# Louis Theroux vs Westboro Baptists



## pk (Mar 27, 2007)

This Sunday at 9pm (I forget which channel) the unflappable Louis Theroux goes to see Phelps and crew, responsible for the God Hates Fags website, and whose members picket funerals of dead soldiers and gay men and women to draw attention to their twisted interpretation of the Bible.

I wonder if he'll ask Phelps about the well documented paedophile accusations, or the fact that many family members have fled the old man after years of abuse?


----------



## Bazza (Mar 27, 2007)

BBC2 I suspect. 

Cheers for letting me know.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2007)

Another successful thread, Kojak!  Who loves ya baby!


----------



## Crispy (Mar 27, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Another successful thread, Kojak!  Who loves ya baby!


I do believe you're following PK round the boards. Who's kojak now?
See? Following. Like a dog. See?
fuhgeddit


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I do believe you're following PK round the boards. Who's kojak now?



Its a fair cop, but society's to blame.  Book me Danno.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 27, 2007)

No no, I'm going to find you a really earnest social worker with sharp fingernails.


----------



## Cid (Mar 27, 2007)

looks good - love Theroux... it's his utterly disarming gentle middle-classness, combined with the fact his questions cut straight to the bone and throw the most hardened nutjob into awkward corners.


----------



## stavros (Mar 27, 2007)

He is fantastic, a treasure of British TV. Female bodybuilding, gangsta rap, the KKK, you name it, he's done it.


----------



## pk (Mar 28, 2007)

Ah bless, has Dwyer been trying to bait me all this time??

Book 'im Danno!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

On now. Good starts.


----------



## oddworld (Apr 1, 2007)

The women is mental  

She needs shooting and I don't condone violence


----------



## aqua (Apr 1, 2007)

oh
my
god


----------



## gnoriac (Apr 1, 2007)

These are real people!  
They're like summat out of South Park on bad acid.


----------



## oddworld (Apr 1, 2007)

aqua said:
			
		

> oh
> my
> god



Yes they keep mentioning him don't they


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

Im never going to knock the Jesus Army again


----------



## oddworld (Apr 1, 2007)

'We are all doooooooomed'


----------



## aqua (Apr 1, 2007)

oddworld said:
			
		

> Yes they keep mentioning him don't they


I did wonder about typing that but its the only thing in my head 

crikey these people are scary


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2007)

Marvellous. An eternity in hell would be a picnic compared to 3 weeks with these twisted folks. I actually feel sorry for them.


----------



## oddworld (Apr 1, 2007)

Who allowed them to procreate  

Actually it is really sad , to demonstrate at people's funeral is awful.

They should be arrested


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2007)

Desmond Tutu?


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 1, 2007)

OMG some of this makes me feel physically sick.


----------



## WouldBe (Apr 1, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> OMG some of this makes me feel physically sick.


That's why I'm not watching it.


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 1, 2007)

this is horrible, why are they so angry??


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2007)

Ah and they're anti-semites, too. Of course.


----------



## WouldBe (Apr 1, 2007)

Have they done the 'Do you rejoice when people get run over by a car?' yet?


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 1, 2007)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> That's why I'm not watching it.



Its why I am. I'd feel happier being informed about these loons. Easiest way is to watch it yourself


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Its why I am. I'd feel happier being informed about these loons. Easiest way is to watch it yourself



That's my opinion. Fred Phelps is not stupid though, there's a lot of intelligence there imo.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 1, 2007)

I was also surprised about the homeschooling aspect. I had assumed that she would insist on keeping them home and insisiting that they not be exposed to evil


----------



## WouldBe (Apr 1, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Its why I am. I'd feel happier being informed about these loons. Easiest way is to watch it yourself


I can't afford to replace the tele when I throw a brick through it. The trailers for the program were bad enough.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Apr 1, 2007)

I'm sure this is all very worthy, but I far prefer the show on Anna Nicole Smith


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 1, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> I was also surprised about the homeschooling aspect. I had assumed that she would insist on keeping them home and insisiting that they not be exposed to evil


no it seems she wants them to spread the word. 

flippin eck, him questioning the protesting kids about whether they understood was telling.


----------



## butterfly child (Apr 1, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> That's my opinion. Fred Phelps is not stupid though, there's a lot of intelligence there imo.



There was an article about it in The Guide, and Theroux says

"I found a lot to like about the Phelps. They have a strong family unit, and Gramps aside, they were open and hospitable".

One can only hope that the bastard goes soon and they'll implode.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 1, 2007)

If you dont want your children to get hurt dont use them as pawns. Its not good but like he says, the kids are victims of the parents


----------



## Augie March (Apr 1, 2007)




----------



## The Pious Pawn (Apr 1, 2007)

what a shower of cunts , i hope a nutty ex serviceman kills them . harrassing peoples familys like that .


----------



## Idaho (Apr 1, 2007)

How come, in religion, the curve of self proclaimed scriptural literalism is mirrored by the curve in observations only of the more extreme elements in scripture?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> How come, in religion, the curve of self proclaimed scriptural literalism is mirrored by the curve in observations only of the more extreme elements in scripture?



   My hangover does not compute.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 1, 2007)

That those who claim to be taking religion literally, are always the most extreme?

They seem to ignore the milder elements as soon as they claim to be literal.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

Because the bible has been 'watered down' over the years. And extremism is incredibly simplistic to preach. Totally ignores the human conditions and the questions that have been posed to mankind over the last 1500 years or so.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 1, 2007)

they had a certain media savvy 

Princess Di: Fag Enabler


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 1, 2007)

i would have liked to hear from someone who had left the family.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2007)

Theroux's ability to mix with utter cunts and keep a straight face can only be admired.

Top prog!


----------



## big eejit (Apr 1, 2007)

Great programme. That old man was evil. Had to feel sorry for the children and younger members.


----------



## Idaho (Apr 1, 2007)

I was saying to Ms Idaho that the Dyke Land (I think it was) poster would probably sell for a bomb in some cities. It was pop art!

Does anyone think he hammed it up a lot less this time? Less flippant?


----------



## Pete the Greek (Apr 1, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> they had a certain media savvy
> 
> Princess Di: Fag Enabler


here's my fag enabler:


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

I thought they were going to do that, but it never materialised.

The young girl paused when describing those family members who had left as 'gone'. Disturbing sometimes. The small children who couldn't remember what they'd been told.....


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2007)

I know


----------



## skunkboy69 (Apr 1, 2007)

The mans a genius and a saint.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 1, 2007)

i'm seriously considering starting an email correspondence with them, on a kind of "well, here in the UK we KNOW what a faglover Louis is, he tried to make you look stupid but your message came through", dunno if they'd fall for it, they are - scarily - fairly sussed in some ways


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2007)

The funeral in Illinois was dignified and moving and contrasted sharply with the insane hateful picket. What is it with bringing along kids to those pickets, anyway? Like a form of child abuse, as Louis said - it was like they were being "groomed" to take part in their weird lifestyle.

Facinating but deeply disturbing stuff.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Apr 1, 2007)

and if you did fool them.......where would you take that?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2007)

Fred Phelps is very intelligent.

That Shirley woman though... and the documentary member - i don't think he was part of the family, so he didn't even have an excuse 

I felt so sorry for that young woman, who was not allowed to go out with her friends, you could tell she was upset about it but she had to put on that front about being happy really quickly  And those poor kids, for them it was just a bit of fun


----------



## Cloo (Apr 1, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> i would have liked to hear from someone who had left the family.


 I wonder if perhaps they only allowed filming on condition that they didn't speak to the people who'd left.

Or possibly the people who left get so inundated with interest that they refuse to talk. According to gsv there's some interesting stuff about these people on wikipedia.

It was surprising that this was no bunch of dumb rednecks, but seemingly intelligent people espousing this utterly bizarre rhetoric.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

Those who are in charge aren't stupid by any sense, they're very astute in getting their message across and combating criticism. And after all they can 'win' the argument by just claiming it's the devil talking


----------



## LDR (Apr 1, 2007)

I'm not sure if it was the same people but I was left a voice mail message saying I was going to burn in hell when I worked for an HIV charity a number of years back claiming to represent godhatesfags.

When you have the rules of how you should live your life laid out in front of you, I suspect it's quite a comfort zone never having to question or think about whether something is right or wrong as it just is.  They strike me as very frightened people really.  It makes me sad.


----------



## og ogilby (Apr 1, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Theroux's ability to mix with utter cunts and keep a straight face can only be admired.


Most posters on this board have got it off to a tee.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Those who are in charge aren't stupid by any sense, they're very astute in getting their message across and combating criticism. And after all they can 'win' the argument by just claiming it's the devil talking



Yes but they simply refuse to entertain even the notion that they may be wrong. Criticism does not register with them. I dunno, if an organisation of any sort cannot examine themselves with even a mild degree of critical dialogue - they'll eventually implode, surely?


----------



## wishface (Apr 1, 2007)

That was a superb and measured documentary on people whose beliefs and behaviour I am too aghast at too properly comment. Those poor kids, that sad, sick hate filled old man. What future is there for these people? They will either end up getting run over (which is what I thought happened to that kid at the picket), shot (which is what I thought was going to happen at the funeral - _picketing a military funeral!?!_) or burned in their church (which is what i thought was going to happen after the fire at the other church).

Louis THeroux is da man. Sad to hear he is going to burn in hell.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

Mmm. They don't let themselves get into deep discussion, it's never a proper one on one situation. They fear that they can be isolated, and so remain together for collective strength.


----------



## wishface (Apr 1, 2007)

What needs to happen is one of them needs to have their life saved by a gay doctor or something. Though they'd probably prefer death than live 'tainted by fag medicine'.

Shouldn't they be in jail or something with the kids taken into care? I mean surely they are living breathing hate crimes?


----------



## laptop (Apr 1, 2007)

Cloo said:
			
		

> spanglechick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It may well have something to do with the fact that Phelps is a lawyer. Disbarred in Kansas and agreed to stop practising in Federal court, but a lawyer still.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 1, 2007)

It was fascinating viewing and Louis made some excellent, very important points in disussion with Shirley and the former documentary maker, but I thought he missed quite a few things, and it was a bit of a wasted opportunity.

* Why didn't he talk to anyone who'd left the family? If he'd tried and failed, he should have mentioned it. Why didn't he talk to any of the family members about why people had left the family? There was a huge story there I think, and one that would have helped him get past the wall of rhetoric/dogma that he kept banging his head against.
* Why didn't he talk to people from the community about how the church is viewed? All we got was the same story again and again - they went to school, but were ostracised. It would have been useful to get a local perspective on what people think of the church and how they interact with them. 
* Louis is usually the bumbling, affable guy who manages to charm his way past his interviewees' defences. But he wasn't able to do that this time, and he was lost a little. His questioning was a bit random, and very repetitious. It felt like he was out of his depth with this one. 

It was a good documentary, and as I say he made some excellent points, but I can't help feelling it could have been a lot lot better.


----------



## gnoriac (Apr 1, 2007)

Idaho said:
			
		

> That those who claim to be taking religion literally, are always the most extreme?
> 
> They seem to ignore the milder elements as soon as they claim to be literal.


I'd say it's because any religion, by definition, must include mystical elements. They can only be incuded in the writings in as metaphor and symbolism, so literalism is a rejection of the mystical core, leaving just a self-supporting and otherwise meaningless rulebook. Ideal for cults and extremists.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 1, 2007)

ianw said:
			
		

> * Louis is usually the bumbling, affable guy who manages to charm his way past his interviewees' defences. But he wasn't able to do that this time, and he was lost a little. His questioning was a bit random, and very repetitious. It felt like he was out of his depth with this one.
> 
> It was a good documentary, and as I say he made some excellent points, but I can't help feelling it could have been a lot lot better.


i think balbi touched on it - louis theroux is usually smarter in spades than his subjects.  he can disingenuously lead them to condemn themselves with their own words and deeds.

these people were clever.  really clever (if ignorant) - and he wasn't able to use his usual tricks on them.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2007)

ianw said:
			
		

> It was fascinating viewing and Louis made some excellent, very important points in disussion with Shirley and the former documentary maker, but I thought he missed quite a few things, and it was a bit of a wasted opportunity.
> 
> * Why didn't he talk to anyone who'd left the family? If he'd tried and failed, he should have mentioned it. Why didn't he talk to any of the family members about why people had left the family? There was a huge story there I think, and one that would have helped him get past the wall of rhetoric/dogma that he kept banging his head against.
> * Why didn't he talk to people from the community about how the church is viewed? All we got was the same story again and again - they went to school, but were ostracised. It would have been useful to get a local perspective on what people think of the church and how they interact with them.
> ...


agreed ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 1, 2007)

I don't think it needed input from the community or ex-members.

That lot were fucking shocking.   Poor bloody kids, how fucked up are they going to be in the long term?


----------



## Idaho (Apr 1, 2007)

gnoriac said:
			
		

> I'd say it's because any religion, by definition, must include mystical elements. They can only be incuded in the writings in as metaphor and symbolism, so literalism is a rejection of the mystical core, leaving just a self-supporting and otherwise meaningless rulebook. Ideal for cults and extremists.


Interesting answer. I'll have to think about that


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

Plus you really can't argue effectively with that kind of mind. The skinheads, Savile and all of them had clear doubts and misgivings about their choices in life, and accepted the criticisms of their ways of life. With the Westboro lot, it's an unshakeable indoctrination which starts at such a young age that by the time they reach the years when traditionally a person questions their way of life they aren't equipped with the tools to properly express themselves and have such a deep fear of going against the culture which influences everything about their way of life.

Teenage rebellion's alright when it's listening to rock music and dressing stupid, but it must be almost unthinkable when there's only one thing in your life and it's everywhere.

I noticed a stereo in the teenage daughters room, what kind of music would they listen to? The mind, she boggles


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 1, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i'm seriously considering starting an email correspondence with them, on a kind of "well, here in the UK we KNOW what a faglover Louis is, he tried to make you look stupid but your message came through", dunno if they'd fall for it, they are - scarily - fairly sussed in some ways



I've tried it.  Ended up having an exchange of emails with Tim Phelps, whichever one he may be.  Horribly, icily polite, whilst being utterly mad.

Don't bother trying to engage them.  Mad and twisted they might be, but they're not stupid.  Just closed-minded, to the point where there's no chance of finding a chink in the defences they've erected to protect them against anything outside their warped little mindset.

I understand the programme's repeated during the week.  I didn't see it 'cos I was in the pub with another disgusting filthy faggot.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 1, 2007)

Which is why he needed to think around his subject a little more than he did. The problem with coming up against people who live their lives by dogma is that they have an answer for everything - a preprepared, cast iron answer. And they don't accept any criticism - they just trot out the answer again and again, sticking to the script. 

Louis did a good job of exposing this for what it is by talking to the children - gettin them to admit that they didn't understand the signs they were holding or the arguments they were parroting. But even so...I feel like there were loads of unanswered questions...or rather, loads of unasked questions.


