Another “Man In The Mirror” Atrocity: Reviewing The Latest MJ Documentary and What’s Behind It

With another June 25th rapidly approaching comes the usual onslaught of Michael Jackson documentaries.  And also as usual, some will be decent at best; most will be garbage. I can count on one hand the number of documentaries that have successfully captured and discussed the essence of his musical genius. Some that have been simply generalized narratives about his life have been pretty decent, but few have been able to top The Jacksons: An American Dream and that has been over twenty-five years ago (from there, it has only gone from bad to worse). And to date, there has not yet been one that has taken a hard stance on providing any grain of truth or insight about the allegations made against him. At best, most have pussyfooted around the issue, leaving only broad innuendos and the usual “we’ll never really know for sure” cop-out.  Like all fans, I have suffered and gritted my teeth through some pretty god awful documentaries, but by far, one of the worst I have had the displeasure to view recently was a film called “Man in the Mirror” which aired in the UK on Channel 5 back in March.  Well, I should have known it was a stinker when they couldn’t exercise more imagination than resorting to the usual cliche’ of naming it after one of Michael’s song titles; even moreso, the fact that it bears the same title as the equally horrendous 2004 flick starring Flex Alexander.

Be Wary-Be VERY Wary-Of Any MJ Pic That Bears The Title "Man in the Mirror." It's never a good omen!
Be Wary-Be VERY Wary-Of Any MJ Pic That Bears The Title “Man in the Mirror.” It’s never a good omen!

I think by now we should know to be wary of any MJ documentary or movie that bears the title of this 1988 hit. Most filmmakers these days could care less what that lyric actually means. For them, it has simply become a convenient and gimmicky way to bait audiences into yet another attempt at pseudo psychoanalyzing Michael Jackson’s character and how he came to be the “tragic trainwreck” that the media is so determined to present him as.

So why, one might ask, am I even bothering to review this hot mess, especially when there are more worthwhile MJ topics to discuss? Let’s just say partly because I want to inform any readers who might be curious enough  to check it out, and also because, well, sometimes ripping apart something that stinks can be a lot of fun. Or at the very least, cathartic. (And, I might add, anything I can say will probably be quite kind compared to what has already been said about this film on social media and fan sites). So here goes…

In order to keep the discussion focused, I’ll be taking the film in sequential ten minute chunks, and then will conclude with a summation of thoughts and commentary at the end.


Okay, when I say we’re going to start at the beginning, I mean really the beginning, where the seeds of this documentary’s intent are already being planted. Let’s consider, for example, this disclaimer at the beginning (small white letters against a pitch black background):

The events and scenes in this dramatized film are based on archive sources and first hand accounts of Michael Jackson’s life. 

Notice they use the term “archive sources” as an impressive way to make it sound as if this film has been based on extensive research. With such a disclaimer, we might be led to believe that the filmmakers have accessed some very deep resources for this film, but within ten minutes, even the most causal viewer will know what a crock that claim is. In short, these “archive sources” are nothing more than forty years’ worth of pop cultural consciousness, most of it arising from well worn tabloid stories and common knowledge. The truth is this: Michael Jackson’s story, his rise to fame from humble beginnings in Gary Indiana; the sacrifice of a normal childhood; the transcendence to adult superstardom; the forces that conspired against him and eventually brought him down; his own inner and outward struggles, is a story already all too familiar. The narrative of Michael Jackson’s life was played out on the world’s stage for four decades, and so the question remains: With all the hordes of books, films, and documentaries that are readily available, what is the purpose of adding to that number unless there is something truly new or unique to add to the Michael Jackson saga? Within the first few minutes, this film is already treading on ground not only familiar, but so familiar as to render it cliche’.

Interestingly, this description was lifted from Earnest Valentino’s Youtibe channel:

Earnest Valentino makes several appearances as the adult Michael Jackson throughout the Documentary which shows the pain, and suffering Michael Jackson endured while being used, abused, and accused from those he thought were his friends.

That’s all fine and good, but unfortunately, this film, like so many others of its ilk, gives lip service to this kind of empathy for Michael’s tragic life while at the same time further hammering the final nails of insult and betrayal into his coffin. And it raises another problematic issue, as well. As has been the case with so many projects that purport to be about Michael Jackson, the “cult of celebrity” and the morbid fascination with what is commonly perceived as the “tragedy” of his life overshadows any apparent interest in his art. As always, the aim seems to be more about psychoanalyzing Michael Jackson than truly appreciating his artistry or in making any kind of serious attempt to understand the roots and nuances of that artistry. It’s not that I would disagree if anyone said that Michael Jackson’s life was tragic. In many ways, it was. But to boil all of the complexities of his life and who he was down to this very one-dimensional kind of narrative is worse than misleading. It is blatantly insulting.

Over this black background, ominous music plays. These kinds of choices are not accidental. Granted, I understand the limitations that these films are up against, given the legal restrictions placed on using Michael’s actual music, but why must it sound like something from a horror film soundtrack? Instead of something joyous or upbeat that would be befitting the kinds of feelings that Michael Jackson’s music normally inspires, they choose this very somber intro with music that is guaranteed to make the listener feel creepy, more appropriate for the beginning of Friday the 13th  than a documentary on an artist who inspired the world. And sure enough, the very first shot we see is a garishly made up Earnest Valentino (resembling a very cartoonish caricature of MJ’s early 90’s look) creeping down the stairs in only a bathrobe. It is December 1993, and this scene is supposedly reenacting the strip search at Neverland.

MJ Tribute Artist Earnest Valentino-Fairly or Not-Has Taken A Lot of Heat For His Participation In This Project. Perhaps He Needs To Stick With What He Does Best-Imitating The King of Pop’s Dance Moves!

This is the second time that filmmakers have attempted to reenact this scene, and they have yet to get it right. (The other Man in the Mirror film had him ridiculously blocking out the humiliation of the strip search by gazing at a portrait of Elizabeth Taylor, as if her supposed “presence” was the only thing enabling him to get through a strip search-which goes into even weirder territory than what we have here).

In both cases, we might say they are making a sincere attempt to portray how humiliating the strip search was for him, but the problem is that both portrayals present him as so annoyingly childish and out of touch with reality that any sympathy is instantly negated. I suppose if there is a positive, it does give us a sense of Michael’s vulnerability in that moment. Stripped naked before the gawking gazes of onlookers and their cameras, this is (supposedly) Michael Jackson with all illusions stripped away. Since this is a prominent narrative of the film, I can guess that this may have been at least part of the reason for “going there” right off the bat. The strip search itself becomes a kind of symbolic allegory for Michael’s life, someone who up to that point had managed to layer on illusion upon illusion and for whom image was everything.

But even if I “get that” as a viewer, it still raises a lot of troubling questions as to why they felt they had to start out of the gate with a scene of the strip search, immediately dredging up associations of Michael Jackson with accusations of child molestation. I agree wholeheartedly with the video blogger who posted this reaction to the film: Why the need to “go there” right off the bat? As viewer bait, this scene already sets the tone for the entire project. And this video blogger gets something else right, too: The narration sounds disturbingly (and all too eerily) like Martin Bashir. And the fact that Bashir’s footage is used repeatedly throughout the film (as if no other footage was readily available) further adds to the creepy similarities to Bashir’s 2003 hit piece. (To be fair, perhaps Living With Michael Jackson has so permanently scarred the psyche of anyone who has ever loved, admired, or appreciated Michael Jackson that even a hint of a British documentary in that same eerily and monotonously toned accent is enough to cause psychosomatic shudders!). But it’s not just the accent-it’s that same, heavy handed, overly dramatized tone, as if any recount of Michael Jackson’s life can only be done justice by being delivered in the heavily pedantic tone of a crime docudrama.

The scene is interspersed with comments from Jennifer Batten, Michael’s long time touring lead guitarist, who apparently was one of the few reliable and trustworthy persons close to him to agree to be interviewed for this travesty. All I can say is, thank God for her presence, but it’s not nearly enough to offset the rest of the crap, and her comments (as with all of the participants) have been heavily edited. She does make the point that Michael was someone who was “betrayed over and over” and repeatedly “stabbed in the back” by people he thought he could trust. But it would have been really nice if the filmmakers had done more to connect the dots between that statement and what the viewer is seeing being enacted with the strip search. The bait lines that follow all sound like carefully scripted tabloid headlines, and are presented in a disturbingly factual manner that leaves little room for the viewer to question whether these are, in fact, hypothetical conclusions that have been drawn. Granted, the first two sound bites are not ones I would dispute: Michael as the product of an abusive father; Michael as the child star forced to grow up too soon amidst the adult trappings of stardom and show business; Michael as the child being exposed too soon to things that no child should know about. But beyond that, it goes into territory that is clearly blurring the lines between fact, speculation, and the media’s long held cherished “pet theories”: Michael as the boy “trapped by childhood,” unable to “embrace the adult world”; Michael as Peter Pan; Michael as the caricature boy “unable to grow up,” the Michael whose sexuality remains a question mark, yada yada yada. You get the drift. It’s the same old rote every fan knows by heart by now. Certainly, Michael himself played a hand in at least semi creating that image of himself, and that is a topic I have addressed before and will certainly address again. But the irony is that even here, in a documentary whose very purpose seems to be as a kind of expose against the imagery Michael Jackson created around himself, the writers don’t seem to “get” that this was at least as much a part of Michael’s carefully crafted image as anything else-and as such, equally subject to scrutiny. Just why it has been so often taken at absolute face value seems to have a much more sinister root, based on an obvious desire to keep Michael Jackson at precisely that level of complexity (as has so often been noted, the media’s obvious and determined  emasculation of Michael Jackson has been, and remains, an ongoing obsession). Most unforgivable of all, however, is what happens next: Without even a hint of question about it, the narrator states unequivocally that Michael Jackson was “unable to create his own family.” Of course, guess who pops up as the next interviewee-none other than good ol’ Mark Lester! Yes, he gets a platform here in order to continue with his usual dancing around of how he “could be” Paris’s biological father but how that shouldn’t matter because “Michael was her father” (then in that case, why doesn’t he stop giving these kinds of interviews?).

