The Execution of Gary Glitter
I’ve become one of those people who get enraged about what they see on TV, and then complain to Ofcom and the broadcaster.
Dear Sirs,
I have seen the Banzai Christmas Special. I’ve watched a couple of episodes of Dirty Sanchez late of an evening when I couldn’t sleep. In my teens, before the prevalence of the internet, I even watched a bit of Eurotrash. I tell you this to establish my credentials in having sampled some pretty stupid television aired on Channel 4. Nothing, however, could have prepared me for the sheer catastrophic idiocy that was The Execution of Gary Glitter.
I’m going to say that title again: The Execution of Gary Glitter. A fictional documentary-style account of what might have happened if UK law were implausibly modified to allow Gary Glitter (real name Paul Gadd) to be executed, ostensibly for sex crimes committed in another country but essentially for the crime of being Gary Glitter.
I have two major issues with The Execution of Gary Glitter, upon which I will now expound for your delight and convenience.
My first issue is that The Execution of Gary Glitter ghoulishly constructs a completely imaginary framework in which a real living person can be fictionally tried, convicted and executed for committing a hideous crime in a way that the real world simply won’t support. Under normal circumstances this would be considered defamation of character. The fact that Gary Glitter is an international multiply-convicted sex offender doesn’t leave him with a lot of character left to defame, but that doesn’t excuse the practise.
This would be just about excusable if The Execution of Gary Glitter were presented as a piece of satire, which has an implicit agreement with the audience that it is distorting fact to a ridiculous degree for entertainment purposes. The Execution of Gary Glitter, however, is not satire. The Execution of Gary Glitter presents itself as a serious, thought-provoking, counterfactual look at how we view the death penalty and sex crimes through the medium of Gary Glitter. In doing so, it lends itself an air of credibility which it simply cannot substantiate.
This brings me on to my second major issue with The Execution of Gary Glitter. Sex crimes (especially those dealing with minors) and the death penalty are sensitive subjects with complex social and legal consequences, which deserve to be aired, discussed, debated and explored in a forum respectful of this sensitivity and complexity. The Execution of Gary Glitter is not such a forum, and in trivialising such subjects it stunts public discourse around them.
I believe that The Execution of Gary Glitter serves to promote public misunderstanding of these issues, primarily by being absurd. There’s no more adequate a word to describe The Execution of Gary Glitter. It is an absurd premise, underpinned by absurd contrivances in an absurd hypothetical situation. There are reasons why we can’t hang Gary Glitter, but rather than explore these reasons, The Execution of Gary Glitter simply ignores them for the sake of perverse fantasy wish fulfillment.
Kind regards,
Mr. Own Devices
Leave a Reply