----------



## Strumpet (Apr 1, 2007)

That was fascinating and scary and very sad. I'd like to have heard from ex-members too. 

SO much hate. All coming from one man. That evil old bastard needs to pop his clogs asap.


----------



## stavros (Apr 1, 2007)

> Theroux's ability to mix with utter cunts and keep a straight face can only be admired


Too true, but this was the closest I've seen him to passing a genuine judgement on them. Usually, be they gangsta rappers or the Klu Klux Klan (or even the Hamiltons  ), he manages to indulge them as eccentric, but he actually exhibited a sense of exasperation with them. He matched the woman's stubbornness, but I think he was taken aback by them passing judgement on his marital and paternal status. His subjects normally welcome him with a certain naivity but it wasn't so much the case here. This wasn't humourous like a lot of his work, but essential viewing nonetheless.


----------



## gnoriac (Apr 1, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Plus you really can't argue effectively with that kind of mind. The skinheads, Savile and all of them had clear doubts and misgivings about their choices in life, and accepted the criticisms of their ways of life. With the Westboro lot, it's an unshakeable indoctrination which starts at such a young age that by the time they reach the years when traditionally a person questions their way of life they aren't equipped with the tools to properly express themselves and have such a deep fear of going against the culture which influences everything about their way of life.
> 
> Teenage rebellion's alright when it's listening to rock music and dressing stupid, but it must be almost unthinkable when there's only one thing in your life and it's everywhere.
> 
> I noticed a stereo in the teenage daughters room, what kind of music would they listen to? The mind, she boggles


She had earphones in at some stage too (or was that another of them?) I assumed she'd be listening to an audio recording of Gramps's mad ranting.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 1, 2007)

stavros said:
			
		

> Too true, but this was the closest I've seen him to passing a genuine judgement on them. Usually, be they gangsta rappers or the Klu Klux Klan (or even the Hamiltons  ), he manages to indulge them as eccentric, but he actually exhibited a sense of exasperation with them. He matched the woman's stubbornness, but I think he was taken aback by them passing judgement on his marital and paternal status. His subjects normally welcome him with a certain naivity but it wasn't so much the case here. This wasn't humourous like a lot of his work, but essential viewing nonetheless.



I agree with this. He clearly communicated his distaste for their views and actions. Which is the human thing to do, and something we as viewers could directly connect with. But I think that distaste created a barrier between him and his subjects. It's a tricky balance to strike, but I think he should have been more objective - at least to begin with.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 1, 2007)

Well that and the fact that Fred Phelps and his daughter had clearly organised an effective offensive strategy towards Theroux more interesting lines on enquiry. This was best summed up by the two encounters with Fred, but I thought the responses from the ex-documentary maker and some others were coached somewhat.

ianw is spot on, but I don't think Therouxs' benefit of experience from his previous shows could have prepared him for the Westboro Baptist Church. Although possibly it would have made sense to contact others who had done similar in order to get some point of reference.


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 1, 2007)

I agree with this. He clearly communicated his distaste for their views and actions. Which is the human thing to do, and something we as viewers could directly connect with. But I think that distaste created a barrier between him and his subjects. It's a tricky balance to strike, but I think he should have been more objective - at least to begin with.


There is a school of thought that thinks secularists can only engage with the religious if they prove to the religious that they are also spiritual.

Otherwise, their attempts at discussion will prove, ultimately, to be pointless.

I am not of that school of thought.


----------



## LDR (Apr 2, 2007)

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22)


----------



## newharper (Apr 2, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> I was also surprised about the homeschooling aspect. I had assumed that she would insist on keeping them home and insisiting that they not be exposed to evil



Indeed, it implies an assumption of indoctrination so absolute, that it's worrying.


----------



## Cid (Apr 2, 2007)

I've never seen Theroux so close to cracking, even with the skinheads/KKK... It was clear these people were getting to him. He recognised that the younger women had a lot of potential in them, especially the 21 year old who was sometimes frustratingly on the verge of revealing her humanity... I think the kids really got to him as well - with lamb and lynx (the white nationalist girls) it almost seemed like a passing phase that he knew they might start to see around when they were older, but he could see the strength of the Phelps indoctrination here and the hypocrisy of the whole thing. 

I think this issue was too much for him, and that's no criticism - I doubt anyone could handle it as well as he did. He seemed to communicate well with the younger members of the family and there was a genuine liking for some of them. It seemed to really get to him when he realised that he couldn't get to them, although they were still nice to him. Again, I think the 21 year old really affected him - when she was was talking about the guy who'd asked her out and later in the show she seemed on the brink of tears and I think Louis recognises severe repression when he sees it.

Here's to Phelps getting really severe cancer and dying horribly, not because i wish that kind of pain on anyone, but because if he did it might just make some of them realise that they do not follow the path of god.


----------



## renegadechicken (Apr 2, 2007)

There is some really interesting articles in links from bbc 2 website about the 'church' in their local paper...letters from one of the sons who left an open letter from fred, the laws being made to attempt to stop them.......interesting stuff.

Theroux did appear to flounder, but i do think that he thought he would be able to pull it off like he normally does, only the depth of indoctrination was too deep.

good viewing though.........and when the 21 year old was asked to go for coffee, with a camera crew and her mother said no.....well that really threw him.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 2, 2007)

yeah his gig is to go live with the people not to do a complete documentary... 

damn good revealing

they were so courteus but with misplaced hate


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 2, 2007)

Has anyone here heard of The Plymouth Brethren?

I am an atheist.


----------



## Grandma Death (Apr 2, 2007)

I felt sorry for the kids. They didnt seem to really understand why they were there and that kid that got hit with the soft drink carton.   As Theroux said in all of this, their kids were also the victims.


----------



## zygote (Apr 2, 2007)

I'm not gonna read this thread. I've got it on me skybox.

Looking forward to it with unbridled glee.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 2, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> I felt sorry for the kids. They didnt seem to really understand why they were there and that kid that got hit with the soft drink carton.   As Theroux said in all of this, their kids were also the victims.



Yup, That was what I was left feeling... those poor kids. They had no concept of any other life or a future that we are all entitled to with partnerships , happiness and children of our own because like everyone has said the indoctrination was so deep.

It was completely cultish


----------



## Chairman Meow (Apr 2, 2007)

It was an incredible programme. I tried, and failed to get my head around their biblical logic, but then I suppose most  people would. As an ex-JW myself I did flinch at some of it being a bit too familiar (references to not mixing with 'the world' and the casting out/disfellowshipping of ex members.) I thought Theroux did a good job, as others have pointed its pretty much impossible to argue against closed logic like this, but I thought we did see a few vulnerabilities, especially with the 21 year old girl, who I thought was almost flirting with him at times! I did feel sorry for the kids though, what the hell are their parents thinking? I wouldn't be surprised if someone (ex military perhaps) did a drive by on the whole lot of them.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 2, 2007)

anyone else suprised at the lack of actual scripture that was quoted, despite them claiming they rely on the bible for their 'orders' from God??

MRfit made a good point- If they had started quoting any of it then it would be very very easy to say ah but (Insert alternative contradictory quote)


----------



## bellator (Apr 2, 2007)

The mother was obsessed by "fornication", feel so sorry for the kids.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 2, 2007)

I didnt think the smaller ones even understood what 'fags' did which the mother objected to nor what the link was between them and dead soldiers....
Sooo fucked up


----------



## gnoriac (Apr 2, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> anyone else suprised at the lack of actual scripture that was quoted, despite them claiming they rely on the bible for their 'orders' from God??
> 
> MRfit made a good point- If they had started quoting any of it then it would be very very easy to say ah but (Insert alternative contradictory quote)



I noticed that too, I think it's rather they had a closed system in which the only 'wisdom' was that received from Gramps and everything else was validated in terms of this.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 2, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> I've never seen Theroux so close to cracking, even with the skinheads/KKK... It was clear these people were getting to him. He recognised that the younger women had a lot of potential in them, especially the 21 year old who was sometimes frustratingly on the verge of revealing her humanity... I think the kids really got to him as well - with lamb and lynx (the white nationalist girls) it almost seemed like a passing phase that he knew they might start to see around when they were older, but he could see the strength of the Phelps indoctrination here and the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
> 
> I think this issue was too much for him, and that's no criticism - I doubt anyone could handle it as well as he did. He seemed to communicate well with the younger members of the family and there was a genuine liking for some of them. It seemed to really get to him when he realised that he couldn't get to them, although they were still nice to him. Again, I think the 21 year old really affected him - when she was was talking about the guy who'd asked her out and later in the show she seemed on the brink of tears and I think Louis recognises severe repression when he sees it.



This was the bit that struck me, too. I really thought Louis was close to getting through to that 21 year old. When he asked if she had ever rebelled against the church, and she said that, if she had, she wouldn't tell him, but then went on to say that she regretted some of the things she had previously said and done, I got a sense that Louis realised he was too late.

I thought Louis was brilliant, although I also thought he was surprisingly nervous when actually interviewing Phelps.


----------



## Termite Man (Apr 2, 2007)

One thing I did notice was that every single girl he talked to was not bothered about marriage/kids . Hopefully thats how things will stay and these bastards don't breed any more generations of hatemongers


----------



## Idaho (Apr 2, 2007)

What they need is a christian minister who claims to completely agree with them, to read something else from the bible. The bible probably has about 5 comments in the whole book about homosexuality - of which a couple are at best nebulous.

It seems weird that they have fixated on this particular element.

"They worship the rectum" 

It struck me that none of them really knew much in the bible at all but just listened to the preacher.


----------



## waterloowelshy (Apr 2, 2007)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> One thing I did notice was that every single girl he talked to was not bothered about marriage/kids . Hopefully thats how things will stay and these bastards don't breed any more generations of hatemongers


as a kind of aside to that - why did louis not question how the mother had raised 12 children when she was vehemently against any of her children having sex? – I mean she must have been a right goer at one point! – something that louis didn’t really pick up on – id have loved to seen the mothers response to him asking why she was so against her children having any relationships when she must have been a right sl*t at some point?!


----------



## Chairman Meow (Apr 2, 2007)

I thought the problem with the young girls not wanting to marry was because there didn't appear to be any suitable young men for them to marry?  Hopefully they'll go the way of the Shakers though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> Has anyone here heard of The Plymouth Brethren?
> 
> I am an atheist.


Yeah, we had a couple at my middle school - they didn't go to assembly and they wore head scarves - no-one talked to them - are they a creepy cult? I just thought they were non-conformists


----------



## Belushi (Apr 2, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> Has anyone here heard of The Plymouth Brethren?



My Great Uncle Tom was one, they used to meet in a little tin chapel in our village.

I dont know much about them except he used to come to my Mams to watch the telly sometimes as they werent allowed to have one at home.


----------



## STFC (Apr 2, 2007)

Crazy, crazy people. Very surprised that the only action against them by the public was a plastic drink cup being thrown from a moving car. Poor young lad whose head it bounced off wouldn't have had any idea why it happened.

I suspect that the police that kept them away from the funerals were there for their protection more than anything else. If they carry on abusing America's war dead then I'm sure some retribution will come their way.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 2, 2007)

I was thinking, if they decided to take a jaunt to the U.K they'd probably receive a very traditional British head kicking - from police, public and others. I was wondering at which point 'gramps' decided to let his daughter front the pickets.

Much less chance of getting hurt then, eh Fred?

From wiki..




			
				wiki said:
			
		

> Two days after the September 11th attacks, a lone 19-year old named Jared stood on the street corner facing the church holding up a cardboard sign that said "Not today Fred." In two days, about 90 people joined him, waving American flags and anti-hate signs. Since then, "Not today Fred" has become a commonly used motto for counter protests against Phelps.



Now that's a fantastic way of dealing with them imo. 'Not Today Fred' relegates their self importance to the attitude you'd apply to a temper tantruming three year old 'Not today kid'.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 2, 2007)

Google 'phelps, mattock' and you come up with some insights into Phelps's character ...


----------



## LDR (Apr 2, 2007)

The Rev. Fred Phelps reminds of that guy from Poltergeist.


----------



## laptop (Apr 2, 2007)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> The Rev. Fred Phelps reminds of that guy from Poltergeist.



Who's a straight lift of the old preacher in Wise Blood. Can't find a bloody picture


----------



## Radar (Apr 2, 2007)

Balls, the tivo missed it. Any talk of a repeat ??


----------



## waterloowelshy (Apr 2, 2007)

Chairman Meow said:
			
		

> I thought the problem with the young girls not wanting to marry was because there didn't appear to be any suitable young men for them to marry?  Hopefully they'll go the way of the Shakers though.


i took it as the mother not wanting her daughters to marry anyone or have any sexual contact with anyone ever.  which was a bit perverse really coming from somebody that had given birth to 11 children?!


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 2, 2007)

Radar said:
			
		

> Balls, the tivo missed it. Any talk of a repeat ??



Wednesday at 1120pm, according to my TV guide.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 2, 2007)

The men could marry, but the women couldn't  

Lot of women in the church.

Methinks old Fred's been [comment removed in case of legal repercussions]


----------



## Structaural (Apr 2, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Google 'phelps, mattock' and you come up with some insights into Phelps's character ...



Fuck, what an even nastier piece of work than I first thought.. beating his kids until they pass out from shock...

'missing' kids story


----------



## Radar (Apr 2, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Wednesday at 1120pm, according to my TV guide.


W00tage... Thanks roadkill


----------



## Structaural (Apr 2, 2007)

Mentions that he's been or going to be on Jerry Springer...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 2, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Theroux's ability to mix with utter cunts and keep a straight face can only be admired.
> 
> Top prog!



Yeah I aggree. He did begin to lose his cool a bit as he pointed out Jesus was a jew and it was the Romans that put him to death. I think he could have played it calmer and put more points to that chap.

Mind you there was no convicing them was there? and I would have lost my rag days before.


----------



## STFC (Apr 2, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> i took it as the mother not wanting her daughters to marry anyone or have any sexual contact with anyone ever.  which was a bit perverse really coming from somebody that had given birth to 11 children?!



But it's God's Will. No comebacks allowed.


----------



## stavros (Apr 2, 2007)

The three main subjects of the film were Phelps, the mother and the 21 year old, but I'm not sure any account was made of the the whereabouts of the father. Did I miss this somehow?

To try and insert some much missed humour into a thoroughly dark subject, two things struck me; firstly hell's going to be bloody crowded, and secondly there was a slight irony sitting next to my flatmate watching "God hates fags" whilst smoking a cigarette.


----------



## wishface (Apr 2, 2007)

That whole lifestyle, the church, the too-many-kids, the firebrand preacher was so much that I actually thought it was going to rain fire and brimstone at one point.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 2, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> Fuck, what an even nastier piece of work than I first thought.. beating his kids until they pass out from shock...
> 
> 'missing' kids story



I feel cold...


----------



## Poot (Apr 2, 2007)

There was a scene that made me laugh, which was the one where the three girls were giggling and being completely normal and affable and you just see them happily walking out of shot still carrying placards that say: "Death To Fags!" and "God Hates Dykes!". 

