Reviewing ‘Leaving Neverland’

When Pitchfork approached me last week about reviewing Leaving Neverland, I worried about accuracy. Fortunately for accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck, so much of what they share is already in the public record. Dan Reed’s four-hour documentary offers detail, forensic in its specificity, about what these men said Michael Jackson did to them as elementary school-aged boys. Jackson’s most fevered supporters use Robson and Safechuck’s testimony under oath that Jackson never touched them. However, there’s no way the most fair-minded watcher can endure Leaving Neverland without concluding that the men told the truth now.

Then the essay-review went live. Expecting Jackson’s formidable social media army’s attack, I didn’t flinch when I read a couple of attacks on Twitter. Less expected were dismissals from readers who thought I let Jackson off the hook or implied I didn’t support the victims; one person on Twitter was particularly offended by my alluding to the documentary’s racial and sexual politics. They don’t interest Reed. And it produces a weak film. Pointing this out doesn’t undercut Robson and Safechuck’s accounts. A documentary is not congressional testimony; nor is it a deposition. A documentary has responsibilities as art. To ask, for example, Robson or if he can’t or won’t a music critic about working with noted Michael Jackson enthusiast Justin Timberlake, whose solo debut consisted of Neptunes-written Jackson rejects, would have strengthened Robson’s case; readers would have seen how Stockholm Syndrome exerts a powerful, lasting spell.

Below is the original first third of the piece, excised for reasons of space and impact. I agreed. An essay like this needed a less otiose introduction, or, better, no introduction at all. I doubt these paragraphs would have assuaged readers looking for clarity. I had intended to show how Jackson was offering audiences the most generous glimpse yet into his megalomania and addled state while the rest of us were laughing and laughing off the accusations.

————–

Only the most fervent fans know “Morphine,” the most violent entry in the Michael Jackson catalog. Buried on 1997’s remix album Blood on the Dance Floor, it offers almost seven minutes of clattering funk, with whirring machines and industrial grinds that made contemporary acts like Prodigy sound like Hanson. Jackson sings in a high, tight, breathless rasp—how listeners might have imagined Gollum sounded before Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings series. And the lyrics—well. “You make me sick, baby/So unrelying” go the verses. So far, so predictable. Since “Beat It” at least Jackson’s paranoia has hidden in plain sight, a paranoia and a brandishing of his contempt for non-acolytes from an artist who was wealthier and weirder fifteen years later.

Then Jackson the producer stops the track so that Jackson the songwriter can coo in his sweetest voice:

Relax
This won’t hurt you
Before I put it in
Close your eyes and count to ten

Creepy in 1997, so ghoulish in July 2005 that friends and I on a road trip to a Sleater-Kinney show in Atlanta couldn’t help collapsing into hysterics, especially when he yelped “Demerol/Oh my god, he’s taking Demerol” as if he were Method acting the cry in “She’s Out of My Life” for the six thousandth time. For millions of people who’d grown up with Jackson, mockery was easier than sympathy, yet consider: even then the mockery served as a Russian doll from which the grotesqueries peeked out and legitimated him as an artist too. America no longer listened to Michael Jackson; we did because we laughed and sung along to a performance buried on an album that peaked at #24 before plummeting.

For heterosexual men, fear of homosexuality lies in their response to penetration—to what the English, with their usual self-mocking panache, once called buggery. In Leaving Neverland, Dan Reed’s HBO documentary, Michael Jackson comes off like a hunter baiting a trap, waiting for the moment when boys Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the two men who have accused him of sexual abuse, are first awed, then relaxed, and finally comfortable enough for him to lay a hand on their thighs and invite them into bed to perform acts familiar to consenting adults.

Relax
This won’t hurt you

4 thoughts on “Reviewing ‘Leaving Neverland’

  1. great addendum/post scriptum! in fact much better and clearer than the review. (typical for postmodern times I guess)

  2. Well put Alfred. So much to unpack here. In my last response I was referring to an ill-timed column on the Washington Post, asking a question 25 years too late, imo. “Does these accusations change the way we listen to MJ? Boo. Why wouldn’t? But that’s not my case.
    I didn’t have the chance to see the documentary. Not gonna lie: I’m not dying too see it, either. Not because its subject matter is disturbing, but because I have the impression, from your original review and this post-cript, plus the one I read from the critic in my country whom I usually follow, that documentaries without context and allowing the chance to replicate to the “other side” are not very much ethical, I thing I wouldn’t ask from fiction. I studied visual arts, you see. And I was aware of the Flaubert axiom, which I tend to to agree on.
    On the other hand, not as viewer as much as “person”, I always put first on the victim’s shoes instead of the supposed perpetrators. It’s a natural reaction. So I’m partly shocked there is not apparent disclosure from the producers or director: they perfectly could have claimed no one from Jackson’s side wanted to talk. They wanted to sue, apparently. That’s a not so subtle reactionary position and truly an act of censorship. Which clearly it’s not my cup of tea.
    So, what we have here? A doc without replies or context and a lawsuit? A big NO from me, thanks.
    As a piece of filmmaking, it was your duty to criticize it.

