Reviewing the increasing menace of AI-generated ‘documentaries’ on the ‘net

Since the late summer of 2022, there has been an unprecedented public discourse surrounding artificial intelligence and ethics. This shift occurred when a select few technology companies released the first proprietary text-to-image AI art generators to the public. For those who may not be aware, the expanding domain of AI art involves machine learning systems that are trained on extensive collections of text and visual data sourced from the Internet. When integrated with text-to-image technology, these systems enable users to articulate any scene using natural language to generate a multitude of stunning images based on these text prompts. Aside from the fact that AI has already integrated into daily life, the rapid development of specific technologies that empower individuals to produce visuals in mere seconds through text prompts has sparked a significant and contentious debate within the art community and creative sectors. Critics label it a threat to the livelihoods of human artists, while proponents celebrate it as the most groundbreaking advancement in visual media since the advent of photography. One of the most alarming facets of the various questionable applications of AI is the production of deepfakes and faux-documentaries. This hyper-realistic alternative representation prompts concerns regarding the integrity of future historical records, as seemingly “documentary” images can be fabricated in this manner. With the capability for anyone to create fictional historical documentaries with near-perfect precision, and considering the viral nature of image dissemination on the Internet, it is not difficult to conclude that, without robust critical media skills, it will become increasingly challenging for the general public, and even seasoned media professionals, to distinguish between reality and fabrication. In this context, we examine some of the troubling “documentaries” primarily emerging from the United States that focus on Peter, claiming to offer privileged insights into his life and career.

The visual material presented in the 50.13-minute documentary titled, ‘The Tragic Story of Alan Bates & Peter Wyngarde – The Gay Love Hollywood Destroyed’, appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence; a reality that has not escaped the attention of some viewers who have inadvertently encountered it. For example, to depict the well-known tale of Peter’s arrest in 1975, the image displayed below is presented on screen. The individual in the photograph resembles more of a detainee from Guantanamo Bay than a person apprehended at Gloucester Police Station.

Tut! Tut! Peter would never wear orange with handcuffs!

Presented below is the image; it’s uncertain who THIS person is supposed to be! It seems that the AI bot merely picked any image available online featuring a man with dark hair and a mustache to illustrate what Peter looked like for the casual observer. How disappointing!

Above: Any man with a moustache will do!

The creators of Hollywood Confidential assert the following: “During the Golden Age of Hollywood, being gay was not merely a private issue — it posed a significant threat to one’s career. Studios enforced a culture of silence. Relationships were erased from public view. Marriages were fabricated. Love was concealed behind legal agreements. Behind the glamorous facade, genuine relationships existed — shared homes, intertwined lives, and hidden secrets — all obscured to maintain the illusion of masculinity that America demanded. This serves as a historical account of the erasure of gay identities in classic cinema. For those seeking to comprehend Old Hollywood in its authentic form — rather than the facade it presented — this channel reveals the files that were intended to be destroyed. Hollywood Confidential — the gay history that Hollywood has denied.”

I would be keen to examine the “files” that these individuals claim to have uncovered to substantiate their assertions. As previously mentioned, they appear to have scoured the internet for any snippets of tabloid gossip and unverified online rumors, which are then presented as a thoroughly researched exposé. In truth, it is poorly constructed, entirely misleading, and painfully tedious in every regard. If it were a horse, one would hope that someone would show compassion and relieve it of its suffering!

While there will always be a small contingent of gullible individuals who will accept every word of this drivel, I would argue that no one possessing even a modicum of intelligence could be deceived by such sordid nonsense. Nevertheless, it is disheartening that the technology, which has become so widely accessible online, is being utilized to produce the kind of unrefined rubbish discussed herein.

They assert that they are guiding viewers on a nostalgic expedition to unveil rare narratives, unseen footage, iconic legends, vintage scandals, and the enduring allure of Hollywood’s history – particularly emphasizing the ‘scandal’ aspect. No long-deceased actor is spared from scrutiny. Among those whose reputations are tarnished are Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, Sid James, Oliver Reed, Bill Maynard(!), Stewart Granger, and our own Peter Wyngarde.

They lure the inquisitive and the credulous to ‘hit that subscribe button and step back into a realm where style, drama, and artistry dominated the screen.’ Really? To anyone possessing a modicum of intelligence, this channel is simply a vehicle for tarnishing the names of deceased actors and actresses who can no longer defend themselves.

