The Execution of Gary Glitter (2009 TV Movie) User Reviews

Tacky And Pointless DocuDrama

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 20 December 2011]

This caused a television stir before it was even broadcast . Paedophillia/pedophiles is perhaps the most emotive topic possible as is the rights and wrongs of capital punishment so combining them with documentary drama featuring convicted pedophile pop star causes a prospective audience to sit up and take notice . Perhaps this was at the front of the producers minds when they commissioned THE EXECUTION OF GARY GLITTER . In other words it's a cynical marketing excersise for channel 4

I'll state my own views on the death penalty and that is against it because

1 ) If someone is found guilty of a capital crime and executed then it's a sentence that remains forever . The state has done something that can never be reversed

2 ) If someone is guilty then executing them can be an act of kindness . Think of people like Ian Brady and Ian Huntly who have attempted suicide wanting to end their misersable lives inside prison . Life imprisonment without parole is an effective sentence for very bad human beings

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal nor a fascist but if I was either then I'd still be disappointed in the views being put forward by the producers . Why Gary Glitter ? Aren't there enough paedos and child killers in Britian who would be first in the queue to be candidates for execution ? Glitter committed his crimes abroad so are there no pedophiles in the UK in this parallel world ?

In many ways the docudrama tries and fails to bring a black sense of humour to the bizarre proceedings . Journalist Miranda Sawyer states that " Gary Glitter was the king at my playground . All the under tens loved him " I was expecting at this point for someone to say " Gary's songs touched me as a child " or " Gary would make a great Doctor Who because his companion could be K-9 and Stacy who's also nine " It's that type of humour similar to THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL where Dr Josef Mengele suddenly finds himself in possession of a wicked and sarcastic sense of humour . In factit becomes surreal as Glitter finds himself toping the download charts as a crowd stands outside the prison gates chanting " COME ON COME ON COME ON HANG HIM "

Inspired but inevitably grim mock documentary

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 15 November 2009]

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

This mock documentary is a fictionalized account of a modern Britain in which the death penalty was reinstated for the most serious offences in 2005 and, after all the legislation has passed, in 2009 former glam rock pop icon Gary Glitter (eerily embodied by Hilton McRae) is to become the first man to be put to death, following another law that allows British citizens to be tried for crimes committed abroad, in Glitter's case the rape of some girls in Vietnam. As the title suggests, he is found guilty and sentenced to hang on the recommendation of the jury. From here, with the use of stock footage and various commentators putting their views forward, we delve into the complexities surrounding bringing the death penalty back, how as a society we have lost track of how to keep an effective lid on serious, violent crime (as Ann Widdecombe notes: "We've forgotten there is such a thing as evil") and how the image of Glitter fell down in everyone's minds.

One of the first points the film puts forward is that a significant proportion of the British population supposedly support the return of the death penalty for the most serious crimes. With this in mind, there must be a strong emphasis that that is the direction the film is trying to guide us in. This unexpected and high concept idea of having someone as high profile as Glitter as the first person to be executed gives some serious food for thought. Though most of the commentators are in favour of the death penalty and the opponents generally relegated to smaller segments, it still doesn't end up coming across as a lynch mob sort of film, just a rather grim and bleak one. In the ten years since the shocking truth about Glitter came out to now where he is hated enough for this to happen, one thing you can't accuse him of is fading into the background.

So, pretty grim, downbeat and in the end very distressing viewing then, but at least it will get you thinking. ***

Do You Wanna Hang Me

[SteveResin · 5/10 · 28 January 2024]

This has to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious TV shows ever screened in the UK. It's like a Daily Mail or The Sun fantasy come to life. It even has Garry Bushell in it, it's that transparent. They try their best to make it appear deep and thought provoking but it's absolute twaddle catering to the pitchfork brigade and the type who watch and enjoy YouTube videos of "Paedo Hunters".

The writing is frankly absurd. There's a scene where Glitter's defence lawyer stands up in court and actually says "I am sickened by my client, I despise him, and he may even be evil, but...". I mean come on,the guy would never be employed again. Ridiculous sensationalist nonsense. Glitter is portrayed as a man so arrogant and lacking self awareness he declares in court that his 10 year old victim was asking for it because she dressed provocatively in "small shorts". It's so unrealistic it's like watching an episode of Rumpole of the Bailey written by someone on an acid trip. I was convinced I was watching a lost episode of Brass Eye it was so hilarious.