Here is the real problem, though. Yes, there has been a lot of media speculation about the biological paternity of Michael’s kids, and as it’s a topic beyond the scope of this post, I don’t wish to get into it here except to say that such speculations are just that: Speculations. What’s more, it has been speculation largely fostered by the same media that has so determinedly emasculated Michael at every turn. Unfortunately, it is a campaign that has been carried out with such success to the point that even some fans now seem to have fallen under its sway. Yet we have lost sight of one very simple truth: It’s never been confirmed by any reliable source that his three kids are not his biological children. Michael always insisted that all three children were his own, and until there is proof to the contrary, it is simply unethical to state anything otherwise-and to present such a speculative statement as if it were factual is utterly unforgivable.

At this point, I’m sure this is when most fans would have already checked out, but I wanted to see just how bad it could really get and to get a taste of what UK audiences saw. And, boy, does it ever get bad.

To be fair, some of the early segments depicting reenactments of young Michael growing up in Gary, Indiana are decent (at least if one can overlook the poor acting) and the actor cast to play little Michael is passably endearing (even if lacking in physical resemblance) but, then, this is hardly controversial stuff here, and indeed, it’s a story already familiar to anyone who has seen the much superior The Jacksons: An American Dream. At any rate, the documentary’s obvious modus operandi isn’t so much about how little Michael Jackson, aged five, became a singing prodigy, and it isn’t about the rise of an American working class black family from rags to riches. Instead, it is clear that what  the writers here want to get to-as quickly as possible-is how all of this laid the foundation for Michael’s adult psychological issues. Thus, one of the film’s few really charming segments (the Jackson children harmonizing on the spiritual “Down to the River To Pray”) is quickly dispensed with so we can move on to that ol’ devil Joe Jackson beating the kids.


This segment picks up with the Jackson kids honing their skills and polishing their act to become one of the premier musical acts of Gary, Indiana and nearby Chicago. Again, nothing particularly controversial here, as the documentary pretty much recounts what is already well known. But Joe’s rages and demands for perfection quickly becomes a predictable center piece. Howard Bloom recounts a meeting with Joe where he states, “I could see the flames of hell burning in his eyes.” Perfectly timed with this quote is a close-up on the face of the actor playing Joe in the reenactments, indeed looking like Satan incarnate (or the close-up of Michael’s demonized cat eyes at the end of Thriller!). I mean, really. I have met Joe and seen him from pretty much the same distance as Howard Bloom, and while Joe is undeniably an intimidating presence, to say he has “the flames of hell” in his eyes is an absurd exaggeration.

Image result for Joe jackson looking evil images

I’m not denying (and never have) that the abuse was real, and of course, I have already written many past posts about the complicated relationship Michael had with his father. But whatever we can say about that relationship, it was definitely not as one dimensional as it is portrayed here. However, in this case, it is quite clear why the writers want to tread this ground yet again. It is an important early chapter in understanding Michael’s adult psyche, which is clearly where this whole thing is bent on heading. What this segment does set us up for is the disconnect from a reality that a child performing at such a young age would naturally experience, and no doubt this was a disconnect that did continue to haunt him into adult life. It wasn’t as if his performing was an occasional weekend gig, or a side hobby. By age seven, he was already touring regularly on the chitlin’ circuit, so of course, any hope of a “normal” childhood was no longer an option. In one of the few redeeming segments of the film, the especial challenges and dangers of being a  black family act traveling to gigs during a still racially segregated America was interesting, but far too brief. It would seem fair to say that this, also, had to have had a tremendous impact on young Michael’s psyche, as well as shaping his world view at a very vulnerable age. But instead, the writers seem far more obsessed with the shaping of his adult sexuality (which we already know will be portrayed as, at best, from very troubled to perverted to non-existent, not necessarily in that order). There is a very protracted and creepy reenactment in which a young Michael spies on a fleshy stripper, while the narrator comments on how he was exposed too young to “sex and sexuality.” This narrative comes straight from Michael himself, who never shied away from discussing what he was exposed to in those early strip club gigs, so again, it’s not that I have an issue with the validity of what is being said. In truth, Michael was exposed to adult sexuality at a much too young age. The only thing I take issue with is the fact that, once again, we know where this is going, and it is an already cliched’ narrative which is not going to get any fresh insight here. At worst, the emphasis on Michael’s unusual and precocious sexual experiences is intended to make the viewer question if this sort of thing could lead one to become a sexual abuser as an adult. At the very least, it is setting the viewer up for a distorted perception of Michael as a sexual adult, as most viewers will be bound to wonder how he could possibly have come out of all those experiences with a healthy adult sexuality. It seems to me that at least part of the suggestion here is that Michael’s sexuality may well have become fixated at this stage, which would certainly open the door for some rather disturbing if albeit speculative conclusions. I would certainly agree that growing up with a promiscuous father on the one hand, and a devoutly religious mother on the other, could certainly create some psychological conflicts about sex, and Michael was actually quite open about these conflicting feelings-all one has to do is listen to his lyrics!  In truth, we really don’t need documentaries to tell us who Michael was, or what it felt like to be him. His own catalog of music is really his own greatest autobiography; his personal confessions in which he revealed all and spared few. In doing so, we can also clearly trace his personal growth from an insecure youth who feared eternal damnation as the wages of sin to a confident adult who could freely sing about adult relationships with no hint of self castigation. But I think where we have to be careful is in automatically equating these kinds of childhood experiences with a damaged psyche. Michael Jackson would hardly have been the first child-and certainly hardly the first male child-to see an adult naked woman at a tender age. Most kids at some point have stumbled into their parents’ bedroom at an inopportune time, and growing up in that tiny house in Gary with its paper thin walls, we can only imagine what he probably overheard from his parents’ bedroom! Michael’s brothers all had the same exposure, and yet few have questioned the impact of these early experiences on their adult sexuality. Unless there is actual physical abuse involved, most children-especially male children-are able to bounce back from such early memories relatively unscathed; it may even become something they joke about later in life, and Michael himself certainly never implied that he felt “damaged” by those experiences, only indicating that it was one of many “interesting” experiences that made his childhood unique. But, anyway, I am digressing. Back to the review…


This segment depicts the arrival at Motown and the beginning of worldwide fame. Again, a fairly decent segment but only because it is simply treading familiar, non controversial ground. And hence, one of the major problems that this, or any MJ documentary, must face. Like so many documentaries of MJ that have missed the mark, this one can’t seem to find a balance between the absurdly speculative on the one hand, and the banal cliches’ of a narrative that has already become all too familiar to most music fans. But even in this segment, it becomes less about Michael’s rise to childhood stardom and more about the way he was already being taught to manipulate his image. “This is where the root of this tragedy really begins,” states Carvell Wallace, and indeed, the whole purpose here is about the roots of that “tragedy.” There is a reenactment of a press conference that depicts the already nearly 11-year-old Michael lying about his age and stating he is eight. When questioned about the lie, he states with adult savvy, “…if they say something about my image that isn’t true, it’s ok. It’s not a lie. It’s PR.” I don’t know that Michael ever said those exact words. However, it is historical fact that he was at first promoted as an eight-year-old singer when, in reality, he was closer to eleven. The bottom line here is that, through the Motown machine, Michael was learning valuable lessons about how to manipulate his image. Again, this is not an issue of disputing what I already know to be true. But in this case, where we have to consider that we are dealing with a particular filmmaker’s vision, it’s important to examine why this becomes a central focus. Clearly, the intent here is to portray Michael as someone who learned from a young age how to manipulate his own image, as well as the press. It doesn’t take a major leap to know where this is going, and how it will be applied to Michael’s adult relationship with the media. It is a theory that will be confirmed much later in the video.


Here we pick up with the coming into adulthood and newfound independence: Breaking away from Motown, and eventually, from the Jacksons. I’ll skip over a lot of it, as there is nothing especially new or revelatory in the telling of the group’s switch from Motown to Epic. However, once we get into Michael’s acceptance of the role of the scarecrow in The Wiz and the move to New York (which wasn’t exactly a clean break away from the family, as he was still sharing digs with LaToya) it simply becomes more embarrassingly cringeworthy fodder for the white male interviewees to smugly cast aspersions on his sexuality. They seem to make much ado of the fact that here he was, on his own in the big city, hanging out nightly at Club 54, and apparently having little interest in-gasp!-a girlfriend. They erroneously state that Tatum O’Neal had been his only girlfriend up to that point. In fact, he was, at the time of his stint in New York, involved in a steady (and well publicized) relationship with Stephanie Mills, a fact they curiously choose to ignore. In one of the most ridiculously patronizing segments of the entire film, Epic Records producer Bobby Columby claims to have tried to talk to an obviously adult Michael about the birds and the bees, only to allegedly be informed by Michael that he “already had someone-Diana Ross” (which, of course is treated as a huge joke even though Michael and Diana Ross, also, had had a very blatantly obvious flirtation going on for years).

Was Stephanie Mills Invisible In Late '77? Because Curiously Everyone In This Film Seems To Have Forgotten Her!
Was Stephanie Mills Invisible In Late ’77? Because Curiously Everyone In This Film Seems To Have Forgotten Her!

The whole segment is just very condescending and, again, the favorite media narrative of Michael Jackson, emasculated black male, takes center stage. Time and again, they go back to Michael’s supposed “ambivalence about sex” (a phrase actually used in the doc, several times) and yet the question remains: Ambivalence according to who? And just why has this narrative persisted so doggedly, mainly from the perspective of white male journalists? Clearly as long as that is the power in control of Michael’s image, that is the myth that will remain, firmly embedded somewhere between affectionate incredulity (that someone so pure and naive could possibly have been real) and patronizing scorn.

