Anyone watching the HBO Michael Jackson doc?

[duketaylor]

Watching with the wife. Very....disturbing/interesting.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Not my idea of entertainment.

[bundabergdevil]

Watching with the wife. Very...disturbing/interesting.


My wife and I watched Part 1 tonight. Pretty difficult to listen to the recollections of the two main interview subjects. It never ceases to amaze me how much and how long some of these wealthy, famous, charismatic individuals are in operation before being called out --- and even then, how rarely they're taken down.

I have to imagine Part 2 is going to get into some of the accusations and public trials. I hope they spend some time talking to Robson about why he proclaimed Jackson' innocence on two separate occasions, including at trial. That's an important dynamic in abuse situations that isn't fully baked into public understanding. So often the call is --- well, why didn't so and so march him/herself straight to the hospital/police station, etc and turn the bastard in. There's often a really complex emotional and psychological component around abuse and the deification of the abuser and the documentary has done a great job at underscoring that through the interviews with the victims and their families.

Tough, tough viewing though and don't recommend for anyone unless they're fully prepared to hear some disturbing first hand accounts of child abuse.

[budwom]

ugly, could not watch too much of it. Lesson seems to be that if you have enough money, you can cover up stratospherically hideous behavior.

[Indoor66]

ugly, could not watch too much of it. Lesson seems to be that if you have enough money, you can cover up stratospherically hideous behavior.

I think the lesson is that a narcissistic, worship filled childhood is often a prescription for a narcissistic adulthood. The money only fed the problem.

[mph]

A few thoughts after having watched both part 1 and 2. (SPOILER ALERT)

1. I have very little doubt that Jaskson was a serial pedophile. To my eyes and ears, Robson and Safechuck came across as credible and brave, and their stories match the same pattern of behavior described by earlier accusers. The cumulative weight of the corroborating stories, evidence, and eyewitness accounts (Jackson’s maid) contradict the defense narrative that this is just a money grab by false accusers.

2. Having said that, I struggle with a 23 year old Robson testifying on behalf of the defense in the 2005 trial over allegations that Jackson abused Gavin Arvizo. I completely understand that Robson wasn’t ready to tell the world what Jackson had done to him and would understand if he refused to testify. I have a much harder time with Robson affirmatively defending Jackson by perjuring himself, while knowing the damage he was doing to Arvizo in the process.

3. To Budworm’s point, Jackson’s use of money and access to cover up his crimes is a huge part of the story. In particular, Jackson provided a low-interest, long-term home loan to Safechuck’s parents and then forgave the loan after Safechuck lied in a deposition defending Jackson against Jordan Chandler’s allegations. Safechuck’s mom insists that the timing was a coincidence but c’mon.

4. Money and celebrity also played a major role in creating the conditions that made the abuse posible in the first place. Jackson wasn’t just grooming the children, he was also grooming the parents. It simply beggars belief that a sane parent would let a 7 year old child sleep with an adult they barely knew but these parents say they felt like they knew Jackson. I’m sure it didn’t hurt that he was showering them with trips and gifts.

It’s a disturbing story but an important part of setting Michael Jackson’s record straight and it’s yet another warning about the way wealth and power can be used to cover up even the worst behavior.

[weezie]

Only a few minutes at a time. It is deeply disturbing. Any of the tv/celebrity people that are trying to shrug this off make me sick.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

ugly, could not watch too much of it. Lesson seems to be that if you have enough money, you can cover up stratospherically hideous behavior.

I heard Dan Lebotard's description of it today (hey, I was driving...had to listen to something) - and just his comments made me need to stop and take a shower......and register for therapy....

[duketaylor]

My wife and I did. Now watching Oprah with "After Neverland."

Very interesting, the documentary, and very disturbing for me. Oprah's show is very compelling as well.