I think the grandfather may have been suffering from some form of mental illness and has been able to domitate the family absolutely, and I don't think the 21 year old, or in fact any of the older girls are 100% convinced. I heard what was coming out of their mouths and it didn't match their body language. 

And I don't care what anyone says, the "it's God's will" argument is brilliant. I use it to get out of loading the dishwasher. I suggest we all use it to avoid tasks we don't want to do. Always. Or for staying in the pub too late.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 2, 2007)

waterloowelshy said:
			
		

> as a kind of aside to that - why did louis not question how the mother had raised 12 children when she was vehemently against any of her children having sex? – I mean she must have been a right goer at one point! – something that louis didn’t really pick up on – id have loved to seen the mothers response to him asking why she was so against her children having any relationships when she must have been a right sl*t at some point?!



Don't know about 'right slut' but it was something I kept hoping he'd ask. It was a glaring hypocrisy that she was allowed to enjoy her self within her relationship but denied her children the same...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 2, 2007)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> The Rev. Fred Phelps reminds of that guy from Poltergeist.



Haha thought that too!


----------



## Gerry1time (Apr 2, 2007)

Did anyone else wonder where they got their money when that woman said they spent around $200k per year on flights alone?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 2, 2007)

Gerry1time said:
			
		

> Did anyone else wonder where they got their money when that woman said they spent around $200k per year on flights alone?



Yep! I think they said something about donations. Someone said they give 10% of their wages and that there's a lot of well paid lawyers that are members etc. But still didn't get a sense of the number of people in that 'church' and how it all added it...probably dodgy financial dealings or something?


----------



## mitochondria (Apr 2, 2007)

never heard of the westboro - there are so many freaks in america. it is sad to see another madman brainwashing and controlling naive people but they are rather harmless (except self harm). i think they wouldnt let theroux in elohim city or similar places. could be interesting, too.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 2, 2007)

STFC said:
			
		

> Crazy, crazy people. Very surprised that the only action against them by the public was a plastic drink cup being thrown from a moving car. Poor young lad whose head it bounced off wouldn't have had any idea why it happened.
> 
> I suspect that the police that kept them away from the funerals were there for their protection more than anything else. If they carry on abusing America's war dead then I'm sure some retribution will come their way.



These folks live less than 100 miles from me.  They often show up in town, holding their little signs.  I think the fact that no one has offed them is proof that there is a general respect for the 1st amendment.  Mostly when they come, the local authorities have organized their own rally opposing them, but completely removed physically.  It helps draw those who'd take a shot at them away.


----------



## LilMissHissyFit (Apr 2, 2007)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Yep! I think they said something about donations. Someone said they give 10% of their wages and that there's a lot of well paid lawyers that are members etc. But still didn't get a sense of the number of people in that 'church' and how it all added it...probably dodgy financial dealings or something?



Doing a few searches showed up allegations of possible fraudulent behaviours...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 2, 2007)

This isn't the only odd group to inhabit the area.  The Maharishi set up shop in eastern Iowa and has pretty much sewn up the local government.   He's the guy the Beatles hung out with for a while and then called him a fraud.  He teaches a form of Hinduism that could best be called Hinduism-lite for a rather large fee.  The city is called Maharishi Vedic City.

Ironically, there are also old order Amish and some Mennonites there too.  So you'll see people walking around in white robes while dark clothed Amish roll by in their buggies.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 2, 2007)

LilMissHissyFit said:
			
		

> Doing a few searches showed up allegations of possible fraudulent behaviours...



Its been alleged that they've also vandalized graves.  A female soldiers grave in Hastings, Nebraska was vandalized with mysogenist slogans, the gravestone overturned, etc.  

Not to mention the alleged claims of sexual abuse of minors.


----------



## wishface (Apr 2, 2007)

how they hell are these people not in prison! I can't see America taking anything but the msot dim view over the descration of a soldiers grave


----------



## locutus12 (Apr 2, 2007)

is there anywhere to watch this online now its aired ?  i missed it   its a BBC show isnt it ??  i.e.  public property, ?   any ideas how i can get ahold of it guys ?


----------



## Loki (Apr 2, 2007)

It's on UKNova if you've got an account there


----------



## laptop (Apr 2, 2007)

locutus12 said:
			
		

> its a BBC show isnt it ??  i.e.  public property, ?



If the BBC shows a film, that doesn't make it public property. The BBC has a licence to show it once. 

Not sure whether Theroux's pieces are produced by the BBC or by an independent - if the latter, and if they have any sense, they'll have licensed it to the Beeb in a similar fashion.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 2, 2007)

This film is way too important to ignore. Initially it reminded me of an HBO film but to my horror, it proved all too real.

I hope it's exported to other countries. Simply because it highlights the madness of extreme extremism. Something that is not just confined to the Middle East and its proponents of ongoing dogmatic fracas but something that is very much alive in the west.

Fuck religion.


----------



## locutus12 (Apr 3, 2007)

Loki said:
			
		

> It's on UKNova if you've got an account there




got it, god bless usenet @ 490kbps


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

pk said:
			
		

> This Sunday at 9pm (I forget which channel) the unflappable Louis Theroux goes to see Phelps and crew, responsible for the God Hates Fags website, and whose members picket funerals of dead soldiers and gay men and women to draw attention to their twisted interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> I wonder if he'll ask Phelps about the well documented paedophile accusations, or the fact that many family members have fled the old man after years of abuse?




Who is Louis Theroux? Let me guess; another british filmmaker getting ready to go all goggle-eyed at some more zany american weirdness.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Just gone partway through the thread. You people just lap this stuff up.

You realize what it is, don't you? It's the Daily Mail, US Edition. These documentaries that you love do the same cartoonish caricature of the US, that the Daily Mail does in your own country.

You knock the Daily Mail, but you're doing the same thing that its readers do every day.


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Apr 3, 2007)

Just watched it now, some of the girls in that church are well fit. Curse their narrow minds.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

i_hate_beckham said:
			
		

> Just watched it now, some of the girls in that church are well fit. Curse their narrow minds.



Dude: church girls are easy.


----------



## Cid (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Just gone partway through the thread. You people just lap this stuff up.
> 
> You realize what it is, don't you? It's the Daily Mail, US Edition. These documentaries that you love do the same cartoonish caricature of the US, that the Daily Mail does in your own country.
> 
> You knock the Daily Mail, but you're doing the same thing that its readers do every day.



For someone who's never heard of Theroux you're making some pretty fucking huge assumptions about his film-making. 

For what it's worth he is very un-daily mail... His style is to approach contentious figures, in the UK and US and attempt to get inside what makes them tick. He's done it with everyone from the gambling industry, to white nationalists and the Hamiltons. He never claims that the people he meets are extrapolated to the wider world, he looks at extremes and tries to see things from their point of view. He's polite and unassuming (which is why he's so good at getting under their skin) and above all he shows both sides. In this particular film he shows the absolute disgust most Americans have for these people... A drink thrown at the Phelps' as they picket, the sharp contrasts between vile bastards spewing hate-filled shite at a funeral and the sadness of the ceremony itself. 

No-one thinks America is populated by Westboro types and the film takes great pains to point out that there are very few of them... It's a look at a sad example of indoctrination and bigotry rather than any kind of attempt to comment on America as a whole.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> For someone who's never heard of Theroux you're making some pretty fucking huge assumptions about his film-making.
> 
> For what it's worth he is very un-daily mail... His style is to approach contentious figures, in the UK and US and attempt to get inside what makes them tick. He's done it with everyone from the gambling industry, to white nationalists and the Hamiltons. He never claims that the people he meets are extrapolated to the wider world, he looks at extremes and tries to see things from their point of view. He's polite and unassuming (which is why he's so good at getting under their skin) and above all he shows both sides. In this particular film he shows the absolute disgust most Americans have for these people... A drink thrown at the Phelps' as they picket, the sharp contrasts between vile bastards spewing hate-filled shite at a funeral and the sadness of the ceremony itself.
> 
> No-one thinks America is populated by Westboro types and the film takes great pains to point out that there are very few of them... It's a look at a sad example of indoctrination and bigotry rather than any kind of attempt to comment on America as a whole.



When I read that he's going after the god hates fags people, it seems he's just setting up a huge target to knock down, so all the british people can go tsk tsk.

I've seen a number of these british documentaries about the US. The one that springs to mind is Wrong Eyed Jesus. Can it get any more cartoon? Half the time, I expect the filmmaker to turn and make goggle eyes into the camera, as we watch the weird american antics.

Those people do exist, but the whole pastiche is much more nuanced.

If you want to puncture the balloon of american folly and prejudice, take a lesson from Borat.

These other things are just the Daily Mail, or the National Enquirer.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> and the film takes great pains to point out that there are very few of them... It's a look at a sad example of indoctrination and bigotry rather than any kind of attempt to comment on America as a whole.



These types of documentaries inevitably say that; then they proceed to focus their sole attention on the weirdest and most outlandish american behaviour they can find.

The problem is the power of the image. Yes, they can say, 'this isn't representative', but when you're bombarded with all these images of holy rollers, tongue talkers and snake handlers, the impression tends to stick.


----------



## Cid (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny the whole point in Theroux is that he focuses on the weirdest elements, quote from him (from Wiki);



> Setting out to discover the genuinely odd in the most ordinary setting. To me, it's almost a privilege to be welcomed into these communities and to shine a light on them and, maybe, through my enthusiasm, to get people to reveal more of themselves than they may have intended. The show is laughing at me, adrift in their world, as much as at them. I don't have to play up that stuff. I'm not a matinee idol disguised as a nerd.



He doesn't just do America anyway... And how can you possibly comment if you've never seen anything by him?


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 3, 2007)

In anycase, I suppose Johnny couldn't know he's Paul Theroux's son.

Which means, he is a...........


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> These types of documentaries inevitably say that; then they proceed to focus their sole attention on the weirdest and most outlandish american behaviour they can find.
> 
> The problem is the power of the image. Yes, they can say, 'this isn't representative', but when you're bombarded with all these images of holy rollers, tongue talkers and snake handlers, the impression tends to stick.



As it happens Johnny boy, we in Europe get bombarded every night of the week with programmes that depict the Seppoes as a bunch of swindling, self serving murderous corrupt cunts. It's called American TV. And our people are stupid enough to pay for it.

So never justify the Seppoes as having had 'bad press' they have been actively hawking this shit all over the world for years.


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Dude: church girls are easy.


Not those ones it seems.


----------



## Dhimmi (Apr 3, 2007)

Rejoice Brothers and Sisters, the gospel is here...

Westboro feel the righteous hand upon them;


Meanwhile an Aussie flirts;


Cops hate Westboro Baptists;


Bikers hate Westboro Baptists too;


Louis Theroux's Prog (in seven parts) find the rest yourself sinners.


Amen!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> These types of documentaries inevitably say that; then they proceed to focus their sole attention on the weirdest and most outlandish american behaviour they can find.
> 
> The problem is the power of the image. Yes, they can say, 'this isn't representative', but when you're bombarded with all these images of holy rollers, tongue talkers and snake handlers, the impression tends to stick.



Seriously, if you don't know Louis Theroux, you don't know what you are talking about 

His documentaries are quite, quite different, and are NOT only about Americans. Does anyone remember the one about Jimmy Savile? That was uncomfortable watching.

People who do watch/read Louis Theroux, know that he is dealing with oddities and extremes, and you miss the point somewhat in your posts on this thread.


----------



## rhod (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I've seen a number of these british documentaries about the US.




Actually, the most precise and nuanced criticism of organisations like this comes from America itself

Whether this site is "funnier" or more "real" than this one is, I am sure, a cause for some concern...

It's only a matter of time before some *very* ugly things start happening if these people persist in picketing military funerals, using their stupid placards, and children as shields..


----------



## Structaural (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> When I read that he's going after the god hates fags people, it seems he's just setting up a huge target to knock down, so all the british people can go tsk tsk.
> 
> I've seen a number of these british documentaries about the US. The one that springs to mind is Wrong Eyed Jesus. Can it get any more cartoon? Half the time, I expect the filmmaker to turn and make goggle eyes into the camera, as we watch the weird american antics.
> 
> ...



I suggest you watch it before judging it JC, because you've got the wrong end of the stick with this one. Especially if you think Borat does a better job than Theroux.

With 'Searching for Wrong Eyed Jesus' as other posters have pointed out, the view of America that is exported is as much a fantasy as anything else. At least these docus show the other side of America (it's dark heart) and the type of people who make and influence policy in the US...especially at the moment.


----------



## diond (Apr 3, 2007)

If anybody can get on to the Godhatesfags website, could they do me a favour and download the "open letter to england" and post it via P.M to me. It's a PDF and Websense is not letting it through. Cheers.


----------



## rhod (Apr 3, 2007)

Not sure how to send attachments by PM, but I've posted  a Rapidshare link, and the Direct link itself.


Hilarious - apparently I belong to a "raunchy group of pagans" - I'm sure the missus will welcome this development!

The more you read stuff like that though, you have to ask are they REALLY that deranged, or just taking the piss, or what ??


----------



## diond (Apr 3, 2007)

rhod said:
			
		

> Not sure how to send attachments by PM, but I've posted  a Rapidshare link, and the Direct link itself.
> 
> 
> Hilarious - apparently I belong to a "raunchy group of pagans" - I'm sure the missus will welcome this development!
> ...



I really do appreciate this, but websense blocks both rapidshare and the direct link.   Bummer.


----------



## rhod (Apr 3, 2007)

The wikipedia entry for the good Rev Phelps is very informative - I was intrigued by one section:



> Because his activism has provoked opposition, some have speculated that Phelps might be an elaborate prankster or agent provocateur. Such speculation has come from conservatives who believe he is consciously trying to discredit social conservatives, and "some among the extreme-right have speculated that Phelps is a plant aimed at giving the anti-gay movement a bad name".



Who knows?


Anyway, having thought about Theroux's approach to the interview, I do think he shot his bolt a bit soon by asking "how many children you have" - you could see instantly that Phelp's mental guard had shot up - I would have thought that Theoroux would have been better to discuss with him at length his views on the Bible, how times were different from when he was a kid, that sort of thing - and buttered him up a little before asking about about his own kids - a few of which have clearly made serious allegations, and would thus be a topic that Phelps would want to avoid with someone he has just shaken hands with with a camera crew.


----------



## rhod (Apr 3, 2007)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/giftedidiot/20070401_open-letter-to-uk-001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/giftedidiot/20070401_open-letter-to-uk-002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/giftedidiot/20070401_open-letter-to-uk-003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/giftedidiot/20070401_open-letter-to-uk-004.jpg


----------



## diond (Apr 3, 2007)

Cheers for that, _again_ matey, but Websense blanked out your scanned pictures too. Luckily, I'm at home and have downloaded it and will send them back to work via email


----------



## zoooo (Apr 3, 2007)

I do believe I want to marry Louis Theroux.


