This documentary could have been a timely and informative piece that pulled back the curtain on the problematic behind-the-scenes story of a family that grew up before our eyes on our tv screens. Instead, we get a poorly sourced and slightly hysterical hack job that loses credibility with each successive interview and sequence. Look, I'm not triggered by this or seeking to defend anyone involved, but calling this a documentary is kind of a stretch given the lack of actual factual evidence and explanation being given.
For example, when seeking to establish that American Christian minister Bill Gothard was secretly hoarding wealth, instead of presenting any kind of facts about his wealth, the documentary highlights a former IBLP member who says that Gothard tried to present himself as having humble means, but she "had heard others say" that his family actually had tons of money. The documentary then cuts to shots of a private plane and other evidences of Gothard's alleged wealth that could be stock footage for all the viewer knows. Again, I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that Gothard weaseled away millions of dollars for family members, but this an extremely poor way to establish it. Honestly, wouldn't anyone want to know exactly how much wealth we're talking here because knowing specifics is more interesting? And why was a former IBLP member, who could be considered a problematic source by some, considered the proper person to establish this? Shouldn't the documentary have contacted someone with actual financial expertise or knowledge? That's just one example, but it's highly emblematic of the documentary's flawed approach.
The documentary entertains us with numerous unverifiable accusations against IBLP and the Duggar family from family members that are clearly estranged, former IBLP members, feminist university professors, and a YouTuber who apparently spent her days mocking the Duggar family while they were on air. This latter interviewee is used to establish factual information that she cannot possibly be the best source for. The only thing that this individual should have been used to establish was the reasons that the online community hate-watched the Duggars' series and the feelings of said community. She isn't really a valid source for anything else given her lack of expertise, but the documentary frequently uses her, essentially a nobody, to establish numerous important facts and details. Likewise, numerous interviewees are allowed to project from their own experiences what might be going on within the walls of the Duggars' home as if they had actual insider knowledge of the happenings of the household.
On a separate note, the documentary relies heavily on the narrative of Jill Duggar Dillard and her husband Derick Dillard. However, with twelve adult children and the parents themselves still out there, it's extremely troubling, at least to me, that the documentary was only able to interview one adult child. This means we are only getting one person's side of the story, which could easily be heavily biased or even outright false.
Nonetheless, I feel many will find this entertaining and insightful into the mindsets of those involved and of the communities they represent. For my part, I found myself unfortunately forced to take everything with a grain of salt. What could have been a factual account too often devolves into mud-slinging.
For example, when seeking to establish that American Christian minister Bill Gothard was secretly hoarding wealth, instead of presenting any kind of facts about his wealth, the documentary highlights a former IBLP member who says that Gothard tried to present himself as having humble means, but she "had heard others say" that his family actually had tons of money. The documentary then cuts to shots of a private plane and other evidences of Gothard's alleged wealth that could be stock footage for all the viewer knows. Again, I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that Gothard weaseled away millions of dollars for family members, but this an extremely poor way to establish it. Honestly, wouldn't anyone want to know exactly how much wealth we're talking here because knowing specifics is more interesting? And why was a former IBLP member, who could be considered a problematic source by some, considered the proper person to establish this? Shouldn't the documentary have contacted someone with actual financial expertise or knowledge? That's just one example, but it's highly emblematic of the documentary's flawed approach.
The documentary entertains us with numerous unverifiable accusations against IBLP and the Duggar family from family members that are clearly estranged, former IBLP members, feminist university professors, and a YouTuber who apparently spent her days mocking the Duggar family while they were on air. This latter interviewee is used to establish factual information that she cannot possibly be the best source for. The only thing that this individual should have been used to establish was the reasons that the online community hate-watched the Duggars' series and the feelings of said community. She isn't really a valid source for anything else given her lack of expertise, but the documentary frequently uses her, essentially a nobody, to establish numerous important facts and details. Likewise, numerous interviewees are allowed to project from their own experiences what might be going on within the walls of the Duggars' home as if they had actual insider knowledge of the happenings of the household.
On a separate note, the documentary relies heavily on the narrative of Jill Duggar Dillard and her husband Derick Dillard. However, with twelve adult children and the parents themselves still out there, it's extremely troubling, at least to me, that the documentary was only able to interview one adult child. This means we are only getting one person's side of the story, which could easily be heavily biased or even outright false.
Nonetheless, I feel many will find this entertaining and insightful into the mindsets of those involved and of the communities they represent. For my part, I found myself unfortunately forced to take everything with a grain of salt. What could have been a factual account too often devolves into mud-slinging.