It's hard to process these things - Leaving Neverland (2019) Discussion

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

I understand what you're saying. It's a lot to process. I'm still shocked from watching the documentary. It was so unsettling. There are things I heard that I can't yet get out of my mind. But still, these claims and allegations have been floating around for a long time. I'd always suspected that something wasn't quite right about Michael Jackson. What made this documentary so disturbing is that it gave a confirmation to these allegations.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

"I'd always suspected that something wasn't quite right about Michael Jackson. What made this documentary so disturbing is that it gave a confirmation to these allegations."

Yes. Before this I'd watched a 60 Minutes episode on YouTube, which centered around MJ's maid, who either testified at or gave a deposition for the prosecution in one of the trials. While she seemed credible, I still wasn't sure what to make of it. Now, after seeing this and watching it again, it's like all the puzzle pieces have fallen into place.

Here's a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yp91zKBGgY

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I hope we will still be able to listen to his music, even after all this, especially the stuff he did during the early part of his career (i.e. the Jackson Five and 'Off the Wall') before he started committing these sickening alleged acts.

After all, like you say, it's not as if these rumours and types of allegations are particularly new.

Still, and I appreciate I haven't seen the documentary, I'm not 100% convinced of Jackson's guilt. Something doesn't add up to me. He just never came across as a sexual person to me (I doubt 'his children' are his own). I still believe that he was an asexual man who had no concept of appropriate barriers around children.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Of course you can still listen to the music! Enjoy!

As for guilt or innocence, that will never ever be proved 100%. Whatever crimes took place had no witnesses except a small child and man who is now dead, and who wasn't stupid enough to make photographic evidence of illegal activities while alive. There will always be room for people to believe what they want to believe, and to loudly insist on those beliefs, because nothing will ever be absolutely proved or disproved beyond all doubt. There will always be ambiguity associated with Jackson.

Of course for myself I'm 99% sure Jackson was a pedo, although of course it's impossible to ever say with absolute certainty what happened between Jackson and any given little boy. And if Jackson came across as asexual, it was because he could never ever let his true sexuality show in public.

reply

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

Well, as much as I'd like to believe that Michael Jackson wasn't involved with such disgusting acts...I hate to say it...but I think he was. But I don't think Michael was some evil and sinister pedophile who was trying to harm children intentionally. In fact, in his mind, I think he thought what he was doing was okay, to a certain extent. I mean, I'm sure he knew what the legal consequences would be if he got caught. But I think his mindset wasn't able to grasp the depravity of what he was doing. I think he was a mentally ill individual with serious stunted psychological development. Meaning, in his mind, he was still young and never truly evolved into adulthood. But still, with all of that said, that doesn't at all excuse what he did. He's still guilty regardless. But that's just my psychological analysis. And I also think that his immense state of wealth is what blurred his mind between what was right and wrong. I've noticed the same sick and twisted pattern with a lot of wealthy people. Greed has the ability to drive a person insane, because it blurs the lines of limitation.

reply

[–] gsmith9072 (454) 5 years ago

Most pedos wish you'd give them this same consideration. It's not fair.

reply

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

Hey there, pump the breaks...don't go throwing accusations at me. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Besides, there's not one single person, including yourself, who can say for certain that Michael Jackson is a 100% confirmed pedophile. Even though I'm shocked by the allegations and things that have been said about him, there still isn't any solid proof or evidence. And even though I did give Michael some consideration regarding his damaged mental health, that doesn't mean that I'm defending any of his crude and sickening actions (that is, if these actions ever took place). The whole situation is scattered and nothing has been truly confirmed. Even though Michael is dead, he's still technically innocent until proven guilty.

reply

[–] gsmith9072 (454) 5 years ago

No, he's definitely guilty, and you know it. Holding out with the excuse that you don't know 'for sure' is your way of coping with this.

reply

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

Regardless...where's the proof?

reply

[–] gsmith9072 (454) 5 years ago

Kid identified his genitals. Families paid off. Naked kids on magazines at his house. Multiple victims gave detailed allegations. Come on.

reply

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

True. But it's not the victims that I doubt. It's the investigators. They've flip flopped their stories several times.

reply

[–] gsmith9072 (454) 5 years ago

Not to mention he acknowledged that he slept in bed with children since he couldn't hide that. I mean the evidence is right there in your face. It's only questioned because people don't want to believe it. I'm going by the victims. They know what happened and the investigators don't. They wouldn't make this stuff up, such a thing would be beyond insane to make up. I can understand one wacko making this stuff up, but multiple people? It seems impossible for none of it to be true.

reply

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

I know, I know. You're probably right. But these days, I'm skeptical about almost everything.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Do you have any links that prove he identified MJ's genitals? That's one thing I haven't been able to locate and have heard both that he did, and that it wasn't a match.

reply

[–] gsmith9072 (454) 5 years ago

I thought it was common knowledge. He settled with that family.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I agree with everything you said.

reply

[–] Utpe (658) 5 years ago

At this point it really doesn't matter since the guy is dead. No amount of justice can be served if he did indeed do what others are claiming. That's why I never brought myself to watch Leaving Neverland.

