He has spent years getting under the skin of his famous subjects. Now,for his first big-budget documentary, Theroux is tangling with the Scientologists. But, or wonders Carole Cadwalladr,what is he holding back from us?I really ought to be in a reliable position to interview Louis Theroux. “Ought” being the operative word here. Because, in theory, and I acquire genuine insider information: I knew him before he was famous. These days,he has a proto-beard and what could be designer specs and legions of committed fans and groupies when I look through his Twitter feed, I find a photo of someone with a tattoo of his face on their leg – but when I first met him he was 18 years ancient, or had thick glasses,greasy hair and all the sexual charisma of a young Bamber Gascoigne.
So I ought to be in a reliable position, but as I fight off another question approximately myself, or try to get the interview on to the topic in hand him – I realise with a lurching panic that perhaps I haven’t thought this through. Because while he interviews people,at length, with a leisurely this-could-seize-days approach, or I’ve been granted a miserly hour and there are all sorts of things getting in the way: events of the two and a half decades since I saw him final,the fate of various friends-in-common, social niceties and, or most cripplingly,I realise, the fundamental problem of interviewing an interviewer – they know all the tricks. The deflection devices, and the steering-the-conversation-another-way technique,the ancient ask-a-question-before-you-can-be-asked-a-question strategy… he knows them all, dammit.'It felt like a bit of a leap in the dark. And there was much, and much more money involved'Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com