The Weirdest show in years (Worrying yet Amusing)

[goodwin_69 · 1/10 · 15 November 2009]

It's hard to believe that this programme has actually aired with little to no controversy or backlash. What pretends to be a thought-provoking portrayal of a "key" issue in modern day Britain is little more than an indication of how clouded the medias view of what is worthwhile television has become. However, the ridiculous content material is worthy of a viewing just to see what can somehow achieve funding and be produced.

The development meeting must have been mental. "What if the death penalty is back? Oh, and also we can try people in our courts for foreign charges. Oh, and i don't mean that injection death, i mean hanging, old school style. Oh, and I say we put the one person everyone thinks deserves this on the stand... Gary Glitter". For reasons I can't fathom this was given the green-light.

So we are subjected to just over an hour of "mock-documentary" style drama involving a Gary Glitter who has the manner of Hannibal Lecter in his interviews. (I'm sure Channel 4 know for a fact Glitter is evil incarnate and wouldn't show any remorse, ever). But what's worse is the random clips of "celebs" not just advocating the death penalty but talking about this fictional trial as if it happened. Anne Widecombe talks of good and evil with the death sentence being good's ultimate weapon. A Guardian music reviewer talks of the electricity and atmosphere at the trial she "attended" but in reality did not. The worst is Garry Bushell who gets suspiciously red faced and sweaty when "remembering" the verdict being given. Hilarious barely describes the fact that these people even entertained the notion this could happen.

Ultimately, I didn't expect a balanced and thought out deconstruction of the argument at hand. Yet this is little more than the media manipulating the publics strong reaction to paedophilia but also to celebrities and how we like to see them fail. Im sure if Glitter were to hang in real life, it would be a box office smash. I guess Channel 4 couldn't wait and so decided to put it on early.

Im eagerly anticipating more of the same, but without the vague attempt at hiding what voyeuristic crap this is. I want to see what happens when Posh and Becks home invade Buckingham Palace and happy slap the Queen. Oh, and i suggest the punishment be death by bears. Swear to God, this will be on in the next few weeks

Biased and manipulative to a point that's shameful and patronising!

[The-Last-Prydonian · 2/10 · 6 March 2010]

Capital punishment has always been a contentious subject and with this, in mind, Channel 4 produced one of the most contentious "mockumentaries" imaginable and arguably one that is a tad unsavoury. "The Execution of Gary Glitter" creates the conceit of offering the viewer an alternative version of Great Britain where the death penalty has been reintroduced and where upon his arrival back in the UK, Paul Gadd better known as former seventies rock idol Gary Glitter is arrested and then awaits to be put on trial whereupon if he is found guilty of his notoriously evil crimes outside the UK he could face the death penalty.

We the viewer are subjected to a mixture of real and fake footage (which to the filmmaker's credit is quite realistic looking and could be easily mistaken for the real thing), z list celebrities who range from Gary Bushell and Anne Widecombe who aren't shy about making their pro-capital punishment views known. While we watch Gadd portrayed uncannily by the relatively unknown Hilton McCrae goes through the whole legal hoopla, goes through court and the subsequent moments after he is found guilty and awaits execution.

I won't make my own views of capital punishment a secret, I'm very much against it but even those who condone it have to confess that "The Execution of Gary Glitter" is blatantly biased, one-sided right-wing propaganda at its worst, not to mention that the decision to choose Glitter as the focus of this mockumentary leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and for that matter is tasteless in the extreme. It's a miracle that there wasn't some moral uproar after it was aired which says something about the times we live in. It's shocking that this receives little or no complaints and yet "Jerry Springer: The Opera" receives the record for the most complaints ever for a Televised programme.

The premise of the mockumentary is in itself fundamentally flawed as the fact that Glitter is unaware that capital punishment has been reintroduced means that one of the major arguments put forward about the death penalty is that it is supposed to work as a deterrent. So the arguments that it may not be are rather conveniently swept under the carpet.

The fact that Gary Bushell, a self-confessed homophobe has the audacity to talk about human decency is laughable and that he obtusely and arrogantly labels anti-capital punishment advocates as left-wing, liberal parasites is feeble pompous generalising. All the anti-capital punishment supporters are portrayed as moronic, ignorant uneducated "hippies" while the pro-death penalty supporters are presented as more rational, caring decent people who are fiercely protective of their children.