----------



## stavros (Apr 3, 2007)

Louis' US-based documentaries have largely been a celebration of its diversity. Yes they expose their weirdness, but, prior to Sunday's show, they never judge it. The humour arises from a middle-class Englishman trying to integrate himself with all his gusto into communities which he wouldn't immediately appear to fit into, done with a subtle embarrassment. The laughs are usually at Louis, and almost always his subjects develop a sense of affection for him by the end of his stay.

I think the reasons he's largely worked in America are firstly because he has half-US citizenship, and secondly because it's the country we Brits are most exposed to culturally other than our own. There's also the language that helps.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 3, 2007)

zoooo said:
			
		

> I do believe I want to marry Louis Theroux.



Not sure he is either available or the marrying type


----------



## mwgdrwg (Apr 3, 2007)

I watched it and just don't know what to say. Those poor children and the young girls will be so fucked up in the head. It was abuse, and horrific to watch. 

The student lawyer was so nice I really wanted her to say that she had doubts or something. Louis was desperate for the same. Desperate for her to show something that would hint at the possibility that one day she would leave.

She had obviously rebelled as a child/teen, it's horrible to think what they did to her then.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2007)

mwgdrwg said:
			
		

> She had obviously rebelled as a child/teen, it's horrible to think what they did to her then.



They hadn't necessarily done anything so terrible, maybe just the usual 'family' stuff - silent treatment, looks of 'disappointment' etc.

It sounds like they'd lost a few family members top adolescent rebellion already so I imagine they'd figured out that going medieval has limited usefulness.


----------



## D'wards (Apr 3, 2007)

I felt genuinely sad when the boy got hit by the milksghake whing and was trying not to cry - brainwashing these kids is tantamount to child abuse. They are ensuring the children's futures are filled with hate and conflict.

Love to hear from the "lost" children


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Johnny the whole point in Theroux is that he focuses on the weirdest elements, quote from him (from Wiki);
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't just do America anyway... And how can you possibly comment if you've never seen anything by him?



I was making a general comment about british documentaries concerning the US, and how it sounded like this one fit right into the mold.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I was making a general comment about british documentaries concerning the US, and how it sounded like this one fit right into the mold.



Good for you. It's spelt 'mould' and you haven't seen it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Ask yourself this: when was the last time you saw a british made documentary about the US that involved a positive topic, as opposed to a negative or just plain weird one?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Good for you. It's spelt 'mould' and you haven't seen it




mold1      /moʊld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mohld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun 1. a hollow form or matrix for giving a particular shape to something in a molten or plastic state.  
2. the shape created or imparted to a thing by a mold.  
3. something formed in or on a mold: a mold of jelly.  
4. a frame on which something is formed or made.  
5. shape or form.  
6. a prototype, example, or precursor.  
7. a distinctive nature, character, or type: a person of a simple mold.  
8. Shipbuilding. a. a three-dimensional pattern used to shape a plate after it has been softened by heating.  
b. a template for a frame.  

9. Architecture. a. a molding.  
b. a group of moldings.  

–verb (used with object) 10. to work into a required shape or form; shape.  
11. to shape or form in or on a mold.  
12. Metallurgy. to form a mold of or from, in order to make a casting.  
13. to produce by or as if by shaping material; form.  
14. to have influence in determining or forming: to mold the character of a child.  
15. to ornament with moldings.


----------



## LDR (Apr 3, 2007)

D'wards said:
			
		

> Love to hear from the "lost" children


You can read about their views here.  I warn you, it's not nice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> In anycase, I suppose Johnny couldn't know he's Paul Theroux's son.
> 
> Which means, he is a...........



.... less accomplished son trying to live up to the reputation of his more talented father?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> As it happens Johnny boy, we in Europe get bombarded every night of the week with programmes that depict the Seppoes as a bunch of swindling, self serving murderous corrupt cunts. It's called American TV. And our people are stupid enough to pay for it.
> 
> So never justify the Seppoes as having had 'bad press' they have been actively hawking this shit all over the world for years.



Well, I've watched Father Ted, Benny Hill, etc, but I don't actually believe that all britons are a bunch of drunken buffoons.

I realize that it's just tv, you see.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> mold1      /moʊld/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mohld] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun 1. a hollow form or matrix for giving a particular shape to something in a molten or plastic state.
> 2. the shape created or imparted to a thing by a mold.
> 3. something formed in or on a mold: a mold of jelly.
> ...



Dictionary.com is American.

How lazy.

Hehe, I love how you've cut it just before this bit:

'Also, especially British, mould.'


----------



## LDR (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Well, I've watched Father Ted, Benny Hill, etc, but I don't actually believe that all britons are a bunch of drunken buffoons.


Most of the ones I hang about with are.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Seriously, if you don't know Louis Theroux, you don't know what you are talking about .



My dig really isn't at Theroux. I can't do that, because I don't know his work. I only know that in this  instance, he's chosen the god hates fags people as his subject.

My dig was at the endless appetite in britain for documentaries that show the americans to be deranged bible thumping hilbillies.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> I
> With 'Searching for Wrong Eyed Jesus' as other posters have pointed out, the view of America that is exported is as much a fantasy as anything else. At least these docus show the other side of America (it's dark heart) and the type of people who make and influence policy in the US...especially at the moment.


Wrong-Eyed wasn't a US export: it was a british-made documentary.

Yes, you get an endless diet of the 'dark side' of America, but little about any other side. This sort of thing has an insidious effect on your perception of how and why the US does things. It feeds your paranoid belief that the country is run by a bunch of snake handling baptist crazies bent on bringing fundamentalism and mcdonalds to every corner of the world.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> but little about any other side.



that's bollocks, Johnny. US culture is very pervasive in the UK, and very little of it is of this kind of 'dark side' / critical variety.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> My dig was at the endless appetite in britain for documentaries that show the americans to be deranged bible thumping hilbillies.



We have documentaries showing Americans as psychopathic warmongers too.

And corrupt oil magnates despoiling the environment.

And corporate monsters.

And we have documentaries about Americans who stand against other Americans who are all these things.

Louis Theroux has done plenty of documentaries about nutty British people too.  It's what he does, finds the humanity behind the weird beliefs that create barriers between people.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

stavros said:
			
		

> Louis' US-based documentaries have largely been a celebration of its diversity. Yes they expose their weirdness, but, prior to Sunday's show, they never judge it. .



"In Weird Weekends (1998–2000), Louis followed marginal, mostly American subcultures like survivalists, gangsta rappers, Nazi Skinheads and porn stars, often by living among or close to the people involved."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux#Documentaries

Nope, no judgement there: he just happened to happen upon these particular american subgroups, as opposed to anti poverty activists, conservationists, surfers, etc etc etc.

The man obviously knows his audience.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

stavros said:
			
		

> I think the reasons he's largely worked in America are firstly because he has half-US citizenship, and secondly because it's the country we Brits are most exposed to culturally other than our own. There's also the language that helps.



I think he does it because maybe there's a limited sense of humour in britain about your own marginal subgroups.

I recall one documentary I saw about rural britain and their attitudes toward gypsies; it ended with the farmers burning some caravans, without real concern for who was in them.

Actually you're right: that's not very funny.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Btw, don't get me wrong. I love documentaries about weird US or canadian groups of people. I feel the same way about survivalists, holy rollers and mormons, that you do.

The difference is that we know that this isn't all that there is; we get coverage of diverse aspects of NA culture; your exposure is heavy on the 'weird' side.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 3, 2007)

no it's not.

Trust me, I live here


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 3, 2007)

Pedantic, I know, but a) Father Ted was made and filmed in the Republic, and b)Benny Hill was tee total.(To my knowledge, piss artistry was never a part of his humour)

Johnny. Don't wriggle. The world picture of seppoe land is one of unrestricted criminality, violence and corruption. If I hit the zapper with my knob-end, I'd be on evens to see a load of Yanks shooting each other. I speak English, so I know it's 'TV'- (just I'm fast losing the ability to understand that bastardised shite the Yanks talk)

How do you really believe the rest of the (Non- Anglophone) world perceives Johnny Sep. Really?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

mwgdrwg said:
			
		

> Dictionary.com is American.
> 
> How lazy.
> 
> ...



What's lazy about dictionary.com?

Also, the poster said I was incorrect in the use of the word: I wasn't. That's how we spell it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's bollocks, Johnny. US culture is very pervasive in the UK, and very little of it is of this kind of 'dark side' / critical variety.




I'm talking about documentaries. This one documentary generated pages of excited babble about those weird americans.

How many docus that show positive aspects of the US have aired recently on BBC?


----------



## D'wards (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Btw, don't get me wrong. I love documentaries about weird US or canadian groups of people. I feel the same way about survivalists, holy rollers and mormons, that you do.
> 
> The difference is that we know that this isn't all that there is; we get coverage of diverse aspects of NA culture; your exposure is heavy on the 'weird' side.



But to be fair, who wants to see a documentary about an average democrat voting 2.4 children family?

Give me Black Power, porn stars and Survivalists any day. 

We get so many great sitcoms and dramas from the US - we know you have "normal" people too.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 3, 2007)

i think you misunderstand the nature of documentaries, Johnny.

How many documentaries period deal with positive things?

"here's a one-hour look at some happy people with fulfilled lives"

dumbass


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 3, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> Louis Theroux has done plenty of documentaries about nutty British people too.  It's what he does, finds the humanity behind the weird beliefs that create barriers between people.



I'll have to watch this one to see how he handles the humanity of the god hates fags people.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'll have to watch this one to see how he handles the humanity of the god hates fags people.




very well. he was keen to explain that as a family - views aside - they were warm, friendly, close, loving..


----------



## 8ball (Apr 3, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'll have to watch this one to see how he handles the humanity of the god hates fags people.



Well, there _is_ the exception of Phelps himself.


----------



## exleper (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i think you misunderstand the nature of documentaries, Johnny.
> 
> How many documentaries period deal with positive things?
> 
> ...


that could be extended to, well, media in general.

i dont think theres ever been a time when you turn on the news and the main headline is 'these people are happy, everythings fine'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i think you misunderstand the nature of documentaries, Johnny.



I don't think that I do.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/sharkwater.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0795418/

You've never heard of Sargent Shriver, have you? I doubt it played on BBC


http://www.democracynow.org/static/IMIATOW.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/kqed/fillmore/program/

http://www.berkeleymedia.com/films/all_for_the_taking_21stcentury_urban_renewal


etc.


Dumbass.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

i'm sure i could cite a handful of examples of positive UK docs too, johnny, but are you going to try and pretend that negative / wacko / alarming ones don't dominate? 

dumbass


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

exleper said:
			
		

> that could be extended to, well, media in general.
> 
> i dont think theres ever been a time when you turn on the news and the main headline is 'these people are happy, everythings fine'




well precisely. But Johnny thinks we're being horribly unfair on the seppies


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> Johnny. Don't wriggle. The world picture of seppoe land is one of unrestricted criminality, violence and corruption.



Yes, and Hitler's propaganda image used to denigrate the US, was that it was a land of mafia style italian gangsters.

You guys are just buying into the modern version of that propaganda.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i'm sure i could cite a handful of examples of positive UK docs too, johnny, but are you going to try and pretend that negative / wacko / alarming ones don't dominate?
> 
> dumbass



I'm pointing out that there is a wealth of documentaries out there, on a host of subjects, both positive and negative, so you're wrong on what a documentary is meant to be.

And wacko negative ones probably do dominate your british media, when it comes to exposition of the US. That's my point exactly.

Shitforbrains.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well precisely. But Johnny thinks we're being horribly unfair on the seppies



I don't care if you're unfair. I'm just pointing out that when it comes to the consumption of documentaries about the US, you're no better than Daily Mail readers.

Nobody really expects the Daily Mail to be fair.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2007)

"Fair and Balanced" - isn't that the Daily Mail's slogan?

Or am I getting mixed up again?


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm pointing out that there is a wealth of documentaries out there, on a host of subjects, both positive and negative, so you're wrong on what a documentary is meant to be.



i didn't indicate a normative idea about docs, johnny, i didn't state that they're MEANT to be negative. I merely pointed out that positive docs of any kind are very much in the minority




			
				Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> And wacko negative ones probably do dominate your british media, when it comes to exposition of the US. That's my point exactly.



and as i already clearly stated, brainiac, wacko or negative ones dominate the british media period, whether about the US or not. This is not an anti-US problem, it's to do with what docs get made, and why, and who watches them.

I'd still maintain that the general portrayal of the US in the british media is positive, but then that's because so much of the british media is US generated anyway.

Do you never feel like just a bit of a twat telling people in another country what their TV is like? 

fucko


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 4, 2007)

Your hyperlinks Johnny, are lazily added to distract people from pertinent argument; But then, you are, allegedly, a lawyer.

I haven't time to read them.

Most of us are well aware that The U.S. is the greatest nation there ever was,(or hopefully ever will be, when we finally get rid of nations)

But the image of that nation abroad is pretty shabby.


----------



## LDR (Apr 4, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> "Fair and Balanced" - isn't that the Daily Mail's slogan?
> 
> Or am I getting mixed up again?


I thought it was "Blood and Fire" or is that The Salvation Army?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i didn't indicate a normative idea about docs, johnny, i didn't state that they're MEANT to be negative. I merely pointed out that positive docs of any kind are very much in the minority



Originally Posted by Dubversion
i think you misunderstand the *nature of documentaries*, Johnny.

How many documentaries period deal with positive things?

"here's a one-hour look at some happy people with fulfilled lives"


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Dubversion
> i think you misunderstand the *nature of documentaries*, Johnny.
> 
> How many documentaries period deal with positive things?
> ...




that's the nature of documentaries, yes - how they are.

not how they should be. 

thanks for confirming my point


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> iDo you never feel like just a bit of a twat telling people in another country what their TV is like?
> 
> fucko



I'm not. I made a comment that based on what I've seen, many british made documentaries about the US focus on the lunatic fringe, and that the british public seems to eat this stuff up.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm not. I made a comment that based on what I've seen, many british made documentaries about the US focus on the lunatic fringe, .



yes, many - but not all - do. THis is - as I'm being to tire of explaining - the way documentaries are (not, to be clear, how they necessarily SHOULD be). However, this is neither  problem peculiar to the portrayal of the US NOR indicative of the broader impression of the US portrayed in the UK media. 

it's really EVER SO simple


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm not. I made a comment that based on what I've seen, many british made documentaries about the US focus on the lunatic fringe, and that the british public seems to eat this stuff up.



We'd make more films about our own loonies but we can't compete.


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 4, 2007)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> I thought it was "Blood and Fire" or is that The Salvation Army?



The Sally Anne is 'blood and fire' alright, but it's 'Blood and sand' when they get a swally on and Colonel Booth is round the corner pulling the wire


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> Your hyperlinks Johnny, are lazily added to distract people from pertinent argument; But then, you are, allegedly, a lawyer.
> 
> I haven't time to read them.
> .



You shouldn't. Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant thing to experience.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> We'd make more films about our own loonies but we can't compete.



