Talk:The Execution of Gary Glitter

Untitled
Do you not think that it should be referred to as a "docu-drama" rather than a mockumentary?

--92.28.5.14 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we need to put about tyhe type of execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.92.207 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I meant, he was hanged: has that got any implicaitons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.27.240 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick scout around wikipedia shows that this can't be described as a docudrama, as that would show actual historical events, and Gary Glitter has certainly not been executed. I'm also unsure that mockumentary is the correct term. I've tried to get my head around docufiction, which looks like the only other alternative, but I'm not an expert in this field. However, as this film did mix real events with fiction, docufiction sounds like a more appropriate classification to me. MikeScowy (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article on mockumentary says that it is Mockumentary (also known as a mock documentary) is a genre of film and television in which fictitious events are presented in a non-fiction or documentary format; the term can also refer to an individual work within the genre. Such works are often used to analyze or comment on current events and issues by using a fictitious setting. - so it seems to fit for this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cameron, I agree that the definition of mockumentary on here does seem to fit with this film and it is certainly better than docudrama, which is just wrong. However, rightly or wrongly, I associate mockumentaries with films like 'This is Spinal Tap' and 'Borat', which has a light-hearted approach, and this drama was certainly not light-hearted. I suggested docufiction mainly because it sounds more appropriate to me, but also because there was real events reported in the film as well as the fiction; the arrest of Ian Huntley, for instance. MikeScowy (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I still find it bizarre that this exists. It's really not a mockumentary. It wasn't meant to be funny. I don't honestly know wtf they were thinking. 81.97.128.2 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a little confusion here. Mock can mean "mocked-up" (thrown together/badly made/simple facsimile of something that may or may not exist - i.e. not real) and "mocking someone" (taking the mickey, laughing at them - i.e. comedic)
 * So, though it may be that many are comedic, a mockumentary does not have to be.
 * Similarly, a docufiction is better expressed as "fiction within a real event". Glitter was not charged by UK authorities with raping girls whilst in Vietnam, nor was he put on trial here for offences committed abroad - there is no "real event". A film such as Oliver Stone's JFK is about real events, but elements within it are altered/added to - it is a "docufiction". Chaosdruid (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Really needs to be reclassified as a comedy
As anyone who has watched this will know, this was one of the funniest pieces of televsion ever broadcast on British mainstream TV. It is only rivalled by that infamous episode of Brass Eye in making paedophile hysteria a subject to actually smile about. The climactic scene - where Glitter is led to the gallows blurting "Man this is freaking me out!" for all the world like Patsy from Ab Fab in one of her 1960s flashbacks - is hilarious.

It surely was never intended to be taken seriously. In the words of Charlie Brooker: "It was designed to make me think. It did make me think.  It made me think I never wanted to watch TV ever again." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.117.195 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with The Taking of Prince Harry
I wonder if anything has been written about this film's treatment of Gary Glitter as compared to the the above-named film's treatment of Prince Harry. If so, something about it ought to go in the article. The two films were comparable in many respects, but differed sharply in their portrayal of the central character. Specifically, Harry was shown as a hero, insisting that he not receive special treatment as a high-profile hostage, etc. They might just as well have chosen to portray him as a coward and Glitter as a tortured man all too aware of his terrible weaknesses - the whole thing is fiction after all - but it seems some vestige of royal deference meant they had to make Harry a much more sympathetic character than for all we know he might be in that situation. Glitter on the other hand is a national hate figure and can safely be written off as an entirely unsympathetic monster. If any media commentary or academic paper drew a comparison between the two films, it would certainly merit inclusion. Credulity (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

missing ref, and Up for DYK
"It was a hit with the viewing audience and gave Channel 4 one of its highest ratings for the year."

I can't find a source for this, just this one which shows only 1.2 million (poss 1.4 if you count CH4+1), and that only a measly 5.5%. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"and convicted paedophile Gary Glitter"
Made a few changes to clarify that the man was convicted of (1) possession of child pornography and (2) sex with minors, as it states on his own page (Gary Glitter). Paedophilia is a mental disorder, not a crime: no-one is convicted of "being a paedophile" any more than they can be convicted of being a "paranoid schizophrenic" or a "psychopath". Sex with a minor of say 13 to 15 years is a crime but it's not "paedophilia", nor does it necessarily indicate the person who has had sex with a minor of being a paedophile. Paedophiles are persons with an attraction to very young (prepubescent) children, not teenagers. Being in possession of kiddie porn may well suggest the owner is a paedophile to most people but that alone is not a diagnosis. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both what the law is and says on the one hand, and what psychiatry is and says on another, a confusion which runs rampant in the British tabloid press; we need to do our best not to add to it on Wikipedia. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)