It was obviously a harrowing watch, and seeing all the footage and the testimonies brought home the extent of Savile’s crimes, which I don’t think really happened before. You read about these things but there’s a distance. Hopefully it’ll make viewers/the media re evaluate how we respond to and report on this kind of abuse. I found it pretty humbling.
It also made me think about the meta aspect of it though. I think Theroux was pretty duped by Savile in the first doc. I think this doc is pretty interesting for how he now represents himself, and what this doc’s aim is.
I’m a fan of Theroux, although I’ve seen people call him disingenuous and manipulative (which I kind of agree with in a way but not fully-I think this is what makes him interesting and why he’s successful at what he does). There’s a strange tension running through it in that he’s reporting on something serious that he was involved in, and yet it makes for a good documentary. He is a documentary maker and this is prime documentary material. There were times in the doc where it did seem to be as much about his guilt/repentance as the actual victims. Not saying this is wrong exactly- I think he is acting in good faith, but he’s also making a doc.
I just find it interesting because he is also a personality, someone viewers respect and feel attached to- it has an added dimension, rather than simply a doc about Savile.
Wrote this at 2am so it’s probably garbled nonsense, sorry.