I’ve not seen it yet but I’ll check it out. Let’s just say I’ll be watching with a seriously skeptical eye. I have several problems right from the start:
Money as a motive
Jackson was one of the most famous people in the world and seriously rich. He was also famously reclusive and outside of performing shunned any kind of publicity. I think it’s easy to see him being defrauded in some fashion.
This documentary only compounds that argument since the alleged victims will probably make bank off the media furor.
No conviction and no proof
Didn’t this already go through a legal process and Jackson was cleared?
Exposing criminals through investigative reporting is extremely important. Gossip and accusations without proof are extremely damaging. This documentary appears to be muck-raking (unless you know otherwise? - I’ve not yet seen it).
EDIT: Removed the more political stuff, best saved for different thread :)
I remember that happening in the 90s. The thing is, that’s not any admission of guilt. Jackson was a recluse and probably the most famous man on the planet. By all accounts he wanted to avoid the media bomb that would occur. If I were rich, a recluse and falsely accused of a crime I might consider a small pay off to avoid any hassle too. Money was like water to him in the 90s.
I’m not saying he isn’t guilty - I’m just saying that’s no proof that he is.
Yes, the parents of all four accusers have histories of fraud and other financial malfeasance. This could be a sign that they’re making shit up to get money…or it could be that that’s the sort of parent who would willingly hand their kids over to Jackson, and the sort of kid he would target as a serial abuser specifically because of the character of their parents and their lack of credibility.
I don’t have a problem believing that the accusations are true; it wouldn’t be the first time, and it unfortunately won’t be the last time that something like this has happened. And I don’t have a problem with someone making a documentary on the subject as such, even if I’m slightly skeptical of the premise, given the inability of the subject to defend himself; still, freedom of speech, and all that…
I do have a problem with the media (such as the radio here in Norway) deciding to “boycott” his music for a period of time which is essentially treating MJ as if he is guilty. That’s really not OK, IMO, no matter how convincing the documentary may be.
I watched part 1 last night. Pretty harrowing stuff.
Even if you think there was no sexual abuse, the “let your 9-year-old sleep in my bed for weeks and go on tour” stuff is messed up. I can’t think of a scenario in which I would trust a virtual stranger to take my kid to his bedroom without my presence, even if he has a childlike demeanor or amusement park rides.
The two things that stood out the most to me after watching part 1:
If you put aside that anything sexual happened, it still is extremely messed up. He became best friends with these young boys (I had kids here at first, but it was always young boys) and then just left them for the next one up. That would have to do a number on you when you are that young, especially when your home life probably wasn’t the most stable place.
Safechuck lamenting the loss of his first love. He could just be a great actor and putting on for attention/money/whatever, but he still seems to me to be confused how he feels about the whole situation.
That’s my take as well. I haven’t put the effort to scrutinize the credibility details of the sexual abuse claims, but just the undisputed/admitted FACTS are far, far worse than I had thought previously (all the kids sleeping for weeks in his bed, the targeted recruitment, the security-system alerts surrounding MJs bedroom, fingerprints of the children on MJ’s porn collection).
I don’t think I could sit through the entire documentary though, as it’s so unpleasant.
Are any of these facts new, though? I don’t remember all of the details of the case where he was acquitted, but I do remember thinking at the time that whether or not Jackson was innocent of the charges against him (as he was found), there was no question from the facts of that case that the man lived in a weird reality-bubble and had acted in ways that left him wide-open and vulnerable to sexual abuse accusations. I’m pretty sure that the stuff you mentioned was brought up back then.
You’re probably right (I don’t know) - it’s just that the documentary and the surrounding coverage have made people like me aware of them while previously I hadn’t heard those explicit details in the coverage of the lawsuits, and the snippets of the documentary I viewed made me feel that the kid witnesses were very credible and not just coached fraudsters.
The second part was devastating. I liked that it followed these alleged victims into adulthood and showed how their trauma just kept coming back into their lives and screwing up their maturity in different ways.
Also, the cost to the rest of their family members once the truth came out was terrible.