Haven't decided, yet, what to take away from the whole thing. After the whole Bill Cosby affair and, now, this, two of my entertainment icons of my youth and later kinda have me freaked out. I used to watch tv shows (cartoons) involving both guys growing up. Fat Albert and The Jackson Five.

I hope Donnie Osmond's not next!! He and his fam were on this short list of shows/families I watched and enjoyed.

Been some strange flashbacks, for sure.

[wilson]

I watched most of the first episode last night, and intend to finish the film as soon as possible.

I was previously a big Cosby fan, but have sworn off his work in light of his behaviors. I suppose I'll be doing the same with Michael Jackson's work (and Ryan Adams' work, already done so with Woody Allen's work, Tom Cruise's work, etc.).
I'm interested: What are y'all's reactions here? Are you able to separate the art from the behavior of the artist? If one attempts to do so, does that excuse the behavior or dishonor victims?
Sadly, this grappling is becoming increasingly common, and I am genuinely interested to hear what other people do with this information and their assessment of/relationship with these abusers' art.

[mr. synellinden]

A few thoughts after having watched both part 1 and 2. (SPOILER ALERT)

1. I have very little doubt that Jaskson was a serial pedophile. To my eyes and ears, Robson and Safechuck came across as credible and brave, and their stories match the same pattern of behavior described by earlier accusers. The cumulative weight of the corroborating stories, evidence, and eyewitness accounts (Jackson’s maid) contradict the defense narrative that this is just a money grab by false accusers.

2. Having said that, I struggle with a 23 year old Robson testifying on behalf of the defense in the 2005 trial over allegations that Jackson abused Gavin Arvizo. I completely understand that Robson wasn’t ready to tell the world what Jackson had done to him and would understand if he refused to testify. I have a much harder time with Robson affirmatively defending Jackson by perjuring himself, while knowing the damage he was doing to Arvizo in the process.

3. To Budworm’s point, Jackson’s use of money and access to cover up his crimes is a huge part of the story. In particular, Jackson provided a low-interest, long-term home loan to Safechuck’s parents and then forgave the loan after Safechuck lied in a deposition defending Jackson against Jordan Chandler’s allegations. Safechuck’s mom insists that the timing was a coincidence but c’mon.

4. Money and celebrity also played a major role in creating the conditions that made the abuse posible in the first place. Jackson wasn’t just grooming the children, he was also grooming the parents. It simply beggars belief that a sane parent would let a 7 year old child sleep with an adult they barely knew but these parents say they felt like they knew Jackson. I’m sure it didn’t hurt that he was showering them with trips and gifts.

It’s a disturbing story but an important part of setting Michael Jackson’s record straight and it’s yet another warning about the way wealth and power can be used to cover up even the worst behavior.

Regarding number 2 - I believe he said he told MJ he wouldn’t testify but he was subpoenaed to testify. Once that happened he had no choice but to take the stand. He said he still wasn’t ready to acknowledge the truth. And when you see what it put him and his family members through, it makes sense.

[Jeffrey]

IMO, Jackson's behavior and desires left little doubt. Sick people do sick things. I have a bigger problem with the parents' behavior and desires!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I have not watched the documentary, but have read scads of other articles about the goings on at Neverland Ranch. I think Michael Jackson was wickedly talented. And I think that he was supremely disturbed. I think that a LOT of the rationale for his various issues goes back to a truly bizarre family life, and the completely insane amount of attention he received at such a young age and for so long. That's usually a pretty good recipe for screwed up mental state.

I don't in ANY WAY offer this as an excuse, rather more as an explanation. MJ is clearly still responsible for the horrors he inflicted on his victims. The parents of the kids also bear some level of culpability for their intentional blindness to the reality of the situation.

Anyway, I don't intend to watch the documentary for a litany of reasons, but I'd be interested to know if any of my impressions are contradicted by the film.

[Billy Dat]

I watched most of the first episode last night, and intend to finish the film as soon as possible.

