Hmmmmmmmmm
What is there to say about the fate of Chris Langham? I remember so well the day it went public that he had been arrested in connection with child pornography in December 2005 - I was at the annual radio light entertainment Christmas party at the St Georges Hotel, which is always held in the afternoon, and all talk was of Chris Langham. I spoke to Chris Addison, one of his co-stars in The Thick Of It (for which Langham had famously won a British Comedy Award two days before) and he seemed as mystified as anyone else. There was no "inside track", not even within the comedy fraternity. Nobody had a clue what was going on, and in fact, you could sense that nobody in that hotel bar wanted to entertain the possibility that he might actually have downloaded kiddy porn. (I maintained a healthy cynicism, as I know for a fact that a number of men had been questioned and arrested as part of Operation Ore who were innocent.)
Any admirer of his work, especially his renaissance years in The Thick Of It, People Like Us, Kiss Me Kate and, more poignantly, or so it turned out, Help, will find it hard to stomach. Any adult downloading images and videos of child abuse is abhorrent, but to see somebody you admire go down for it is pretty disappointing. The Pete Townshend Defence only stands up if you can imagine yourself idly searching for and downloading such material (and typing in your credit card details in order to facilitate that deliberate act). As far as I'm aware, it's not that easy to find these sites - I don't suppose they're on Google or Yahoo, but I'm not even prepared to type the words in to find out. You'd really have to make quite an effort to find this stuff, I reckon. "Research" may be a catch-all in terms of claiming back expenses on tax if you're in the media, but it's no moral Elastoplast. Would Langham have claimed this back on his tax return?
From what came out in court, it seems that the woman who accused him of having underage sex was ambulance chasing, although, again, his relationship with her seemed distinctly odd. That said, there's no crime in being odd, and nor is there crime in having sexual thoughts about minors. The crime here is not necessarily one of paedophilia, it is one of supporting the abuse of children for adult pleasure, and that's unconscionable, whatever the exuse. The big question is: how do you feel when you hear a Gary Glitter song now? (Not on the radio, obviously, but perhaps in a documentary, or on a compilation of 70s hits.) And how will you feel when you watch The Thick Of It on DVD? Will you, in fact? I rather suspect the BBC won't be showing the first series again. Is that right? Or should the art stand apart from the man?
posted by Andrew Collins @ 4:56 PM
22 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
22 Comments:
Interesting stuff. A little unfortunate that having read all that, your next blog's title is 'Everybody else is doing it'!
i've worked with a huge number of people who were sexually abused over the last fifteen years ( I don't mean as colleagues; I'm a Mental Health worker) and even since the Internet made all manner of pornography much more easily accessible, nobody I've worked with has EVER voiced an urge or need to view these sort of images, either in order to 'connect' with the victims, or to 'look into the eyes' of the abusers ( pretty sure you won't see much there anyway).
This is not to say that I could never see that scenario occuring in my working life. People who have been abused and traumatised CAN 'act out' in any number of bizarre and damaging ways,though effective therapy helps to 'contain' that, if people have access to it and are ready to use it. I have no idea whether Chris Langham had entered into Psychotherapy at any point in his life, or was in in it when he downloaded these images. He's had a well-documented history or drug and alcohol abuse and a chaotic past, though whether it was all down to sexual abuse in the end is anyone's guess. I'm sure Psychological reports on him will have formed part of both the prosecution and the defence cases. I'd be interested to read them.
What made me doubt him is that he lied about the 'offender storyline' that he and Paul Whitehouse were supposedly working on for 'Help', and for which he was supposedly carrying out his 'research'. It must have been awful for Paul Whitehouse to stand in the dock and tell the court that no, that was not the proposed storyline at ALL. I lost sympathy for Chris Langham at that point ( i was a big fan),
I'd imagine he will now be completely washed up, and I am sure the Beeb will want to erase him from history. Given the fact that court proceedings had to be stopped more than once because the images he had downloaded were too vile for some of the jurors to bear looking at, I don't see how it would be possible to divorce the art from the man in this case. He didn't nick an Armani jacket from Selfridges, or even beat up one of his mates while off his head on coke. He paid to watch kids being sexually tortured ( AC, a plea - you only did it once, but can you not use the phrase 'kiddy porn'? It makes it sound almost cuddly. ).
The best he can hope for is a treatment programme.
Sorry for the long post Andrew!
"The crime here is not necessarily one of paedophilia, it is one of supporting the abuse of children for adult pleasure, and that's unconscionable". Agreed.
"...should the art stand apart from the man?" Ultimately, if the art is great, it will survive many times longer than the man. At that stage his life becomes a historical curiosity; the quality of the art will have covered the multitidude of his sin.
Obviously this is unlikely to apply to CL.
I think paedophiles are great self decievers. I think he wanted to, or felt compelled to, see the images and used all kinds of excuses to make it look excusable; it is not.
I don't like the hysteria of the press which stifles an adult debate on how we help these people to stop their behaviour.