As cringeworthy as this may be to any real fan, it might be somewhat forgivable if the project can at least offer challenging insight into the artistry of a brilliant artist. But here, too, the doc falls disappointingly short. We enter into the next segment with a nod to Michael’s growing artistic independence from his family, but then comes the annoyingly ominous Martin Bashir-esque narrator to tell us how Michael’s first attempt at songwriting was “very nearly a disaster.” Never mind that this “very near disaster” just happened to be “Shake Your Body Down to the Ground,” one of the most successful and instantly recognizable tracks of the disco era-a song that is still a Jacksons classic to this day.

Sure, It Was Only One Chord. It Was Also Brilliant!


So you get the idea. The next segment picks up with a kind of clashing of wills between Jackson and a frustrated Bobby Columby who isn’t sure what to do with a song that is “one chord” that “goes on for twenty minutes.” Columby mentions the “disconnect” of Michael’s dynamic verse and chorus against that single chord, but within five seconds of listening to that familiar, catchy track one would think there would at least be some acquiesce; some admittance that clearly the kid knew what he was doing. Of course, we may grant that it’s almost always true: In the back story of every great track  there was some producer who simply didn’t get it, or that maybe they heard the original track in such a raw state that they might be forgiven for their shortsightedness. Instead, we don’t get any indication from Columby that his opinion ever changed, and instead he brags about everything he had to “pile” onto the track in order to make it into a complete record. Unfortunately, these kinds of stories fit too patly yet another favorite narrative often perpetuated by white musicologists, which is the idea of Michael as the “talented but narcissistic boy genius in need of white saviors to bail him out of his own excesses.” Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I would ever begrudge giving due credit to those who guided Michael’s artistry-his wonderful collaborators, engineers, producers and musicians who worked with him. It’s just that I have noticed a rather disturbing trend, one that seems to permeate many recent biographies and documentaries, in which Michael simply comes off either as excessive egomaniac (at worst) or the childishly naive boy wonder (at best) who simply leaves all of those working around him feeling exasperated (the underlying assumption being that they are the “normal” ones who are having to keep his feet on the ground). It’s not that there isn’t some grain of truth in these stories-after all, genius seldom is fully grasped or understood by mere mortals-but it is downright insulting when an artist of Jackson’s caliber is time and again patronized in this manner. I can’t think of any similar documentaries on well respected white musicians (or even most black icons) where this kind of patronizing tone is so prevalent. I can’t imagine, for example, a documentary on The Beatles where we would have so many condescending “father figures” in the control room boasting of how they had to make John Lennon’s songs into something salvageable. Later in the documentary, there will be a reenacted scene where Michael simply flees the recording session, only to be found dancing maniacally in the hallway. That story actually is based on a true incident, but the reasoning was because Michael was so engrossed in the track that he had to “dance it out” before he could stand still and sing it. In the film, however, the way the scene is reenacted only makes him look foolish (even, albeit, mentally challenged) and the excuse given is that he is imagining himself running away from Joe (an excuse to get in another dig at Michael’s alleged, scarred psyche rather than focusing on something that might have been far more fascinating-how he went through his creative process). In fact, as has been so often the case in these short-sighted projects, any interest in that creative process is only given the thinnest veneer of lip service, at best. To their credit, it does get better once we get into the Off the Wall and Thriller eras, but that isn’t saying much, considering the back story of those albums is already well known. Even here, however, there are some unforgivable factual errors, such as stating that “Billie Jean” was the lead single from Thriller, when in fact the lead single was “The Girl is Mine.”

Sir Paul: "Wait, that little song I sang on, wasn't that one first?"
Sir Paul: “Wait, that little song I sang on, wasn’t that one first?”

One thing they do get right is how Michael broke down “barrier after barrier” during this era, and the story of the hungry young artist with something to prove to the world-“he had the Eye of the Tiger”-remains compelling, even in a project as otherwise mediocre as this. I think they also do a fairly decent job of portraying how torn Michael was during this era between his desire for solo stardom and guilt over abandoning the family act, a guilt compounded by Joe who reminds him in one of the more harrowing reenactments, “This was all for you.” They also do a fairly decent job in acknowledging how racism in the industry impacted Michael’s early success, with the infamous Grammy snubbing of Off the Wall and its one pathetic nomination for Michael in the  Best  Male R&B vocalist category. As they correctly point out, it is out of the ashes of this disappointment that comes Thriller, and Carvel Wallace is able to get in some enlightening commentary on how many still view Michael Jackson as an “urban artist” simply because of the color of his skin. But even here, they can’t resist taking their digs. Michael’s understandable anger and resentment against the obvious racism of the Grammy snub is branded merely as another indication of his “emotional immaturity.” Sadly, this objective seems ever present, undercutting almost every aspect of the narrative. Even as it moves into the creation of the great Thriller video, the film can’t resist the constant tug between Michael as eccentric boy genius on the one hand; a naive child on the other, and/or emerging “shape shifter” who is evolving into a ruthless and master manipulator of the media and his own image (never quite reconciling how someone supposedly so naive and emotionally stunted could accomplish such a feat). Again, it’s not a matter of denying that all of these conflicting elements are an integral essence of who Michael was, to greater or lesser degrees. But it has more to do with the particularly disturbing angle that these interpretations take. For example, instead of looking at the shape shifting element of Thriller as an example of Michael’s evolving artistry, it is treated merely as the prelude to his personal downfall, as he becomes ever more the clever showman who can shape shift between man and beast; between human and monster. Granted, this could be a fascinating discussion on one level, but here it is so very obvious that this is not going to lead to any kind of serious analysis of either Michael’s art or image, but as I stated, merely as a prelude to the possible sinistry that may have lurked just beneath the childlike exterior. In other words, the discussion of Thriller is cleverly disguised merely as a way of preparing viewers for the predictable controversy that will follow.  As this segment comes to its close, our Martin Bashir soundalike assures us that Thriller, Michael’s greatest commercial success, will also be the very thing that destroys him. It’s a catchy bait line, but a flawed one. Michael wasn’t destroyed by Thriller; that is equivalent to saying he was destroyed by his own art. This becomes yet another cleverly disguised way of saying that Michael Jackson was ultimately responsible for the tragic downward spiral of his own life. Sure. It all begins and ends with the success that he himself willingly created. Again, I don’t think the filmmakers are denying that he was victimized time and again by manipulators and backstabbers, but at least part of the modus operandi seems to be in pointing out that all of the evil around him can somehow be traced back to Michael himself as the ultimate maestro standing at the nexus of his own self destruction.

If The Popular Media Narrative Is To Be Believed, "The Maestro" Wasn't Just A Fictional Character Michael Created...Michael WAS The Maestro, Shaping His Own Destiny AND His Own Demise.
If The Popular Media Narrative Is To Be Believed, “The Maestro” Wasn’t Just A Fictional Character Michael Created…Michael WAS The Maestro, Shaping His Own Destiny AND His Own Demise.


Indeed, we no sooner get into the next ten minutes and already this theory is being born out. After having run through the impressive matriculation of Michael’s musical and professional life, we are reminded by our ominous “Batshit” sounding narrator that “while his mastery of pop muic and performance was divine, his mastery of himself was far more troubled.” I did enjoy hearing Vincent Paterson’s analysis of the Billie Jean video, but again, the narration intercepts with very puzzling and cryptic comments. If, for example, it can be acknowledged that “Billie Jean” is allowing us a glimpse into the “inner complexities” of Michael’s world, how can we on the other hand dismiss this great piece of complex work as coming from someone without a stable grip on the complexities of the adult world or adult relationships? Again, there is no real attempt to connect any of these dots; everything is simply thrown out for the viewer to make sense of as they see fit. Anyway, at this point I’m going to skip through a lot for the sake of time, as most of this segment simply recounts how the Motown 25 performance came about and its aftermath, all of it familiar territory for any Michael Jackson fan (nothing really bad here, but nothing new, either).


The segment begins on a high note. Michael has been fully vindicated for the Off the Wall snub, winning a total of eight Grammys for Thriller including Album of the Year. This time, he had created something so phenomenal that it simply couldn’t be ignored by the industry. But as any fan knows too well, Michael Jackson’s life was one of incredible peaks and unfathomable lows. During this same period comes the infamous Pepsi commercial accident that will affect the quality of the rest of his life. This incident is often portrayed as a kind of defining moment in Michael’s life, a clean division between the exuberant, clean cut youth and the “tortured” adult who would become dependent on painkillers and the desire for anything to numb the physical and emotional pain. In terms of story and narrative, it marks the perfect dramatic catalyst, and it serves that function no less here. In truth, it is actually one of the more compelling moments in the documentary and is handled at least somewhat tastefully. For the casual viewer who may not know very much about the details of the accident or its horrendous aftermath for Michael; the series of painful surgeries; the balloon implants placed into his head, the disfiguring third degree scars, this segment is at least informative and factual. Of course, it also becomes another excuse to harp on the increasing “disconnect” between Michael the private person and Michael Jackson, the image, with much being made over his request to be photographed even on the stretcher with his white glove on. burn2

The only difference is that I think this is a segment where the discussion is at least somewhat warranted. Clearly, this incident was a prime example of Michael’s obsession with image, and it was clear that the line between his public and private persona was becoming increasingly blurred. I don’t fault the filmmakers for desiring to explore this territory, but I think part of the problem here (which is true for any MJ documentary and not entirely anyone’s fault) is that no justice can really be done to such a very complex topic within the confines of an hour and a half, and certainly not when dished out as merely ten second sound bites. As has so often held true, the very scope of Michael Jackson’s life and complexities makes any project like this doomed to a certain amount of failure from the outset. Just as with so many other projects, both better and worse than this one, there simply isn’t enough room or space in which to cram both all of the events of Michael’s life and career and to delve into any kind of detailed psychoanalysis that would provide any kind of satisfactory closure to these kinds of questions (indeed, as is so often the case with most Michael Jackson documentaries, it simply becomes a convoluted mess that only succeeds in raising far more questions about the man and the artist than it can answer). Anyway, the film wastes little time in establishing the obvious connection: The accident leads to painkillers; painkillers lead to addiction; it all starts a chain reaction of destruction that will take several decades to reach its ultimate, tragic resolution. And again, the objective is one disturbingly bent on painting Michael as the one in control of his own demise. Sure, he was a victim of a horrific accident, the filmmakers seem to be telling us, but he also made a series of deliberate choices, beginning with the choice to swallow those pills. It is those deliberate choices, they want us to know, that will slowly “destroy” him, just as he was “destroyed” by the success he himself created with his own music.

