“Jury of your peers” has nothing to do with being a pedophile. It’s a psychological diagnosis. You don’t even have to have a master’s degree to diagnose it, as long as you follow the DSM.
The courts should stay out of the mental health arena and just use the term “child molester.”
Just a side note here. I was teaching a speech class when suddenly, almost every student in class was suddenly looking at text messages being sent. Michael Jackson was reported to be dead.
(Shows you how fast word spreads in a college classroom.)
One of my students announced it and another student said, “Who cares?!”
A woman in my class burst into tears, then stood up and told us her story:
When she was about 10, life was really rough for her as her mother was a drug addict and she and her brother had little, if anything to eat at home. She wrote a letter to Michael Jackson and to her surprise, he wrote back a very touching letter. They continued to correspond for many years and he invited her to a concert and met her afterward.
I talked to that student yesterday…she went to see the film and thought it was fantastic. Granted, not exactly an unbiased review, but she said what she saw was the “real” Michael Jackson that she had known through correspondence and met once.
And what psychologist made that diagnosis? And based on what? I’m not arguing that he was a strange and bizarre person, but given his childhood (or complete lack of) I don’t think it’s that far out there that he would continue to act child-like as an adult. And it’s pretty obvious that the claims of molestation lobbed at him were just attempts to exploit his caring side in order to get some of his vast fortune.
Every interview, story, and recollection I’ve ever heard or seen about the guy just reinforces the fact that he seemed to genuinely care for children in bad predicaments. It’s just sad that society can’t see that and all the philanthropy he provided, and instead decided to base his entire life on a couple of lying crooks out to defraud him.
I’m surprised so many people don’t want to see it, and have such strong desires not to. I want to see it, I’m seeing it next week, and I’m excited about it.
Talented, unique but at least slightly unhinged guy (just look at the face) gets in over his head and ends up committed to 50 shows. Lots of other people have a big financial interest in these shows.
The guy dies, which is sad and tragic, regardless of what you think of his career, talent, personality or lifestyle.
Suddenly, everyone who was set to make money from the shows stands to lose money. Cancellation clauses and insurance clauses start being waved around. This could get messy.
Then someone within the MJ estate says, "Wait, don’t panic, we can still make this work and still all go home with some profit. We can crank out a movie from the concert rehearsals, release an old record of him singing a Paul Anka song, and issue some sort of ‘tribute’ album to squeeze more money out of the fans, knowing that at this point in time they will pay for absolutely anything.
And hey, none of this even needs to be any good… because the fans are so determined to see the Emperor’s New Clothes, that’s what they’ll see. We don’t even need to worry about PR. If anyone criticises the movie or the record, the fans will jump up and down and rabidly assert that everything we pump out with MJ on it is greatness incarnate."
No, I don’t want to see the movie. No, I don’t want to line the pockets of grave-robbers. If Jackson’s family honestly felt they could get away with putting his body on display, charging $50 a time to see it, they would.
Sinister much? The company lost millions when he died, I don’t think it’s a grave-robbing thing to do to create a movie from the footage they filmed (and already planned on making a movie from) and market it as a tribute. The company benefits, his estate benefits, and fans benefit.
Do you also feel the same away about movies that are released when actors died during their filming?
Supposedly the film is quite good, but unless it’s accompanied by a roast beef sandwich on sourdough bread and a beer I’m not going. MJ was a transcendent artist for a time, but even if you can appreciate his genius most of his later music was pretty terrible. Add to that his grotesque boy love seductions, drug fueled lifestyle, and self mutilation fetishes and … well… no. While some can I can’t disentangle the man as artist from his despicable behavior in seducing children.
I don’t understand the first two words of your reply.
I agree that marketing things as ‘a tribute’ sounds nicer than telling the truth. Perhaps they felt this was a smarter marketing move than saying, ‘Desperate bid to minimise losses arising from the fact that the star inconveniently died, possibly to do with the unusually low levels of blood in his drug stream at the time… that no-one in his entourage was at all concerned about so long as the show went ahead.’
They know that MJ himself can’t stop them, and his family won’t because they’re in on the action. This isn’t about ‘paying tribute’. It’s about having invested heavily in some shows that got cancelled. So now they’re just showing the dead body to recoup some money.
The OP asked if I want to see the film, and I’m just saying no thanks, I’ll pass.
Do I feel the same way about other things that aren’t the same? No. Why would I? Apples and oranges.
I’ve never been an MJ fan, and probably would have had the same uninterested – not to say disdainful – attitude that many here have expressed. However, because it was released in IMAX, I had to see it. (I work in the field and see all IMAX releases.)
And frankly, although I didn’t expect to enjoy it, I was impressed.
To my untutored eye, the 50-year-old Jackson was dancing every bit as well as the 20-something dancers performing alongside him. And although at one point he says he wants to save his voice, I was surprised to see that pretty much everywhere else he was doing his own singing (as opposed to synching to a track), and didn’t seem to be holding much back. (A reviewer on NPR’s Fresh Air said he assumed the vocals were sweetened in post. Perhaps so.)