As for his career how can you laugh at someone knowing what they have done ? I can't bear the thought of even being on a jury seeing that kind of thing.
I don't want to kick the guy when he is down.I just hope he gets some help. I aslo hope it scares the shit out of at least a few people who might be tempted looking at this kind of filth.
I've been trying to think of similiar cases to this one and haven't really managed anything comparable. Apart from Pete Townsend of course but i don't know what to make of that.
Michael Barrymore's career is probably over but the majority of his tv work has never been repeated - quiz shows, variety shows etc. So there's not been much opportunity to re-watch his work in light of what we know now. Or what we think we might know.
Gary Glitter is a good example I suppose but I can't think of many instance where I've come across his music lately. But if I did, i don't think I'd need to switch the dial. Will we still listen to Phil Spector's music if he's found guilty? Or is that a different thing?
What about Michael Richards? Anyone not been able to watch old episodes of Seinfeld since his outburst last year? I have. Is that different too? I don't know if he's working anymore (saying that, i don't know if he was working before it either - things seemed to be pretty quiet there since Seinfeld) but I can laugh at Kramer without thinking that several years later, he would say some outrageous things..
I've always believed the old cliche about trusting the art etc. but I'm not sure I'll be able to watch The Thick of It again.. I guess you can survive drugs, sex scandals, and, possibly, racism & homophobia (let's see what happens next with Isiaih Washington) but this is new ground..
With reference to Langham's work being considered seperately from his use of child pornography surely we should remember Roman Polanski who pleaded guilty to the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl. Few critics (and indeed the Oscar committee) don't seem to let his crimes of the early 70's influence their opinions on an impressive body of work. And we need to remember that Langham is guilty of any sex offence. That said, I think it will be some time before I can watch People Like Us and not feel a little strange. But I really enjoyed Rosemary's Baby a few weeks ago. Go figure.
Apologies. Bad typo. The above post should actually read that Langham is NOT guilty of a sex offence, but guilty of using child porn. I'm posting this on my phone and proof reading my entries isn't very easy.
I know its inappropriate and all but all Io could think of when I saw that piccy was 'ooh he looks like Ian McEwan'. I do think the art should stand apart from the man as 'twere, but I think that is easier said and done years down the line.
I wouyld agree about the art standing alone in the case of most things but on a anemotional level I could not watch somebody who I know condoned this kind of cruelty and by downloading these images that is what he is doing.
As has been said he didn't accidentally come across this stuff. I've looked at a lot of porn on the net (not a boast I promise) and I have never seen anything to indicate where such material is. He sought it out, downloaded it and paid somebody for it.
Knowing what we know now about child abuse I cannot see any earthly justification. As I say I don't want him strung up but he needs to pay and pay dearly for what he did; and get help.
Like you, Andrew, I was disappointed when I first heard about the Chris Langham business and rather hoped he'd be acquitted due to the allegations being unfounded. This was not to be, alas.
I don't think the BBC will dare repeat his material again. This is very sad for his collaborators and his (erstwhile) fans who must feel let down. I don't feel I could watch the first series of The Thick Of It now with the same enjoyment I got from its first outing. Ditto for Help.
As for Gary Glitter I have to say that I was never a great fan of his. The last time I heard any of his music was when BBC3 did a quirky documentary on his case. I do find myself skipping the Human League's version of Rock 'n' Roll whenever my iPod throws that one at me. One wonders how Mike Leander, Glitter's co-writer, would feel were he still alive.
I'm afraid to say that I can't help thinking "Hmmmmmmmmm" whenever I hear The Who which is a shame as I do like their stuff.
I can watch The Thick Of It and seperate the charactor CL plays from the man he is.I could listen to Gary Glitter and not connect it to the shitty things he did (I would not neccesarily want to, but thats more about the music than the man).
John Lennon was a bit of a wanker at times by all accounts (mysogenistic,violent aggresive ) but Stawberry Fields Forever still takes me to a better place whenever my ipod randomly selects it.
I'm guessing the Thick Of It episode where an inappropriate email gets sent to a child won't be shown again any time soon.
I can't help feeling it would be easier to go after the sites showing this stuff rather than all of the people who view them. Ultimately these people may be warped or simply weak, but the time they're spending looking at stuff online is time they're not spending satisfying their curiosity/needs in other (even) more harmful ways. And I'm guessing that in the majority of cases, the time they spend doing the latter is zero.
None of which is to defend what Chris Langham has done. But I only feel sorry for him. I can't see him as any more "evil" than, say, people who can't stop themselves gawping at the results of car crashes. And, yes, I know that's a totally different scenario but - you know - why do they want to look at that stuff? Exactly what kind of perverse need are they satisfying? If Chris Langham needs help then I hope he gets it. But frankly I have to say that it's perfectly possible he has just received all the "help" he needs. If this looks like I'm playing down paedophillia and child abuse, then please believe me I'm really not.
