Last month, Channel 4 broadcast The Execution of Gary Glitter. Set in an imaginary Britain in which the death penalty had been re-introduced, the feature-length drama confronted viewers with the potential consequences of capital punishment in the UK.
Much online debate followed – across various websites, blogs and forums – with viewers keen to debate amongst themselves the issue of capital punishment and the programme’s fictional portrayal of a living person.
At the heart of the online debate was C4’s post-transmission Q&A, which gave viewers the chance to put their questions about the programme directly to commissioning editor Hamish Mykura and executive producer Samir Shah. For those who missed it, here’s a summary of the main issues covered, with direct quotes from both Hamish and Samir.
On the format of the show
SS: “Hamish and I came up with the idea. We wanted to explore the issue of the death penalty in an original and different way rather than a predictable on the one hand/on the other hand discussion. We thought that a trial would be a good format with which to engage people in the debate. We informed all potential cast members, most were intrigued by the idea: its original and thought-provoking nature.”
HM: “We wanted to portray the reality of what it would be like if the death penalty was reinstated in Britain, in stark and compelling terms. Only drama could do that with the degree of emotional engagement we wanted .”
SS: “We didn’t think of coming to it from any ‘angle’. The point was to stimulate debate on a topic that many people feel strongly about. There is no research, as far as I know, saying it (death penalty) is inevitable in the near future. The statistic that intrigued us was the fact that over 50 per cent of the British citizens would like the death penalty re-introduced.”
HM: “We wanted to make the viewers think hard about what they really feel about the death penalty, and leave the reaction to the viewer – the drama offers no easy answers about the issue. Some have asked why we didn’t continue the film beyond the execution to hear the views of the Home Secretary, journalists etc. We stopped the film where we did, to leave the viewer to make up their own minds about their own reaction without being guided by us… There is a pretty even split between people who regarded this drama as a pro-death penalty piece, and those who thought its message was clearly anti-death penalty. It’s true that the programme makers don’t offer easy answers, they describe a terrible crime and yet follow it with a stark presentation of what it’s like to take the life of a human being.”
On Gary Glitter
SS: “We did think long and hard about using Paul Gadd. In the end, we felt that Gary Glitter is, in many ways, a lightning rod for this issue. He is undoubtedly Britain’s best known sex offender. By using him, we felt that the audience would immediately engage with issue of the death penalty.”
HM: “Gary Glitter is probably Britain’s highest profile sex offender, and in the drama, the film-makers wanted to depict in their fictional scenario the level of public outrage and the powerful emotional response that these high-profile cases can generate… There’s a long tradition of using recognisable figures in completely fictional roles – whether for example, Helen Mirren in the role of The Queen in Stephen Frears’ film, Frost and Nixon in Peter Morgan’s play, or the More4 film ‘Death of a President’ which imagined the assassination of a fictional George W Bush.
SS: “Some have asked whether Paul Gadd knew about the film. We let Paul Gadd know of the film but we did not ask for his permission. The music was cleared in the normal way – a licensing agreement with MCPS.”
On the execution scene
SS: “The director Rob Coldstream felt we had to show enough to convey the grim reality of the execution, but it would have been gratuitous to show more.”
HM: “We used hanging rather than, say, lethal injection, because hanging is the method that has always been used historically in the UK.”
SS: “To the viewer who asked about the execution apparatus. It is real: from Crumlin Road Gaol in Belfast. It is now a Museum.”
On actor Hilton McRae
HM: “Hilton Mcrae’s performance is chilling and engaging, and it compels the viewer to examine their views about the rights and wrongs of taking the life of a human being.”
SS: “Did actor Hilton McRae had to diet for the later scenes? No, it was all make up. The filming took place over too short a time for any diet to work!”
On the death penalty
SS: “During the research and shooting of the film I think we were all surprised by the extent to which ordinary members of the public supported the idea of executing people like Gary Glitter. Of course we all do have a view of it. I don’t know the views of people who were involved in the making of it. That was not a consideration when we put the team together. Personally? I am against it.”
For more on The Execution of Gary Glitter, visit the official programme website.
Commentsoldest first
Didn’t watch this, but my instinctive reaction is that it is a bad idea to talk about the death penalty in the context of one specific person/case.
This is awesome series. I wanna see again
This was the worst tv programme I have ever had the displeasure of viewing…. other than the relentless repeats of Dr Who on BBC1
Hamish says in his reply “There’s a long tradition of using recognisable figures in completely fictional roles – whether for example, Helen Mirren in the role of The Queen in Stephen Frears’ film, Frost and Nixon in Peter Morgan’s play, or the More4 film ‘Death of a President’ which imagined the assassination of a fictional George W Bush.”
Helen Mirran portrayed The Queen from facts available. There was no execution scene, which if it was fiction, could have been included. Frost and Nixon was based on Facts and there was no ending that did not happen in reality. The George W Bush film, as you say imagined a fictional George W Bush. You did not say that this was a fictional Paul Gadd or Gary Glitter. You could have used a fictional name where people could make up their own minds on who it was.
You also say “We let Paul Gadd know of the film but we did not ask for his permission” Well I hope that he sues for libel and wins.
When Channel 4 become the commissioning editor for the British Law Courts, then make a film like this, until then I think that you have gone beyond the boundaries.
I am sure that the British public would like to see an interview with Gary Glitter to hear what he feels on this, or perhaps for the first time for us to hear his side of what happened in Vietnam. Perhaps the producers should have first watched the BBC3 documentary ‘Come Home Gary Glitter’, where a lot of questions were raised.
In future keep Fiction Fiction.
I am a big fan of Channel 4 but I must say that I have been sorely disappointed by them for creating and airing such a despicable drama, deliberately designed to put Glitter on the spot knowing fully well that he would find it extremely difficult to come back into public view at this moment in his life to seek redress! That was simply wicked and malicious.
kicking a personality like Paul Gadd when he’s down smirks of nothing but cowardice and this was highly underscored by the way the editor and producer had gone ‘underground’ during the extremely heated debate which must have ensued immediately after the programme ended, only for the pair to resurface later with a seriously abridged summary of ”viewers’ comments”- perhaps these comments are even fiction- who knows?
In the drama, words were put into Glitter’s mouth as there was no distinction between what was fiction or fact – did he actually behave arrogantly while in actual custody e.t.c? I personally would have loved to see what comments Channel4 viewers had posted onto the debate forum online but they were hidden away from public view once the comments started to get really anti C4 – a testament to my suspicion that Mykura and Shah knew they had crossed the line and needed to do some heavy damage contol. They were happy to turn the heat to the maximum on Glitter but themselves ran out of the kitchen when it was becoming hot? How cheeky, desperate and unfair!
Well, like M. Rutherford has rightly said- I hope that Gary Glitter sues for libel and wins. You clearly overstepped the mark this time and in future, please keep fiction fiction.
Hi,
To see all 783 comments left by viewers following the show as part of a live post-show debate with Hamish and Samir, please visit the programme website here http://bit.ly/4tAs9t
Please note, due to the high number of comments submitted to the debate, you may experience a technical glitch with the page that prevents comments from loading straight away – if that happens, please keep refreshing the page and they will appear.
Thanks
This is a cruel vilification of a man who, has presumably got a family, served his sentence, is trying to live with his demons and might well be crazy with remorse, a defeated human being unable to fight back. It is as tasteless as it is cowardly.
Leave a comment
* Required field.