I’m about 90 minutes into the first half of this and it’s a really tough watch. Even being no stranger to documentaries on dark and upsetting topics I knew this would be hard, but I feel this weighing down on me and taking a toll in a way I really didn’t expect. I think the closest analog is how I felt watching Shoah… I feel drained and crushed, and knowing I’m not even through the first half, it’s difficult to go on. It feels dirtying; like I’ve actually been coated in filth watching this.
And I think it’s made worse by the calm and matter-of-fact tone of the subjects. There’s no yelling, or sobbing (yet), which give their stories such an enormous weight and sadness.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but looking at this as a film, I found this to be a really boring documentary. It’s basically just a series of personal statements spliced together with some home video and stock footage material. For this to work, not only must the personal stories be compelling, but the storytellers must be as well. This was not the case for me with this film.
Even if he is guilty, he’s dead, so I don’t see an ethical problem with enjoying his music, as consumption of it cannot benefit him. I enjoy the music of Gesualdo (double murderer) and the paintings of Caravaggio (possible multiple murderer) and the novels of Dickens (tried to put his wife in an asylum) and the operas of Wagner (raving anti-Semite and colossal asshole). To name a small slice off the top of my head. Not that MJ reached the aesthetic eminence of any of those, but to me the same logic basically applies.
I suppose you could say that people who enabled him, maybe, still benefit from the money his music generates, but I wonder how far afield you have to go before it’s okay to experience good art by bad people.
As a story in its own right it is of course fascinating and, if guilty of child rape, MJ absolutely should have been prosecuted for it in his lifetime. That goes without saying.
That’s an interesting way to frame it, Gordon. I don’t care for wildly successful 80s pop music, so I have no problem dismissing Michael Jackson’s music.
But out of curiosity, since I know you’re as much a film buff as me, how does that square with Roman Polanski? He’s still alive, so he benefits from people buying and watching his movies. But I think Rosemary’s Baby is arguably one of the finest horror movies ever made, Chinatown is a perfect piece of filmmaking, Carnage was a fascinating early indicator that John C. Reilly isn’t just a clown, and Ghost Writer is a perfectly cromulent thriller. My feelings about that have nothing to do with whether Polanski is still alive, but I suppose the ethical conflict of supporting those movies goes away when he’s dead?
I am a bit torn about Polanski, as my understanding of his actions evolved from “the 70s were a wild time” to “he raped a kid.” I do have a Chinatown Blu Ray, so I guess he already got my money…
But yes, of course your feelings about the films themselves have nothing to do with whether Polanski is alive or dead; they are the same in any case.
Yeah, it’s the eternal “should one distinguish between the artist and the art” discussion. Different people will have differing reactions based on their relationship to the art and the crime committed, and IMO, that is 100% a personal choice.
I can add, btw, that the Norwegian Broadcasting corporation ended up walking back their “boycott” before it even started after some fairly massive critique. Which I think is the correct decision.
And I don’t really have strong feelings about MJ’s innocence and rarely listen to his music (although I like it). I did follow the trials fairly closely a decade ago, and my feelings then about the case itself was that it was extremely complicated. If I were to bet on whether he was guilty or not, I’d probably bet that he was; but beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not (at least not based on what was made public). Would this new testimony have changed that verdict? I doubt it.
Because at the end of the day, this is not testimony. It’s a documentary - and like any documentary - is shot, cut, and manipulated to elicit the feeling and make the point the director wants it to make. If there was footage shot during the documentary that might have raised doubts about the credibility of the witnesses, they’re not going to put it in. If there are facts that contradict the point the filmmaker wants (such as, e.g., the two accusers still being in a legal battle with the Jackson estate) - it’s going to be omitted or toned down.
We - as private people - can watch it and think whatever we want. But for media - and especially public media companies - to react to the documentary as if it supersedes a court verdict is extremely unfortunate and a part of our modern media culture that I really don’t like.
Right, but Gordon’s take on it, which I’d never considered before, is that if the artist is dead and can’t benefit, it’s a different situation.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t need to watch this documentary to know that Michael Jackson abused his position of privilege and power to take advantage of children and then cover up his activities. I have no problem with the media treating this documentary as damning evidence that Jackson was a sexual predator.