I will certainly enjoy listening to People Like Us and The Sunday Format in future and I would probably enjoy The Thick Of It too, if I got the chance. I don't think these will invoke anything worse than a feeling of: "Oh it was sad/unfortunate about him."
I think Gary Glitter is a different case both because of the nature of his crimes and the nature of his act. You only have to read the titles of his hits to feel uneasy.
I can watch the Thick Of It again and listen to Baba O'Riley (and even Imagine) but I just can't help thinking about what CL & PT were up to (and that JL was capable of being a right tosser) and, for me, that colours any enjoyment derived from the art in question.
Talking of John Lennon I remember a bit in some fly-on-the-wall doc about the recording of Imagine while Lennon was trying to sing overdubs on his love song "Oh Yoko!", described in wikipedia as "a joyous ode to his wife". From what I remember that session seemed anything but joyous with both Lennon and Yoko barking instructions at some poor sound engineer who didn't seem to understand what was required of him. OK, not my favourite song on the album but it keeps the feet tapping and is a good closing track. But whenever I hear it now I can't help thinking about that wretched sound guy getting all this unpleasant flack from John and Yoko. A tad off topic I know but I don't think you can totally separate the man from the art.
I would suggest on this one there are many shades of grey. The art does stand alone from the man, in much the same way as it would with Gauguin and countless others I suppose, yet with them, the severity of their crimes are lessened by the passage of time. As for Chris Langham himself, I would hope there isn't anyone who would try to justify his actions, but his own experiences will have made his life a living hell, and may well have driven him to such extremes to exorcise his own demons. And yet there are parts of his denial statements that have the hollow ring of any addict, or abuser in denial. I really don't know what to think. But I hope that these events will, ultimately help him find whatever peace he is searching for.
kind of hard to split out the art and the man, because everytime you see/hear of them the what they did becomes more then the man or the art.
CL sugests he was doing 'research' and if that were true (I suspect not) then why research category 5 material which is apparently very nasty stuff.
The point must be that there is a market for this stuff and the only way to close it down is to chase those who spend money on it and make sure anyone knows that they can (and will) be traced. There will be peope who have seen this case that might have considered this kind of stuff, but hopefully some of them will now be put off.
This is nasty nasty stuff and I suspect that CL will never work in the media again.
AnonoNick
I can watch The Thick Of It without a bad taste in my mouth as it is humour designed for adults and executed as such.
The Muppets though...What was going on in Langham's head throughout his tenure with the Henson family business certainly sullies my childhood connection to Kermit & Co.
It's all very sad.
Apologies for potentially cuddly use of phrase "kiddy porn". Excellent comparative point about Roman Polanksi. But his punishment remains - he cannot tread on American soil to pick up any awards he might be presented with.
Leslie Grantham did ten years for murdering a German taxi driver when he was in the army in the late 60s, and this came out as soon as EastEnders started, but this didn't prevent him from becoming a much-loved national figure. (He claimed it was an accident and he didn't know his gun was loaded, but was still convicted of murder.)
"in the army" "didn't know his gun was loaded"...I hope they've sharpened up on the training these days.
This may seem flippant but I had genuinely forgotten about Leslie Grantham's earlier history, being somewhat blinded as I was by the more recent prospect of him having filmed himself 'having a shuffle' and issuing it to the world.
I've mulled this question quite often over the past few weeks. I'll continue to watch The Thick of It - for me it would be awful for CL's wrongdoing to subvert Armando Iannouci's masterpiece. (I'll admit to some selfishness - I need more Malcolm Tucker.)
Gary Glitter never meant anything to me, but his defiance and apparent determination to carry on regardless overseas (it has been alleged) make him somehow more repulsive to me.
Belated comment on this... I've been mulling it over too and would just add this - Langham should talk. It may be naive but I can see a public, genuine confessional having positive effects for him and others like him. One of my old teachers was recently convicted of (I think) the same offence. Like Langham he has a family and my reaction was just sympathy for them. He seemed like any other teacher, apart from the fact that he was fairly useless and often didn't mark our work; the fact that such a poor teacher ever taught at all bothered me more... until I thought about the full implications of his offence. Langham is, possibly, in a position to do some good - God knows if he could do it but he should be able to find a way and it's difficult to see what he'd lose by trying.
Dave said:
"Ultimately these people may be warped or simply weak, but the time they're spending looking at stuff online is time they're not spending satisfying their curiosity/needs in other (even) more harmful ways."
Except that the stuff they look at online has already involved children being abused. They may not actually get their hands dirty, but they are still abusing the children by proxy.
I worked with CL a long time ago and although I wouldn't claim to have known him well, I always found him a delightful man. I also think he is a marvellous comic actor. I haven't seen any of his work since the whole thing came to light so I don't know if I would find it funny, but at the moment, I just feel a huge sense of disappointment. I can only hope, as others have said, that he gets some help.
Post a Comment
<< Home