this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)
Documentaries
695 readers
2 users here now
Community dedicated to interesting documentaries.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're going to need to explain why, since it's only available to watch in the UK.
He basically skirts around calling Isreal an apartheid state although he implies it. He also still tries to present a „there are two sides to this narrative“ while IDF soldiers act like the jack booted thugs that they are. While the end is good (Daniella Weiss pushes him and expects him to push her back he keeps his cool and calls her a sociopath which she is) it’s still an extremely milquetoast critique of Isreal.
i don't know what you really expect from the BBC, by their standards this is quite a damning exposition. it's not really meant to be a "critique of Israel", just to show the truth of settlers and what they are like, their mindset which i think it does a decent job of. of course they have to get the usual October 7th spiel out of the way near the start but it mostly moves on from both sidesing after that imo. i don't think it's fair to say Theroux tries to both sides things, he obviously does skirt around using certain language but he repeatedly points out settlers' hypocrisy, double standards and contradictions throughout the piece. he also asks a settler if he is from brooklyn which is hilarious.
I expect the BBC to call a spade a spade no more no less. I got the both sides argument thing from him asking the Palestinian activist in Hebron whether the Israeli military doesn’t have a point. I’m probably over sensitive at this point but that he even asked that guy that pissed me off. The end was a perfect allegory for how Isreal behaves.
Ok I just finished watching it and I don't know how anyone could watch this and think that he is presenting a "both sides" argument.
It's very clear what Louis wants the viewer to take away from this documentary, from whom he interviews, the questions he asks and how he asks those questions, and what he chooses to show. I could tell from start to finish what he's trying to say, and it stayed consistent throughout. It was especially apparent at the end, as you said.
If you think this was a milquetoast critique then perhaps you're not familiar with Louis Theroux's work and his style of documentary.
I’m very familiar with his style and work(Jon Ronsons stuff is better) I find his whole aloof shtick tiresome at this point. I can’t really remember what he said but there was one point where he basically called Isreal an apartheid state without actually saying it, that pissed me off, but who knows maybe he was under pressure from BBC editors and thought it was more important to get the documentary out.
But you’re right I’m just being sensitive at this point, it’s more important that people see how Israeli settlers behave and the mindset they have towards their fellow human beings. My point is he needn’t of been so aloof the whole time. He didn’t need his whole I’ll act like a bumbling english guy so you say some outrageous stuff act for this one.