HBO's Leaving Neverland is one of those disgusting but necessary films. I hadn't heard much about it prior to its Sundance premiere, nor its subsequent two-part broadcast. However, my social media feeds told me that something, somehow, has proven to be the final drop for those who still defended pop icon Michael Jackson - not defenders of his music, mind, but of him as a person, the particular habits he had, and the children who stayed with him. There have been documentaries and reports before, but now, years later, we get to hear the children speak.
Specifically we hear from Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, who, after growing up and starting families of their own, could stay silent no longer. This isn't squarely a documentary on the late Michael Jackson. The film is very much about the psychological effects of a traumatic past and it gets understandably uncomfortable.
The men and their families explain how it began when they were both kids, idolizing Michael like any youngster in the "Thriller" era would, eventually getting to meet and work with him, which supposedly evolved into a 7-year story of abuse. Some interpret Michael's behavior as childishly oblivious rather than nefarious or predatory. And yes, when your Peter Pan complex is so on-the-nose (no pun intended) that you name your domicile Neverland Ranch, we can all surmise you're not all there.
The pain visible on these people is unmistakable, but you know exactly what kind of tale this is and how some folk react to stories of terrible fates befalling children. I don't doubt a few Sandy Hook conspiracy types will scrutinize the authenticity of this footage when they see shots of the men smiling. "Bad thing happen to them but in this image they glad, whaaa? Why they say things now but not back when they were in a state of denial, whaaa?"
I can agree that the movie could have used more concrete data. At almost 4 hours, Leaving Neverland is a doozy (I recommend watching it in the televised 2-part format) and I still felt hungry for information after watching it. But then, I was already too familiar with the renowned Moonwalker megastar to need convincing that he had a weird relationship with kids.
Despite a few minor filmmaking flaws (a few photographs and still frames last for a bit too long, editing-wise, and drone cameras are comically overused), I do think this qualifies as an "important" movie and I don't necessarily mean in terms of giving a voice to victims of grooming. Instead, I'm referring to how the buzz around the film lets us analyze fanboy behavior; how a person might approach reality when not wanting their sacred musical idol to be the bad guy. The celebrity worship that let this (or something like it) happen once is still quite alive.
The few surviving Michael Jackson apologists have called the film one-sided, saying it provides little evidence outside of anecdotes from Jackson's purported victims. They also note that previous charges against Michael have been dropped, neglecting to also mention that he was able to afford some mighty gifted lawyers.
No matter the case, thinking that "set free = innocent" (automatically) can be a pretty dangerous mindset. How do you suppose these fanboys and fangirls would have reacted if Michael invited THEIR children into his whimsical wonderland?
Dear fans: If you're having trouble, I can provide interview clips, previously used in Living with Michael, that are quite tricky to interpret in a multitude of ways. But since they're already out there and you've no doubt seen them, let me instead share a quote from Bojack Horseman worth considering (although I've obviously altered the context): "When you look at someone through rose-colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags".
Specifically we hear from Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, who, after growing up and starting families of their own, could stay silent no longer. This isn't squarely a documentary on the late Michael Jackson. The film is very much about the psychological effects of a traumatic past and it gets understandably uncomfortable.
The men and their families explain how it began when they were both kids, idolizing Michael like any youngster in the "Thriller" era would, eventually getting to meet and work with him, which supposedly evolved into a 7-year story of abuse. Some interpret Michael's behavior as childishly oblivious rather than nefarious or predatory. And yes, when your Peter Pan complex is so on-the-nose (no pun intended) that you name your domicile Neverland Ranch, we can all surmise you're not all there.
The pain visible on these people is unmistakable, but you know exactly what kind of tale this is and how some folk react to stories of terrible fates befalling children. I don't doubt a few Sandy Hook conspiracy types will scrutinize the authenticity of this footage when they see shots of the men smiling. "Bad thing happen to them but in this image they glad, whaaa? Why they say things now but not back when they were in a state of denial, whaaa?"
I can agree that the movie could have used more concrete data. At almost 4 hours, Leaving Neverland is a doozy (I recommend watching it in the televised 2-part format) and I still felt hungry for information after watching it. But then, I was already too familiar with the renowned Moonwalker megastar to need convincing that he had a weird relationship with kids.
Despite a few minor filmmaking flaws (a few photographs and still frames last for a bit too long, editing-wise, and drone cameras are comically overused), I do think this qualifies as an "important" movie and I don't necessarily mean in terms of giving a voice to victims of grooming. Instead, I'm referring to how the buzz around the film lets us analyze fanboy behavior; how a person might approach reality when not wanting their sacred musical idol to be the bad guy. The celebrity worship that let this (or something like it) happen once is still quite alive.
The few surviving Michael Jackson apologists have called the film one-sided, saying it provides little evidence outside of anecdotes from Jackson's purported victims. They also note that previous charges against Michael have been dropped, neglecting to also mention that he was able to afford some mighty gifted lawyers.
No matter the case, thinking that "set free = innocent" (automatically) can be a pretty dangerous mindset. How do you suppose these fanboys and fangirls would have reacted if Michael invited THEIR children into his whimsical wonderland?
Dear fans: If you're having trouble, I can provide interview clips, previously used in Living with Michael, that are quite tricky to interpret in a multitude of ways. But since they're already out there and you've no doubt seen them, let me instead share a quote from Bojack Horseman worth considering (although I've obviously altered the context): "When you look at someone through rose-colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags".