The Reckoning - Savile

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

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.

Some characters and scenes were added for creative effect

Yes, as explained above.

Yes, it might have been , it might not

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.

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

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

He wasn't depraved?

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

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?

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.

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

So, what else is not true

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

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

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.

Anniebach

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

It will have been a 'fact' that he said the things they portrayed as happening in the confessional - just not in that context. Similarly the other aspects of the drama will have been based on research. As I say, if you watch it that will be made clear. It would not, however make for a cohesive drama (which is what this is - it doesn't set out to be an official report) if every small piece of information gathered were acted exactly as it happened.

There is also the important matter of protecting the victims. As we know, there will always be those who assume that women unable to prove sexual assault (as though that is even possible most of the time) will be disbelieved and assumed to have 'asked for it'. If someone has made a statement and asked for anonymity, do you think her story should be withheld in case there is a minor inaccuracy that would make people think less of the predatory paedophile necrophiliac rapist that was Jimmy Savile? Up to you, obviously, but that seems to me a strange way to look at it.

No one can possibly know or have recorded every word, every conversation or anything else Jimmy Savile, or any other criminal did.

What a dramatisation does = and what this is, is a dramatisation, is gather all the information possible on the man and what he has done and then form a cogent and engaging and coherent story. because every detailed fact and conversation is not recorded, because 50 plus years of abherrent behaviour has to be encompassed in a few short hours, obviously many of the events and scenes in the dramatisation, did not happen exactly as happened, sometimes scenes will be imagined that give a lot of information in a short time. I am a catholic and I have no problem at all with confessional scenes. What you are watching in The Reckoning is a drama, not a documentary. It must be judged by the rules of drama not minute factual precision.

I don’t agree with drama made from suffering

There would be few dramas if suffering was never reflected.

This is so recent

There have been many dramatisations of recent events. I watch few, but I watched one about Fred West quite some years ago and there was a superb one about jremy Thorpe and Norman Scott and many other highly praised ones,which I didn't watch.

I don’t watch them, documentaries yes, dramas no

Here is a blistering 37 min interview with Andrew Neil where he asks Savile some very personal questions about women and relationships.
Quote: Despite the fact he promoted himself as a 'ladies' man', we could not find a single woman he'd ever dated, much less anyone he'd had a relationship with. Indeed, the only woman with whom he appeared to have a close relationship was his mother — 'the duchess' — on whom he professed to dote.

Andrew Neil and Savile

He does seem uncomfortable during this interview, but is such a master at ducking and diving. What sickens me are those stupid women in the audience who laugh at every single thing he says.