Muppet Show tainted

[Ralph]

"Chris Langham's conviction on child porn offences signals a dramatic change in fortunes for a man who had reached the pinnacle of his television career....
In the 1970s he was the sole British writer on The Muppet Show, and he shared an Emmy Award in 1981 for the hit programme. "

I was unaware of this guy but I loved the Muppet Show and the idea a guy like this was associated with it disappointments me. Maybe I shouldn't see it that way but as the Muppet Show was a family show, I think it's just a horrible thought

[Kinggodzillak]

He was a guest star in one episode...

[Logo Polish]

He's been involved with a lot of different things before. Used to be one of Spike Milligan's co-stars on his Q series in the 70s, was one of the original Not the Nine O' Clock News regulars in its first series (Griff Rhys Jones replaced him from the second onwards), and then used to appear in Smith and Jones (Mel and Griff, that is) as a regular guest artist some of the time. Also did Kiss Me Kate around 1996 (sitcom with Caroline Quentin and Amanda Holden) an acclaimed (if not especially well remembered) comedy series People Like Us about five years ago, and most recently Armando Iannucci's The Thick Of It.

[Ralph]

I would probably never have noticed the guy had it not been for his exposure now as I really wasn't aware how much he's been involved in.

[Si Hunt]

I suppose this makes us consider how much we devalue a persons talents or achievements when their deplorable personal lives are revealed. Do all those programs stop being funny now? Possibly you couldn't laugh at the ones with him in, but do his scripts stop being funny? I guess it depends on your point of view.

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

I find this quite tricky to arrive at an opinion on. Not downplaying what he's done, but I do think there's definitely a difference between viewing material and abusing children; arguably he hasn't actually hurt anybody but himself, and consequently I don't think it would particularly worry me if I ever caught an episode of The Muppet Show (or indeed anything else he was in). But on the other hand, I don't feel wholly comfortable with saying that. Does that make sense?

[Ralph]

I suppose this makes us consider how much we devalue a persons talents or achievements when their deplorable personal lives are revealed. Do all those programs stop being funny now? Possibly you couldn't laugh at the ones with him in, but do his scripts stop being funny? I guess it depends on your point of view.

Si.

It's a good point Si - and I'm not sure of the answer. It must be the ultimate taboo in society and I think does to a large extent wipeout any good that might be done by the person. Gary Glitter now is a total outcast where once he was an icon of glam rock.

[Milky Tears]

Jim Henson had already tainted The Muppet Show for me with his silly voice and tragic beard combo.

Langham appeared in The Pink Panther Strikes Again, Life of Brian, Bergerac and had a small part in Bottom as well. He's ruined everything!

[Ralph]

I find this quite tricky to arrive at an opinion on. Not downplaying what he's done, but I do think there's definitely a difference between viewing material and abusing children; arguably he hasn't actually hurt anybody but himself, and consequently I don't think it would particularly worry me if I ever caught an episode of The Muppet Show (or indeed anything else he was in). But on the other hand, I don't feel wholly comfortable with saying that. Does that make sense?

I agree there is a difference between the viewing and abusing but the watching (and it was videos with full sound) is just second hand abusing.

I guess in the case of the Muppets if the guy can't be seen then I'll just forget this sad individual was party to it. It's just it was news to me today.

[Logo Polish]

It doesn't ultimately change my view of his previous work. I think someone can produce, or be involved in, or contribute to, good material artistically, irrespective of their personal failings or sins. It's right that the crimes he committed should be punished by the terms the law allows, but if he wrote for or appeared in something I thought/think was good, I'm not going to change my opinion of that work, especially as other people will also have contributed to them (as far as I know, all his projects were collaborative to some extent), so it's only fair on them, I think. Obviously, what other people do is up to them though, and I could understand anyone feeling uncomfortable about the thought of watching or listening to any of his work in the light of this.

[Dirk Gently]

..and had a small part in Bottom as well.

Err, out of context & in another thread...

[Jon Masters]

I've never been too bothered about this kind of thing - while their appearance would remind me of what they had done in real life, it wouldn't spoil my enjoyment of the entertainment they had produced - otherwise it would be difficult to know where to draw the line (e.g. John Wayne - more right wing than Mussolini, but still love his films). It would only bother me if, say, it was a character that was very close to what had happened in real life, or was in some way hypocritical e.g. a policeman trying to crack a paedophile ring, or Gary Glitter visiting a girl's primary school.

Out of interest, does anyone find themselves going the other way i.e. enjoying someone's entertainment output more because they've done something laudable ? I still can't stand U2 or Cliff Richard's work, no matter how much they do for charity.

Oh, and the Muppets was ruined when they got rid of Sam the Eagle and put Scooter in instead.

[Ralph]

I agree I don't think it will spoil my enjoyment of the show. When I saw the news article I was just a bit taken aback reading about Langham's involvement . I started the thread in that mood.

Mind you is Gary Glitter not the exception to this rule? Do people still listen to his music I wonder...

[Dirk Gently]

You can't taint the Muppets, they're just too damn funny.

[Matthew T]

I think it's definitely unacceptable to listen to Gary Glitter records (not that I ever would have anyway) nowadays, they're never played on the radio and I wouldn't play them whilst DJing (I would have done before).

Theres no such problem with Michael Jackson records though!

I've never knowingly watched anything with this guy in it but I doubt it would bother me - not as if he's a rpaist or something.

[WhiteCrow]

Theres no such problem with Michael Jackson records though!

But he was found innocent!!!

[Pip Madeley]

Plus his records weren't shit.

[Si Hunt]

What he was looking at was so awful I can't begin to understand why he'd want to view it, or really feel able to defend him. BUT I do think it's short-sighted of us as a society not to try and understand why people like him have these compulsions. Because, in a way, he is a victim here too, and not just because he's probably lost everything - his freedom, his career, his respect, his friends. Because he probably didn't want to want to look at those things, or have the desires he did. Why did he? It's not because he's evil (he hasn't, after all, directly harmed another individual). I can't help but think that if we tried to work out why he did what he did, rather than just lock him up and brush it under the carpet, we could help treat these people.

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

What he was looking at was so awful I can't begin to understand why he'd want to view it, or really feel able to defend him. BUT I do think it's short-sighted of us as a society not to try and understand why people like him have these compulsions. Because, in a way, he is a victim here too, and not just because he's probably lost everything - his freedom, his career, his respect, his friends. Because he probably didn't want to want to look at those things, or have the desires he did. Why did he? It's not because he's evil (he hasn't, after all, directly harmed another individual). I can't help but think that if we tried to work out why he did what he did, rather than just lock him up and brush it under the carpet, we could help treat these people.

Si.

A very interesting and reasoned point. I bet Gary Bushell doesn't say that.

[Captain Tancredi]

As has already been pointed out, it would be practically impossible to airbrush Langham out of British entertainment of the last 20-30 years because of his various careers as a writer, performer and so on- in fact, it's only really in the last ten years that he really became a name in his own right. Neither would it be fair to his co-stars over the years to deny them residual payments simply because they made a programme with somebody who some twenty years later would be convicted of child porn offences- his Smith and Jones appearances spring to mind here particularly. In a sense, he'll pay more than an ordinary person convicted of the same offence would do, because he won't be able to start a new life and go and work in a factory or sweep the streets, whereas somebody whose face isn't known will. Clearly he's a troubled individual and has been for some time, and we do need to be getting inside the heads of people who do this sort of thing, because if we can start to understand why it happens then we might start getting somewhere towards stopping child abuse happening in the first place.