To compound the poor attempt at psychoanalysis, the discussion of the burn surgeries (which is at least fair and accurate) leads into, and quickly deteriorates into, a discussion of cosmetic surgery. Yep, you had to know they were going to “go there” as well, and the discussion is lamely predictable. Our creepy “Batshit” narrator states, without the batting of an equivocal eye, that plastic surgery becomes for Michael a kind of “self harm.” It’s the same old bs where insecurity and body dysmorphic disorder blurs the fine line with the obsession for some perceived perfection. Honestly, I am weary with the subject as most fans are, but if we just have to go there, it would certainly be far more innovative and enlightening to entertain some other possible theories other than the usual “he hated his looks/wanted to change his race, or as is stated here, “an external manifestation of the confusion he was feeling about who he truly was.”  For example, I would love to see a project that would be daring enough to take on the topic of how Michael used appearance, in the same way that David Bowie and countless other artists have used evolving looks, to create their artistic personas and alter egos  (I’m convinced that Michael’s roster of evolving looks owed as much to his artistic aesthetics as to any perceived insecurities). What if it stemmed, not from deliberate self confusion, but a purposeful desire to confuse his audience? Equally fascinating would be a discussion of the disconnect between the media perception of a “freak” vs a fandom who never stopped desiring him as a sexual object (however, in this case, at least, we already know that any serious discussion of Michael as an object of sexual desire is not going to be entertained, anyway). It’s not that the discussions of insecurity and obsession for perfection have no validity, but my point is just that there are so many more interesting places that they could go if they’re going to bring up the topic of Michael’s appearance and cosmetic surgery, but admittedly, perhaps, these are discussions beyond the project’s scope. So all we’re left with is the usual banal explanations and surface discussions.

On Appearance, Surgery, and Image...It's Time To Deconstruct The Narrative And Consider Fresh Alternatives.
On Appearance, Surgery, and Image…It’s Time To Deconstruct The Narrative And Consider Fresh Alternatives.

Maybe one day someone will be innovative and far sighted enough to take on those discussions in a film project. But that time hasn’t come yet, least of all here. Besides, it’s pretty difficult to take any discussion of Michael’s cosmetic surgery seriously when the best they can do is compare a youthful photo of the real Michael Jackson to a close-up of the garishly made-up face of Earnest Valentino! Duh, of course the comparisons are going to look a million miles apart when one is a pic of the real Michael Jackson, pre-vitiligo, and the other is a Michael Jackson impersonator in very bad makeup! Oh, but it gets even better. Next, we cut back to Mark Lester stating assertively that Michael was trying to reconstruct his face to become the Disney version of Peter Pan. (Huge eye roll moment). To further compound the potential confusion of casual viewers, the only mention of vitiligo is a brief clip of Michael’s response to Oprah Winfrey, but the only thing offered in the way of follow up commentary is that Michael “became defensive” at no longer being able to play on his terms” (whatever that is supposed to mean). It’s left to Jennifer Batten to even bring up the topic of artist reinvention and its necessity in the pop music world, but her comments are then edited to segue directly into a scene that depicts a very devious Michael as “play[ing] with the press” by intentionally manipulating the Elephant Man and hyperbaric chamber stories. They state, in fact, that Michael intentionally spread these rumors, as if the tabloid media itself played no hand whatsoever. The clip ends with our “Batshit” narrator stating that it was more “schoolboy prank than sinister manipulation” but then lingers on a close-up of Earnest Valentino grinning deviously. So now another seed has been planted. The media’s crucifixion of Michael Jackson stemmed from his own cunning, and he was at least as much to blame as the tabloids themselves. What the film fails to address, however, is just why and how the media came gunning for him with such relentless ferocity from that point forward. Even for a celebrity who courted publicity, I think few would argue that what was done to Jackson was beyond the pale, and the media’s refusal to take an iota of responsibility in that crucifixion, as evidenced here, remains an unforgivable blot. This is not just a theory of the document’s intent. They state it explicitly: “As Michael watched his carefully created image disintegrate, he struggled to understand that it was he who had facilitated it.” (It’s worth mentioning that this quote is inserted over an image from the Earth Song video, thus taking one of Michael’s most powerful political statements out of context and manipulating it into a mere image of a man sorrowful over the loss of his image).


This segment picks up with the move to Neverland. Here, again, the narrative is more predictable cliche’ about Michael’s need to escape and recreate the childhood he never had. We know this was at least part of the MO behind what Michael created at Neverland, but Michael’s home was so much more than that. It was an oasis of serenity in a chaotic world; 2700 sprawling acres built on Native American sacred land; a place for inspiration and meditation. They do acknowledge that Michael’s goal was to make the place a haven for sick children, but the primary narrative of this segment is that of an overgrown, spoiled kid who, because he now apparently had no one to tell him “no,” could indulge in any kind of excess he craved. Not only is the tone here irritatingly patronizing (assuming that a thirty-year-old man somehow still needs a daddy figure in his life to tell him “no”) but also is much too open ended in allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions about the exact kind of debauchery that this unrestrained excess and access to children could include (understand they are not explicitly implying guilt, but nor is there any given reason for viewers’ minds to not automatically jump to those conclusions). All this does, essentially, is to set the stage for another favorite media cliche’-the unrestrained child/man, freely indulging his whims and desires, who wants to surround himself with kids and have endless sleepovers.  Again, the one spot of salvation is Jennifer Batten’s commentary. She states that Michael was an avid reader who took joy in teaching the children and introducing them to the wonders of the world. Thanks to her, there is at least some balance to the commentary but given the overall impression that the segment creates, I’m not sure it is enough. This leads us into the introduction to Jordan Chandler, and from here it goes from bad to worse.

Jordan Chandler is portrayed as if he were simply one of many random kids allowed to “sleep over” at Neverland. No mention is made of the circumstances under which they met, or of Michael’s association with Jordan’s parents (perhaps they assumed these details were irrelevant; however, they are anything but). I understand there is only so much that can be crammed into a 94-minute documentary, and they can’t be expected to go into minute detail about everything, but to cut corners with something this important to Michael’s story is unforgivable, especially if the main point is supposed to be an expose’ of how Michael Jackson was destroyed by betrayal.

Jordan Chandler Was Apparently Just Some Random Kid Who Popped Up One Day At Neverland. Michael's History With The Chandler Family Is All But Ignored.
Jordan Chandler Was Apparently Just Some Random Kid Who Popped Up One Day At Neverland. Michael’s History With The Chandler Family Is All But Ignored.

But again, the purpose here is definitely not in “proving” or “disproving” guilt, and that remains one of the most troubling aspects of even the most well intentioned projects. We can say that the worst of the lot simply presumes guilt, but even the more sympathetic projects are more than content to simply leave the viewer to draw their own conclusions, without elaborating on any of the hardcore evidence that actually supports his innocence. What’s worse, they often use heavy handed innuendo and editing to make the possibility of guilt seem more likely (in reality, these kinds of scenes are meant to serve as titillation, but the damage they do is just as much as if they came out and proclaimed straight up guilt). This film is no exception. A particularly disturbing reenactment has Michael and Jordan playing games in the bedroom, indulging in a pillow fight, etc and finally deciding it’s time for bed, we see the adult Michael slowly and ominously closing the bedroom door. It doesn’t take adding two and two to assume what most viewers would make of that scene, no matter how much the commentators wax about him simply wanting to be a big kid. That has always been, and remains, the weakest defense imaginable. There is only a brief reenactment of Evan Chandler confronting Michael, and as usual in every film that only does a half ass job of reporting on the Chandler case, poor Evan Chandler is simply portrayed as a concerned father, understandably upset and outraged over what he suspects is going on with his son. Predictably, there is no mention of Evan’s extortion attempt; no mention of his infamous recording to Barry Schwartz in which he as good as confessed how he was setting Michael up; no mention of what a psychotic personality Chandler actually was; no mention that Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael’s genitals proved false; no mention that the financial settlement did not preclude a criminal trial from taking place; not even an explanation for why Michael agreed to settle in the first place.

Why Don’t We Get Evan Chandler-Concerned Father-Stating These Words? 

With all of this information simply left hanging, casual viewers are no more educated on the circumstances of the Chandler allegations than they would have been before, other than perhaps knowing the names of the parties involved. If before I would have given the film at least a C-for effort, here it fails completely. And I’ll just say for the record that the one thing we don’t need at this point are more projects like this that are simply going to further muddy those waters. The segment ends with Evan determinedly whisking Jordan away from Neverland while a pathetically dejected looking Michael pleads, “Don’t go; please don’t go.” (Chalk up one more huge eye rolling moment). So let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Supposedly again this is a project about Michael being betrayed over and over, but what we actually see depicted here (as is done repeatedly throughout the film) is that it is really Michael’s own eccentric behavior that has led to his loss and desertion. Other parties, including the Chandlers, are simply helpless bystanders caught up in the vortex of Michael’s own tragically scarred psyche. It’s a pattern that doesn’t stop here.


This segment picks up with marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, and is predictably awful but with one saving grace: At least the romance and marriage is treated as being genuine. In some ways, that is probably a huge leap from what we might have gotten ten years ago from a project like this. But I had to laugh when our “Batshit” narrator in his heavy handed delivery announced, somberly as a church service, that this was perhaps Michael’s “one shot” to have “a real lover.” There is a somewhat sweet courtship reenactment but for anyone who has seen the just as awful other Man in the Mirror flick, it is a scene that could have come just as easily from it. Of course, there is no hint of the MJ that Lisa Marie actually described as having been attracted to-the guy who flirted voraciously, who talked dirty over shots of Crown Royal and impressed her with his “real guy” normalcy. Instead, this is the same whispery man/child who waxes poetic about her smile over a romantic dinner, but at least the scene does culminate in a kiss, insinuating that-gasp!-Michael is actually going to make love to a woman.