‘Pure Evil: 15 British Celebrities of the 70s Who Scandalized the World!’ is the title of the pseudo-documentary under scrutiny here, where, alongside notorious figures such as serial paedophiles Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, our own Peter Wyngarde is alleged to have coerced, abused, and generally driven his fellow actors, producers, and directors to the brink of suicide! All of this, it is claimed, is ‘well-documented,’ yet since none of these ‘documents’ are ever presented, we are simply expected to take their word for it.

Unsurprisingly, all these claims are fabrications upon fabrications; concocted by an individual or individuals unknown, who are so utterly convinced of their assertions that they opt to conceal their identities behind a username and remain unreachable.

In stark contrast to the allegations made by those behind ‘Vintage Uncovered’, Peter was, in fact, highly esteemed within the acting community, with many of his peers and producers extolling his virtues – both as an actor and as a person. Here are just a few of the commendations about him:

“I always felt that any success the show (Department ‘S’) had was due in no small part to Peter’s ability and imagination He was a fabulous actor and a good pal.” Joel Fabiani – Co-Star, Department S “I remember working with Peter was always fun – he is such a stylish actor. He was a true gentleman..” Dame Diana Rigg – Actress “Working with Peter was a scream – he’s such a hoot!” Felicity Kendal – Actress “He was funny and quick and bright. I think the professionals are professionals, and he’s one of those. He hasn’t any inflated idea’s about himself. He’s completely unpompous, and I didn’t find him the least bit phoney.” David Bailey – Photographer “Peter was always a very courteous man, easy to work with, and who behaved off screen with the same suave sophistication that some of his on-screen roles demanded.” Dennis Spooner – Producer, Department S/Jason King “Peter Wyngarde played Langdale Pike – a Victorian Nigel Dempster in ‘The Three Gables’, which opened the 1994 season of ‘The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes’. As always, Peter was distinguished by his rapier wit and style. A memorable performance.” June Wyndham-Davis – Producer, ‘The Three Gables’

The creators of this abomination should hang their heads in shame, ‘tho somehow I doubt they ever will!

Although the host appears to be AI-generated, his objective is straightforward: “To resurrect these untold, or at the very least, significantly under-reported stories into the limelight. Illuminating the peculiar choices, public breakdowns, and unusual turns of events that influenced careers and solidified legacies – occasionally for entirely inappropriate reasons.”

“For every carefully curated success story,” he/it waffles on, “there are a dozen tales that defy belief. Moments of madness, miscalculation, and sheer, jaw-dropping audacity that somehow got lost in the shuffle of fame. This is where Weird Showbiz History” steps in. If it’s a tale that makes you gasp, cringe, or burst out laughing, it probably belongs on this channel.“

Once more, it is merely the same recycled drivel that has been circulated for decades, with the host, whoever that may be, contributing his own perspective. The individuals behind these channels lack any genuine understanding of Peter’s life, yet they continue to chatter as if they are presenting something novel and innovative.”

Dear viewers Umeed krta hn khy ap theek aur khairiat sy hn gy, Yeah mra YouTube veloging channel hy, Please ap tmam viewers sy request hy khy channel ko subscribe krain aur mujy support krain, Shukriya (Note – this has been copied verbatum).

Mr. Buzdar professes to have had privileged access to Peter’s bank account – insisting that the actor died in abject poverty. In fact, Peter lived in a Grade II listed building in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Earls Terrace, where he had lived since 1958 had, over the years, was home to the likes of Madonna, Sir Ian McKellern and J.K. Rowling. It boasted an Olympic-sized swimming pool and private gardens for the sole use of residents, and a private road with gatehouse. Hardly a residence for someone who was living hand to mouth.

Above: Mr. Buzdar we presume – the keeper of Peter’s financial accounts

I would suggest that Mr. Buzdar has never been within a 4,000 -mile radius of Peter and, as is usual with these content producers, had AI trawl the Internet for any scrap of tittle-tattle it could find, including gossip posted on forums and online encyclopedias, which is latterly spat out as fact – to their mind at least.

If you choose to indulge, remember, this is 10 minutes and 12 seconds of your life you’ll never get back!

“Welcome to Celebrity Secrets – where the golden past of legendary stars comes alive! Here, you won’t just relive their dazzling performances, iconic stories, and cherished memories… but you’ll also step into the dark side behind the spotlight.

