Did anyone watch part 1 of this documentary on Channel 4 last night?
It was a tough watch and was pretty graphic in parts.
It was interesting though - tbh I found the story of the parents more interesting than that of the kids (now adults) themselves.
I spent the whole time wondering 'how the fuck could you let that happen?' but it was pretty obvious that the parents were 'shock and awe' bombed at the beginning and then gradually managed out. There were quite a few similarities with this and things I've seen in documentaries about cults (particularly the Waco thing which was taking place around the same time).
I suppose, ultimately, we'll never know how much is true but even without the sexual abuse there's enough wrong with the picture to make you wonder how any of it was allowed to happen.
I haven't seen this documentary, but our own experience with the execrable Jimmy Saville shows that fame/money/power allow horrible people to indulge their worst appetites. The recent MeToo Movement demonstrates the ugly side of celebrity Hollywood culture that the lecherous and psychopaths have been exploiting for far too long. Jeepers Creepers is a good film, but I never watch it now since the Movies Director Victor Salva is a convicted sex offender. I can appreciate the skill of that film, but I won't watch a movie made by a horrific paedophile.
So I watched Margin Call the other day. One of the main actors (although it's an ensemble piece) is Kevin Spacey (currently charged with sexual assault).
So, my brain is good at compartmentalization: so if anyone mentions Kevin Spacey, one of the things I think is "Oh - his career is in tatters due to his being charged with sexual assault".
But when I was watching Margin Call - it's a well produced and well acted movie. So, because Spacey is a good actor, I stop thinking of him as Kevin Spacey and start thinking of him as Sam Rogers. Sam is doing some morally questionable things with money, but he's not been charged with sexual assault.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, however abhorrent someone's actions might be, it doesn't also follow that their work is not ... good. Or worthwhile, even. Does your toe tap to Billie Jean?
Quote from: JamesC on 07 March, 2019, 08:07:07 AM
tbh I found the story of the parents more interesting than that of the kids (now adults) themselves.
I spent the whole time wondering 'how the fuck could you let that happen?' but it was pretty obvious that the parents were 'shock and awe' bombed at the beginning and then gradually managed out.
That's the thing though. Nonce's are pretty convincing and highly adept at lulling responsible adults into a sense of false security. If anything that is where the additional tragedy lies. Parents believe they are acting in the best interests of their children and taking advantage of a fantastic opportunity. Then they find out years later what the damage was. So the child is scarred for life and spends years trying to undo the damage whilst the parent is gutted by what they perceive as their failure.
There are two groups that I would seriously like to see burn in hell. The fuckers that think that it is a good idea to use children for their own sexual gratification and those who 'enable' them by turning a blind eye, protecting them and denigrating the victims. Not sure which deserve the fires more.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 07 March, 2019, 07:23:29 PM
So I watched Margin Call the other day. One of the main actors (although it's an ensemble piece) is Kevin Spacey (currently charged with sexual assault).
So, my brain is good at compartmentalization: so if anyone mentions Kevin Spacey, one of the things I think is "Oh - his career is in tatters due to his being charged with sexual assault".
But when I was watching Margin Call - it's a well produced and well acted movie. So, because Spacey is a good actor, I stop thinking of him as Kevin Spacey and start thinking of him as Sam Rogers. Sam is doing some morally questionable things with money, but he's not been charged with sexual assault.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, however abhorrent someone's actions might be, it doesn't also follow that their work is not ... good. Or worthwhile, even. Does your toe tap to Billie Jean?
I've never been a fan of the music to be honest, so it's no skin off my nose if they stop playing it on the radio.
I agree with the notion that and art and artist can be evaluated seperately but it's not always easy. For musicians/pop stars especially, their personal image is a huge part of the product. For much of Jackson's career the musical output is almost impossible to serparate from the image, the iconography, the dance performances etc.
Part two of the documentary was on last night and was even more harrowing than the first. It really shows how deep the damage goes and how far the ripples spread. For anyone who thinks these guys may be making these allegations for financial gain, I'd really recommend watching the programme. I found it very convincing and, to be honest, if 10% of what they say is true it's still fucking awful.
How anyone could turn a blind eye to this stuff (and they must have done) I just don't know.
QuoteFor anyone who thinks these guys may be making these allegations for financial gain, I'd really recommend watching the programme.
