Kanye West’s newest documentary, In Whose Name?, has sparked conversation far beyond the theater, including on the latest episode of New Rory & Mal, where the crew unpacked its release, its rawness, and whether supporting it even makes sense.
The discussion opened with Rory revealing that he caught a bootleg version on YouTube, filmed straight from a theater screen. The quality, he admitted, was good enough to watch, but what struck him most wasn’t the visuals, it was the framing of Kanye. Unlike the Jeen-Yuhs documentary, which captured West’s early hunger and rise through Chicago studios and Roc-A-Fella hallways, In Whose Name? presents the rapper-producer in a later stage: post-public meltdowns, Kardashian-era life, Calabasas homes, and Wyoming retreats.
Rory and Mal agreed the film showed Kanye in a genuine environment, unfiltered, and not necessarily polished for paparazzi or fans. But unlike Jeen-Yuhs, which leaned into redemption arcs and human complexity, this doc leaned heavily into chaos. The crew described it as often uncomfortable to watch, shedding light on the toll Kanye’s behavior has taken not only on himself but on those closest to him.
Moments such as Kanye screaming at Kris Jenner underscored the tension. While clips like these circulated online, Rory stressed that in context, the film often lacked balance or deeper explanation. Instead of answers, the footage raised empathy for both Kanye and the people around him, with equal parts fascination and unease.
One of the central debates on the podcast was whether Kanye himself is even behind the project. Mal raised the concern: if West didn’t co-sign it, should fans be paying money to see it in theaters? The group recalled how Kanye publicly distanced himself from Jeen-Yuhs at points, and questioned if a similar fallout happened here.
That uncertainty complicated the idea of “support.” While some felt that watching the doc could unintentionally support exploitation, others argued that Kanye himself has used controversy and tragedy for attention before, so hesitating now felt inconsistent.
The conversation shifted from the doc itself to Kanye’s public persona, especially during his MAGA-era controversies. The crew revisited moments like Van Lathan’s viral TMZ exchange and Michael Che’s pushback on SNL. They argued Kanye often called for “dialogue” but avoided real conversations by falling back on phrases like “I love you” instead of addressing criticisms directly.
To them, this wasn’t simply awkwardness but a lack of preparation. Whereas early Kanye could spar with conviction on topics like music, fashion, or artistry, and often proved right years later, this period showed him parroting conservative talking points without depth, relying on others like Candace Owens to fill in the blanks.
By the end of the discussion, the crew acknowledged the film’s impact as entertainment but wrestled with the ethics behind it. In Whose Name? offers rare access to Kanye’s private world, but with that comes a mix of voyeurism, discomfort, and doubt about whether West himself approved.