We bring you rare images, hidden details, and secrets never revealed before: from private struggles and shocking scandals, to bizarre truths and outrageous moments the public never saw. This isn’t just memory—it’s a journey that will leave you stunned, moved, and speechless.”

According to this the makers of this 12-minute piece, Peter was so broke that he had to resort to driving a red Routemaster for London Transport! Dear God! I’ve heard many fabrications about him in my time, but this one not only takes the cake, but the plate and doyley as well!

For the record, Peter lived in a Grade II listed building in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, not in a crummy bedsit in Brixton! He worked continuously from the mid-1970’s onwards.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that Peter drove a Jaguar in both ‘Department S’ and ‘Jason King’? No, I didn’t either! Every day’s a school day!

Let us examine this so-called “carefully researched” documentary….

It asserts that Peter was not “destroyed” due to a decline in viewership for ‘Jason King’. Instead, it claims that the British public chose to “punish” him for being “gay”! Is that truly the case? Furthermore, were you aware that prior to the infamous and unfounded prosecution in 1975, Peter was regarded as television’s “most profitable illusion”? Shock! Horror! Probe!

We are also informed that Peter, in his youth, had constructed a narrative around himself that ultimately “became a cage”. And these individuals claim to know him well enough to arrive at this conclusion? I find that hard to believe! The documentary continues by stating that throughout his life, Peter refrained from discussing his experiences in Lungha Civil Assembly Camp, where he was imprisoned as a child. This assertion is entirely false, as he frequently spoke about his time there in various magazine and newspaper interviews. Apparently, the British audience was not interested in a “damaged refugee with a peculiar voice”; they preferred chiseled cheekbones and glamour.

The fact that they cannot even spell his name correctly (Wingard and, ahem, Winyard) speaks volumes about this low-quality nonsense. As expected, the tired old myth regarding Peter and Alan Bates being lovers is resurrected for yet another round (refer to Peter’s own writings that disprove this), along with the now-overturned conviction from 1975. They attempt to juxtapose Bates’ image—depicting him as a more rugged individual—with Peter’s “flamboyant” and “polished” persona. In reality, they are comparing Alan Bates the individual to Jason King, the character, rather than to Peter Wyngarde.

They imply that this ‘relationship’ concluded when Bates married in 1970. In truth, Bates had moved out of the apartment he shared with Peter (as is common among actors) in the mid-1960s, after having lived with the American actor Rock Hudson in California for several years.

At least the biography, ‘Peter Wyngarde: A Life Amongst Strangers’, was mentioned—albeit only as a screen grab from the publisher’s website to illustrate the malice of the British press. While it was at least a complete used in completely the wrong context.

Aren’t we just blessed to have these people who have probably never set foot in Britain, telling us what was what about our television heroes.

The person behind this claptrap clearly has both a fixation with, and an apparent hatred, of British actors based just on some of his/her other titles: ‘Died in Poverty’ and ‘Actors With Secret Diseases’.They’re obviously short of something to do!

Oh, and did you know that former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was gay? Well, according to this he was. I wonder if his wife, Mary, was aware of that. In that case, I wonder if Harold was…?!

Conclusion

The most detrimental action that technology companies could have taken was to grant the general public access to Artificial Intelligence – particularly given the nature of some existing online content. Now, every individual, whether named Joe or Joanna, perceives themselves to a talented journalist or documentary filmmaker,but who neglect to conduct even the most basic research. They simply regurgitate what they or, more likely, their AI bot has unearthed from the obscure corners of the internet; be it someone’s random thoughts on a forum or a piece of outdated tabloid sensationalism that has been repeatedly exaggerated over time. Conversations in pubs have now transformed into podcasts and ‘documentaries’ that, alarmingly, are often accepted by the misled and impressionable as absolute truth, which is then shared with others. They seem incapable of understanding that these podcasts and ‘documentaries’ are created by individuals who possess no more knowledge than a clothes peg, often improvised in someone’s spare room! Generally, those who present such content prefer to remain anonymous—most likely because they are aware that their claims would not withstand scrutiny or challenge. Those who do provide an email address typically do not respond. Like the cartoon character Mr. Magoo, they wreak havoc and cause significant distress to those of us who actually knew the individuals they have chosen to disparage. They then ride off into the sunset without a second thought for the damage they’ve inflicted. Regrettably, there will always be individuals who will exploit their newfound influence to inflict harm. We have witnessed social media devolving into a toxic environment. AI merely serves as another instrument for those who wish to amplify their own voices.