Current Events > Joker under fire for having Gary Glitter song! (Minor spoilers)

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/joker-gary-glitter-song-backlash-155311871.html

Some movie-goers are pretty horrified at Todd Phillipss new movie Joker, and not least because of Joaquin Phoenix's unsettling performance.

The movie features Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll Part 2 in a key scene, during which Phoenix's failed comedian, Arthur Fleck, makes his transformation into his psychotic alter ego.

The song plays for around two minutes as Phoenix walks down a long flight of stairs.

Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, was convicted in 1999 for downloading thousands of images of child pornography, and was deported from Cambodia in 2002 on suspicion of child sexual abuse. He was jailed in Vietnam in 2006 for molesting two girls, and on his return to the U.K. was placed on the sex offenders register for life.

Then in 2015, Gadd was found guilty of attempted rape, several counts of indecent assault and another count of having intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, and was sentenced to 16 years in prison. In the wake of his criminal charges, several sports teams that heavily used the instantly recognizable 1972 song during contests, removed Rock and Roll Part from their playlists.

Now movie-goers are concerned that the singer will receive royalties for the song's inclusion in the movie. However, a music industry expert says that is unlikely to be the case.

Many who saw the movie over the weekend have expressed their amazement that the track was cleared for use by producers given the rockers conviction.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davesavedlatin/status/1180812719559204864

:O

We still have Michael Jackson songs in movies.

Tbh I found it jarring as well

its not like that song was necessary for the scenethey could have used literally any other upbeat song and it would have worked just fine.

why put money in Gary glitters pocket?

---

Skye Reynolds posted...

We still have Michael Jackson songs in movies.

He wasn't convicted of anything fyi.

Movie about psychotic killer.

Movie includes brutal death scenes

Not enough incel content to cause controversy?
Well. . . Uh. . I guess we'll go after the music then! Yeah! !
---

working as exactly intended.
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Tbh I found it jarring as well

its not like that song was necessary for the scenethey could have used literally any other upbeat song and it would have worked just fine.

why put money in Gary glitters pocket?

Does no one else in the band get money for this song? What about those guys?

Plus I hear this song at every fucking sports event.

---

Was that conviction before or after Happy Gilmore?
---

Of all the songs they could have licensed
---

That's it, I'm throwing away my Game Boy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9hFtWDXl2w" data-time="

BuckVanHammer posted...

working as exactly intended.

---

A movie about a human monster has a song made by a human monster? Sounds fitting.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

It's nice to see this kind of thought process.

I fear that society continues to head in a direction where people are more and more willing to screw over lots of people just to make sure the one bad person gets screwed.

Gary glitter is the primary songwriter and the other credited writer is dead


---

To be clear, it wouldnt be punishing everyone

it was a choice to use this song. They had the choice of literally all songs ever, plus those that havent been written yet

simply not choosing to use a song that puts money in the pockets of a convicted pedophile is not punishing anyone

---

What a silly thing to get worked up over. Songs by shitty people get used in films and TV shows all the time. Why is it suddenly an issue here.

R. Kelly illegally married an underaged girl before Space Jam came out, and yet, we can't think of 'I Believe I Can Fly' without thinking about that movie and nobody have a problem with that.

---

Who cares. Gary Glitter is a cool guy with cool music.

You can tell who never watches sports from some of the replies here.
---

A pedophile making money in Hollywood? I'm shocked!
---

Do they get mad for all the times they play this song during sporting events?
---

The Admiral posted...

You can tell who never watches sports from some of the replies here.

I go to lots of sporting events and I dont remember the last time Ive heard that song in one

---

Tupacrulez posted...

Movie about psychotic killer.

Movie includes brutal death scenes

Not enough incel content to cause controversy?
Well. . . Uh. . I guess we'll go after the music then! Yeah! !

um, read the news article.

Did.

Ain't care.
---

It is a bit of a weird choice. The song itself already felt like an odd choice without the whole 'hey we're paying a convicted pedophile' angle.
---

konokonohamaru posted...

A pedophile making money in Hollywood? I'm shocked!

This.

fenderbender321 posted...

Fair point.

But still it sucks for anyone else who enjoyed the royalties from that song.

Maybe so, but so does endlessly drawing attention to these things.

I would have never never even known about this before this thread. People really need to separate media from politics. There are so many more important things to be upset about.

Instead, people today endlessly sift through everything they can to find something to be outraged about.

fenderbender321 posted...

Pretty soon huge epic movies that everyone is excited to see will be canceled because the assistant key grip #7 in the credits will be found to have made a possible controversial comment on Twitter. It is where we are headed.

Good. I'm willing to grind the entire economy and human progress to a halt in order to enforce moral and intellectual purity and to stop myself from being offended.
---

Was the best part of the movie imo. Song got me hyped.


---

In November 1997, Glitter was arrested after a technician discovered pornographic images of children on the hard drive of a laptop that he had taken to a computer retailer in Bristol for repair. Further images were discovered by police in searches of his homes in London and Somerset. He was castigated in the media over the allegations. Additionally, his appearance in the Spice Girls' musical comedy film Spice World was cut, though a truncated edit of the scene, featuring a version of Glitter's "I'm the Leader of the Gang (I Am)", was left in the film.

At Bristol Crown Court on 12 November 1999, Mr Justice Butterfield sentenced Glitter to four months in prison and placed him on the sex offender register in the UK after he admitted downloading more than 4,000 items of child pornography. He was cleared of a charge of having sex with a 14 year old girl, Alison Brown, in the late 1970s. Brown had had a relationship with Glitter for some years. It was later revealed that Brown had sold her story to the News of the World and stood to earn more money from the newspaper should Glitter be convicted.