Finally The Media Seems Willing To Believe The Marriage Was Real, But Clings To The Belief That Its Disintegration Was All Michael's Doing.
Finally The Media Seems Willing To Believe The Marriage Was Real, But Clings To The Belief That Its Disintegration Was All Michael’s Doing.

But from here it spirals downhill. They keep saying that Michael was insistent on having a family with Lisa (which is true) but the disintegration of the marriage quickly becomes a one-sided affair. It is Michael’s manipulative, demanding ego that comes between them; it is Michael who humiliates poor, poor Lisa time and again; it is Michael who insists on “seeing other kids behind Lisa’s back” and, finally, it is Lisa who walks out simply because she can’t take anymore; that Michael is “too much to handle” and should never be a parent because “he needs a parent himself.” Again, this is an insult to every fan who knows anything about that marriage. Yes, it was stormy and yes, both parties were at fault. But why lay all the blame for its failure squarely at Michael’s feet? What about Lisa lying about the birth control pills? (Talk about betrayal!). What about the four-year affair they carried on after the marriage, as she pursued him relentlessly for a reconciliation? (None of this is speculation, since Lisa confirmed it in her last Oprah interview, but instead of using that interview, they instead dredge up that horrific 2005 Oprah interview also featuring Priscilla Presley; the one I like to call the “bitch fest”). The major difference between the two is that the 2005 interview came fresh out of the anger, hurt and frustration of the relationship, whereas the 2010 interview came out of a place of maturity and intense reflection on what her feelings for Michael actually were. I’m sure the filmmakers were aware of this later interview, but purposely chose to ignore it because the 2005 interview more closely fit their agenda.

Anyway, the entire mess ends predictably with Lisa storming out and a dejected, pathetic Michael sitting on the stairs begging, “Please don’t go.” Once again, the message is loud and clear: Michael’s own irresponsible behavior has cost him his “one shot” at true love and a real family.


As you can no doubt guess, it doesn’t get any better from here. Considering how much of Michael’s epic story we still have to cover (marriage to Debbie Rowe; the births of the children; Invincible; the feud with Sony; Martin Bashir; Gavin Arvizo; the Trial of the Century; exile; return; AEG and This Is It; Conrad Murray and death) the film passes over all of it relatively quickly and with very little depth, much less any pause for real consideration about the forces coming together that would be the true cause of his “downfall.” In fact, by this point, huge chunks of Michael Jackson’s story remain untold. All of the albums he has recorded since Thriller have been pretty much ignored (even Bad only gets a passing nod; as for Dangerous, HIStory, Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible they might as well have never existed!). Major accomplishments and career coups, such as the 1993 Superbowl performance, are completely ignored. They state that Michael was too naive to “sense danger,” insinuating the betrayal of Martin Bashir with the Living With Michael Jackson documentary, and yet never mention the underhanded tactics Bashir used to get the results he wanted with that documentary (and again, considering that a goodly percentage of this film is comprised of Bashir’s footage, one can understand why he is given a free pass here). The entire Gavin Arvizo allegation and trial is passed over far too quickly, and with all the same problematic flaws as the handling of the Chandler allegations. Curiously, no mention is made of Tom Sneddon and his relentless vendetta. As usual, all parties as well as all factual circumstances of the cases are handled with kid gloves, and no real accusing finger is pointed at anyone save Michael Jackson himself (who isn’t acting maliciously, let’s be reminded; he simply can’t help the fact that he is damaged goods).

The Film's Agenda Is Fairly Obvious: Guilty? Maybe Not. But All The Same, Definitely Damaged Goods.
The Film’s Agenda Is Fairly Obvious: Guilty? Maybe Not. But All The Same, Definitely Damaged Goods.

Essentially, viewers are getting the bare bone facts but little else; if anything, the film is more than content to merely summarize events. But this is nothing that any informed viewer couldn’t get by simply going to Michael Jackson’s Wikipedia, and the commentators, for all good intentions, simply can’t compensate for the lack of real informative material. It’s a given that Michael’s physical and mental health was worn down by the trial. We get that. But what viewers really need to know-and perhaps want to know-is just how and why Michael was found “Not Guilty” on all counts. Once again, there is no attempt made to delve into any real evidence. Either the viewer accepts that Michael was innocent, or continues to believe he was a guilty man who “got off” due to his celebrity status. There is no reason given here for any on the fence viewer to change their mind.

The entire series of events leading up to This Is It and June 25th, 2009 are barely scraped, with Conrad Murray becoming almost a side player. Much more emphasis is naturally placed on Michael’s own “addiction” to sedatives to drown his own troubles. In one of the most unforgivably egregious errors of the entire film, the infamous audio tape of a drugged Michael slurring to Conrad Murray about how “I hurt”-the audio tape secretly recorded by Conrad Murray in one of the ultimate acts of betrayal, and played at trial as evidence against Murray-is said to be a phone conversation with Murray. This is the kind of unethical error that is unforgivable for a documentary because it is (whether intentionally or not) distorting truth. To state that this was a phone conversation between Michael and Murray detracts from the actual fact that this was a doctor secretly recording his oblivious patient, thus violating the rights of his patient in the most vile manner possible, and for no obvious purpose other than perhaps future blackmail or to strike a deal with tabloids. Again, for a documentary that proposes as its main agenda how Michael was repeatedly betrayed by the people around him, you don’t get a more golden opportunity to prove it than with that incident, and yet they completely miss the boat on that one, alleviating Murray from all culpability by passing it off as merely an innocent phone conversation that Michael initiated by phoning Murray up. And, of course, this factual error covers yet another of Murray’s violations, by totally ignoring that the very reason Michael was in such a state was due to having already received  a massive dose of Propofol at Murray’s own hands! No, by this logic, it makes it sound like poor, poor Michael simply drugged himself up on some sedatives and then decided it was a good time to ring up his friend Conrad Murray and “spill” about his life.

In One Of The Most Egregious Factual Errors Of All, They State That This Recording of Michael Was A Phone Conversation Between Himself and Conrad Murray, Implying That Michael Phoned Murray In A Drugged State. No Mention Is Made Of The Fact That This Was A Conversation Conducted In Person, In Which Murray Unethically, Secretly Recorded His Patient-After Administering The Drugs Himself!

Oh gosh, I could go on but at this point the film simply unravels to its predictable and disastrous end. Michael dies. Granted, the final shot which is of the actual memorial and features Paris’s now famous and emotional speech is touching, and it does succeed in bringing the narrative satisfactorily full circle-the man who never had a childhood and so desperately wanted to give back a childhood to others has had that legacy cemented by his tearful, grieving daughter who proclaims him “the best daddy you could ever imagine.” Here I won’t fault the well intended sentiment, but for a documentary, it still leaves too many troubling holes unfilled.No mention is made, by the way, of anything that came of Conrad Murray afterward, not even the fact that he was convicted of manslaughter. It is as if with the end of Michael’s existence simply comes the culmination of his own, tragic story, brought on mostly by his own damaged sense of entitlement and the usual cliches’ about the burdens of fame. In looking back over the whole of this documentary, what’s left out is every bit as interesting-and puzzling-as what is left in. Michael’s great artistry and impact on music is discussed, but not with any real sense of depth or new insight (it simply isn’t that type of documentary). His sex symbol status is simply ignored. Some of the most major accomplishments of his career, such as the purchase and ownership of the Sony/ATV catalog, rendering him one of the most powerful figures in the music industry, is curiously ignored as well. Was such a glaring omission due to time constraints, or could it have more to do with the fact that this wouldn’t jibe with the image they were determined to project of Michael Jackson as a naive and childish man who would never be able to make such a savvy business move? (Also curiously, the fact that this catalog ownership became the proverbial albatross around his neck, one that exacerbated his fears of betrayal from those around him as well as providing ample motivation for many of those betrayals,is simply omitted as well).

What little we are left with has unfortunately become an all too familiar and, as I’ve already stated, well worn narrative, and I’m sure that some readers by now are still questioning as to why this particular documentary has been worth such a detailed analysis. Mainly, it is because I think it bears questioning as to why the media is so persistent on selling this very particular and limited narrative of Michael Jackson and his story to the public; why the particular insistence on selling, over and over, the version of an emasculated man/child who never grew up, who remained emotionally stunted (to the point that even his most monumental artistic accomplishments are usually more credited to his “mentors” like Quincy Jones and Berry Gordy) and why the perpetual insistence on continuously casting his story as simply one more celebrity tragedy? As I will stress again, I do not deny for a moment that Michael Jackson had a tragic life. This was a guy abused in childhood, who never knew a normal existence. Did that leave its scars? Of course it did! Did that impact his adult perceptions of the world? Of course it did, but I would daresay probably to no less or greater extent than any adult who has had to compensate for a lost childhood. The excesses of Michael’s life, for what they were, were no greater or less than many young musicians who suddenly find themselves awash in fame and riches at an age before they are truly capable of responsibility (insert here most any rock and roll or hip hop artist you can think of who became enormously wealthy before the age of 25). Michael inherited all of the same problems that all child stars inherit to some degree; he grappled with all of the same excesses and temptations that all musicians must, at some point, grapple with. As I am writing this, the tragic news of Chris Cornell’s recent passing is still headline news, and I see much of the same media strategy being played out: At first they mourn and honor; then comes the tearing down. Somehow, there is always a way to place the blame squarely on the performer’s shoulders, with no thought to the enormous internal and external pressures that these people actually face on a daily basis (I am still, as of this writing, grappling with the shock of having just seen Chris Cornell perform only days before his death, and how fine and in good spirits he seemed).

Chris Cornell At The Sow I Saw In Memphis, Just Days Before His Passing. His Recent Death Serves As A Reminder Of The Media's Fixation On Celebrity, Victimization and The Blame Game.
Chris Cornell At The Show I Saw In Memphis, Just Days Before His Passing. His Recent Death Serves As A Reminder Of The Media’s Fixation On Celebrity, Victimization and The Blame Game.

