platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I'm not sure 12 years is long enough but here you go:
Apparently this was thought to be a good idea. Not sure about that or whether I will watch it, but it's airing on 9th October.
The Reckoning - BBC Savile drama
- Thread starter platinumsage
- Start date
I'm not sure 12 years is long enough but here you go:
Apparently this was thought to be a good idea. Not sure about that or whether I will watch it, but it's airing on 9th October.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Chilling!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
It had to be, in the same way Patrick Stewart was always Professor Charles Xavier in my head way before he was so on screen.
not-bono-ever
meh
It’s dragging me in but it’s not pleasant
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
Steve Coogan is so menacing. He's done some straight acting roles before but I wish he'd done more.
Maybe the fact that Savile's whole life and personality was a pretence makes it easier for an actor to portray it accurately
Maybe the fact that Savile's whole life and personality was a pretence makes it easier for an actor to portray it accurately
urbanspaceman
Well-Known Member
Saw Ep1 last night. Coogan did capture the creepiness of Savile, although it must be said that since Savile was more a crudely woven burlap sack of tics, catchphrases and mannerisms than a fully-realised human being, imitating what is already a caricature is not so difficult.
My perspective: I was a kid growing up in Doncaster during the 60s and 70s, and so fully exposed to Savile on Jim'll fix it and TOTP, and aware of, but never witnessed his occasional visits through the town. I didn't have any strong feelings about him, apart from a sense that he seemed a bit stupid, with his repetitive catchphrases, and that JWFI was boring. Didn't like the skimpy tracksuits and string vests, which revealed too much of his scrawny, hairy chest. That did make me uncomfortable.
Coogan's show was a bit of a disappointment. They presented real victims, thus adroitly leveraging/harnessing/exploiting the viewers' empathy, and also spent a lot of time on speculative noodling regarding Savile's mother, and the Catholic Church, to try to delve into his motivations and character.
Both of these lines of inquiry are distractions.
I'm not really interested in nature and contents of Savile's putative soul (any more than I am in Fred West's or Peter Sutcliffe's). In fact, as an extreme predatory, sadistic pyschopath, you could argue he is not really a human being at all, but rather a wolf, or a shark or a malignant aberration, like a cancer, in society. What we do need to know is how society, and more particularly large, public-bureaucratic institutions, such as the police, BBC, NHS, Royal Family and Government, lack the "immune system" response to identify and neutralise such disease vectors. To stretch the immune system analogy further, it's seems that society's immune system actually helped his behaviour metastasise from organ to organ.
The blindness to Savile was not universal. Sir Roger Jones, boss of Children in Need, knew of the rumours, and adamantly never let Savile anywhere near CIN. Similarly, Thatcher's advisors strenuously warned her against giving him a knighthood ("a strange and complex man"). But so many others were (wilfully ?) blind. What I would like to understand, and what will certainly not be examined, is the consensus which emerged during thousands of conversations in well-appointed meeting rooms, conducted by well-educated, middle class, senior members of the bureaucratic-administrative-public service complex, whereby Savile was permitted such extraordinary access to his prey, and how such a patently absurd freak as Savile seduced the highest in the land, notably King Charles, and Margaret Thatcher, even though they were frequently warned against him. That's all that matters.
www.theguardian.com
My perspective: I was a kid growing up in Doncaster during the 60s and 70s, and so fully exposed to Savile on Jim'll fix it and TOTP, and aware of, but never witnessed his occasional visits through the town. I didn't have any strong feelings about him, apart from a sense that he seemed a bit stupid, with his repetitive catchphrases, and that JWFI was boring. Didn't like the skimpy tracksuits and string vests, which revealed too much of his scrawny, hairy chest. That did make me uncomfortable.
Coogan's show was a bit of a disappointment. They presented real victims, thus adroitly leveraging/harnessing/exploiting the viewers' empathy, and also spent a lot of time on speculative noodling regarding Savile's mother, and the Catholic Church, to try to delve into his motivations and character.
Both of these lines of inquiry are distractions.
I'm not really interested in nature and contents of Savile's putative soul (any more than I am in Fred West's or Peter Sutcliffe's). In fact, as an extreme predatory, sadistic pyschopath, you could argue he is not really a human being at all, but rather a wolf, or a shark or a malignant aberration, like a cancer, in society. What we do need to know is how society, and more particularly large, public-bureaucratic institutions, such as the police, BBC, NHS, Royal Family and Government, lack the "immune system" response to identify and neutralise such disease vectors. To stretch the immune system analogy further, it's seems that society's immune system actually helped his behaviour metastasise from organ to organ.