From March 2005, Glitter resided in Vng Tu, Vietnam, where he rented a luxury seaside villa, and applied for permanent residency in the country. He came to the attention of Vietnamese authorities after being banned from a nightclub for allegedly groping a teenage waitress and eyewitnesses reporting seeing him take two young girls into his home. On 12 November 2005, he fled his home. A 15 year old girl was found living in his flat and questioned by authorities. Police began searching for Glitter. He was arrested on 20 November at Tan Son Nhat International Airport in Ho Chi Minh City while trying to board a flight to Bangkok. Six Vietnamese girls and women, aged from 11 to 23, claimed that Glitter had had sex with them; the age of consent in Vietnam is 16.

After his arrest, Glitter was turned over to provincial police from B RaVng Tu and returned to Vng Tu and held on suspicion of having sex with the two underage girls. Glitter was held in jail throughout the criminal investigation, which was completed on 26 December 2005. The charge of rape was dropped for "lack of evidence" (according to Glitter's lawyer), although the singer admitted that an 11-year-old girl had slept in his bed. Glitter could have faced execution by firing squad if found guilty of child rape. After having received compensatory payments from Glitter, the families of the girls appealed for clemency for him.

On 2 March 2006, Glitter was tried on charges of committing obscene acts with two girls, aged 10 and 11, facing up to 14 years in prison if convicted. The following day he was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison. The sentence included mandatory deportation at the end of his sentence, and payment of 5 million Vietnamese ng (US$315) to his victims' families. Judge Hong Thanh Tng said "He sexually abused and committed obscene acts with children many times in a disgusting and sick manner." Glitter continued to deny any wrongdoing, claiming to have been framed by British tabloid newspapers.

Glitter, in an interview with BBC News in May 2006, denied he was a paedophile, and claimed not to have knowingly had sex with anyone under 18. He said that he had hoped he could put his life back on track and have a career after he left prison in England. He continued to blame the press for his downfall and called them "the worst enemy in the world", alleging 'entrapment' by them by paying local girls in a bar to arrange a photo-scoop. He did not comment about his previous conviction for downloading child pornography several years earlier.

Sorry but I don't think controversial Twitter posts is a valid comparison here.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Did I not say where we are headed? Didn't say this is where we are at now.

Did you think that after he was booted off the Spice World movie?

The guy is an outright pedophile and you think there's a slippery slope if people distance themselves from his career and music?

Is that really the hill to fight on?
---

I'm willing to bet 99.9% of humans have done something that someone else would find morally reprehensible. I bet 90% of celebrities have done something that the majority of people would find extremely morally reprehensible.

Nobody is going out there calling for the song to be banned.

But there is literally no reason that the people behind Joker had to choose a song and pay royalties to a pedophile who has raped several girls over several decades. It is a stupid decision. He has been a controversial figure in the UK since the 90's and any movie that uses his music would have copped the same criticism.
---

bobbaaay posted...

I'm willing to bet 99.9% of humans have done something that someone else would find morally reprehensible. I bet 90% of celebrities have done something that the majority of people would find extremely morally reprehensible.

you obviously have trouble defining this or you would just say what it is.

Darmik posted...

Nobody is going out there calling for the song to be banned.

But there is literally no reason that the people behind Joker had to choose a song and pay royalties to a pedophile who has raped several girls over several decades. It is a stupid decision. He has been a controversial figure in the UK since the 90's and any movie that uses his music would have copped the same criticism.

He's probably not getting royalties.

---

Wewillrocku posted...

you obviously have trouble defining this or you would just say what it is.

Celebrities engage in immoral sexual acts, whether they be acts of pedophilia, coercion , etc.
Not that I find it reprehensible - but plenty of people would disapprove of them seeing prostitutes, cheating, etc.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Darmik posted...

Nobody is going out there calling for the song to be banned.

But there is literally no reason that the people behind Joker had to choose a song and pay royalties to a pedophile who has raped several girls over several decades. It is a stupid decision. He has been a controversial figure in the UK since the 90's and any movie that uses his music would have copped the same criticism.

He's probably not getting royalties.

That's not what is being reported.

He was still being paid thousands by the NHL a few years ago.
---

Darmik posted...

That's not what is being reported.

He was still being paid thousands by the NHL a few years ago.

He cannot collect the money while in prison which he will be there until 2031.

He's currently 75 years old.

He's not getting any of that money.

---

There's a concept called "Separating the art from the artist."

If a song fits, it fits. Why does it matter if the artist is a crook?

Guys he's not even getting royalties for it. He don't even own the rights to the song. He was paid a one time fee. Plus this song gets played at sporting events all the time and nobody ever got upset about it.
---

You start getting rid of songs by horrible people and you'll barely have any music left.
---

SauI_Goodman posted...

Guys he's not even getting royalties for it. He don't even own the rights to the song. He was paid a one time fee. Plus this song gets played at sporting events all the time and nobody ever got upset about it.

Yes they did. It came up when I googled Gary Glitter royalties.
---

Fucking outrage culture.
---

Darmik posted...

SauI_Goodman posted...

Guys he's not even getting royalties for it. He don't even own the rights to the song. He was paid a one time fee. Plus this song gets played at sporting events all the time and nobody ever got upset about it.

Yes they did. It came up when I googled Gary Glitter royalties.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/joker-gary-glitter-song-backlash-155311871.html

come on man.
---

SH_expert44 posted...

Fucking outrage culture.

Really. What are they gonna do. Not watch the movie lol
---