But to paint Michael Jackson’s life, over and over again, as nothing more than a modern tragedy, is a huge disservice. It is a disservice to the life he actually lived. It is a disservice to the enormous contributions he made, both to music and to the world through his enormous humanitarian efforts (which, to no surprise, are also omitted completely from this film). Usually there is almost always at least some lip service given to how Michael’s wealth and fame made him a target for greed, but inevitably, as happens here and so often in all other projects, the real culprit always comes back to the “man in the mirror” and that apparent seed of self destruction that was planted long ago in Gary, Indiana when a talented but strong-willed little boy was first struck by an angry, demanding father.

The problem is that this narrative, one so loved and cherished by the media because it makes good copy, is not the end all of the story. But it’s a narrative that alleviates a lot of responsibility from other parties. The media gets a reprieve because, after all, Michael was the one manipulating them, and should have known better. The Chandlers, Arvizos, Tom Sneddon, etc all get reprieves because, after all, well, if Michael had been acting like a grown-up instead of having sleep overs with kids, then by golly, none of this would have happened. Conrad Murray gets a reprieve because, well, clearly Michael was a drug addict who voluntarily put himself in that position.

And for those who will come back saying I am merely excusing Michael’s behaviors and trying to shift all the blame onto other parties and factors, that isn’t true, either. But there is nothing wrong with advocating for balance, fairness, and most importantly, accuracy. A documentary can manipulate just as easily by the facts they choose to omit or ignore as by what they choose to include, and from the start, the agenda of this particular project is all too clear. For whatever reasons, it continues to be of vital importance to certain parties that Michael’s story is portrayed in as simplistic a manner as possible, keeping him ultimately just the way they want him-emasculated, weak, non-threatening to white male superiority, immature and ever the victim. This continues to be a matter of concern, especially with so many upcoming MJ projects slated including the upcoming Lifetime film Searching For Neverland, which I will also be reviewing after its Monday night airing. Navi, the other famous MJ tribute artist appearing in that flick, has already issued a public statement condemning Valentino’s participation in this project, but it remains to be seen whether his own project is going to be any better (I can only say for now that the previews seem decent, but we’ll know more come Monday night). Clearly, these misrepresentations are continuing for a reason. Partly (perhaps even mostly) it is laziness. It’s easier to present an already pre-packaged stereotype than to err on the side of new insight or to research source material that might actually challenge some of these notions. For better or worse, most of the public thinks they know by now what Michael Jackson was like. They envision the soft-spoken man/child who never really grew up, or they have bought into the more sinister “Wacko Jacko” representations. From media perceptions, they have bought into the cliche’ of a talented but flawed and tragic figure, charmingly eccentric but ultimately out of touch with reality-“textbook weird,” as Sean Lennon recently stated. What most fail to realize is that this figure, too, is a myth, one that has been every bit as carefully crafted by the media as Michael, in turn, helped create it. Unfortunately, no documentary or film project, yet, has been daring enough to challenge these perceptions or to penetrate the myth. And now, with Michael gone, it has become easier than ever to simply further cement the same old misperceptions, rather than challenging them. And sadly, most filmmakers remain more obsessed with either salacious innuendo or in perpetuating the myth they have themselves partially created.

Another problematic factor is simply the sheer scope of Michael’s life. To fully do justice to any aspect of it almost requires a full documentary unto itself. To really understand the forces that went down, one needs an entire documentary just on the Chandler allegations alone; one needs an entire documentary on the Arvizo trial; we need an entire documentary on the events leading up to June 25th and their aftermath. And, needless to say, we need at least the scope of a full documentary to truly appreciate what Michael accomplished as a musician, dancer, humanitarian and philanthropist. This documentary is plagued by the very thing that has hampered so many projects-too much story to tell, and too little time and space to tell any of it adequately.

That’s the forgivable part. But what is harder to forgive is the agenda, ultimately, to portray Michael once again as simply the naive yet manipulative master orchestrator of his own self destruction. To do so is still only telling half his story. Perhaps one day there will be a filmmaker brave enough to take on the real Michael Jackson, to lift him beyond the burden of victimhood and caricature and to tell his real story, with no holds barred. Until then, the best bet may be to simply stick with those documentaries that focus on what Michael Jackson did best-his music.

11 thoughts on “Another “Man In The Mirror” Atrocity: Reviewing The Latest MJ Documentary and What’s Behind It”

  1. 2 months ago I took the time to see it in detail. I found it disgusting from the beginning. It has all the dyes of tabloid yellowing. The most annoying thing is that it focuses on the same as always, and from a subtly morbid perspective. The documentary is trash and is not loyal to the truth. I entered Ernest Valentino’s wall on that occasion only to see how this guy was swollen proud of the work done there rather than being ashamed to have lent himself to that “comedy” that does not claim the greatness of MJ. And to see how many fans fans congratulated him … how it can be possible? What criteria as a fan is needed to congratulate someone for lending to such an unpleasant, badly acted and false thing? Thanks for the analysis and I completely agree with your views.

    1. I left this reply for you on my FB page. I’ll copy and paste it here as well:

      It’s very possible that he agreed to take part in it before realizing how atrocious it really was. They may have sold him on the idea that it would be a positive and sympathetic piece. However, I am thinking he must have surely seen an advance script. He seems like a sweet guy, but I don’t see how he can support this travesty. I think he is continuing to promote it because it is obviously a huge credit to his career vitae.

  2. Raven, you say:
    “…. the best bet may be to simply stick with those documentaries that focus on what Michael Jackson did best-his music.”

    Yes. I’d say the same applies to fan blogs and discussions, too. The real *atrocities* in this world grow out of the media’s unparalleled ability to get otherwise intelligent and conscientious people to pay attention to a wide array of distracting garbage that they create. They excel at producing *people*, not just programs.

    BTW, I agree with your assessment of this piece, which I found extraordinarily painful to watch on many levels, which you discuss here. It’s yet another entry in a long line of this genre, “exposés” about celebrities—not limited to Michael Jackson. (Not that this should make us feel any better—but the same outfit made and broadcast a biopic on Prince and his “last days,” where many of the same utterly predictable, utterly offensive and mind-numbing tropes were used.)

    I have a suggestion. Let’s do a minute-by-minute analysis—in somewhat the same style as you’ve done here—of Spike Lee’s excellent documentaries on Bad and Off the Wall. And, we hope, his “Thriller” project, which he promised to make to complete the trilogy.

    I’ll be brutally honest here. It may serve some emotional purpose to engage in these critiques, for you and your readers, in providing a catharsis. Beyond that, I see little purpose in feeding that beast. Why devote precious time and attention to the exegesis of material we hate—and which we know, well in advance, we’re GOING to hate?

    1. TBH, I had been struggling with another post for weeks and making very little progress. I had been away from the blog for over three months, tending to other responsibilities, and in returning after such a long hiatus, just wasn’t sure where I wanted to focus. I had come across this documentary word of mouth from other fans, and checked it out to see just HOW bad it was. Like I said, I saw it more as an excuse to analyze and discuss the MJ tropes that remain so prevalent, and why. It was, for me, a cathartic way to dive back into writing about him after so long. But certainly I do want to write more on those very excellent documentaries, as well.

  3. Raven, while there’s much I enjoy about your blog, as an asexual woman I can’t help but feel kind of insulted by the way you seem to constantly imply that speculating whether or not Michael was on the asexual spectrum is “dehumanizing” or “emasculating” him. Asexuality is very misunderstood sexual orientation that approximately 1% of the population has. There’s a wide spectrum of asexuality, some asexual folks masturbate and/or look at porn out of curiosity, some don’t. Some “ace” people are capable of enjoying sex, while others are very disgusted by the the very idea of it. What makes someone asexual is they lack the internal “need” for sexual contact. As a small minority sexual orientation, many asexual people suffer self esteem issues because of their orientation, so it can be problematic to imply that there’s something wrong with being asexual. I myself have been cyber-bullied more than once because of my asexuality, including by the MJ fandom. I haven’t seen much “LOVE” for asexual fans in the “Moonwalker” fandom.
    I love Michael, and I do believe him to be innocent of the pedophilia allegations. While I of course cannot honestly say that I know for a fact that he was asexual, I do think it’s a strong possibility, and if I’m being entirely honest, wanting to believe that the freaking amazing legendary King of Pop was like me had comforted me through times of depression due to many issues including my asexuality and autism spectrum disorder.
    You do seem like a kind person and I do not think you intend to hurt asexual readers of the blog, but I wanted to take the liberty of sharing my own thoughts and feelings, and educating you about a topic that many people do not understand. Thanks for listening.

    1. I’m very much aware of asexuality as an orientation. But the fact remains that Michael did date women, and to ignore that fact or to constantly play up the idea of him as someone with “sexual issues” has been a deliberate campaign for many decades. Obviously, of course, we don’t really know what went on behind the closed doors of those relationships, and it would be presumptuous to assume we do, but it’s interesting that these stories don’t come from the women who knew him. You have to look at the bigger picture: Who is it that has pushed that agenda most fiercely and determinedly, and why? It certainly didn’t come from the man himself, although I will admit once he got into the whole “Kid Power” aspect of his image and “Peter Pan” persona it certainly didn’t do anything to clarify those perceptions. But it’s not “just” about his own sexuality; it’s also in the way they refuse to acknowledge him as someone even sexually desireable, which is yet another form of the emasculation process. Or if they do so at all, it is only begrudgingly to Thriller/Off the Wall eras. Honestly, all of those female fans (and male fans as well, I am sure) were not screaming and fainting at the sight of him because they were aroused by Peter Pan. Indeed, eevrything about Michael’s image was blatantly sexual, in just about any era we consider. His lyrics were drenched with sex-centered issues: Relationships; relationships gone bad; confusion; self castigation over temptations of the flesh; tales of femme fatales, and on and on. Obviously, of course, one could argue that the source of these lyrics could indeed come from a place of confusion (but could just as easily stem from a sense of troubled morality). Obviously, asexual people still have those urges; it’s the relationships themselves, and actual intimacy with another human being that often becomes more problematic for the asexual person, as you pointed out. (And to be fair, we have to acknowledge also that even though Michael HAD relationships, he obviously had issues with ever being able to sustain one long term).