I was previously a big Cosby fan, but have sworn off his work in light of his behaviors. I suppose I'll be doing the same with Michael Jackson's work (and Ryan Adams' work, already done so with Woody Allen's work, Tom Cruise's work, etc.).
I'm interested: What are y'all's reactions here? Are you able to separate the art from the behavior of the artist? If one attempts to do so, does that excuse the behavior or dishonor victims?
Sadly, this grappling is becoming increasingly common, and I am genuinely interested to hear what other people do with this information and their assessment of/relationship with these abusers' art.

This is a very tricky subject. I struggle with it most with Woody Allen as I really love so many of his movies. My gut tells me that watching his movies makes me an accomplice in some way, I guess I conveniently don't think about it when I get pulled into any of them that I see on TV. It is really easy when I see the ones he isn't in. It's one thing to watch, how about the folks who continue to work with him? I guess the Ronan Farrow publications of recent years may have finally shut him down as his last film, shot in 2017, has not been released. But the rumors and such have been out there for years.

I think Wesley Morris' NY Times piece about the doc has some interesting tidbits about this topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/arts/television/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland.html

"Michael Jackson’s music isn’t a meal. It’s more elemental than that. It’s the salt, pepper, olive oil and butter. His music is how you start. And the music made from that — that music is everywhere, too. Where would the cancellation begin?"

And how about this creepy ending to the piece?

"There is something about the way Jackson morphed from pretty to disfigured, closer to Joseph Merrick, the medical case study whose “elephant man” bones Jackson swore he never tried to buy. The morphing could have been a result of the pigmentation ailment, vitiligo, that he told Winfrey he suffered from. But what if all of that change he so notoriously underwent, all the damage he seemed to wear on his body, all the creatures his videos turned him into (werewolves, zombies, a panther, a skeleton), what if his outward self became some semiconscious manifestation of a monster that lurked within?"

[wavedukefan70s]

Absolutely disgusting disturbing and something I hope I never watch again.so damn sad for the kids.some of thier mothers basically pimped them out more or less.

[JasonEvans]

I think that a LOT of the rationale for his various issues goes back to a truly bizarre family life, and the completely insane amount of attention he received at such a young age and for so long. That's usually a pretty good recipe for screwed up mental state.

I wonder how the British royals avoid this. I mean, Charles, William, Elizabeth and others have led anything but a normal life and "insane amount of attention at a young age" seems to be par for the course in that family. That said, I don't think any of the folks who raised the British royals come close to being the tyrant that Joe Jackson was.

[Jeffrey]

I wonder how the British royals avoid this.

...... and, the Kardashians.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

On a side note that ventures on thread jacking, I learned today via CBS This Morning's, um, illuminating interview with R Kelly that he was abused as a young person. I have to admit I see some parallels between him and MJ though obviously many of the particulars are different.

And really the "cycle of abuse begets more abuse" theme isn't new territory. It just makes it all seem that much more tragic.

Lots of people seem to want to be famous these days. More so than a generation ago, as I see it. I've never understood the allure myself.

[PackMan97]

I wonder how the British royals avoid this. I mean, Charles, William, Elizabeth and others have led anything but a normal life and "insane amount of attention at a young age" seems to be par for the course in that family. That said, I don't think any of the folks who raised the British royals come close to being the tyrant that Joe Jackson was.

If I had to guess for the British royals (and any royals for that matter) is a belief that you are serving your God and your Country. Combine that with many generations of experience and lessons as well as an entire bureaucracy set up to assist and help you. Of course, it's not as if the British royals have always been this stable or sane ;) Having one exceptional queen ruling for close to 70 years also doesn't hurt.

[Edouble]

This is a very tricky subject. I struggle with it most with Woody Allen as I really love so many of his movies. My gut tells me that watching his movies makes me an accomplice in some way, I guess I conveniently don't think about it when I get pulled into any of them that I see on TV. It is really easy when I see the ones he isn't in. It's one thing to watch, how about the folks who continue to work with him? I guess the Ronan Farrow publications of recent years may have finally shut him down as his last film, shot in 2017, has not been released. But the rumors and such have been out there for years.