Like I said before, I don't think your sense of humour extends as much with your own loonies.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2007)

Talking of loonies - one of them made a rude gesture at me today.

I'm guessing the term 'loony' is a bit un-PC these days.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> yes, many - but not all - do. THis is - as I'm being to tire of explaining - the way documentaries are (not, to be clear, how they necessarily SHOULD be). However, this is neither  problem peculiar to the portrayal of the US NOR indicative of the broader impression of the US portrayed in the UK media.
> 
> it's really EVER SO simple



I'd be interested to see a list of documentaries run on the BBC in the past two years, that presented any positive aspect of the US.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Like I said before, I don't think your sense of humour extends as much with your own loonies.



It's less scary when there's an ocean between us and the loonies.
Maybe we could set up a documentary-maker exchange program.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to see a list of documentaries run on the BBC in the past two years, that presented any positive aspect of the US.



The Bob Dylan biopic.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny - i'll make it clear for you. A quick trawl of tonights docs / reality shows on the terrestrial channels.

One Life - a look at British women marrying much older men
Amazing Grace - the history of the song
Mad But Glad - a look at a british guy with Tourettes
The Secret World of Haute Couture (including Brits, americans and continental europeans)
Eunuchs - a look at voluntary eunuchs in both the UK and US
The Anastasia Theory - a look at the execution of the Russian Royal Family.

apologies if i've missed any - not on purpose, i promise.

so that's 6 docs, of which none were exclusively about the US, and 4 or perhaps even 5 are either 'wacky' or 'negative'.

Poor ole US of A, eh?


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to see a list of documentaries run on the BBC in the past two years, that presented any positive aspect of the US.




well there's an almost never-ending series of docs about US culture - Soul Deep, ( a history of soul music which looked at the socio-political context) is a notable example. A slew of recent programmes about NY music - disco, punk etc. This stuff is on all the time. In fact, i'd argue that the positive stuff about US culture far outweighs the negative stuff about fundies and neo-cons.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well there's an almost never-ending series of docs about US culture - Soul Deep, ( a history of soul music which looked at the socio-political context) is a notable example. A slew of recent programmes about NY music - disco, punk etc. This stuff is on all the time. In fact, i'd argue that the positive stuff about US culture far outweighs the negative stuff about fundies and neo-cons.


Yup. It's just that the anti-US stuff gets noticed here more, just because it's out of the mainstream, really.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 4, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Yup. It's just that the anti-US stuff gets noticed here more, just because it's out of the mainstream, really.




precisely, It's certainly not dominant in any way.

The audience for a show like Theroux's - which was in no way critical of broader US society anyway - is far lower than that for the many many hours per week of US soaps, dramas, movies and the like which tend (like ER or Frazier or whatever) to paint Americans in a perfectly fine light


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Some other docus for you:

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secretpoliceman.html

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/missionsuez.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/120106realface.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonday/feature_131204.html


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 4, 2007)

Actually, JC, if you moved away from Urban, you'd find lots of people who uncritically adore The Yanks. 

Personally, I don't think that's so healthy for The Yanks.

Oh, and cognitive dissonance? I'm sure I've heard this before. Is it like hyper-paradoxical behaviour syndome? You know, when someone tries to politely tell you you're talking bollocks, but you still persist?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> Actually, JC, if you moved away from Urban, you'd find lots of people who uncritically adore The Yanks.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that's so healthy for The Yanks.



It doesn't matter: they aren't listening anyway.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well there's an almost never-ending series of docs about US culture - Soul Deep, ( a history of soul music which looked at the socio-political context) is a notable example. A slew of recent programmes about NY music - disco, punk etc. This stuff is on all the time. In fact, i'd argue that the positive stuff about US culture far outweighs the negative stuff about fundies and neo-cons.



Really; that's good to know. Maybe I'm using U75 as a gauge of british culture, a little bit too much.


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 4, 2007)

Nope, I mixed it with 'Buyer Dissonance'_ which is when someone buys a Chrysler PT cruiser, and is so embarassed, they tell their mates it's great, in the hope they will buy one to. So they won't be the only cunt in the carpark.


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to see a list of documentaries run on the BBC in the past two years, that presented any positive aspect of the US.



Ummm... any number of BBC4 music docus, plenty of nature docus etc. The thing about documentries is that they're about something, and you're unlikely to find a succesful filmaker who's passion is happy families living normal lives. Theroux's ducmentries are actually quite positive sometimes, weird weekends has a few gems.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> precisely, It's certainly not dominant in any way.
> 
> The audience for a show like Theroux's - which was in no way critical of broader US society anyway - is far lower than that for the many many hours per week of US soaps, dramas, movies and the like which tend (like ER or Frazier or whatever) to paint Americans in a perfectly fine light



Plus, stuff like Wrong Eyed Jesus gets played in Canada because.......we like it too.

Fuckin' crazy americans....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> Nope, I mixed it with 'Buyer Dissonance'_ which is when someone buys a Chrysler PT cruiser, and is so embarassed, they tell their mates it's great, in the hope they will buy one to. So they won't be the only cunt in the carpark.



Someone who would be embarassed by that, would have bought a Ford Anglia or whatever, in the first place.


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter: they aren't listening anyway.



Blimey. Rumpole strikes again. Crushed.


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Oh yeah, Michael Palin did some good stuff on the US in _Full Circle_.


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Someone who would be embarassed by that, would have bought a Ford Anglia or whatever, in the first place.



To be fair, the original comment was from a guy called Webster, who with a bloke called Wind- 'tis twoo, wrote a book called 'Industrial Buying Behaviour' back in the good old greed is good eighties. Yes they were Seppoes.

His explanation of why there were 17 million deathtraps on the planet that couldn't go round a corner if a marmoset had pissed on the tarmac in the last 24 hours was, 'buyer dissonance'- and it referred to the VW Beetle.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

I'm sure Britain has a nice balanced view of the US, via its documentaries.




But you know...........when this many people jump down my throat with this much vigour, I'm pretty sure that I've hit a nerve.


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Well yes, you just implied we were all narrow minded idiots who thought that the antics of the Westboro baptist church applied to the wider culture of the US, then you went on to say that all our documentaries ram some kind of twisted vision of the US down our throats and we lap it up. Of course you hit a nerve.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Well yes, you just implied we were all narrow minded idiots who thought that the antics of the Westboro baptist church applied to the wider culture of the US, then you went on to say that all our documentaries ram some kind of twisted vision of the US down our throats and we lap it up. Of course you hit a nerve.



I'd agree in part with the second half of the sentence. I wouldn't say all, but many. And I do believe that you lap it up.

Look at the first few pages of this thread.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Ask yourself this: when was the last time you saw a british made documentary about the US that involved a positive topic, as opposed to a negative or just plain weird one?




Seriously, Theroux's programmes are not the run of the mill documentary types


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> My dig really isn't at Theroux. I can't do that, because I don't know his work. I only know that in this  instance, he's chosen the god hates fags people as his subject.
> 
> My dig was at the endless appetite in britain for documentaries that show the americans to be deranged bible thumping hilbillies.



And, he has previously chosen other strange groups and individuals, not all of whom have been American. 

Seriously, people who watch his programmes would certainly not think that he was suggesting that all Americans are like this. In fact, quite the opposite. He goes looking for people who are out of the ordinary. I have read his books, which are intriguing. Don't do what you believe he does, and generalise!


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'd agree in part with the second half of the sentence. I wouldn't say all, but many. And I do believe that you lap it up.
> 
> Look at the first few pages of this thread.



Nope, still don't agree with you... Sure there're a couple of posts from the usual 'oh my god I can't believe there are people like this, the whole world is ending... The humanity... THE HUMANITY' types, but they'll do that with anything here. I think if you took the first few pages in the context of having watched the documentary you'd realise that most people are just echoing the sentiment that there are some very weird people out there, the fact they're American doesn't have nearly as much bearing on it as you seem to think it does.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Nope, still don't agree with you... Sure there're a couple of posts from the usual 'oh my god I can't believe there are people like this, the whole world is ending... The humanity... THE HUMANITY' types, but they'll do that with anything here. I think if you took the first few pages in the context of having watched the documentary you'd realise that most people are just echoing the sentiment that there are some very weird people out there, the fact they're American doesn't have nearly as much bearing on it as you seem to think it does.



The first three or four pages are like a crowd gathered in dread fascination at the scene of a car wreck, and the crowd ain't budging.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm talking about documentaries. This one documentary generated pages of excited babble about those weird americans.
> 
> How many docus that show positive aspects of the US have aired recently on BBC?



Indeed. About THOSE weird Americans. No-one thought they were in a majority, ffs! In fact, it seems that it is all one family, and that they are despised by most of the population of the States, judging from the documentary.

I just find it weird that you are getting so exercised, and so argumentative, about a programme by a film maker whose work you have never seen!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> very well. he was keen to explain that as a family - views aside - they were warm, friendly, close, loving..



Indeed he did. He showed himself playing with the younger members of the family, and laughing with them, and them playing with each other. That was part of what made the programme so powerful - that we saw them as calm, intelligent people, but were unable to understand why they were so very obsessed with one small aspect of the bible and how they think this means that they are "saved" and that the rest of the Western world is not.

It was bewildering, it was sad, and it was gripping.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yes, and Hitler's propaganda image used to denigrate the US, was that it was a land of mafia style italian gangsters.
> 
> You guys are just buying into the modern version of that propaganda.



Oh, what rot!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Indeed. About THOSE weird Americans. No-one thought they were in a majority, ffs! In fact, it seems that it is all one family, and that they are despised by most of the population of the States, judging from the documentary.
> 
> I just find it weird that you are getting so exercised, and so argumentative, about a programme by a film maker whose work you have never seen!



I'm not exercised at all, and as for argumentative, I'm responding to the dozen or so posters who have vociferously told me how wrong I am.


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> The first three or four pages are like a crowd gathered in dread fascination at the scene of a car wreck, and the crowd ain't budging.



That's because that's what you get from a Theroux documentary. It's like watching the Office. You expect some frankly bizarre people and you expect Theroux to mix with them in his slightly bumbling middle-class way. It's that dynamic that makes them great... However if you came away from watching one of his pieces with the idea that it applied to anything wider than a tiny niche (particularly tiny in this case) then you would have missed the point completely.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm sure Britain has a nice balanced view of the US, via its documentaries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Speaking for myself, I am jumping down your throat because you are constantly demonstrating your ignorance about Louis Theroux, his television programmes and his books!


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

For my part it seems bizzarre that you are making such a scathing criticism of something that you have never watched or know anything about. Equally you seem to think you know everything about which documentaries are broadcast in the UK and what they're about, which is presumably bollocks unless you avidly follow our TV programming.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself, I am jumping down your throat because you are constantly demonstrating your ignorance about Louis Theroux, his television programmes and his books!



I'm not constantly anything about Louis Theroux. I don't know his work. My comment was about the penchant for british documentarians to make documentaries about US crazies, and the apparent appetite of the british public for such documentaries.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> For my part it seems bizzarre that you are making such a scathing criticism of something that you have never watched or know anything about..



I have watched british documentaries about US crazies.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Equally you seem to think you know everything about which documentaries are broadcast in the UK and what they're about, which is presumably bollocks unless you avidly follow our TV programming.



I don't know everything about anything; I made a comment, my opinion, based upon my observations of british documentaries.

I admit that I haven't seen all british documentaries.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I don't know everything about anything; I made a comment, my opinion, based upon my observations of british documentaries.
> 
> I admit that I haven't seen all british documentaries.



And you've been repeatedly told that this is not your average documentary


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> And you've been repeatedly told that this is not your average documentary



Shit: I better start listening more closely.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Shit: I better start listening more closely.



Or possibly watching the documentaries on which threads are based perhaps. 

I recommend the Jimmy Savile one highly, truly wierd televison


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm not constantly anything about Louis Theroux. I don't know his work. My comment was about the penchant for british documentarians to make documentaries about US crazies, and the apparent appetite of the british public for such documentaries.



But this thread is about a specific programme about a specific group of people! 

If it is about other programmes about US society or whatever, I will have to admit that I really can't think of any other than those made by Theroux. You see, I am a bit of a fan of his, so I watch the programmes he makes, and I read the books he writes, and I even go to listen to him at the Battersea Arts Festival! Sometimes he talks about Americans, but not always. Perhaps it is just that, with the population of the USA being slightly bigger than that of the UK, there are more groups out there?  I mean, we have our weirdos, but a lot of them do seem to be on their own. Anyone remember that guy with the sandwich board who used to walk around Central London, telling us that we were all doomed for something or other?

In fact, only yesterday, there was a bloke standing on the corner of Oxford Street shouting about freemasonry and holding up placards saying that 10% of judges are freemasons, and 46% of CPS lawyers! Kind of weird, but on his own, not much of a programme? 

Anyway, speaking for myself. I don't devour documentaries about Americans. Mostly, I wouldn't even watch them, to be frank. The Theroux ones are only actually watched by a minority audience, too. Neither do I judge the population of the USA depending on what I have seen on telly. If I did, there is no way I would have visited there so many times, and had so many Americans as friends and lovers, let me tell you!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Or possibly watching the documentaries on which threads are based perhaps.
> 
> I recommend the Jimmy Savile one highly, truly wierd televison



I'll watch for these Theroux documentaries. Doesn't change my opinion about the british fascination with US crazies, though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> But this thread is about a specific programme about a specific group of people!



Yep; then I broadened the discussion.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'll watch for these Theroux documentaries. Doesn't change my opinion about the british fascination with US crazies, though.



Or the U.S fascination with those darned funny furreners


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'll watch for these Theroux documentaries. Doesn't change my opinion about the british fascination with US crazies, though.



You really are not listening, are you? Most people in this country haven't even heard of Louis Theroux. He is, himself, a bit of a weirdo, who makes minority interest programmes which are shown on BBC2 or other minority channels, and writes books which are never even remotely close to becoming best sellers.

I don't have a particular fascination for "US crazies", and I really don't see how you are coming to this conclusion based on a thread about a very non-mainstream programme maker! You are just weird, really, aren't you? Perhaps you are a crazy? 

Shall we get Theroux over there to make a film about you?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yep; then I broadened the discussion.



But in doing so, you missed the point, and irritated a lot of people, including myself, who do not see Theroux as being a mainstream television person!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is just that, with the population of the USA being slightly bigger than that of the UK, there are more groups out there?  I mean, we have our weirdos, but a lot of them do seem to be on their own.



I don't know: off the top of my head, I can think of a number of british groups that could qualify: the BNP, skinheads, muslim radicals, the IRA, the Ulster Protestants, british C&W enthusiasts, soccer hooligans, etc. I'm sure that people who live there can think of lots more.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> But in doing so, you missed the point, and irritated a lot of people, including myself, who do not see Theroux as being a mainstream television person!



It doesn't take much to irritate you, does it?

Recall my original comment; "British documentarians seem to like to concentrate on the strange aspects of US culture, and the british audience seems to lap it up."

