In fairness, most Americans had barely heard of the guy so we needed the background material to truly understand the enormity of it.
I’ve noticed true crime filmmaking has firmly moved away from trying to “explain” how perpetrators grow into psychopaths, out of a desire to not lend these figures any more notoriety than they already have, and to keep the focus on the crime(s) and the people impacted by them. And I’m not sure if there’s any satisfying explanation for a guy like Jimmy Savile.
Edit: tags
More than a hint elsewhere:
Jimmy Savile told hospital staff he interfered with patients’ corpses, taking grotesque photographs and stealing glass eyes for jewellery, over two decades at the mortuary of Leeds general infirmary.
The late Top of the Pops presenter had free access to the mortuary from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, an official investigation has found, concluding that Savile’s interest in the deceased was “not within accepted boundaries”.
One former Broadmoor nurse told investigators that Savile claimed to have performed sex acts on bodies and “mucked about” in the mortuary, posing in photographs with the deceased after placing them in lewd positions.
If you’re interested in the story, there’s a great Louis Theroux doc from before Saville passed and the story broke. This is the only reason I know the man’s name. It’s basically about the man being a cultural oddity, but at one point he does ask about rumors of impropriety.
Theroux did a followup more recently, post scandal, where he reflects on his experience. In their time together he had come to feel friendly towards Saville; he talks about what it was like learning that Saville was not just an idiosyncratic oddball, but a sexual predator.
Theroux is a very thoughtful filmmaker and this makes for a couple of hours of very interesting documentary. You can probably find it streaming online somewhere.
Sorry to double post, but I passed the edit timeout. Since he passed, 200 or 300 people have come forward with very similar accusations. He was sexually assaulting underage women for 30 years.
“Underage women” is a euphemism that favors only the rapist.
An underage woman is a girl. A child.
You really are determined to miss the entire point, even though it’s already been explained to you.
Savile’s behaviour was excused - in his case, by lots of powerful people - because he was a popular performer with high ratings. Yet even after the effects of Savile’s actions - and the coverups - were revealed, Jeremy Clarkson’s fans were demanding that his felony assault be excused because he was a popular performer with high ratings. Because apparently the lessons of why letting celebrities get away with illegal acts is a bad thing weren’t learned.
I was a kid when Jim’ll Fix It was aired - I’d describe my family situation as ‘working class with middle class pretensions’. I enjoyed the wish-fulfilment fantasy element of the TV programme - in the same way that I enjoyed leafing through catalogues of expensive toys I would never own. I always found Savile creepy and scary and uncomfortable to watch (there are several posts where I said so on this board, prior to Savile’s death and the exposure of his behaviour)
It hasn’t been explained, it has been repeated.
How many of Jimmy Savile’s fans were fully aware of his crimes and demanded that he be excused?
In what way does one adult male punching another adult male in the heat of the moment compare to decades of serious sexual assault, necrophilia and paedophilia?
How is one related to the other? How do those two incidents have anything in common?
I think it is pretty demeaning to Savile’s victims to even attempt to draw a line between them.
And yet you continue to miss it.
The point: at a time at which the general public were made painfully aware of why letting a popular BBC television presenter get away with criminal activity was a Very Bad Thing, a large number of fans somehow thought it a good idea to demand that the BBC let a different popular television presenter get away with criminal activity.
That’s it. That’s the point. All that other stuff you keep going on about? Not the point.
Do you need me to explain it again?
And you continue to miss the point by a country mile.
The “criminal activity” in one case bears no relation to the “criminal activity” in the other. Your continued attempt to make some sort of ham-fisted causal link, slippery slope or equivalence is obnoxious. I think people are well capable, given the full facts, to decide how seriously a person’s actions are to be treated.
They are certainly capable of noting that the cases of Savile and Clarkson are in completely different ball-parks.