The blindness to Savile was not universal. Sir Roger Jones, boss of Children in Need, knew of the rumours, and adamantly never let Savile anywhere near CIN. Similarly, Thatcher's advisors strenuously warned her against giving him a knighthood ("a strange and complex man"). But so many others were (wilfully ?) blind. What I would like to understand, and what will certainly not be examined, is the consensus which emerged during thousands of conversations in well-appointed meeting rooms, conducted by well-educated, middle class, senior members of the bureaucratic-administrative-public service complex, whereby Savile was permitted such extraordinary access to his prey, and how such a patently absurd freak as Savile seduced the highest in the land, notably King Charles, and Margaret Thatcher, even though they were frequently warned against him. That's all that matters.
Ex-head of Children in Need didn't want Jimmy Savile involved in charity
Former BBC governor, Sir Roger Jones, says he heard rumours about the presenter, but had no solid evidence. By Lisa O'Carroll
Last edited:
I've only seen two so far, but it is showing how he manipulated and inveigled his way onto wards, into hospitals and the like - that was all covered. Once he gets his foot into several doors, I imagine that part of his continued success is that people felt 'well, he's doing THAT, so I suppose we have to let him too'.
Or you're on about something much more organised, which is a very tempting thought.
I also agree with story in that I don't believe having real victims in it is a distraction. If anything, they bring home the poison more powerfully.
Or you're on about something much more organised, which is a very tempting thought.
I also agree with story in that I don't believe having real victims in it is a distraction. If anything, they bring home the poison more powerfully.
story
Changing the facts
I absolutely disagree that the real victims appearing in the programme is a distraction.
I think it’s necessary and valuable. It grounds the drama in reality. Reminds everyone that this really happened to real people. Savile’s victims were silenced by circumstances before he died, he was never in court. Let them speak now.
And while I agree that there needs to be a proper in depth investigation about how the institutions blindly allowed this to happen I think this dramatisation is not the place for that to happen. I’m comfortable with the exploration of the man and his machinations being separated from the more cerebral investigations of the system and institutions.
I had no idea this was being made, and felt quite shocked when it came up on iPlayer. Had to consider carefully whether I wanted to look at it at all. But yes, I‘m glad it’s been made. The actual narrative needs to be told.
Coogan is indeed accurate and chilling. ( I find myself scrutinising him and waiting with trepidation for a specific behaviour, look, stance, clothes etc.)
If I watch this at all I’ll have to do it in bite sized chunks. I managed 16 minutes of episode 1 before needing to clear my head and refocus myself.
I watched a clip of a woman who spoke on breakfast TV of her experience as an extra in the drama. She had a trauma response to seeing Coogan and immediately snapped into the moment Savile had done harm to her.
I think it’s necessary and valuable. It grounds the drama in reality. Reminds everyone that this really happened to real people. Savile’s victims were silenced by circumstances before he died, he was never in court. Let them speak now.
And while I agree that there needs to be a proper in depth investigation about how the institutions blindly allowed this to happen I think this dramatisation is not the place for that to happen. I’m comfortable with the exploration of the man and his machinations being separated from the more cerebral investigations of the system and institutions.
I had no idea this was being made, and felt quite shocked when it came up on iPlayer. Had to consider carefully whether I wanted to look at it at all. But yes, I‘m glad it’s been made. The actual narrative needs to be told.
Coogan is indeed accurate and chilling. ( I find myself scrutinising him and waiting with trepidation for a specific behaviour, look, stance, clothes etc.)
If I watch this at all I’ll have to do it in bite sized chunks. I managed 16 minutes of episode 1 before needing to clear my head and refocus myself.
I watched a clip of a woman who spoke on breakfast TV of her experience as an extra in the drama. She had a trauma response to seeing Coogan and immediately snapped into the moment Savile had done harm to her.
not-bono-ever
meh
so done another one tonight. its a hard watch when you know the backstory. Coogan was brave to take on something that could be a career destroyer
Last edited:
Mumbles274
running from law and the press and the parents
I've watched 1 and a half so far. It's fucking hard going. My views :
1) Coogan is amazing. His depiction of the interviews with who he calls wordsmith or what ever (vaguely theroux as a character device?) are sublime. Yes JS was a characature ( at that point in his life) but he nails it. He also kind of draws me in as a likeable character in the scenes where he's meant to be likeable . But he is protays this menace at the same time. Scary as fuck and really helps understand JS
2) This drama isn't about the institutions and what happened, it's about the individual and how he did it. See point 1
That's my take so far
1) Coogan is amazing. His depiction of the interviews with who he calls wordsmith or what ever (vaguely theroux as a character device?) are sublime. Yes JS was a characature ( at that point in his life) but he nails it. He also kind of draws me in as a likeable character in the scenes where he's meant to be likeable . But he is protays this menace at the same time. Scary as fuck and really helps understand JS
2) This drama isn't about the institutions and what happened, it's about the individual and how he did it. See point 1
That's my take so far
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I've just watched the third. It is both about the institutions and how they enabled him and about him and how he manipulated them. There is plenty about how all the institutions - the hospitals, BBC, Church, etc - cared more about the money/success Savile could bring to them than about the wellbeing of the people they were supposed to be looking out for. The depiction of Bill Cotton at the BBC is particularly damning. It hadn't been proved that Savile had done wrong therefore nothing was to be done about him, as if proof beyond reasonable doubt were the bar here. He is the 'talent' and that's that.