I found the technical aspects for the preparations of the concert fascinating, and was impressed with how clearly Jackson knew what he wanted, and knew how to get it out of his company and crew. He was naturally able to get some of the greatest musicians in the world to work with him, none more impressive that Orianthi Pangaris, a 24-year-old guitarist who’s hot in every sense of the word.
The film is not sentimental or maudlin, and I think it does a good job of being a celebration of Jackson’s talent and life, rather than an obituary.
My only complaints are that the film starts out with some very high-energy numbers, but seems to peter out as it goes along, so it felt a little too long to me. But I guess director Kenny Ortega (who also was directing the concert, and is seen throughout the film) thought the fans wanted to see all those songs.
In short, I didn’t expect much, and ended up liking it more – and having a higher opinion of Jackson – than I thought I would. So although I’m sure some here wouldn’t see it under any conditions, if you’re on the fence, I’d recommend going.
I wonder if her little brother has a slightly different story to tell.
He paid a shitload of money to at least one family of “lying crooks” to make it go away, and the accusers in the most recent trial were not seeking any money from him.
It’s clear that many are extremely emotionally invested in sanctifying Michael’s image as a poor put-upon martyr, but it takes some real cognitive dissonance to maintain in the face of reality.
Folks – this thread is about whether or not people want to see the movie, or, for those who have seen it, whether or not they’re glad they did. Pls. start a new thread elsewhere – or resuscitate one of the dozens of past threads – if you want to get into an involved argument about what MJ might or might not have done with young boys. (“No, because I think he’s a creep” is okay – but to develop the argument beyond that, you’re headed off topic.)
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
Err…that sounds like the plot of a pretty good movie. I don’t think I would bother to see a documentary about a even-tempered, level headed performer who made the right decisions, had a warm home life with his wife of fifty years and oodles of children and grandchildren and died quietly in his bed.
I think most or all of the proceedes are going to pay off his creditors, I doubt his family will see much of it.
Heh. My impression was the opposite. I also found the technical/backstage aspects of interest, but I thought that he had a very poor way of communicating what he needed or wanted, and the extreme talents around him had to try to decipher what he might want and then making their choices sound like they came from him.
Two scenes come to mind; one, where his in-ear monitor was too loud. He takes it out and starts going on about how it feels like a fist is in his ear, how he’s trying to adjust and rise above, etc etc. It takes a good minute or more of vague complaints (at least it felt like it) before his artistic director finally asked what they could do in the moment? Make it louder? Make it quieter? At which point Michael says, “yeah, turn them down.”
If that was a guy in my band I would have slapped him so hard (<= hyperbole). If the monitors are too loud, ask for it.
Also, earlier in the film, he’s working with the music director on the beginning of The Way You Make Me Feel, and doesn’t like where the guy is changing chords. The extent of his feedback is, “do it like the album,” and, “you’re changing too soon,” without specifying which chord or anything. After a few goes at it where Michael tells the MD, “no, that’s not it, you’re changing too soon, do it like the album,” he’s finally happy.
He was an awful communicator; only rarely in the movie did he give anything resembling useful feedback other than “I like that” or “I don’t like that.”
I thought it was a fascinating and enjoyable movie, though. And, to directly address the OP, most of the movie was rehearsal footage of full or partial numbers. For a movie as long as it was, there was actually a very minimal amount of interviews/discussions/adulations. Just a lot of rehearsing of some very and some not-so polished numbers.
I believe this to literally be true. Michael Jackson’s family is reprehensible.
I saw this yesterday and was blown away. I was expecting something approaching the quality of a DVD extra, but instead I got a bona fide concert film, even if the concert itself was a reconstruction.
It really was an excellent film, especially when considering the material they had to work with.
I wouldn’t have gone to see him while alive, so, no, I have no desire to see this movie. I never understood why he was considered to be so great, and his weirdness on top of it all further convinced me that I wasn’t interested.
So that frees up a ticket for someone who really wants to go. You’re welcome.
No desire to see it.
When I took the kids to see Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, I saw a trailer for This is It, and thought ‘ugh; Hollywood is capitalizing on the death of a talented performer; no thanks!’
But then it opened and I started seeing the reviews for it on Rotten Tomatoes, and changed my mind. I really thought, prior to finding out differently, that it was just a hastily thrown-together montage, post mortem. Upon discovering that the movie/documentary was already in the works at the time of death, and that it was reviewing so well, I changed my mind.
I have very mixed feelings about Michael Jackson, the human. But I can’t deny he was a damned talented dancer/choreographer, and a talented musician. The glimpses this movie may offer into his psyche, if only a tiny bit, promises to be fascinating, imho.
I had been planning on seeing it myself later this week, but after telling my husband that I planned to do that, he surprised me by saying he wanted to go, too. We’re seeing it this evening. Tickets have already been ordered online.
Slight, but only in a macabre way. Not a fan of the man himself, of course as a child of the eighties I can sing along but he got way too creepy late in his life.