Rare Outtakes From Oprah Interview Surface

I’ve been enjoying watching these. They seem to be rather new, since it doesn’t look like they have a lot of YT views yet. It’s fun to watch Michael in casual interactions like this. Part Two does not seem to have surfaced yet.



23 thoughts on “Rare Outtakes From Oprah Interview Surface”

  1. Thanks Raven!What a beautiful gift you have given us!
    And Michael looks so sweet, but, at certain times, so deeply himself, sometimes a little shameful, a little bored, excited, he was really a special creature!

  2. I only knew about them after I saw some people sharing them on Twitter. It is especially interesting to watch his reactions to viewing himself. He always seems embarrassed, yet intensely interested in how the camera has captured him.

  3. Dear Raven. Please can you tell me what I have to do to view the pictures? All I can see are two empty boxes with a little ‘x’ in the top left hand corners. Do I have to add some function to my laptop?

    1. I don’t know. They show up fine, and play fine, on my computer. It may be that your laptop is downloading the page too slowly. In that case, they might show up if you just wait a bit longer than normal. Other than that, I really have no idea what might be going on. I’m sorry, wish I could be more helpful but I don’t know.

      Here are the direct Youtube links:


  4. Yeah, Arnie’s big head pops into frame, too. What’s obvious is that, unlike most of us, Michael thought of his bedroom as a gathering place where friends were entertained. Surely there were other televisions available at Neverland, but he allowed all these people into his private space to flop on his bed. Having the children of friends do that was no big deal to him, and no indication of nefarious motives on his part.

  5. Oh, Raven. Thanks so much for that and taking the trouble. Michael was so beautiful in his beautiful Neverland. I have never seen those shots before. I noticed how they wouldn’t let him even drive a golf cart, but maybe that was so they could get the pix of him and Oprah as if they were driving, and pointing to the attractions. He was laughing as the whole set up seemed so funny. He came across as a very normal and human interacting with all his friends, and what great friends! What a lovely way to end my day.

  6. I’ve watched these a few times and find myself wondering who originally posted them. I don’t think of these as “outtakes” of the interview itself. More like the product of a photographer in the bedroom recording the reactions of people watching the interview on television. I’ve read that Michael recorded everything, so perhaps this is from his photographer. Well, whatever the source, it’s great to see Michael relaxed at his Neverland paradise and truly understandable why he loved his home.

    1. Something that struck me as interesting is that here was Michael, being filmed as he was watching himself on film. There are tons of footage like this, where we see, for example, his photo shoots being photographed, or his videos and documentaries being shot while he was shooting them. I suppose it’s the nature of the celebrity lifestyle. The camera is always at the center of everything. It reminds me of those games we’ve all played where you open a big box only to find a slightly smaller box inside; you open that one, only to find a still smaller box within. And you realize that this is something that could go on indefinitely, layer after layer. Sometimes Michael’s life seemed a bit like that to me, as if everything was a shot inside of a shot inside of a shot. No wonder that sometimes it may have become difficult to know where “real” life began and ended, because even “real” life was often played out in front of a camera.

  7. No matter how many times I watch him, I am always blown away by how sweet, gentle and beautiful he is.

    In panning the room, I was taken aback by the framed picture over the bed. It’s the most affecting image from my Catholic childhood: Jesus of the Sacred Heart. It illuminates Jesus’ compassion and suffering, and more moving than I can describe. I have often looked at it and thought of Michael. I’ll leave it at that…

  8. On another subject altogether–media editorials regarding Woody Allen & Philip Setmour Hoffman.

    I don’t know why people aren’t all over the internet calling out the hypocrisy of these media pundits who are proselytizing that cases Like Allen’s “should not be judged in the court of public opinion.”

    These are the same people who have led the charge in the public lynching of Michael Jackson.

    I can’t believe no one has stepped forward to point this out. Shame on all of them, and on us, too, if we don’t speak out! Otherwise it’s like “a lamb to the slaughter” for Michael once again.

    It’s like Peter refusing to defend Christ for fear of being associated with and/or losing his own life.

