wonder who he really was and if he had anything do with enabling Savile's activities.
I think Louis Theroux is brilliant, but I'm still almost convinced he held back on what he must have heard from an acquaintance of colleague somewhere down the line.
There's public gossip and there is insider gossip. (that one I heard about Tom Cruise in a hotel room and brown paper bags in Prague was most amusing)
reply
share