      As per reaction from the fandom: I probably don’t have to tell you that these kinds of reactions come from the simple fact that asexuality is still very little understood in this culture (even the general mainstream acceptance of LGBT orientations is still lagging far behind) so in the minds of most fans, when they hear people casting Michael into those molds, it generates the immediate knee jerk reaction of “not normal” and “here they go again, trying to brand him as something ‘other’-a ‘freak.'” I’m not saying it’s right or justified; it’s just how people tend to think. I do agree that we have to be careful about projecting onto him some version of what “we” think he was or should have been, and we also owe it to his fandom to be more sensitive to the fact that his fans come from all walks of life, race, religions, ethnicities-and yes, sexual orientations as well. Michael himself was well aware of this, and for that reason, often refused any public platforms to express his own, personal views on those topics because, as he said, he did not ever want to offend any faction of his fan base. I agree 100% that getting out of that box of what is considered “normal” is the first big leap that has to be made. The problem I have with portrayals like in this documentary, however, is that after having researched Michael for many years and knowing people who actually knew him, there is an obvious disconnect. Indeed, this also ties back, however, to one of the doc’s primary narratives, which is the illusion/image Michael created vs. the real person. But, really, was it Michael who was confusing and blurring the two-or everyone else, including the media who are now so convinced that the “image” was real that they themselves have lost sight of who he really was? Although when you take all things considered, I’m not real sure where the “disconnect” as such lies. Michael didn’t project even his public image as a non-sexual being: In fact, far from it. If anything, he EXAGGERATED his public sexual persona (black leather and bondage outfits; the infamous gold pants, the swagger; those pelvic thrusts; I could go on and on obviously!). Then people started to point and say, “Ah, but he’s trying too hard; he must be over compensating for something.” In the Thriller and Bad era, I always just assumed it was a way of “proving” that, “Hey, look at me, I’m all grown up and tough now; not innocent little Mikey anymore.” Lol. Anyway, I’m getting into a deeper topic than I have time to address adequately, so will just leave it at that for now. But as I’ve said many times before, the fact that we DON’T necessarily have all of these issues “pegged” about Michael is precisely why he continues to fascinate. He carefully calculated the image of someone who could be most anything to anyone, and in that regard, probably far exceeded his own expectations.

      Anyway, I did not mean for the post to come across offensively and I apologize if it was taken that way. But definitely, what I WOULD like to see would be a major paradigm shift in the way the public views these two topics together: Michael Jackson and sexuality; that they are certainly NOT mutually exclusive (God forbid!) and that, yes, we need to acknowledge that sex was a huge and integral part of his makeup and appeal. We still have to be aware of the white echelon which for centuries has feared the “threat” of the sexual black male, and the role this has possibly played in the attempt to keep Michael Jackson-in the public mind, at least-as “non threatening” as possible.

  4. Raven,

    In the past I have enjoyed your blog, in time though with more information I started to realize there is a real bias and narrative that is being presented here. I do not take issue with that, as certain themes on blogs/forums are inevitable.

    I myself only understand asexuality in an abstract way, yet I believe you are mistaken on many things regarding it. As evidenced how you responded to a poster above.

    I by no means want to comes a an authority on anything regarding Michael or his life but I would like to share a few things that I have pondered that have helped me(and perhaps others) understand Michael and his lifestyle/choices a lot better then running with the idea he just had to have been a heterosexual male and to say anything BUT that, is emasculating him (a word you seem to use too often. People claiming MJ was perhaps gay/asexual or anything in between is not questioning his maleness in the slightest.

    1. Stating that MJ made people pass out when on stage becasue of his hyper masculinity that is proof enough that he was indeed a highly sexed straight male is totally false. MJ was in the biz, to sell. In pop music sexuality is part of the whole scene and always was. MJ was a totally different person onstage than off. Because fans want to believe or project onto mj their fantasy is fine in the moment, but blending fantasy with the cold hard reality is never healthy.

    2.Acting as if MJ was a straight male becasue of the way he got his fans to react to him with his body movements and aggressive over the top displays of sexual energy which seems to have convinced many that he “thrust his hips” in a manner not consistent with a virgin, is plain silly.

    3.Stating things like this is like stating, Steven King could not have possibly written novels about killers, that were so convincing that King HAD to be a killer himself to convey his stories with so much realism. I wonder what you would say if King fans were convinced and screamed this to the heavens any time people questioned that narrative.

    4. It is well known that the body can mimic just about anything regardless of what the psyche and emotional state is. Do people think that most porn stars enjoy every film they make, despite OFTEN coming across like they do. Michael has and will continue to be an enigmia. His sexuality will be talked about for decades to come..By telling your readers you are sure that he was a straight male, and that by questioning this, we somehow question his manhood, is not true.

    5.Asexual people date, watch porn, masterbate, at least some do. There are many sides to asexuality that I do not think you are grasping. There are many asexuals that are in marraiages that are romantic/white marriages (with sex that happens occosaclly usually for the sex driven parnter) .

    It is my belief that MJ was a take it or leave it type of male, who could do without sex as it was secondary in his mindset. It stares you in the face when you see him discussing it.

    Asexuality does not imply someone was a virgin all their lives, it is implying that they do not have an itch that constantly needs to be scratched Nothing is wrong with that at all..

    MJ was different, and never normal, but saying his sexual preferences may have been different, puts him down and possibly makes him appear more odd, or freak is just not true. In many ways it explains a whole lot more to his saga then thinking he was a regular sex driven man.

    Actors play roles, the great ones can convey such emotion that it becomes almost scary the way they can become a character. This does not mean that actors are ANYTHING like that off camera. Would you agree?

    I love MJ, he is one of my favorite artists and I think he was sexy during his bad era. Drop dead sexy, yet I know it was the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood that pushed the fantasy, and I am OK with that. Fantasy is not reality, showbiz is an escape from it.. Thank God for the tiny escape it provides..

    May I kindly ask you Raven, why do you think people who believe MJ may have been putting on an act for his fans, and that in reality he may have been totally indifferent to sex, that somehow “emasculates him”? I also would like to ask why you add “black male” so often with that word?

    Much respect to the time you take with your blog..It must not be easy to run.

    Take Care

    1. Hi Danielle. I wanted to address this point here. You said:

      “1. Stating that MJ made people pass out when on stage becasue of his hyper masculinity that is proof enough that he was indeed a highly sexed straight male is totally false.”

      I never meant to imply this as proof of his own sexuality (which would be absurd, anyway) and I’m not quite sure how it got construed that way, but let me clarify if I can. What I am referring to is the utter denial of the media in many respects to even accord or acknowledge that his fans were attracted to him in a sexual way. That’s an entirely different argument; has nothing to do with “proof” of heterosexuality. Of course, performers can put on an act to sell themselves and it may have little to do with who they actually are. But other performers throughout pop culture history with ambiguous sexuality have never been as purposely “stripped” of all sexuality by the mass media in the same way. David Bowie, for example, comes to mind. Women adored him (although he confessed later that he was always more heterosexual, anyway). They adored Freddie Mercury. They adored Little Richard back in the day. They adored George Michael, even after he came out of the closet. They adore Ricky Martin. Prince was allowed a VERY ambiguous sexuality, which only increased his brand as a sexual figure. It’s more about the cultural acceptance of them as sexual beings capable of eliciting desire in others (gay or straight is irrelevant). You even said yourself that you enjoy the “fantasy” even if you think it is all “smoke and mirrors” but that fantasy, too, is part of what I’m talking about. My comments were for the faction who would deny that MJ could EVER elicit any kind of sexual “fantasy” for anyone. The term “emasculation” in the sense of what the media attempted to do with Michael and other black performers who proved threatening isn’t a new argument, or something I invented. Indeed, it is a theory that has been hashed out by many scholars, going all the way back to the arbitrary enforcing of the Mann Act in order to persecute celebrities like Jack Johnson and Chuck Berry (for doing the same things that any white guy in the day could have done and they would simply have winked and turned a blind eye). Some are still convinced that the molestation allegations were the apex of this vendetta. The term “emasculation” does not refer simply to a desire to strip Michael Jackson of being a straight male; it is the perpetual insistence of keeping him at the state of prepubescence, like a child who never even grew into a man. And as I said before, of course we have to acknowledge that Michael himself perpetuated that image to a large extent, but at the same time, he never conveyed the idea of a non sexual person, certainly not as an adult. That was a media myth foisted upon him (for reasons which are quite complex to unravel, but in part that’s what makes it an interesting topic to ponder). Think of it in terms of this very documentary that I was reviewing: A huge chunk of their agenda was about Michael’s sexuality; it was the undercurrent of the entire project, which explains, in turn, why it warranted so much discussion in my rebuttal. If a documentary is going to go to such great lengths to make Michael’s “disturbed” sexuality a part of its agenda (for that’s what was implied even if not stated explicitly) then there’s no way to get around it as a talking point in reviewing the piece.

      I have no personal agenda invested in the topic one way or another, except I do happen to know there is a lot of baloney that’s being sold out there about Michael. For example, stating in the film that he had no girlfriends while living in New York, when he was clearly dating Stephanie Mills during that time, is a curious omission, so it’s only fair to call them on these kinds of inaccuracies and to ask why those omissions are there-if we want to talk about agendas. (Granted, they do at least acknowledge Tatum O’Neal and Brooke Shields later, but only because those were known to have been platonic relationships). I’m all for the “let him be whatever his fans need him to be” but there is also a point where we need to separate truth, fiction and myth. In my view, this film only does more to further cloud those waters than anything. I would say if we’re going to go so far as psychoanalyzing Michael, at the very least put ALL the cards on the table to make it a fair hand.