Agreed. It's one thing to hear the allegations in the abstract, another thing entirely to spend four hours with the victims themselves. Simply put,
no one is that good an actor. It's absolutely devastating to watch, and I believe them 100%.
My girlfriend is a lifelong superfan of Jackson. She spent much of the first episode incredulous, and suspicious of the two men, assuming some sort of agenda, but over the course of the 2 hours I think it slowly sunk in.
The other striking thing about the doc is how Jackson looks like a literal ghoul in the still images used throughout. I'm sure the pics were chosen deliberately for that reason, and he always had a grotesque quality to him post the Bad era I suppose, but I don't think I'll ever see him in the same way again.
It's not just the testimonies of the two men that are convincing, it's those of the extended families and how the realisation of the abuse effected them all and how they have obviously not come to terms with it.
That cannot be fabricated.
I caught this over the weekend - a really difficult watch.
I'm quite taken aback by how little of the negativity surrounding Wacko I actually absorbed or acknowledged previously, especially around the time of the latter investigations when I was older and more aware of topical events.
Fony have done everything they can to suppress Jacko's fiddling, especially now he's dead he's worth millions to them. Don't hold your breath excepting a Gary Glitter style purge, too much at stake.
Yeah - what is even more troubling than the actions of the likes of Jackson and R Kelly, is that they were clearly facilitated and abetted by dozens if not hundreds of people helping cover up or at least turning a blind eye to it all.
QuoteI'm quite taken aback by how little of the negativity surrounding Wacko I actually absorbed or acknowledged previously, especially around the time of the latter investigations when I was older and more aware of topical events.
As with Savile, I think we were all aware of the rumours at the time, but for me it just seemed.... too obvious to be true if that makes sense...? To make the insinuation just seemed like a hacky punchline, and not something that was actually true.
In the case of Jackson, there were two main things that had me pretty much convinced of his innocence - that Corey Feldman and Macauly Culkin have always denied all the allegations, and that one of the high profile accusers' families was known for extorting celebrities.
It's partly the history of the accusers that has me doubtful. I.e I read about the father of one of the kids apparently trying to get Jackson to fund his TV endeavours... or else. And being a bit of a weird bloke, it seems like Whacko Jacko would be an easy target for blackmail. Of course, being strange doesn't mean he wasn't guilty...
That being said, I haven't seen this documentary, and probably never will*. I have read it is rather one sided, just following the two men who have had a questionable history, and not covering the other side. Of course that doesn't mean the allegations aren't true.
I'm not convinced either way, but the comments here make me wonder.
I had my doubts concerning Saville too, initially thinking alleged victims were just trying to cash in on an eccentric but well meaning man who was no longer around to defend himself. Then another person came forward . Then another. And another... and I was confronted with the strong likelihood that it was all true.
*Not because I'm in denial. I just want to avoid the graphic stuff that I understand is described.
I only managed 45 mins of this. Dependability of the subject and accusers not withstanding it just wasn't how I would like to have spent 90 mins of my life.
Quote from: Mardroid on 13 March, 2019, 06:12:27 PM
I had my doubts concerning Saville too, initially thinking alleged victims were just trying to cash in on an eccentric but well meaning man who was no longer around to defend himself.
I'm not sure the corpses at Leeds Royal Infirmary had much financial incentive.
Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 13 March, 2019, 07:54:24 PM
I only managed 45 mins of this. Dependability of the subject and accusers not withstanding it just wasn't how I would like to have spent 90 mins of my life.
Not wanting to return to the razorblade era, I'll have to forego the 'pleasure'. Was Jackson 'guilty'? Hard to tell. Are those who lay claims against him fabricating? Possibly. Enough to discard complaints? Fuck no.
QuoteIt's partly the history of the accusers that has me doubtful. I.e I read about the father of one of the kids apparently trying to get Jackson to fund his TV endeavours... or else. And being a bit of a weird bloke, it seems like Whacko Jacko would be an easy target for blackmail. Of course, being strange doesn't mean he wasn't guilty...
That being said, I haven't seen this documentary, and probably never will*. I have read it is rather one sided, just following the two men who have had a questionable history, and not covering the other side. Of course that doesn't mean the allegations aren't true.
I'm not convinced either way, but the comments here make me wonder.
I had my doubts concerning Saville too, initially thinking alleged victims were just trying to cash in on an eccentric but well meaning man who was no longer around to defend himself. Then another person came forward . Then another. And another... and I was confronted with the strong likelihood that it was all true.