How and why does that irritate you, unless it's true, of course?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> You really are not listening, are you? Most people in this country haven't even heard of Louis Theroux. He is, himself, a bit of a weirdo, who makes minority interest programmes which are shown on BBC2 or other minority channels, and writes books which are never even remotely close to becoming best sellers.
> 
> I don't have a particular fascination for "US crazies", and I really don't see how you are coming to this conclusion based on a thread about a very non-mainstream programme maker! You are just weird, really, aren't you? Perhaps you are a crazy?
> 
> Shall we get Theroux over there to make a film about you?



When I came across the thread, about a documentarian [theroux], who'd made a docu about a fringe US group, it made me recall how other british documentarians seemed to also like to choose similar topics. What's odd about that, and how is it an attack on theroux?


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I have watched british documentaries about US crazies.



Yes, but we don't just get those... In fact there're relatively few of them shown. The docus that recieve big airtime tend to be political (eg the Adam Curtis ones) and often these focus on negative aspects, but applied worldwide rather than just to the US. In fact there were some particularly poor docus shortly after 9/11 that painted the US in a positive light. But that's about the USG, not the US people. On a more human level there are a fair few films that look at things which appeal to mass culture - people suffering disfiguring illnesses etc, the history of gangsters but these tend to be shown on channel 5 which no-one really takes eriously. 

Conversly the BBC has made some very good docus about American life, as an example BBC4 had a New York week not long ago which was excellent... I didn't watch all of it but the docus I did see were excellent, the one that particulary stood out was _once upon a time in New York_ about the way that the punk, disco and hip-hop grew simultaneously in the '70s and '80s. There's loads more out there ofc, imagine has covered prolific artistic figures; Arthur Miller, Brian Wilson, Brando, Warhol etc, BBC4 has done loads of stuff on the evolution of modern music (which often relates to marginalised sectors of American society) - even Bill Oddie's spent his time looking at wildlife in the states. All of these have shown the _people_ of America in a positive light, though many criticise the government.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Or the U.S fascination with those darned funny furreners



They aren't that interested. You wouldn't see a lot of docuementaries in the US about foreign crazies, unless it somehow had a US angle or impact.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Ah, here we come to something.

Unlike our American counterparts, the groups you have named don't want to be on television. They don't see it as a promotion of their ideas and organisations, because they know Theroux deals primarily with wierd bastards. Americans *heart* being on television.

It's a British thing, you might not understand


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I don't know: off the top of my head, I can think of a number of british groups that could qualify: the BNP, skinheads, muslim radicals, the IRA, the Ulster Protestants, british C&W enthusiasts, soccer hooligans, etc. I'm sure that people who live there can think of lots more.



I think Theroux is probably too shit scared to approach those guys, the thing about working in the states is that people don't really know what they're getting whereas people here are a) more aware of his work and b) less likely to accept a middle class BBC reporter as something of a quirky oddity. Incidentally pratically all of the above groups have had hidden camera style docus made about them over here.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It doesn't take much to irritate you, does it?
> 
> Recall my original comment; "British documentarians seem to like to concentrate on the strange aspects of US culture, and the british audience seems to lap it up."
> 
> How and why does that irritate you, unless it's true, of course?



Because, as I have stated and demonstrated several times, I am a fan of Louis Theroux, and the statement was made on a thread about him, when you admit that you know nothing about him, and have never seen his work 

This site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1488890.stm although out of date, might explain a bit about him and why his documentaries are not actually documentaries, and perhaps explain why I find it irritating that you are lumping him in with something unrelated.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Ah, here we come to something.
> 
> Unlike our American counterparts, the groups you have named don't want to be on television. They don't see it as a promotion of their ideas and organisations, because they know Theroux deals primarily with wierd bastards. Americans *heart* being on television.
> 
> It's a British thing, you might not understand



I think usually, documentarians misrepresent themselves a little to these fringe groups. They come across as if they care, when what they intend to do is slag them off.

I'd bet that documentaries have been made about all those groups, maybe not by british filmmakers. A good documentarian finds a way to win the trust of the subject.


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

You can watch a fair amount of his stuff online at alluc.org btw.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny is all about the unrelated stuff which he puts forward as an interesting line of debate on the topic at hand. Then we all dance merrily around him until it's time for his bed time, and the topic is abandoned some ten pages longer and so far away from the original point that the whole thread is rendered useless.

It's crude but effective.

JC2 = Fred Phelps


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> When I came across the thread, about a documentarian [theroux], who'd made a docu about a fringe US group, it made me recall how other british documentarians seemed to also like to choose similar topics. What's odd about that, and how is it an attack on theroux?



Firstly, he is not a documentarian as such, secondly, he doesn't make documentaries as such and thirdly, I didn't say it was an attack on Theroux, I said it was irritating because you were going on and on about something quite irrelevant to the thread and, in so doing, repeatedly showing your ignorance about someone of whom I a bit of a fan (although unlike someone else in this thread, I don't actually want to marry him!)


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I think usually, documentarians misrepresent themselves a little to these fringe groups. They come across as if they care, when what they intend to do is slag them off.
> 
> I'd bet that documentaries have been made about all those groups, maybe not by british filmmakers. A good documentarian finds a way to win the trust of the subject.



Well as I said most have had undercover docus made about them here.




			
				Balbi said:
			
		

> Johnny is all about the unrelated stuff which he puts forward as an interesting line of debate on the topic at hand. Then we all dance merrily around him until it's time for his bed time, and the topic is abandoned some ten pages longer and so far away from the original point that the whole thread is rendered useless.
> 
> It's crude but effective.
> 
> JC2 = Fred Phelps



Hehe, pretty much... I like arguing with Johnny though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Banned in the UK!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> I think Theroux is probably too shit scared to approach those guys, the thing about working in the states is that people don't really know what they're getting whereas people here are a) more aware of his work and b) less likely to accept a middle class BBC reporter as something of a quirky oddity. Incidentally pratically all of the above groups have had hidden camera style docus made about them over here.



I don't think he could make a "weird weekends" type programme about any of those groups. He is pushing it a bit with the American crazies, in fact. When he first came to popular attention, his programmes were about people like Jimmy Savile, and Paul Daniels, and that boxer who lives on the southcoast and has a dead posh voice with a lisp, but treats his wife and family really badly (I watched the progamme, but can't remember his name! ), and the Hamiltons, and even Anne Widdicombe.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

BNP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3900381.stm


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I think usually, documentarians misrepresent themselves a little to these fringe groups. They come across as if they care, when what they intend to do is slag them off.
> 
> I'd bet that documentaries have been made about all those groups, maybe not by british filmmakers. A good documentarian finds a way to win the trust of the subject.



One of the really strange things about Theroux is that he genuinely does make friends with a lot of the people about whom he makes programmes, and keeps in touch with them. He wrote a book about that, too, and revisited some of them.


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Banned in the UK!
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/



There are plenty of others, check out Donal Macintyre/Macintyre undercover.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Banned in the UK!
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/



I'd not class this as a documentary, but as a 'Worst Car Crashes' or 'Goalkeeping Errors' video. Just a violent form ot it.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Banned in the UK!
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425105/



Is it really banned in the UK? It just seems to be footage of lots of football hooliganism, which we certainly see plenty of on the news 

Not at all sure of the point you are making here, if any....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Johnny is all about the unrelated stuff which he puts forward as an interesting line of debate on the topic at hand. Then we all dance merrily around him until it's time for his bed time, and the topic is abandoned some ten pages longer and so far away from the original point that the whole thread is rendered useless.
> 
> It's crude but effective.
> 
> JC2 = Fred Phelps



Well, how many pages of 'ooh, did you see those crazies?!' could you stomach, before wanting to talk about something with a bit of substance?

What this thread is now, is a debate about the nature of british documentary filmmaking. If you liked the thread better in the first three pages, well, you shouldn't bother posting now.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> BNP
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3900381.stm



That's right - that was mentioned. There have been quite a few documentaries about this bunch seen on telly already.

Again, not sure of your point....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> There are plenty of others, check out Donal Macintyre/Macintyre undercover.



I was responding to the  poster who said that these UK groups didn't figure in documentaries, because unlike US groups, they didn't want the publicity.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Well, how many pages of 'ooh, did you see those crazies?!' could you stomach, before wanting to talk about something with a bit of substance?
> 
> What this thread is now, is a debate about the nature of british documentary filmmaking. If you liked the thread better in the first three pages, well, you shouldn't bother posting now.



That's what you are trying to make it into. Some of us are trying to stop you from doing so, and are resisting your attempts to hijack the thread 

Doing quite well, too. Shame I have to sleep soon - I could do this all night


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> One of the really strange things about Theroux is that he genuinely does make friends with a lot of the people about whom he makes programmes, and keeps in touch with them. He wrote a book about that, too, and revisited some of them.



Like I said, he sounds like an interesting documentarian, and I'll have to watch out for his work.

I certainly think that his father is highly talented; I've read lots of his stuff.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

The fact is, the Westboro Baptists *are* crazies. They're also a minority, albeit a very noisy one.

If you didn't like our understanding of those facts, well, you shouldn't have bothered posting in the first place.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I was responding to the  poster who said that these UK groups didn't figure in documentaries, because unlike US groups, they didn't want the publicity.



The documentaries made about the BNP are mostly hidden camera programmes, actually, rather than interviews and chats with a bumbling nerd type middle class chap.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Like I said, he sounds like an interesting documentarian, and I'll have to watch out for his work.
> 
> I certainly think that his father is highly talented; I've read lots of his stuff.


Did you look at that link I posted?


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I was responding to the  poster who said that these UK groups didn't figure in documentaries, because unlike US groups, they didn't want the publicity.



You miss the point; you might see a collection of clips of chelsea fans kicking off or you might see people doing NF salutes in the stands of a game (less so now thank fuck) but it's a very rare thing to see them actually interviewed except when the reporter is being very careful.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Here is another one, again, out of date (doesn't the man have any fans who can keep websites up to date?)

http://internettrash.com/users/louis_theroux/


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Yeah. The BNP don't want to be documented, to be on record as being racist fascist cunts.

Crazies however, looooooooove the camera. Savile, Hamiltons, Eubank - etc.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Eubank. That's the name of the lisping chap who lives near Brighton and got done for nicking a lorry or something strange. He is a weirdo but, like the weirdoes in the OP, he thinks he is perfectly normal and that the rest of us are weird.


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Eubank. That's the name of the lisping chap who lives near Brighton and got done for nicking a lorry or something strange. He is a weirdo but, like the weirdoes in the OP, he thinks he is perfectly normal and that the rest of us are weird.



Nah he got done for driving a lorry with "Blair, don't send our young prince to your catastrophic illegal war to make it look plausible" written on it through Whitehall...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> That's what you are trying to make it into. Some of us are trying to stop you from doing so, and are resisting your attempts to hijack the thread
> 
> Doing quite well, too. Shame I have to sleep soon - I could do this all night




There's no restriction on people carrying on other discussions apart from the posts that I make, and the ones responding. 

Personally, I think that the 'look at the crazies!' posts, had about run their course.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Champion boxer. Owns a massive lorry which he drives everywhere. Crazy as a box of spray painted badgers.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think that the 'look at the crazies!' posts, had about run their course.



The repeat is on tonight, I expect further 'CRAZIES!' posts to increase your ire.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> The repeat is on tonight, I expect further 'CRAZIES!' posts to increase your ire.



I'm just amused. It's you brits full of ire.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm just amused. It's you brits full of ire.



No. That would be irony


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Nah he got done for driving a lorry with "Blair, don't send our young prince to your catastrophic illegal war to make it look plausible" written on it through Whitehall...



Oh yeah, I forgot about that. That was weird, because I had never thought of him as being a political weirdo 

But I am sure he was prosecuted a couple of years for twocing an hgv which had blocked his drive or something, so he just got in and drove it away?

I may have fantasised this, or just got it completely wrong, but I will google and see if I can find anything.

But I do remember him making me squirm in the Theroux programme, with his arrogance and the way he treated his family, as well as the fact that he just didn't seem to "get" Theroux, and seemed to imagine that Louis was his number one fan


----------



## Cid (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm just amused. It's you brits full of ire.



Lying bastard canuck!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm just amused. It's you brits full of ire.



I am not full of ire.

Can't speak for anyone else, but most of the earlier contributors to this thread seem to have gone to bed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I am not full of ire.
> 
> Can't speak for anyone else, but most of the earlier contributors to this thread seem to have gone to bed.



It's 6:30 here: I'll be up for another seven hours.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

I am really glad I was, seemingly, right about Eubank:




			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> On September 1, 2005, Eubank was found guilty of taking and driving a vehicle without permission. This related to an incident in Brighton in which Eubank had climbed into a lorry making a delivery of beer and moved it from its position blocking the road. Eubank was trying to take his children to school at the time. He received a £450 fine and received six endorsement points on his driving licence. He was cleared of the stiffer charge of aggravated vehicle-taking.



The same article, however, tells me that, a month before that happened, his wife sued him for divorce, which I didn't know, and which might explain his lack of patience on that occasion?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It's 6:30 here: I'll be up for another seven hours.



But I won't!

Although, in 7 hours time, I shall be at work!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> But I won't!
> 
> Although, in 7 hours time, I shall be at work!



I'll probably be watching a rerun of Adam 12, while lying in bed.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 4, 2007)

No idea what "Adam 12" is - am I expected to?


----------



## Structaural (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Wrong-Eyed wasn't a US export: it was a british-made documentary.
> 
> Yes, you get an endless diet of the 'dark side' of America, but little about any other side. This sort of thing has an insidious effect on your perception of how and why the US does things. It feeds your paranoid belief that the country is run by a bunch of snake handling baptist crazies bent on bringing fundamentalism and mcdonalds to every corner of the world.



Sounds about right 

My point actually was that this dark heart is not shown by mainstream American media particularly so we need to see this other side, which is actually a lot more persuasive and actual than you think. After all the idiot son was voted in twice. And docs like this that show the exaggerated side are pretty rare to be fair, the 'other' side you think we miss is a never ending torrent that invades almost every channel.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I don't care if you're unfair. I'm just pointing out that when it comes to the consumption of documentaries about the US, you're no better than Daily Mail readers.
> 
> Nobody really expects the Daily Mail to be fair.



The Daily Mail is famous for complaining about things they've never seen, hmm, who's doing that at the moment?


----------



## Structaural (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yes, and Hitler's propaganda image used to denigrate the US, was that it was a land of mafia style italian gangsters.
> 
> You guys are just buying into the modern version of that propaganda.



Goodwin's so soon? The only generalisations in this thread are coming from you Johnny: Urban are a bunch who represent all British people, all British docs are negative lowest common denominator freakshows, Americans are actually all lovely people, etc...


----------



## Structaural (Apr 4, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I was responding to the  poster who said that these UK groups didn't figure in documentaries, because unlike US groups, they didn't want the publicity.