      Also, I wish to clarify something else. When I said that fans react the way they do at these insinuations because “to say his sexual preferences may have been different, puts him down” I was speaking in general terms as simply an acknowledgement of fact, not from personal view. If I said there is still a lot of racism in the South, it doesn’t make me racist; it’s just stating a fact. This discussion has been raised here before (many times) and invariably it always goes in the same circles, for the same reasons. Fans will come here and raise the issue of why they are attacked on other forums for expressing a controversial view of Michael and sexuality, and then if I try to explain the place from which that comes, I am in turn attacked and lumped in with them, criticized for apparently “endorsing” those views so there’s no defense other than to simply acknowledge it for what it is (huge sigh here). Sorry for the rant. But I think we both know that only very deep rooted sociological change in the way our culture thinks about sex and sexuality is going to bring about those kinds of changes in perception. Also, I think if fans could feel more secure in the idea that not EVERYTHING is intended as an automatic put down or personal attack of Michael, that would go a long way towards more tolerance as well. But the media castigation of Michael Jackson was so severe that it has left a lot of permanent scars, and that’s not something that is going to heal overnight, either. In my lifetime, I’ve “staned” quite a few artists, and with none of them have I witnessed the kind of extreme polarization between media vindictiveness and fan defense that exists so fiercely as with Michael Jackson. It would require a complete and total paradigm shift on all of those issues-Michael Jackson, sexuality, the media relationship to Jackson, racism, the cultural perspective of Jackson, etc. For that reason, obviously it is a complex topic on many levels, for many deep rooted reasons.

  5. Not to mention that Michael had two women with whom he was involved that was documented by his bodyguards in their book, Michael had so little privacy in his life, I think he just wanted to keep that part of it private, and also so the women he loved wouldn’t be harassed by the media for information. It also allowed his fans- no matter how they personality identified sexually- to be able to fantasize about being able to have a relationship with him.

    Another aspect is how he was exposed to adult sexaulity at such a very young age. HIs father booked the J5 into strip clubs where he was a very curious observer of their performance. His father encouraged him to go into the audience and crawl under tables and life women’s dresses/skirts.

    Michael also shared rooms with his brothers who had sex with their fans in his presence. His father was having sex with his son’s fans as well, and Michael stated he would have to lie to his very religious mother whom he adored, about his father’s behavior on the road. He didn’t have good role models of what made a healthy man and woman relationship and how to sustain it.

    Then there was his career. I don’t think he knew how to incorporate a wife into his lifestyle and his career where he had to consider another person’s needs instead of just his own.He was, in a sense, married to a demanding partner- his music and career.

    Those who knew Michael very well- Bush, Tompkins, and Faye said as much in a program done one year after Michael’s death by ABC’s 20/20 called: “Michael Jackson: After Life”. Tompkins, Bush and Karen Faye discuss Michael’s sexuality as part of the interview:

    Here is the link to this segment of the show:

    Lisa Marie Presley said they were like any married couple and had a sexual relationship. After their divorce, she admitted to Oprah Winfrey that she continued to follow him around the world for four years. She said that Michael only five or six people see his real self, and that when she was around him, and he was being his authentic self- that she never felt so high in her life. You can find her interview with Oprah on YouTube that she declared would be the last time she would speak about Michael. Here are the links to that interview:

    Part 1

    Part 2

    Part 3

    Here is a part of an interview she gave to Rolling Stone Magazine:

    “‘He was very real with me off the bat. He immediately went into this whole explanation of what he knew people thought of him and what the truth was’.

    Which was persuasive?

    ‘Yeah. You get sucked into the ‘you poor, misunderstood person, you’. I’m a sucker for that. Then we sat down to talk, and he was so not what I thought he was. He was very real — he was cursing, he was funny, and I was like, ‘Wow. . . ‘. I fell into that ‘You have this whole Howard Hughes thing that goes on in the press, and you’re not anything like that’. ‘

    But why wouldn’t he want people to know that?

    ‘I don’t know. I think it worked for him to manipulate that image for a little while. The hyperbaric chamber thing and all that monkey shit and the elephant shit. It made him mysterious, and I think he thought that was cool. But then it backfired, like it always does.

    ‘I was always saying, ‘People wouldn’t think I was so crazy if they saw who the hell you really are: that you sit around and you drink and you curse and you’re fucking funny, and you have a bad mouth, and you don’t have that high voice all the time. I don’t know why you think that works for you, because it doesn’t anymore.”

    Here is part of what she wrote after Michael’s death:

    “I am going to say now what I have never said before because I want the truth out there for once.

    I loved him very much.

    Our relationship was not ‘a sham’ as is being reported in the press. It was an unusual relationship yes, where two unusual people who did not live or know a ‘Normal life’ found a connection, perhaps with some suspect timing on his part. Nonetheless, I do believe he loved me as much as he could love anyone and I loved him very much. I wanted to ‘save him’, I wanted to save him from the inevitable which is what has just happened.

    His family and his loved ones also wanted to save him from this as well but didn’t know how and this was 14 years ago. We all worried that this would be the outcome then.

    At that time, In trying to save him, I almost lost myself.

    He was an incredibly dynamic force and power that was not to be underestimated. When he used it for something good, It was the best and when he used it for something bad, It was really, REALLY bad.

    Mediocrity was not a concept that would even for a second enter Michael Jackson’s being or actions.

    I became very ill and emotionally/ spiritually exhausted in my quest to save him from certain self-destructive behavior and from the awful vampires and leeches he would always manage to magnetize around him.

    I was in over my head while trying.

    I had my children to care for, I had to make a decision.

    The hardest decision I have ever had to make, which was to walk away and let his fate have him, even though I desperately loved him and tried to stop or reverse it somehow.

    After the Divorce, I spent a few years obsessing about him and what I could have done different, in regret.”

    Here is part of what she wrote after Michael’s death:

    “I am going to say now what I have never said before because I want the truth out there for once.

    I loved him very much.

    Our relationship was not ‘a sham’ as is being reported in the press. It was an unusual relationship yes, where two unusual people who did not live or know a ‘Normal life’ found a connection, perhaps with some suspect timing on his part. Nonetheless, I do believe he loved me as much as he could love anyone and I loved him very much. I wanted to ‘save him’, I wanted to save him from the inevitable which is what has just happened.

    His family and his loved ones also wanted to save him from this as well but didn’t know how and this was 14 years ago. We all worried that this would be the outcome then.

    At that time, In trying to save him, I almost lost myself.

    He was an incredibly dynamic force and power that was not to be underestimated. When he used it for something good, It was the best and when he used it for something bad, It was really, REALLY bad.

    Mediocrity was not a concept that would even for a second enter Michael Jackson’s being or actions.

    I became very ill and emotionally/ spiritually exhausted in my quest to save him from certain self-destructive behavior and from the awful vampires and leeches he would always manage to magnetize around him.

    I was in over my head while trying.

    I had my children to care for, I had to make a decision.

    The hardest decision I have ever had to make, which was to walk away and let his fate have him, even though I desperately loved him and tried to stop or reverse it somehow.

    After the Divorce, I spent a few years obsessing about him and what I could have done different, in regret.”

    I think we all can agree that MIchael was a very, very complicated man. All that we can hope for is to learn bits of pieces from those who knew him well. I”d love to know who those five or six people were who Lisa Marie felt knew the “real” Michael and hear what they had to say.

    One of those in his inner circle might be Miko Brando, but he has never spoken a word about MIchael since his death, which is probably why Michael trusted.

    1. I think that is an interesting point that perhaps only five or six people ever really knew the “authentic” Michael. It may help explain, in part, why so many people who did actually know him (but only in a professional sense, like most of those interviewed for this doc) continue to uphold the popular media version of him. It may be genuinely because, in their experience, that was the Michael they knew, without ever seemingly realizing that they may have only been seeing the facet of him that he chose to give them-his professional face, so to speak. It would make sense that even those who only knew him on a professional level might have only known the Michael that Michael wanted them to know, and that would have been the facet that he presented as his public image. They, in turn, would have bought into the idea that “this is what he was like because I was around him and saw it myself.” When you really stop to think about it, this goes a long way in explaining why there are so many contradictory versions (even from the people who knew Michael) about “who he really was” and “what he was really like,” etc. In some ways, I believe that most of them are being honest insofar as their own experience allows, which is why I agree it is important to accept all of those “bits and pieces” and to not rule out any one source based on personal bias. But a bigger concern with most documentaries, like this one, is both in the selectivity of who is interviewed and how those interviews are then edited. If the people behind it already have an agenda of how they want Michael to be portrayed, they can easily manipulate the entire project to serve that purpose. Who really knows, for example, what ended up on the cutting room floor from these interviews?

      As I had mentioned in a previous comment, I don’t think Michael was ever going out of his way to consciously project an asexual image, although in the earlier phase of his career, he did very much project a moral image (but that is not the same thing; many young celebs from Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus to Justin Bieber have portrayed themselves as pure and virginal until coming of age; of course most of them have also rebelled and gone the other way to the extreme). For the Jacksons, morality and purity was a very important part of their family image. Janet, likewise, courted a very pure and virginal image in the early phase of her career. However, Lisa Marie did make a good point. There came a time when the embracing of the “mysterious eccentric” image was no longer working for him, but it seemed he could never quite be comfortable with letting that guard down. Yet, all of the times when he did (perhaps with the exception of the Martin Bashir doc, but that was only because Bashir was a manipulative prick) it always had a very positive impact on his PR, even if albeit it was usually all too short lived. I am not sure that Michael ever fully grasped the idea that people loved him most when they were able to see him as fully down to earth and human; when he allowed us to truly see his vulnerabilities and to own up to them. Also, in his mature years-and especially in the aftermath of the Chandler scandal-he did gradually distance himself from the whole “Peter Pan/Kid Power” image (the “Ghosts” short film was really the last gasp of that era, and even that was simply a carryover from an earlier abandoned project from the early 90’s) but by then much of the PR damage was already done. In the public mind, the image of Michael Jackson that most readily came to mind was the overgrown man/child trying to compensate for his own lost childhood by surrounding himself constantly with children, rather than adult relationships and pursuits. It’s a pseudo myth, partially created out of Michael’s own PR, that persists to this day and continues to cloud the public perception of him, in ways both benign and negative.

Leave a Reply