The Model, The Poster
And 3000 Women
Channel 4, 10.45pm
Bollywood Star
Channel 4, 9.00pm
The Model, The Poster And 3000 Women purported to be saying something interesting and profound about the differences between image and reality, about human desire and human weakness. Instead, it told us a couple of tawdry things about factual programming as
conceived by Channel 4.
The plot-line, if you can call it that, was simple enough. In 1986, the model Adam Perry and the photographer Spencer Rowell shot a picture of a man and a baby as conceived by an Athena art director. The result, L'Enfant, charmed countless young women - a stronger word than ''charmed'' might be required - and gave Perry a bad case of mistaken identity.
The girls deluded themselves into believing that he was a strong, sensitive type, the ideal and idealised husband and father. Instead, by his own unabashed account, he was a promiscuous clown whose beef is that he got no royalties from the huge sales of the poster. A drunk, to all intents and purposes, who these days renovates railway arches, Perry, by his own reckoning, broke 3000 hearts and gave the documentary its only point and purpose.
Meanwhile, the photo-grapher went bust and into rehab; the art director, Paul Rodriguez, died of Aids; and the baby seemed to disappear. The programme's tiny triumph was to find the boy, now 17 and living on Cyprus and allow him to offer the only adult remarks in the entire film.
''Why bother sleeping with 3000 girls?'' young Stelios asked. He regarded Perry, acutely, as ''insecure of something'' and made the obvious point: ''It's not normal, is it?''
The model, as bright as industry standards allow, still maintains that he was living out every man's fantasy, even when that meant sleeping with girls who were under age. The programme's cheesy narration maintained that he had ''achieved iconic status'' as ''the ultimate heart-throb''. In fact, he is now a 40-ish single man who lives with his dog and struggles to pay child support for a baby he cannot remember conceiving.
If the film had any motive other than the flaunting of ''legendary'' promiscuity, it was to expose the myth of the new man. In the guise of Perry, he turns out to be have been the old man with a new chat-up line and the best promotional campaign ever devised. If the model's own recollections were anything to go by, he never once seems to have realised that he might have been a shade happier trying to live up to his image rather than exploiting it for sex that was, clearly, entirely meaningless.
Channel 4, though, did not care about that. The film-makers had lined up a series of women prepared to admit that Perry had ''used'' them, as though they had failed to notice both the absence of charm or humanity in their fantasy swain. Sexual stereotyping, it seems, is not the preserve of men alone. That's equality, of sorts, but it is also a recipe for misery.
Bollywood Star, in contrast, came up with a happy ending. Once we got past the
customary nonsense about ''emotional roller-coasters'', four aspirants remained in the contest to win a part in director Mahesh Bhatt's latest film. The winner was both surprising and deserving.
It has been clear all along that Reepack was the best actor in the bunch. It didn't seem likely, nevertheless, that Bollywood would go for a
34-year-old, 24 stone fire station clerk from Coventry. Yet while her rivals simply acted out movie star cliches, she turned on a performance that was absolutely rivetting. It must be bad enough to endure an audition, but to audition for a top director while being filmed and interviewed takes real courage.
Reepack, having conquered all the odds, was sincerely overjoyed. Sofia, Ricky and Heidi tried to put a brave face on their failures, but their eyes, full of bitter envy, told you why they had failed in the first place. Acting is pretence, but it has to be honest pretence. Reepack was an authentic star, stunningly truthful in her playing, who deserves a very long career indeed. Good
for her.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article