It's more the case that people don't want to give _them_ the oxygen of publicity.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 4, 2007)

I have a question for JC2:

Do you think the reaction to the documentary would have been any different - that we would have "lapped it up" any less, had it been about a group of British religious extremists?


----------



## rhod (Apr 4, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Firstly, he is not a documentarian as such, secondly, he doesn't make documentaries as such




Exactly! The programmes are never portrayed as serious documentaries (in the mould of Panorama, for instance). In fact, most of the the trails beforehand are pretty wacky with some quirky showtune used as a backing track.

The TV audience is so fragmented now anyway in the UK, JC - whilst you imagine hordes of US-bashers lapping up Theroux's programme on the BBC - the reality is that (given many people don't like documentaries -period) there were probably just as many watching episodes of various documentaries on satellite channels on Nature, Engineering, Cookery, Travel etc showing the US in quite a good light.

But as has been mentioned already on this thread, the "good news" documentaries don't generally get a high profile (but they are there).


----------



## May Kasahara (Apr 4, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> I have a question for JC2:
> 
> Do you think the reaction to the documentary would have been any different - that we would have "lapped it up" any less, had it been about a group of British religious extremists?



Well, quite. The 'look at the crazies' posts that Johnny seems so unhappy about appear more to be saying 'these people are deeply disturbed and deeply disturbing'. I don't recall anyone making specific reference to their nationality being a part of that, although it's a long thread and I might have forgotten by now.

Didn't see the doc, but what little I read about the Phelps' 'outcast' sons and their upbringing was disturbing enough to make me glad about that. I'm a docu-wuss


----------



## laptop (Apr 4, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> would ["we"] have "lapped it up" any less, had it been about a group of British religious extremists?



The point does remain that we'd be more surprised to find such a bunch of weirdoes in the UK. 

I've met some of the most extreme religious nuts in the UK - and they seemed tame by comparison. 

So possibly we'd have lapped up revelations about them more avidly, 'cos they'd have been _news_ to us. 

It's very unlikely, though, that people in the UK (or even apologists for the UK presenting themselves as living in neighbouring countries) would react to such a documentary on a bunch of weirdos in the UK as if it were an attack on the whole country and everyone in it. Very few here are that pathetically insecure.


----------



## Pieface (Apr 4, 2007)

I'd say that we're fascinated by America full stop, never mind the "crazy" side of it. 

One country which I think does suffer from a bit of wacky overkill coverage is Japan.  I don't think I've ever seen something covering that country that wasn't focussing on the eccentric.  

Didn't Louis only make his move into the US as a documentarian fairly recently?  He was concentrated on the UK for a long time...also, the language is why he's focussing on the States and the UK.  His style of doc wouldn't work so well with translators - it relies on the relationships he builds, ergo, english speaking countries get his attention only.

You're just jealous cos you're a boring old Canadian, Jonny, admit it.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 4, 2007)

I think America was the basis for most of his 'Weird Weekends'; the survivalists, pornstars and all of that lot.

It's (possibly) a cultural thing. The U.S groups are usually those who are very passionate about their subject, and envision the documentary as an opportunity to promote their views to a wider (British) audience. The freedom of speech entitled in the constitution allows them to shout about it all they like, whereas in the U.K certain groups have a much heavier element of quiet around their activities as it's seen as 'not done'.

But JC2 was just spinning yarn as usual


----------



## mwgdrwg (Apr 4, 2007)

This was an interesting thread discussing the Louis Theroux television programme by people who'd seen it. Such a pity is got completely derailed. Why not start a new thread elsewhere to discuss wether or not Brits are obsessed with the evil and fucked up side of America eh?


----------



## Dandred (Apr 4, 2007)

mwgdrwg said:
			
		

> This was an interesting thread discussing the Louis Theroux television programme by people who'd seen it. Such a pity is got completely derailed.


JC2 usually has no other use than to derail threads


----------



## ovaltina (Apr 4, 2007)

Dandred said:
			
		

> JC2 usually has no other use than to derail threads



tbh I was thinking that too - he hasn't even seen it! Piss off JC2!


----------



## Macabre (Apr 4, 2007)

I just watched it on youtube  (<--my eyes were actually like that the whole time!)

My bloody normally boils when I watch things like this but the were just so ridiculous I couldn't feel anything against them other than pity.  Those poor, poor children being stuck in that horrible situation


----------



## stavros (Apr 4, 2007)

> Nope, no judgement there: he just happened to happen upon these particular american subgroups, as opposed to anti poverty activists, conservationists, surfers, etc etc etc.
> 
> The man obviously knows his audience


To an extent yes. I think the aim of the programmes is to try to understand subcultures which on first glance would appear to revile us. Few people would take major issue with anti-poverty, certainly compared with the KKK. However, by ingraining himself within the particular subculture, Louis allows us to see the subtle humanist qualities of these people, ie. the old adage "there's a bit of good in everyone". However, with Sunday's show it was very difficult to isolate where these qualities were exactly. The 21 year old girl seemed to want to exhibit something but ultimately she retreated back into the shell of the lines she'd seemed to have been fed. As I said before, this was the first time one of Louis' shows showed little or no ray of sunshine.


----------



## Melinda (Apr 4, 2007)

Repeat started NOW on BBC 2 (Wed  23.20)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> No idea what "Adam 12" is - am I expected to?



No. Just a tv show.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> Sounds about right
> 
> My point actually was that this dark heart is not shown by mainstream American media particularly so we need to see this other side, which is actually a lot more persuasive and actual than you think. After all the idiot son was voted in twice. And docs like this that show the exaggerated side are pretty rare to be fair, the 'other' side you think we miss is a never ending torrent that invades almost every channel.




I'm talking about the world of documentary filmmaking in particular, but I'm not sure that the mainstream media bombards you with the positive side of America. What would that be: a George Bush press conference? A discussion of the Florida vote scandal? New Orleans and Katrina?

What about mainstream programming: CSI, a show that has one american murdering another on every episode? The Simpsons? South Park? The Miss America Pageant?

Documentaries aren't the news; they're a narrative with a point of view, based upon facts, events or people. And, it seems to me, the point of view of many of these british documentaries, is somewhat uniform.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> Goodwin's so soon? The only generalisations in this thread are coming from you Johnny: Urban are a bunch who represent all British people, all British docs are negative lowest common denominator freakshows, Americans are actually all lovely people, etc...



Godwin's law is all well and good, but hitler did exist, he did do things, and sometimes it's apropos to analogize from then to now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> It's more the case that people don't want to give _them_ the oxygen of publicity.



Part of a free and democratic debate, is knowledge about what's actually going on out there.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> I have a question for JC2:
> 
> Do you think the reaction to the documentary would have been any different - that we would have "lapped it up" any less, had it been about a group of British religious extremists?



Hard to say. Judging from what other posters have said, documentarians don't seem to want to give british extremists the oxygen of publicity, so it's not something that happens very often.

But I suspect you'd have been interested in that also. People are interested in the bizarre. But a bias can be formed in a viewer, when all he sees concerning a place, is the bizarre elements of it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

ovaltina said:
			
		

> tbh I was thinking that too - he hasn't even seen it! Piss off JC2!



Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.

It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.

And their message is bleak, because they labour under a shared psychosis. It's interesting to listen to these people: they're erudite, they train as lawyers, they're presentable, they smile a lot; but their 'religion' - well, I think Louis got it right. It's hate based, and the hate springs from the old grand dad. He's poisoned his family in a very effective way.

So what we have, is a documentary about a poisoned, diseased family. Nothing broader than that. They aren't a cult that's growing, because in their book, everyone but them is going to hell. Billy Graham is going to hell. Diana is already there. The kids won't be getting married, so the cancer will die out with time. And the message they preach won't spread, because it's illogical, and out of touch even with the religion that supposedly spawned it.

So tell me: what did you learn about the human condition from that film; what novel take on the world did it give us? I think the answer is; nothing. I think what we got, was 'look at the crazies'. And it's interesting to look at crazies, but not particularly illuminating.

What's the definiton of pornography again: something about a thing that's designed only to shock and tittilate, with no other inherent value. Like the National Enquirer, the Daily Mail; shock without substance.


Do you want a documentary that possesses nuance in its exposition of an american family? Try 'Crumb', from 1994.


----------



## Cid (Apr 5, 2007)

Excuse me for quoting myself, but:




			
				cid said:
			
		

> Yes, but we don't just get those... In fact there're relatively few of them shown. The docus that recieve big airtime tend to be political (eg the Adam Curtis ones) and often these focus on negative aspects, but applied worldwide rather than just to the US. In fact there were some particularly poor docus shortly after 9/11 that painted the US in a positive light. But that's about the USG, not the US people. On a more human level there are a fair few films that look at things which appeal to mass culture - people suffering disfiguring illnesses etc, the history of gangsters but these tend to be shown on channel 5 which no-one really takes eriously.
> 
> Conversly the BBC has made some very good docus about American life, as an example BBC4 had a New York week not long ago which was excellent... I didn't watch all of it but the docus I did see were excellent, the one that particulary stood out was once upon a time in New York about the way that the punk, disco and hip-hop grew simultaneously in the '70s and '80s. There's loads more out there ofc, imagine has covered prolific artistic figures; Arthur Miller, Brian Wilson, Brando, Warhol etc, BBC4 has done loads of stuff on the evolution of modern music (which often relates to marginalised sectors of American society) - even Bill Oddie's spent his time looking at wildlife in the states. All of these have shown the people of America in a positive light, though many criticise the government.


----------



## tiki (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.
> 
> It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.
> 
> ...



zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Huh! What, did somebody say something.


----------



## Firky (Apr 5, 2007)

Religion is regarded by the many people as true, and by others as false, and by a select few, the rulers as useful. Such as Fred Phelps. 

Didn't watch it however. I like Louis Theroux I just can't be arsed with the whole obsession of watching Americans make prats of themselves.


----------



## cosmic commando (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> So tell me: what did you learn about the human condition from that film; what novel take on the world did it give us? I think the answer is; nothing. I think what we got, was 'look at the crazies'. And it's interesting to look at crazies, but not particularly illuminating.



Theroux showcasing such an extreme example did make me question how much of myself is me and how much is the family I grew up with, in a way I've never questioned before. What peculiarities have I picked up, and don't question thanks to Ma, Pa, etc.

I can say, well, my family is not the extreme of the Phelps family, and my upbringing was exposed to more diversity, but still, it's that unsettling feeling of being a product, of possibly just as ridiculous/ignorant/misguided forces .


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

cosmic commando said:
			
		

> Theroux showcasing such an extreme example did make me question how much of myself is me and how much is the family I grew up with, in a way I've never questioned before. What peculiarities have I picked up, and don't question thanks to Ma, Pa, etc.
> 
> I can say, well, my family is not the extreme of the Phelps family, and my upbringing was exposed to more diversity, but still, it's that unsettling feeling of being a product, of possibly just as ridiculous/ignorant/misguided forces .



Good observation.


----------



## Firky (Apr 5, 2007)

Some might even say it was well observed.


----------



## Melinda (Apr 5, 2007)

I watched the repeat. I was disappointed in Louis.  I thought he was poor. 

His one trick pony act was seen through by that evil old bastard Phelps and whats worse is Louis knew it. He had the fear (why??) and was properly intimidated by a man whose beeb  bullying people over 40 years.  Louis knew that going in,  why not prepare better?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the world of documentary filmmaking in particular, but I'm not sure that the mainstream media bombards you with the positive side of America. What would that be: a George Bush press conference? A discussion of the Florida vote scandal? New Orleans and Katrina?
> 
> What about mainstream programming: CSI, a show that has one american murdering another on every episode? The Simpsons? South Park? The Miss America Pageant?
> 
> Documentaries aren't the news; they're a narrative with a point of view, based upon facts, events or people. And, it seems to me, the point of view of many of these british documentaries, is somewhat uniform.



This is a strange statement from someone who clearly has little notion or experience of the sort of television programmes, including those about the USA, which are shown in this country!

You said, yourself, that you had never seen a programme made by Theroux, for example. 

Perhaps I am wrong, and you have seen lots of other programmes, but I don't think so. You seem to have decided a position based on mere speculation and because of a thread about a particularly quirky programme maker, and are not interested in discussing that position


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Hard to say. Judging from what other posters have said, documentarians don't seem to want to give british extremists the oxygen of publicity, so it's not something that happens very often.
> 
> But I suspect you'd have been interested in that also. People are interested in the bizarre. But a bias can be formed in a viewer, when all he sees concerning a place, is the bizarre elements of it.



Actually, these extremists DO have documentaries and news programmes made about them, including hidden camera programmes, which have been pretty mind blowing. What was discussed was the fact that Louis Theroux is not likely to seek out the BNP for a cosy, friendly, chat in the way that he does with the individual British weirdoes he has focussed on.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.
> 
> It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.
> 
> ...



Well done for watching it! 

What did you think of Louis' style and way of working?

I am not sure that anyone on this thread or elsewhere said that we were learning anything about the human condition. As you say, it was made quite clear that we were looking at one family with a few outsiders attached. As has also been pointed out, a lot of Louis' programmes have been about ONE person, or a couple, not even a family! I don't suppose anyone who watched the programme about Jimmy Savile thought that he was an ambassador for his generation, or even that all British pensioners are like that


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 5, 2007)

Melinda said:
			
		

> I watched the repeat. I was disappointed in Louis.  I thought he was poor.
> 
> His one trick pony act was seen through by that evil old bastard Phelps and whats worse is Louis knew it. He had the fear (why??) and was properly intimidated by a man whose beeb  bullying people over 40 years.  Louis knew that going in,  why not prepare better?



As I said earlier in this thread, I beleive, I was surprised at how nervous Louis appeared to be when speaking directly to "Gramps". He handled it really badly, and didn't even ask interesting or useful questions, and allowed Fred Phelps to ignore the questions he asked and to run rings round him. 

Maybe it is because Louis can't cope with that type of questioning of someone he hasn't spent time with. When he spent time with the white extremists a few years ago, he asked much more searching questions, but he had hours with them over several days before doing so?


----------



## Melinda (Apr 5, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> As I said earlier in this thread, I beleive, I was surprised at how nervous Louis appeared to be when speaking directly to "Gramps". He handled it really badly, and didn't even ask interesting or useful questions, and allowed Fred Phelps to ignore the questions he asked and to run rings round him.




Thats the part I found disappointing to watch. Phelps had him for breakfast. Asking the same question over and over. I was willing him to ask something interesting too. 

Phelps had dont his homework,and Louis hadnt I feel.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Godwin's law is all well and good, but hitler did exist, he did do things, and sometimes it's apropos to analogize from then to now.



Shush, you lost, my hyperbolic friend.

You'd do better to seek out the docu you're criticising in a vacuum and be able to comment with some intelligence rather than generalising wildly with weak and inappropiate analogies.


----------



## rhod (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Hard to say. Judging from what other posters have said, documentarians don't seem to want to give british extremists the oxygen of publicity, so it's not something that happens very often.