Like many of us here no doubt, my first memory of Savile is from Jim'll Fix It. I do remember finding him odd, but nothing more than that. Being a kid, it didn't occur to me that it wasn't actually Jim'll who made all those dreams come true, that he was just a tv presenter. I genuinely thought of him personally choosing the kids and making it happen. The extraordinary thing about Savile appears to be that there were plenty of adults who had the same childish attitude towards him.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Watched an episode; not sure I’ll watch the others, it’s just too awful…felt physically sick.
not-bono-ever
meh
.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Finished it now. It is a hard watch. The talking heads at the end are heartbreaking, but it's right that they're there. Their voices plus the real-life footage ground the drama. The final words, 'Don't let this ever happen again. Please.' are very well chosen. I feel vaguely guilty and ashamed after watching it. It wasn't my fault, obviously, but I think it's probably good to feel a bit of collective guilt. That's how we stop it from happening again.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And yet Russell Brand happened..which means it was allowed to happen again, and probably is still happening...not having a go, just feel so sickened by this stuff...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Probably a bit of a trite thing to say. Just my feeling directly after watching it. But in terms of people getting themselves into positions of power or leverage and getting away with abuse because they are those positions, whether they are priests, comedians, producers, DJs or royalty, it does feel like some progress has been made. It is deference that allows this to happen.
And I do see this drama series as potentially part of the process by which we dismantle that deference. It is good that it was made.
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
I don't know what I took away from this, apart from frustration. One scene that really stayed with me was right at the end so I'll but it in spoilers (though it'll come as no surprise.)
When the little girl is playing by the seafront and he says something like, 'hurry up and be sixteen,' and Beryl (who is one of the powerless people scattered throughout the narrative) says, 'why would you say that to a little girl?' And it just sums up everything somehow. The audacity, the creepiness, the absolute selfishness. It all got to me, but that line was devastating.
seeformiles
Lost in the wood
I thought it was brilliant. Had to stagger watching the episodes as I felt quite grubby after each one which I think was the intended effect. Like “The Long Shadow” it never tipped into titillation and kept the victims at the forefront of the story. Brave of Steve Coogan to risk playing such a part but did so never tipping into parody and showed what a thoroughly evil cunt he was.
Both series effectively showed the deference to authority that I was brought up with - “Adults are always right - especially authority figures” - however I felt that the Long Shadow rather glossed over some of the prevailing social attitudes esp. the notion that sex workers were regarded as a lower form of life who deserved what they got.
Living in Leeds and being familiar with the locations was interesting too. Mrs SFM got a real shiver as they showed the funeral cortège that she remembered watching on her way back to work from her lunch hour.
Both series effectively showed the deference to authority that I was brought up with - “Adults are always right - especially authority figures” - however I felt that the Long Shadow rather glossed over some of the prevailing social attitudes esp. the notion that sex workers were regarded as a lower form of life who deserved what they got.
Living in Leeds and being familiar with the locations was interesting too. Mrs SFM got a real shiver as they showed the funeral cortège that she remembered watching on her way back to work from her lunch hour.
Last edited:
I watched The Long Shadow. I was dubious going in, but it seemed to me that the writers concentrated on how and why cultural prejudices manifest as institutional failure. That is a story worth telling and it retains relevance today as much as it ever did.
I don’t think I have it in me to watch The Reckoning. I don’t know what there is to be said at this point in time that is different to what we have already seen through multiple forms of inquiry (official or otherwise). Maybe there is more to be explored but, if so, I am unconvinced that doing it in drama format is the best way. It feels like it is too soon for us to have a meaningful reflective take yet through drama. I’m sure it has been well done and sympathetically done at that, but I don’t know why, other than it will get an audience.
I don’t think I have it in me to watch The Reckoning. I don’t know what there is to be said at this point in time that is different to what we have already seen through multiple forms of inquiry (official or otherwise). Maybe there is more to be explored but, if so, I am unconvinced that doing it in drama format is the best way. It feels like it is too soon for us to have a meaningful reflective take yet through drama. I’m sure it has been well done and sympathetically done at that, but I don’t know why, other than it will get an audience.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tbf Russell Brand happened largely before Savile died. This is incredibly recent history. There is a rumpus thread on here about him just as the accusations were starting to appear. Don't want to single anyone out, but that thread reflects the deference that enabled this - more than one poster pointed out how much he had done for charity.
Similar threads