I still enjoy his music as you should too. At least the guy was a genius when it came to the art of songwriting.

reply

[–] Destinata (2863) 5 years ago

It takes a while. When it first became obvious to me that there was too much smoke not to be fire, I tossed all my Michael Jackson CDs. I’d have vigorous debates with fans who just couldn’t see what was to me, obvious. There are some things in life that can be judgement calls, but MJ’s life was a scream for help.

Then I was walking through Costco when “This Is It” was first released on DVD. I looked up, and there was the Michael Jackson I’d always loved as a performer. He was mesmerizing, and that’s why he’d become the #1 star in the music world.

It takes a little while before the sense of betrayal leaves and you can separate the performer from whatever else his life might have been.

One of my favorite actors was a murderer — he later committed suicide, most think from the guilt. Another had a number of women say he’d molested them. There’s either enough distance between them and their performances, or there isn’t.

And yes, sometimes putting on the headphones and cranking them up stops all the noise in one’s head. Go for it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Can you listen to Michael Jackson now?

And may I ask who your favourite actor (the murderer/suicide) is?

reply

[–] Destinata (2863) 5 years ago

Yes, I can! But I've had longer to process this.

He wasn't my favorite actor, but Robert Pastorelli was good in nearly everything he was in. There are a lot of Brits who'd argue with me, but I adored him in Cracker, a knock-off of a British series by the same name. His performance was electrifying. He could have gone far, except that he couldn't stay off the heroin, and the police were going to reopen the investigation into the death of his girlfriend, the mother of his daughter. It was shortly after that he gave himself a hotshot (overdose).

My husband had found a Bruce Willis movie I hadn't seen with Pastorelli in it. His character was killed off early, then other murders started happening. I shouldn't have done it, but I leaned over to hubby and told him, "That guy they killed off early? He isn't dead. His name is Robert Pastorelli, he's a better actor than the whole cast combined, and nobody is going to waste that kind of talent by killing him off at the beginning of the film. Sure 'nuff.

Eventually you separate the flawed man from the performance. In Pastorelli's case, the fact that he was a tortured individual informed his acting. He didn't become a murderer until that torment spun out of control. In Jackson's case, I don't think the flaws had anything to do with his performance. I think he compartmentalized his life.

If you ever watched the original Murphy Brown, he played Eldon, the house painter.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I can't compartmentalise like that. I can come to some kind of terms with people being deeply flawed, but I'm never going to be able to listen to MJ's music or watch him dance and not have it be coloured by this.

Similarly, I've never watched a Polanski film since finding out about him. I liked Rosemary's Baby, but meh, haven't had any desire to watch it again as a result. Nor Chinatown.

Never heard of Robert Pastorelli before. I'll have to look him up.

reply

[–] Destinata (2863) 5 years ago

There are some I can't do it with. Bill Cosby will never be the same, because he tried to make his persona the real Bill. Now that we know the real Bill, it just screams "HYPOCRITE!" When you find out a director has preyed on his actors, it's difficult to think of them as creating works of art as opposed to finding a work environment to enable their perversion. And I still can't watch Mel Gibson without a nagging little voice in the back of my mind saying, "You fraud!"

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Yep, same for me with Cosby and Gibson. Spacey too, come to think of it, and I'd always liked his work. Oh well, I suppose I'll manage somehow to live anyway 😊

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I know Robert Pastorelli, and I know the Bruce Willis film of which you speak (Striking Distance, right?)

I knew him from the John Travolta film, Michael, and Dances with Wolves. I kept expecting him to become a bigger name.

I knew he'd killed himself but I wasn't aware about his girlfriend and the mysterious circumstances surrounding her death.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Jackson sleeping with those kids, very strange. He did behave like the classic pedophile in many ways, and these families knew it and let it go on because they were so awed by his celebrity.

Did he do anything sexual with them? I used to be on the fence, but now I'm leaning towards probably. Very sad situation.

reply

[–] maul (1540) 5 years ago

On sleeping in the same bed: "But when you say 'bed', you're thinking sexual, they make that sexual, it's not sexual... we're going to sleep."

https://youtu.be/-z34BKlCr9o?t=5035

You may find some of his answers bizarre, but that doesn't make him a pedophile.

reply

[–] kellycallie (728) 5 years ago

They had since 1993 (when he was first accused) to process it. If they don't get by now they are out of their minds are in the mindset of a devoted sheep to celebrity worship. Also Nostalgia sucks, looking into the past and seeing things through rose colored glasses just because it defined your youth does you no value.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Don't lecture me about nostalgia.

Nostalgia is a survival technique for me. It's far easier to remember and harbour the good things in the past than think about the miserable things, including the sexual abuse, bullying, and mistreatment by the authorities.

We all suffer. We all have had bad experiences. The difference is how we choose to handle it.

Instead of allowing myself to be eaten up with depression, despair and vengeance, I prefer to escape into happy thoughts. The irony is you've got the frickin balls to lecture me over the least harmful approach (for everyone, especially myself) to dealing with trauma.

Nostalgia makes me happy. It keeps my spirits up. If you want to wallow in hate, misery and cynicism, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to follow.

reply