The Reckoning - Savile

Things were very different in the 60s and 70s. When I was at art school the word went round the girls that there was a lecturer that we should be wary of accepting lifts from. Looking back I'm sure that the other staff must have known what he was like, but it was left to us to look after ourselves.

Yes he did , they had plenty of facts , no need to stretch it

Well it's true he sexually assaulted girl after girl if that's any help.

So, what else is not true

Many dramas use the confessional as a dramatic device. There is nothing "wrong" about doing so in this case or any other.

Anniebach

Again you are mistaken, they were wrong to use a confessional
for their drama

Who is mistaken?

If you mean me, I have no idea whether he confessed that in reality, but he was a practicing Catholic, and what was said will have been based on testimonies - presumably not to priests, but to other people, either by Savile or his victims.

If you think it is wrong to portray a confessional in drama that's your opinion, but it is not objectively 'wrong'. Nobody has suggested that it was a betrayal of something that was actually said to a priest.

Are you defending Savile, Anniebach? Or concerned about his connection with the Royals? Do you think the interviews with Savile and with some of his victims, the information given about BBC staff, etc, should not be available to the public?

I think annie meant it was a mistake to use the confessional rather than questioning his depravity. Or that's how I took it.

He wasn't depraved?

Again you are mistaken, they were wrong to use a confessional
for their drama

I wasn't aware of his visits to the hospital morgue. There was no end to his depravity.

I have never known anyone get so invested in a programme they haven't even seen .

If you had watched it you would know that there was text at the beginning explaining about the research and that it had been used to inform the aspects that had been created. There were also statements from his victims, who are now adults, talking to camera about the impact of what he did. Not everyone would be willing to do that, so other statements will have been incorporated into the drama.

Frankly, the man was so odious that it would be almost impossible to besmirch his reputation any further, so I really don't understand your determination to find something 'unfair' about the portrayal of him.

Yes, it might have been , it might not

Yes, as explained above.

Some characters and scenes were added for creative effect

SunnySusie

I have just watched all of The Reckoning on iPlayer. Absolutely brilliant performance by Coogan. I agree it didnt necessarily add anything to the story, but I thought it was important to remind us all of the dangers and how even the most lauded celeb isnt necessarily OK. I think we need to remember its dramatised and some of it is conjecture. I dont think anyone knows what Savile's mother thought of him. I dont think there is any evidence Savile went to confession and mentioned his 'friend' the sex offender, nor indeed is it clear how he reconciled his faith and his actions, or even if he felt he needed to do this. Its entirely possible he felt no guilt if he was a narcissist, because he would only be capable of seeing his own viewpoint. Not excusing him, but there cant be much doubt he suffered from severe personality disorders.

I think the dramatised scenes are when there is a collection of bits and pieces that are known to the researchers, but are not enough in themselves to tell a story, or that would take the drama in too many different directions, so the scriptwriters include them as a composite character or scene. It's not inventing anything, but presenting things slightly differently. It can also be done to protect the identity of someone who doesn't want to be named.

In the case of Savile's relationship with his mother, it might be that they have spoken to people who knew the family and had been told things she had said, or had witnessed incidents. It would be impossible to show all these conversations, but put together in a scene where the mother combined them they can give a general idea about how it was. As you say, we have to remember it was a drama.

The producer obviously hasn’t heard of - The Seal of
Confession in the R C Church

I have just watched all of The Reckoning on iPlayer. Absolutely brilliant performance by Coogan. I agree it didnt necessarily add anything to the story, but I thought it was important to remind us all of the dangers and how even the most lauded celeb isnt necessarily OK. I think we need to remember its dramatised and some of it is conjecture. I dont think anyone knows what Savile's mother thought of him. I dont think there is any evidence Savile went to confession and mentioned his 'friend' the sex offender, nor indeed is it clear how he reconciled his faith and his actions, or even if he felt he needed to do this. Its entirely possible he felt no guilt if he was a narcissist, because he would only be capable of seeing his own viewpoint. Not excusing him, but there cant be much doubt he suffered from severe personality disorders.

Byline Times is pretty mainstream though - or I see it as such. It's not as biased as some sources, but all the same it has a wide circulation/readership and is often a source of news for other outlets. I haven't come across Open Democracy, but will have a look.

I don't know - I see 'MSM' being sneered at a lot, and take it as a judgement from people who have access to some sort of subcultural or otherwise non-commercial media that they see as more neutral or less manipulative than the sources used by the common herd. I just wondered what these media were.

Social media is valuable, IMO, but hardly more reliable than 'MSM' unless it is in the form of tweets or posts from people you know personally who are involved in a situation. By definition, all media mediate, or act as a go-between between the source of an event and the receivers of the story that results. Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud, really - it's something I have wondered about for a while.

Doodledog

Oh yes, he was very clever and manipulative, without a doubt.

May I ask a question? People who use the term ‘MSM’ - from where do you get your non-‘mainstream’ information that is free of bias and doesn’t ‘feed nonsense’ to gullible viewers/listeners/readers? I see the term regularly on here, and have often wondered what the alternative media must be.

I think that's a really interesting point... personally I've started to look at other news sources alongside the standard.
Byline Times and Open Democracy are two and given the current situation in Israel/ Palestine, Middle East Eye.
I think by comparing and contrasting, hopefully you can get pretty close to the truth.

Oh yes, he was very clever and manipulative, without a doubt.

May I ask a question? People who use the term ‘MSM’ - from where do you get your non-‘mainstream’ information that is free of bias and doesn’t ‘feed nonsense’ to gullible viewers/listeners/readers? I see the term regularly on here, and have often wondered what the alternative media must be.

Dee1012

Louella12

Anniebach

I certainly do not believe Charles asked Savile to advise Andrew and Sarah how to behave in public.

I don't either

Where is the actual evidence? Have we seen the letters from Charles to Savile?

I've very little time for MSM. We are fed all sorts of nonsense that people believe.

If I recall correctly...the Netflix documentary actually featured the letters between Charles and Savile, some details here;

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689515/Prince-Charles-heaped-praise-Jimmy-Savile-asked-help-fix-Royal-Familys-image.html

While I generally agree that MSM can feed a lot of nonsense, I'd suggest there's truth here.

That is a shocking and surprising article. It just goes to show how clever he was at influencing and manipulating people, something that psychopaths do so very well. And Charles mistakenly thought he was someone with good common sense because that is the very clever image he portrayed. We also should remember that his skill as a people person and charity organiser did not always overlap with his paedophile activities. I'm sure he would have been on his best ahaviour for any of the Royals, the little scumbag.

The whole situation reminds me of the Milgram Experiment, in which people were tested on how far they would do bad things if told to by someone in authority- they were remarkably compliant on the whole. Many people will do as they are told if they are told or believe that it is the right thing to do. It would apply equally to being told not to do something (ie report an incident or insist a complaint is taken further) because Savile raised money or drew in audiences. I think the conclusion was that the compliance with authority is partly ‘human nature’ and partly because of upbringing but it was a very powerful impulse.

Looking weird is not a crime Mollygo you couldn’t be expected to act on his look.

If only all the people who knew there was something creepy about Savile had done something about it. Regrettably, my only contribution was in the last few years it was broadcast when I refused DD’s desire to send in a request because I thought he looked weird, and that was before I even knew about what he was doing.
But would I have made my feelings known beyond my local circle if I’d known?