I think Wesley Morris' NY Times piece about the doc has some interesting tidbits about this topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/arts/television/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland.html

"Michael Jackson’s music isn’t a meal. It’s more elemental than that. It’s the salt, pepper, olive oil and butter. His music is how you start. And the music made from that — that music is everywhere, too. Where would the cancellation begin?"

And how about this creepy ending to the piece?

"There is something about the way Jackson morphed from pretty to disfigured, closer to Joseph Merrick, the medical case study whose “elephant man” bones Jackson swore he never tried to buy. The morphing could have been a result of the pigmentation ailment, vitiligo, that he told Winfrey he suffered from. But what if all of that change he so notoriously underwent, all the damage he seemed to wear on his body, all the creatures his videos turned him into (werewolves, zombies, a panther, a skeleton), what if his outward self became some semiconscious manifestation of a monster that lurked within?"

FWIW, I don't think he sexually abused Dylan Farrow. I spent probably 6-7 hours reading what both sides had to say and that's what I came away with. Mia Farrow is absolutely nuts... the fact that we are still debating if Ronan is Frank Sinatra's son or not is laughable. I mean, c'mon, does he look like Frank Sinatra or Woody Allen?

[Jeffrey]

Mia Farrow is absolutely nuts...

..... on her good days!

[bundabergdevil]

I watched most of the first episode last night, and intend to finish the film as soon as possible.

I was previously a big Cosby fan, but have sworn off his work in light of his behaviors. I suppose I'll be doing the same with Michael Jackson's work (and Ryan Adams' work, already done so with Woody Allen's work, Tom Cruise's work, etc.).
I'm interested: What are y'all's reactions here? Are you able to separate the art from the behavior of the artist? If one attempts to do so, does that excuse the behavior or dishonor victims?
Sadly, this grappling is becoming increasingly common, and I am genuinely interested to hear what other people do with this information and their assessment of/relationship with these abusers' art.


This is a very tricky subject. I struggle with it most with Woody Allen as I really love so many of his movies. My gut tells me that watching his movies makes me an accomplice in some way, I guess I conveniently don't think about it when I get pulled into any of them that I see on TV. It is really easy when I see the ones he isn't in. It's one thing to watch, how about the folks who continue to work with him? I guess the Ronan Farrow publications of recent years may have finally shut him down as his last film, shot in 2017, has not been released. But the rumors and such have been out there for years.

[/B]"

Couple thoughts on the separating art/artist question:

1. If we extend the idea beyond artists to business leaders, politicians, scientists, etc, it's almost impossible to cut off exposure to or "support" for people (living or dead) that have done something really bad. The list of abusers, rapists, murderers, murder-subsidizers, human traffickers, con men/women, etc who have achieved something of consequence is long and make for one hell of an university alumni list...the world would look much different without their genius so I worry about drawing so many lines in the sand that I find myself out of beach.

2. I think it matters first if the person is still living and stands to benefit from his/her art or accomplishments. If s/he is, then hopefully the justice system works. These works often aren't singular though. Should everyone who worked on Good Will Hunting or Bohemian Rhapsody have an asterisk next to their work because Weinstein produced the former and Brian Singer directed (most of) the latter? Should everyone who works at a company suffer for the sins of its leader(s)? Let's say a chemical company that knowingly polluted water sources or whose founder supported anti-semitism (thinking the recent debate about Henry Ford)? The point is --- the sinner isn't the only one to suffer if we boycott.

3. For the deceased, I guess you hope for an honest accounting of their legacy. Michael Jackson was a genius and a pedophile. Richard Nixon was a crook but did a couple of damn good things for the nation. Some people seem to have an awful hard time with the "both things can be true" nature of people and only want their heroes fighting villains.

