Louis Theroux: América prohibida

I've seen most of Louis's documentaries over the years but I get the feeling he is losing his touch a little. He still asks the right questions but makes it too personal so the interviewees often end up swearing at him or kicking him out. His moral tone and inquisition gets on peoples nerves. The outcasts of society are an easy target. Perhaps a different or fresh approach is the way forward. And not in the USA again please.

Maybe it should worry me as I get older that I can watch something like this, intended as a freak show, and think 'some of what they're saying actually makes sense'. Or maybe it shouldn't be a surprise. After all, these people aren't morons. Their views aren't entirely without foundation, eg when they say the US was founded by white people - that's simply a fact. Specifically it was founded by north Europeans, mainly the British; America's founding ideals are essentially the ideals of British Radicals; and if it had been founded by anybody else it would be a very different entity as - if proof were needed - the differences between North and South America show. So nobody should be under any illusion that the source cultures of immigrants shape American culture. These are all facts; yet Louis Theroux describes them as 'lies and distortion' - at least, he doesn't produce anything else to justify this description of right-wing leader Nick Fuentes. It's becoming routine for the Left to condemn people, not because what they say is wrong, but because it is of the 'wrong tendency' - in other words it's not the words that are wrong, but the Thought Crime assumed to be behind them. It seems to me the obvious thing to hit Fuentes with was the question of how his Hispanic-Catholic background fits into this narrative - after all, that culture has long been disparaged and despised by white America. This seems like missing an open goal, but I suppose that to Theroux - assuming he thought of it - it would have been playing into Fuentes' ethnic games.

It's an illustration that Theroux was maybe not the guy to do this; he was either too confrontational or not confrontational enough. Although it's clear that a lot of these guys are both deeply angry and deeply prejudiced against anyone different from them, I think that what essentially drives them is a genuine sense that the soul of their nation is at stake. When you tell people, as BLM have, that they ought to be ashamed of who and what they are, you're not leaving them anywhere to go and you should expect some to react angrily (and meanwhile Theroux, son of a successful writer and alumnus of Winchester public school, gets to lecture them about privilege). It's a spiritual battle and as such there's no right or wrong; there are different views in conflict, it's all about how you see it: you can choose to frame social divisions in terms of race, you may see that economics is what really counts, or you may even maintain that there are no structural divisions at all. The winner will be whichever garners the most power. In Britain this battle has, as far as public discourse is concerned, already been lost, to the extent that liberals like Louis Theroux simply don't understand it. Fuentes is not wrong when he says Theroux lacks humility; he is not there to understand his subjects; he is guilty of the over-simplification and desire to attach ready-made labels of which they accuse him. What he wants is to challenge them, but he doesn't really succeed in doing that either; he is prevented by his nice guy liberal persona (and maybe lack of quick wits?) from landing any really telling blows.

I get that constantly being hectored about what they ought not to say makes these guys want to say it more, and louder - I think that's a natural and common reaction, which the guardians of wokeness need to take more into account. And I see how, particularly when the most prominent of them are internet 'influencers', they feel forced to keep upping the ante until anti-authoritarian joking becomes hateful abuse. It's interesting that most of them are actually video gamers stuck in their bedrooms, people - it's not too much of a stretch to suggest - oppressed by a sense of powerlessness and personal insignificance, laughably dorky, inarticulate and cliche-ridden, maybe lacking much sense of what the real world is like. In fact they're classic candidates for identity politics: people whose importance, they believe, comes not from anything they've done themselves but from the group to which they belong. In some cases, undoubtedly, they're nasty pieces of work. It's disturbing to see the identical, pre-programmed way they all respond when the interviews aren't going they way they want, as if they have been drilled in what to say. And it's when you start to ask them 'so what do you want to do about it?' that any remaining sympathy rapidly ebbs.

I realise this review won't please those on either side of what is - aren't they all these days? - a very polarised issue. It's called independent thinking, folks: try it some time.

'Forbidden America' follows Louis Theroux's familliar template, travelling to meet strange, often troubling people and letting them tell their own stories, for good or ill. One problem with the model is that his interviewees are often very aware of the context within which they operate; which makes the documentaries less exploitative, but also more perfomatative; the subjects all have their own reason for appearing. In this series, he meets violent rappers, white supremacists, and workers in the porn industry. At least two of these are familliar subjects for Theroux, and he's arguably more directly judgemental here than he has been hitherto. In places, the series is insightful, but as human beings, his protagonists aren't always that interesting, even though their societal role may be: they often come across as narcissitic and opportunistic grifters, whose personalities don't take that long to dissect. There are always moments of interest in Theroux's work; but also limitations to the personal approach.

This is a very controversial documentary, but one that does not deserve a low rating like this. Given what we have seen of many people in the first episode alone, it's unsurprising that people have given this a low rating either out of spite or because of their refusal to see things from another perspective. Louis shows things exactly how they are, but people with similar beliefs to those in the docuseries will naturally dislike the light that is put onto certain individuals and subjects. I also wouldn't be surprised if this was review-bombed by followers of some individuals in the series. I just find it very suspicious that a docuseries that raises very important points about American modern culture and the impact of social media in the US has gotten such a mixed response on iMDB.

Having been a fan of Louis Theroux's documentaries for years, I was waiting for this one.

I felt like it was less smart and less edgy than most of Louis' earlier work.

Felt kinda strange also to have Louis travel all over the world right after saying (for example) "He lives in Budapest" -> boom, he's over there.

But mostly, I felt like Louis looked tired of doing what some people call "his freak-show". He didn't seem very enthusiastic and/or interested in his subjects.

In his documentary series, the main protagonist is actually the presenter. In this case, Louis became very early on the "normal people's view" on the situations he puts himself in. This time, I didn't feel that connection.

But I guess after so many years, it's normal. Can't blame him.