Fans of “Top Gear” wanted Clarkson to remain as part of that program. There was no clamour for him to avoid any criminal charges, no cover-up, just a perfectly reasonable hope that he could continue to make the show.
Just like the cricketer Ben Stokes punched someone and due process was done and he continues to play in the England cricket team. Nothing intrinsically wrong with people campaigning for him to be allowed him to do so.
George Michael had numerous brushes with the law and people were not wrong for campaigning for him to continue making records and performing shows.
Hell, numerous celebrities have crashed cars while drunk, hit people or other similar crimes. Take your pick, it is an almost weekly occurrence.
All of those examples have absolutely nothing to do with the horrendous crimes of Savile because normal people are capable of making a nuanced judgement of how serious an incident is.
Now, had you used the examples of Harvey Weinstein, Phil Spector, Bill Cosby (again, the list is long and illustrious) then you would have a point. But you didn’t. so you don’t.
So if you ignore my point and continue to talk about things that aren’t my point, I don’t have a point. Got it.
And that’s why so many of them attacked the man Clarkson assaulted. Because of a “perfectly reasonable hope”. Got it.
You are aware that losing your job when you punch a co-worker or boss is also a “perfectly reasonable” consequence of committing an illegal (and violent) action, right? I mean, Clarkson didn’t even get fired; they just opted not to renew his contract. I’m pretty sure very few other people would have crowds of defenders demanding that they be allowed to keep their job under such circumstances.
But tell me again how it wasn’t about fans wanting the BBC to ignore the criminal behaviour of a popular BBC presenter.
There are arseholes on the internet. Are you shocked by that? I’m not going to take the most extreme online reactions as indicative of the general balance of opinion. That way madness lies.
Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for the BBC to take whatever action they see fit.
I don’t believe he was a BBC employee so not renewing his contract was pretty much the totality of what they could do.
As for your other point I think you are wrong. Any popular figure would have people supporting them after an equivalent act. I gave two examples in my previous post, have people also been supporting Will Smith and wanting to keep his job(s)? I bet the answer is yes.
But equivalent act is the key point here.
I’m sure some would have wanted that, some fans are idiots, pretty much by definition. That doesn’t mean the actions of a few represent the general opinion.
Also, I simply find your determined effort to put Clarkson and his fans and Savile and his criminal enablers and conspirators on the same level to be ugly in the extreme.
You’ve made your feelings clear and I’ve nothing more to add so I’ll stop there.
You’re really missing the point of the comparison here. Like, by a lot.
I don’t think so. What do you think the point of the comparison is that I am missing?
He’s not trying to put them on the same level though.
this
Sounds to me like a clumsy attempt put them on some sort of level. Even the use of the bland term “criminal activity” for both situations when one was infinitely more serious than the other.
If I used the term “vehicle crime” to describe both the Nice truck attack of 2016 and a non-fatal collision between two cars, you’d quite rightly wonder why,
American here; I know very little about Jimmy Savile, so this sounds like an interesting, if harrowing, documentary. I’ll try to check it out.
The point @Gyrate is making is absolutely not that they’re on the same level. It’s that celebrity and success erode basic standards so much that even when people have had a drastic lesson in the importance of not letting things slip, they still want to let things slip.
It’s not like Savile started off by loudly announcing he was a rapist, was it? He and his fellow Yewtree perps got to their position of impunity little by little, one slipped standard at a time, until various institutions were contorting themselves not to look at the evidence because it wasn’t worth rocking the boat. The point isn’t that Clarkson’s assault of a colleague was of the same league as Savile’s crimes, it’s that the obvious lesson of Savile was that you don’t ever let even minor crimes slide because “well he’s a big star so…” is not an ethos you want to take hold.
And yet, “well he’s a big star so…” was a sentiment floated in the immediate aftermath of Clarkson’s assault by people who should have known better.
Yes, this is me, putting them on the same level:
Stanislaus has perfectly grasped and explained my intended point. I don’t know what else to say about it.