4. How long do we think Michael Jackson's name will be relevant in popular culture? 40 years? 50 years? I can name an artist or two from the 1950s and 1940s. The 30s? 20s? I got nothing. Do we think he's the Mozart or Beethoven of our musical era? That is, will people still know his name and his music hundreds of years from now? If so, there will be plenty of books written about him and his predilection for children will undoubtedly be a part of that as it should be.

[wilson]

This is a very tricky subject...


Couple thoughts on the separating art/artist question...Interesting thoughts from you both; thanks for sharing them.
Here's another interesting take:
What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men? (https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/20/art-monstrous-men/)

[PackMan97]

Couple thoughts on the separating art/artist question:

1. If we extend the idea beyond artists to business leaders, politicians, scientists, etc, it's almost impossible to cut off exposure to or "support" for people (living or dead) that have done something really bad. The list of abusers, rapists, murderers, murder-subsidizers, human traffickers, con men/women, etc who have achieved something of consequence is long and make for one hell of an university alumni list...the world would look much different without their genius so I worry about drawing so many lines in the sand that I find myself out of beach.

2. I think it matters first if the person is still living and stands to benefit from his/her art or accomplishments. If s/he is, then hopefully the justice system works. These works often aren't singular though. Should everyone who worked on Good Will Hunting or Bohemian Rhapsody have an asterisk next to their work because Weinstein produced the former and Brian Singer directed (most of) the latter? Should everyone who works at a company suffer for the sins of its leader(s)? Let's say a chemical company that knowingly polluted water sources or whose founder supported anti-semitism (thinking the recent debate about Henry Ford)? The point is --- the sinner isn't the only one to suffer if we boycott.

3. For the deceased, I guess you hope for an honest accounting of their legacy. Michael Jackson was a genius and a pedophile. Richard Nixon was a crook but did a couple of damn good things for the nation. Some people seem to have an awful hard time with the "both things can be true" nature of people and only want their heroes fighting villains.

4. How long do we think Michael Jackson's name will be relevant in popular culture? 40 years? 50 years? I can name an artist or two from the 1950s and 1940s. The 30s? 20s? I got nothing. Do we think he's the Mozart or Beethoven of our musical era? That is, will people still know his name and his music hundreds of years from now? If so, there will be plenty of books written about him and his predilection for children will undoubtedly be a part of that as it should be.

1. I will certainly to the extent that I can. It's not always possible, but I will try. I have certainly changed by financial places of business in the wake of the last recession. I have definitely changed how much college sports I consume based on the Cheats skating and a few other things. I'm not going to boycott my 401k at work if I find out Vanguard is full of bad people, but I can talk to my benefits team about why I think we should have a new provider next year. The same with Health Insurance. If they come back with "it saves us some money, so we are ok with their behavior" I would probably look for a new employer.

2. It's harder for behind the scenes guys, or information that is hard to find. I'm not checking to see if Weinstein's company produced a movie before I go see it. Don't care that much. But I will not go see something that i know is directed by Polanski, for example.

3. I think we get this right for the most part. Aside from Nixon of course, but then folks on a Duke board would be wanting to highlight some of his more positive achievements ;)

4. I really don't know. I think the biggest problem is that radio and media have transformed significantly since the golden age of radio. There wasn't as much music and more programming that eventually moved to the television. I would think guys like Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, etc...the first of the post-Golden Age musicians will be remembered in 100 years. I think in a few hundred years when kids study music from the 1900s, Michael Jackson will certainly be included in a study along with Madonna as the biggest artists of the 1980s.

[rsvman]

For me, true art exists as separate from its creator. I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson and never have been. But if he had written some songs I really liked, I would still really like them, regardless of what he did. I love "Pictures at an Exhibition" even though he was ultimately a self-destructive alcoholic. "I Believe I Can Fly," in my opinion, is fairly inspirational, even though R. Kelly is repulsive.

The work of art, in any form, once it is produced, is either good or it isn't. I don't see any reason why it can't be independently judged.