Yeah, why do we have to settle for Jon Ronson interviewing legendary moderates Omar Bakri and Ian Paisley all the time ?


----------



## Structaural (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Part of a free and democratic debate, is knowledge about what's actually going on out there.



The knowledge is out there, it exists, I've watched it. I'm glad it's not on all the time. The opinions of idiots, whilst I won't disallow them a voice, are hardly particularly worthy though.


----------



## Structaural (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Well, I just watched it on youtube: so there. I'd forgotten that I didn't need to go to england to see it.
> 
> It was interesting, in the same way that a picture of Chang and Eng is interesting, or a two-headed calf. I hadn't realized that the church is made up almost entirely of members of the Phelps extended family. I guess they don't win a lot of converts, because their message is so bleak.
> 
> ...



Oh you did, well done 

You seem to want a particular view, yourself, in the documentaries that are made. Theroux deals with the fringes of society so that's what you get. I'll look out for Crumb.


----------



## butterfly child (Apr 5, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> As I said earlier in this thread, I beleive, I was surprised at how nervous Louis appeared to be when speaking directly to "Gramps". He handled it really badly, and didn't even ask interesting or useful questions, and allowed Fred Phelps to ignore the questions he asked and to run rings round him.
> 
> Maybe it is because Louis can't cope with that type of questioning of someone he hasn't spent time with. When he spent time with the white extremists a few years ago, he asked much more searching questions, but he had hours with them over several days before doing so?



I wonder whether he actually found it quite threatening? He was pretty relaxed with the women, but I found the blokes to be a lot more intimidating. Especially the documentary maker who'd joined them..

I watched it last night, and like Odds, found myself going "if someone was to shoot them, I wouldn't blame them" which is a bit worrying! However, I also found them so ridiculous in their hatred and bile that I couldn't get het up about it. 

It's appalling how they protest at funerals, but if people were able to just ignore them, they'd have less impact.

If the young'uns are dedicating themselves to the Lord, then at least they won't procreate and eventually (hopefully) they'll die out.


----------



## rhod (Apr 5, 2007)

What astonished me, after checking their website, is how often and systematically they picket soldier's funerals.

I'm all for people's right to protest - but funerals FFS?

Will be interesting to see what happens at Phelp's own funeral - I imagine his flock will try to keep the details secret.


----------



## WouldBe (Apr 5, 2007)

rhod said:
			
		

> What astonished me, after checking their website, is how often and systematically they picket soldier's funerals.
> 
> I'm all for people's right to protest - but funerals FFS?
> 
> Will be interesting to see what happens at Phelp's own funeral - I imagine his flock will try to keep the details secret.


Someone should stage a fake funeral. When the Phelps turn up shove them in the hole and fill it in quick.


----------



## wishface (Apr 5, 2007)

rhod said:
			
		

> What astonished me, after checking their website, is how often and systematically they picket soldier's funerals.
> 
> I'm all for people's right to protest - but funerals FFS?
> 
> Will be interesting to see what happens at Phelp's own funeral - I imagine his flock will try to keep the details secret.


Like I said, I'm amazed they haven't been indicted.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 5, 2007)

rhod said:
			
		

> What astonished me, after checking their website, is how often and systematically they picket soldier's funerals.
> 
> I'm all for people's right to protest - but funerals FFS?
> 
> Will be interesting to see what happens at Phelp's own funeral - I imagine his flock will try to keep the details secret.



They might as well bury him at the bottom of an outhouse with the number of people who'll line up to piss on his grave.


----------



## laptop (Apr 5, 2007)

Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> piss on his grave.



FILTHY HEATHEN "WATERSPORTS" SATANISTS!!!!2!!!!


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 5, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> FILTHY HEATHEN "WATERSPORTS" SATANISTS!!!!2!!!!



 

Personally, I see this guy as some kind of evil genius.  He's managed to scare the hell out of every municipality he's visited.  He earns his living and his families' living by suing cities, public servants, and individual people who oppose him.  At any one time, he's got at least 6 lawsuits running through the courts.  Pretty easy lifestyle, if you ask me.


----------



## Cid (Apr 5, 2007)

I wonder if that was a factor in what was/wasn't included in the doc.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Apr 5, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> I wonder if that was a factor in what was/wasn't included in the doc.



I wouldn't be suprised.  It certainly changes the nature of protests against him.

Did the doc mention these folks:

http://www.patriotguard.org/

They put out news releases telling people ways to protest that won't get you sued.


----------



## chazegee (Apr 5, 2007)

It's strange Louis hasn't picked up an American twang from his dad


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> you had never seen a programme made by Theroux, for example.
> )



Not true.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Well done for watching it!
> 
> What did you think of Louis' style and way of working?



I like him personally; he has a disarming, somewhat quizzical air about him. I got the impression that even the Westboro girls found him to be a bit attractive.

However, I thought that he wasn't well prepared for his confrontations with either Fred or Shirley; there were times that they appeared to get the best of him. Also, sometimes it seemed that his questions were made up on the spur of the moment, and didn't reveal a lot of forethought, especially when dealing with someone like Fred.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I am not sure that anyone on this thread or elsewhere said that we were learning anything about the human condition. As you say, it was made quite clear that we were looking at one family with a few outsiders attached. As has also been pointed out, a lot of Louis' programmes have been about ONE person, or a couple, not even a family! I don't suppose anyone who watched the programme about Jimmy Savile thought that he was an ambassador for his generation, or even that all British pensioners are like that



Watch and compare the documentary on R Crumb, made in 1994. It too is about one man and his family.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> Shush, you lost, my hyperbolic friend.
> 
> You'd do better to seek out the docu you're criticising in a vacuum and be able to comment with some intelligence rather than generalising wildly with weak and inappropiate analogies.



Oops: somebody isn't  reading the thread.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

butterfly child said:
			
		

> However, I also found them so ridiculous in their hatred and bile that I couldn't get het up about it. .



I agree with that; they become almost objects of pity, aside from old Fred.


----------



## diond (Apr 5, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Oops: somebody isn't  reading the thread.



I think that it's *you* who'd be better off reading the whole thread properly. That's at least twice you've pulled somebody up for things, yet they've openly since rescinding/ explained their initial comment because of a later post that you've made, and you know it.


----------



## pagan (Apr 5, 2007)

Just watched that tonight....fundie Christians in hate shocker 
I think Louis losing his touch tbh....I think Jon Ronson could have done a better job despite his stupid shaky voice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 5, 2007)

diond said:
			
		

> I think that it's *you* who'd be better off reading the whole thread properly. That's at least twice you've pulled somebody up for things, yet they've openly since rescinding/ explained their initial comment because of a later post that you've made, and you know it.



Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 6, 2007)

There are other threads you haven't read this morning Johnny. But we forgive you as always. Less aluminium perhaps?


----------



## diond (Apr 6, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.



And you mainly talk shite. What's your derailing point this time?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 6, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> There are other threads you haven't read this morning Johnny. But we forgive you as always. Less aluminium perhaps?



What 'morning'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 6, 2007)

diond said:
			
		

> And you mainly talk shite. What's your derailing point this time?



Go away: you're boring.


----------



## Calva dosser (Apr 6, 2007)

Yes you are diond. When one is this wankered, we only want to hear from fuckwits.

Go and play with Thomas Aquinas, there's a good chap


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 6, 2007)

Calva dosser said:
			
		

> Yes you are diond. When one is this wankered, we only want to hear from fuckwits.
> 
> Go and play with Thomas Aquinas, there's a good chap



On Friday afternoon, only half witty stupidisms etc will do. It's a tradition.


----------



## diond (Apr 6, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Go away: you're boring.


Many people say that on the Internet because they don't really have a decent and reasonable explanation.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 6, 2007)

diond said:
			
		

> Many people say that on the Internet because they don't really have a decent and reasonable explanation.



"You are boring"

That's perfectly decent and reasonable.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 6, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I like him personally; he has a disarming, somewhat quizzical air about him. I got the impression that even the Westboro girls found him to be a bit attractive.
> 
> However, I thought that he wasn't well prepared for his confrontations with either Fred or Shirley; there were times that they appeared to get the best of him. Also, sometimes it seemed that his questions were made up on the spur of the moment, and didn't reveal a lot of forethought, especially when dealing with someone like Fred.



I agree.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 6, 2007)

Plus, you missed half: 

"go away"


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 6, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I agree.



On the weekend, I"ll try to catch Weekend Warriors, or weirdos, or whatever it's called.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 6, 2007)

The British ones probably need a bit of foreknowledge, though, because he worked with people who are fundamentally well known in British culture, but not necessarily beyond our shores. Such as Jimmy Savile, mentioned earlier, who is part of the British psyche, and Ann Widdecombe, and the Hamiltons, and the Eubanks.

All British weirdoes, but part of the impact of the programmes is not just discovering that, for example, Jimmy Savile still thinks he is a cool, hip, leading dj and fashion guru, and keeps his outfits in a special room or something, but that he used to be!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 6, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> The British ones probably need a bit of foreknowledge, though, because he worked with people who are fundamentally well known in British culture, but not necessarily beyond our shores. Such as Jimmy Savile, mentioned earlier, who is part of the British psyche, and Ann Widdecombe, and the Hamiltons, and the Eubanks.
> 
> All British weirdoes, but part of the impact of the programmes is not just discovering that, for example, Jimmy Savile still thinks he is a cool, hip, leading dj and fashion guru, and keeps his outfits in a special room or something, but that he used to be!



True: I've never heard of Jimmy Savile, apart from this thread. But the Weekend docu appears to be about americans.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 6, 2007)

Oh does it. That will be the one where he spends time with people who have been kidnapped by aliens and then returned, and with the KKK, and other white extremists, and survivalists.

Nasty stuff


----------



## Structaural (Apr 6, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Oops: somebody isn't  reading the thread.



That'll make two of us - see post 2 down from that one. 

Anyway like loads of others I reserve the right to comment on a post as I read it


----------



## rhod (Apr 6, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> True: I've never heard of Jimmy Savile, apart from this thread.



How's about that, then?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 7, 2007)

rhod said:
			
		

> How's about that, then?



I bumped into that programme he is currently doing, called something like "Jim'll fix it strikes again". It was awful, and he still looks like a seedy old man.  It was noticeable, though, that he wasn't actually smoking the cigar anymore


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jun 21, 2007)

There's another programme 'bout them Westboro lot on Channel 4 tonight, this time done by Keith Allen, it's called 'Keith Allen Will Burn in Hell' starts at half ten - should be worth a look


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Jun 21, 2007)

dynamicbaddog said:
			
		

> There's another programme 'bout them Westboro lot on Channel 4 tonight, this time done by Keith Allen, it's called 'Keith Allen Will Burn in Hell' starts at half ten - should be worth a look


I noticed that was on tonight, but I expect it to be just a rehash of Theroux's documentary. 
Let's have a yet another laugh at the religious nutters kind of thing.


----------



## Structaural (Jun 22, 2007)

dynamicbaddog said:
			
		

> There's another programme 'bout them Westboro lot on Channel 4 tonight, this time done by Keith Allen, it's called 'Keith Allen Will Burn in Hell' starts at half ten - should be worth a look



Yes, let's give them more publicity. Keith Allen is a wanker.


----------



## rhod (Jun 25, 2007)

Finally got to see this on the weekend, and it was quite an entertaining programme. Allen's abrasive style was in contrast to Theroux's softly-softly approach.

Both failed utterly to really lift the lid on what makes these people tick, as the Westboro Baptists have so _completely_ deluded themselves.


----------



## Augie March (Dec 19, 2008)

Bump.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 19, 2008)

Why are you bumping this?


----------



## Augie March (Dec 19, 2008)

Because it was just on BBC2.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 19, 2008)

What, Louis Theroux on Westboro Baptists?


----------



## Augie March (Dec 19, 2008)

Yup, though I missed most of it.


----------



## cliche guevara (Dec 19, 2008)

Possible thread merge? I don't want to have to convey my anger and frustration twice.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 19, 2008)

cliche guevara said:


> Possible thread merge? I don't want to have to convey my anger and frustration twice.



bit upsetting for many as Calva Dosser RIP is at the top of the bumped page


----------



## Augie March (Dec 19, 2008)

ddraig said:


> bit upsetting for many as Calva Dosser RIP is at the top of the bumped page



I didn't notice that actually, sorry.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 19, 2008)

Augie March said:


> I didn't notice that actually, sorry.



i only spotted it after looking for the rant and then going to the last page.

don't stress, not up to me!


----------



## keybored (Dec 19, 2008)

ddraig said:


> bit upsetting for many as Calva Dosser RIP is at the top of the bumped page



Dunno why it would be upsetting. Reading his posts still cheer me


----------



## N_igma (Dec 19, 2008)

I agree, even though he was a millitant atheist I bet there's more of a chance of him being in heaven than any of these cunts ever will!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 19, 2008)

ddraig said:


> bit upsetting for many as Calva Dosser RIP is at the top of the bumped page



Looking at this thread makes me remember how much I enjoyed talking with Calva Dosser.

God, he was a class act.


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 19, 2008)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1iX5QOUaQLQ
The Westboro Baptists wish you all a happy christmas


----------



## red rose (Dec 20, 2008)

I just caught this on iPlayer and was shocked, maybe I'm naive but I just never imagined there were people like that in the world. It almost makes me wish there were a god so that he could come down and show them all just how stupid and horrible they are 

But then I looked up the church on wikipedia after I watched the documentary and I felt relieved, under the heading of parodies there are references like




			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> A satire website called God Hates Shrimp [83] was created in 2004 in response to WBC's inflammatory website. The website quotes Leviticus 11:10, the same book and section that labels sodomy as an abomination, where it says "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". The website argues that this means Long John Silver's and Red Lobster restaurants should likewise be picketed by WBC. Another satirical site, God Hates Figs,[84] was created, noting that Jesus struck a fig tree dead in one biblical account. In a similar vein, God Hates Bags[85] was created, but it lacks the Biblical backing of the site on figs.


and




			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> God hates everyone except us[86] follows the exploits of the fictional "Eastboro Baptist Church" of Topeka Kansas, who are in a constant struggle to be more hateful than the Westboro Baptist Church.


and my personal favourite




			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> On September 19, 2008 - International Talk Like A Pirate Day - a group of protesters in Arkansas began to picket a Convention Center with "God Hates Fags" signs were interrupted by a "counter-protest" from a group dressed as Pirates, affiliated with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. By waving signs which parodied the WBC group while also referencing passages from the Bible - e.g., "God Hates Cotton-Polyester Blends" - and behaving in a Pirate-like manner, the counter-protesters drew both public and media attention to themselves, forcing the original group to withdraw in defeat. Due to the coincidentally auspicious date, this was seen as a major victory on behalf of anti-WBC movements.


----------



## Dandred (Dec 20, 2008)

Pirates vs Westboro Please............

Any links to any footage


----------



## red rose (Dec 20, 2008)

> a "counter-protest" from a group dressed as Pirates, affiliated with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster


 Thats essentially like saying "hi, we're from the internet"


----------