It seems that the programme is nothing more than a cynical attempt to manipulate its audience and in the most distasteful and exploitative manner possible. Why I wonder did the filmmakers create a mockumentary based around a fictional murderer for example? But instead, we have a real criminal and one who is known to virtually everyone as having committed arguably the most hated and most taboo of crimes, while the inclusion of real footage of Glitter making his infamous statement after leaving prison just strikes me as tasteless and unnecessary.

Credit where credit is due, the film is well made and Hilton MacCrae who portrays the "alternate" version of Glitter give a chilling and uncannily convincing performance as the fallen rock star while many of the prison and court scenes are astonishingly brought to life. But this is an un-well intentioned piece of fluff which is not only insulting to anti-capital punishment supporters but insulting to the intelligence of any viewer who the filmmakers would think would be taken in by such unashamedly biased propaganda.

Pathetic

[marktreut · 1/10 · 18 January 2010]

Very disappointing. I was somewhat led to believe that this programme would raise the issue of the death penalty as a matter of debate, but the real debate will have to be the mishandling by the programme makers. Quite aside from the fact that Glitter is charged with crimes committed beyond British jurisdiction, the fact that he is given only 30 days to appeal is quite frankly unbelievable. It's "Alice in Wonderland". This was a Britain that was so alternative that you expected the Prime Minister to be Robert Mugabe or Osama Bin Laden.

Furthermore there is the fact that this programme seemed only to "interview" those in favour of the death penalty, like Ann Widdecombe or Gary Bushell. There was nothing about the flip side of the coin, most notably the fact that justice has been known to make mistakes, or at the very least jailed people whose convictions are later questioned: Tim Evans (who was hanged), the Guildford Four or Barry George (convicted but later cleared of the Jill Dando murder).

On a separate note, the accidental music was dreadful and unnecessary. You cannot imagine the relief when we were sparred the playing of badly-tuned violins or the clonking of xylophones. It is time for this kind of thing to stop.

Unsentimental and provocative.

[Uneken · 9/10 · 30 October 2010]

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a British citizen and I'm not up to date on the discussion in the UK on the subject of the death penalty, nor do I watch British TV or read British newspapers. I do get most of my world news from the BBC news website though. So I may not be sufficiently biased in order to give a fair opinion on the film. I definitely did not experience the film as pro death sentence. On the contrary. It is an outcry against abuse of children and an exploration of what it would be like to have capital punishment return to a civilized country. An outcry against child abuse is not necessarily a call for the death penalty.

The force of the film lies in the way these arguments are projected on the screen: powerful, convincing, raw, devastating. Nothing less will do in treating with issues of such gravity. The choice of Gary Glitter as the main character is brilliant: it captivates the public (even a foreigner like myself) and brings the story home with the persuasiveness of a 10-ton lorry. There is no sentimentalism in the film, especially not towards Paul Gadd, which may be the reason why the film is regarded as being pro capital punishment, but the cinematic development of the story towards the end, showing the clinical process of the execution and its preparations and the hysteria of the press and the public in the streets, provokes one to make up one's mind: will the death penalty bring anything positive to society?

Shamelessly biased propaganda

[Neil-900 · 1/10 · 10 November 2009]

Talk about a one sided argument.

They start this by saying that the majority of British citizens are bloodthirsty savages who support state murder, in other words they are in favour of the death penalty.

This is a pro death penalty infomercial at best. With "Z" list "celebrities" like Ann Widdecombe and Gary Bushell supporting the death penalty while on the opposition are about 3 anonymous protesters that are portrayed as uneducated "Liberals" making me think this was written by an American.

The only others mentioned are Glitter fans wearing "save the leader" shirts. You don't have to support this vile man to hate the death penalty.

Whether you agree with state murder or not it cannot be introduced as innocent people WILL be sent to their death, this is totally unacceptable.

This would have made quite a good drama if only it were far less biased and showed the opposing view at all let alone fairly.

1/10

Strong, Powerfully Underrated

[mike_olley · 9/10 · 25 July 2021]

Our nation is not split on capital punishment, the majority are in favour. Accordingly our elected representatives simply won't give way to that point of view. Good I say, as I don't feel we should judicially kill people. Yet equally I do believe in democracy and the will of the people.

On this issue of course it's not up for debate at any serious level, as close examination would expose the lie that Parliament is a representative democracy. I feel that this drama is too close to the bone and as such those of us who can be bothered to rate this show are generally going to not like the narrative. So in order to continue to close down the debate it gets marked down as being a poor quality programme. It's not poor it's very good, too good. That's why the general view is that it isn't - it's a form of liberal censorship. Very disappointing - but that's life.