What the doc makes abundantly clear is that this wasn't a simple situation. There is a lot of murkiness and questionable behaviour by all involved. Some of the past actions of the accusers - at least initially - seem strange, hard to understand, maybe even damning. But none of it means the allegations themselves aren't true.
I totally understand you not wanting to watch the doc yourself, but trust me (as someone who has seen the full 4 hour HBO version) when I say that I don't think any rational, reasonably intelligent person could watch it all and not have the scales well and truly fall from their eyes. You'd essentially have to adopt a conspiracy theorist mindset to disbelieve what you are seeing right in front of you.
I honestly haven't stopped thinking about it all week.
Quote from: Tjm86 on 13 March, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Not wanting to return to the razorblade era, I'll have to forego the 'pleasure'. Was Jackson 'guilty'? Hard to tell. Are those who lay claims against him fabricating? Possibly. Enough to discard complaints? Fuck no.
If you ever manage to watch it, and to the very end, it just doesn't leave much room for doubt.
Even the seeming contradictictory past behaviour of the accusers so readily fits the psychology of adults who were groomed as kids. Like a bullet that never stops travelling inward, the grooming just doesn't stop for them and this realisation hits like a sledgehammer when they eventually try to have normal, grown-up relationships and start families.
In both cases the background noise they long tried to tune-out becomes deafening; blocks out everything else in their lives and the malaise manifests as acute, paralysing anxiety.
As a result their lives completely fall apart leaving them no choice but to let it out.
Well put.
It's extremely easy to hear, second hand, that both of the accusers had previously testified in Jackson's defence and simply write them off. I almost did myself. But that is why it is so important to watch the doc itself. You will go away from it understanding perfectly why they did it.
Watching old clips of Jackson carrying on now, I see them in a whole new light and it seems completely insane what was allowed to go on. I mean, jesus.
It's all so clear now, his whole deal, the whole persona he projected. It's so transparent, and it's staggering to reckon with. Even the Simpsons episode he guest stars in - where his avatar pointedly ingratiates himself into the Simpson family and is promptly left alone unsupervised with the children - it was all part of the act and the deception.
Quote from: radiator on 13 March, 2019, 11:30:41 PM
Watching old clips of Jackson carrying on now, I see them in a whole new light and it seems completely insane what was allowed to go on. I mean, jesus.
It's like rewatching The Usual Suspects and noticing that Verbal was wearing an "I'm Kaiser Söze" T-shirt in every scene.
This was effin madness.
The part about Jackson taking James Safechuck to buy a wedding ring (https://youtu.be/RV7-HDO5zb0) is definitely true.
I tried watching. I couldn't finish the first episode. It was just too much for me.
There is no middle ground anymore - seems you have to choose a side and fiercely defend it: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/15/michael-jackson-fan-groups-france-lawsuit (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/15/michael-jackson-fan-groups-france-lawsuit)
I haven't watched it myself, mainly because I've heard enough to know I believe it and don't really need to see the harrowing details. I did have a conversation with a colleague though who took the 'maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it's wrong to accuse him now that he's dead and isn't here to defend himself' view, which is something I just can't understand because this must be really important to the victims.
Seems like some people just enjoy the music too much to want it sullied for them, but I doubt they were taking the same 'leave him alone' stance when it's someone they're not a fan of. I don't remember hearing those sorts of defenses when all the Jimmy Saville stuff came out posthumously.
Quote from: Keef Monkey on 27 March, 2019, 02:52:46 PM
... took the 'maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it's wrong to accuse him now that he's dead and isn't here to defend himself' view, which is something I just can't understand because this must be really important to the victims.
It's not just that though. Back in the day a lot of this type of behaviour was dealt with by 'mutual agreement'. The net result being that a known nonce simply moved on to fresh hunting ground and wrecked more lives. For him to have carried it on as long as he allegedly did, there is a strong chance of his having been enabled by those around him. He might not be around to defend himself but they are.
Also there is the question of the lessons to be learned. How obvious is the predation and what signs do folks need to watch out for?
QuoteI did have a conversation with a colleague though who took the 'maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it's wrong to accuse him now that he's dead and isn't here to defend himself' view, which is something I just can't understand because this must be really important to the victims.
Yeah, I've heard this 'defence' too - even my girlfriend says this - 'he's dead/whats the point/why did they wait ten years?'.
It's baffling to me. As if that in any way absolves his crimes.