    As for the WaPo “poll”: Regarding Jackson antics, I was over with his art way before the first accusations got hold on the press, way way back. Hence my reply to the culumn here. The rape allegations were like the icing on the cake from me. Weather they’re real or not, I was unsurprised. Jackson became to me an annoying alien post-Thriller. As I grew older, I felt he didn’t. So I moved on from the Candy Store (and creepy paranoia) of Thriller to various acts that spoke to me more at the time. Like George’s Michael “Faith”, for instance. His hesitation and doubts felt more real to my own being at the time than the banalities in BAD (save for two or three songs). I just didn’t believe him. Period. Based on what? I felt he was trying to replicate THRILLER with the “good conscience” songs I generally despise. Man In the Mirror? No, thanks. If he looked closer on it, we would have changed other things, actually starting with HIM. Meaning, “stop with the surgeries, creep”. I felt he wanted another shot at We Are the World-goodwilling (Heal the World, The Earth song would follow) I was not connecting what he was singing about from what I was seeing in reality. I’m no psychiatrist, but you didn’t have to be one to see his post-Thriller megastardom was creepin in weird and weirder ways. So I just lost interest. And I don’t regret it. In fact, it remains not only a cultural touchstone but (I think) new audiences wanting to connect BACK to THEIR realities the fact that NEVERMIND replaced DANGEROUS at the top of the Billboard Charts. It was kind of poetic, too. I’m sure was one celebrating that. Look, I don’t hate Jackson, but enough with that shit! I really felt that way back then.
    How I would listen to him knowing these accusations were true? Well, back in 93, I said this to a friend of mine: “Free Willy? More like “Free Michael”. I was making fun of him. I just lost touch with him. I still (and will) regularly listen to THRILLER and OFF THE WALL the same way. As almost perfect pop artifacts with very good songs on them. What followed either creeped me out or fell same-old, same-old to me but with a New Jack Swing twist, of course. That’s all I have to say about his art. I think over-intellectualizing it like the WaPo proposition is clueless, at best. Some people, younger than I am, might feel touched by those albums for reasons I wouldn’t understand. And that’s legit. I just don’t. I thought he was becoming a man-child and a man-child singing about sex was creepy to me. I was old enough to undertand that. So why the question NOW?

    Coming back to your review, the only thing I don’t understand is this point: **As the critic Jason King recently wrote on Slate, “Whether or not the allegations presented in the film are true, and whether or not it ever intended to do so, Leaving Neverland dangerously reinforces the gay-folks-are-predators stereotype—if only because it never acknowledges that such a stereotype exists in the first place.”**

    Well, I could talk about MY society right now. That would not happen. In fact, we grew as society so much we have our own “celebrity rapists” on their proper place: As sick persons regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Just because one celebrity is gay (which, in fact, Jackson never publicly admitted) MEANS that? Seriously? There’s a ton of gay celebrities here who don’t need to prove otherwise. Much of them are OUT, and therefore SANE. Others, we know nothing about their private lives, but even if hiring male prostitutes, they’re must be of legal age. And certainly not children.

    What’s more, there’s an ongoing debate that far exceeds that puritan notion: The Priests. Why the Catholic Church has become a refuge for pederasts? You see, that’s a far more concerning question than the “gay rapist” one. It’s not wether they’re closeted gays or not, it’s about a Vatican still willing to protect them. So let me spare a thought about this malaise that is far more dangerous than MJs allegations. Perhaps, a minutia. But not a less interesting one: Do we still deserve to be treated as men-child on this topic? Can’t we tell apart the sick from the gay? I do think so. No problem with that here. Aknowledging one is gay and sexual being regardless of what your “fans” migh think is a step forward. Not even “our” Pope could stop the gay legal union. I thought most Americans were over that.

  3. How to put a bunch of words together without really saying anything? Well done. Is there any point? Why not start with the simple facts of the case instead of just writing down meaningless words? When was Safechuck ever touched by MJ? When did he ever sleep with MJ? Any evidence, witnesses maybe? No? Just his word and a laughing mother who somehow knew before her son knew. Amazing! At least for Robson we have his detailed 2005 testimony. His whole family testified. Not just they didn’t believe it, but also specific details about their interactions with MJ. And guess what? He was never alone with MJ! MJ slept separately in a kot and more of those simple facts. Hurts doesn’t it?

    Hours and hours of interviews with seasoned lawyers and investigators resulting in piles of testimony with facts that simply checked out. Is that how Stockholm syndrome works or is that how the truth works? Sorry, but all that is left are creepy fantasies by rather creepy people like the writer of the meaningless words. Buildings, rooms, beds, meetings that didn’t exist and never happened. False stories and false anecdotes simply disproved by actual construction permits and MJ’s old schedules. All those meaningless words and perverted fantasies destroyed by the simple facts. Pity.

Leave a comment