    “Justice is blind” my ass!–when the only thing a biased and deranged media can scream at the world regarding Michael Jackson is “Crucify him!”

    1. Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking for the past 2 weeks now. MJ fans our voices need to be heard regarding this matter. It is so obvious that the media is protecting Woody Allen, unlike the witchhunt campaign that was leveled against MJ. This case is not new, but broke out in 93 and went away after MJ’s case became public fodder. Isn’t it interesting that Woody’s public image and career went unscathed after these allegations which received little media scrutiny, while MJ endured 20 years of shame, ridicule and a constant cloud of “guilt” in the court of public opinion despite being exonerated in a court of law – where it really matters. As Corey Feldman stated in his interviews for his book, pedophilia is the number one problem in Hollywood and I honestly feel that MJ was used as a sheld, a scapegoat, and a distraction from the real pedophiles. Please let’s make some noise regarding this blatant media bias, hypocrisy, and double standard.

    2. Well…. maybe these journalists have actually *learned* something in the intervening years; I think it’s possible. I’ve also been following the reports on Woody Allen (and to a lesser extent, Philip Seymour Hoffman) recently, yet I draw somewhat different conclusions from it.

      Of all the articles I’ve read on the Woody Allen debacle (many of which propose comparisons between Allen and other public figures who have been accused of similar crimes in the past), very *little* mention has actually been made of Michael Jackson. It’s almost as if an unspoken agreement has been reached, whereby journalists have decided that there’s been enough scandal attached to his name. Or maybe the hounds have simply moved on to other, more current prey ( Justin Bieber, for instance).

      So, if the reporting on scandals and deaths of public figures has become more generous and compassionate (though I’m *not* holding out much hope for that kind of civility!), then wouldn’t this development be a cause for celebration, rather than complaint? Maybe the consciousness has shifted, and the idea that people shouldn’t be tried in a “court of public opinion” has gained more traction recently….

      Are you SURE, Isha, that you’d want to “make some noise” about this? Wouldn’t such a move, at this point, only be drawing attention to something that’s best forgotten?


      Thanks for posting these clips, Raven. They reveal so much about the degree of artifice that’s really involved in these seemingly “candid” interviews! Especially the part where Michael and Oprah are being asked to pose for the camera in a series of stills.

      1. I suppose there are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, it may be good that journalists today aren’t referencing Michael Jackson every time Woody’s name is mentioned. But their silence on the matter doesn’t necessarily equate to any admittance of wrongdoing in regards to the past. I put it more on the level with those tabloids who yanked the fake story about Blanket, but refused to officially retract it. There is more balance now than in the past, of course, especially if you compare the coverage now to that of 2003 through about 2006 or so, but I think that has more to do with the passage of time (the accusations and the trial are simply not as fresh in public memory) and, of course, his death, which mitigated a lot of the media hostility. But when you compare how the media handled those initial accusations against Woody in 1993, as compared to the Chandler allegations against Michael, it becomes easier to see that there is an apparent double standard. And it burns me up now to see people like Andrea Peyser saying we should “leave Woody Allen alone” while knowing this same woman has routinely referred to Michael as a “sick” and “twisted” pedophile in many printed rants. Peyser has the nerve to say she doesn’t believe the allegations against Allen. Yet she was no more “there” when this alleged abuse occurred than she was when any alleged abuse occurred to Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvizo, so why is one case any more worthy of belief (or denial) than the other? If one is truly an objective journalist, that is.

        While I definitely believe the double standard exists, however (that is, to the degree and extent that MJ was made the victim of a public lynching) I don’t believe that any celebrity these days, no matter how big, is immune to the kind of ridicule and ostracism that comes with being accused of a crime or involved in a scandal, especially something as heinous as child molestation. Even if Hollywood circles the wagons around its own, that doesn’t mean the general public isn’t sitting in judgment on them. And in cases that have been especially heinous (O.J. Simpson; Ian Watkins, etc) any chance at public redemption seems pretty much nil. But as I wrote in my piece comparing the media’s coverage of the MJ case to Watkins, what bothers me most is when you see how little difference there was/is when you make that comparison. Michael was never treated objectively in the press; never presumed innocent, with but a few exceptions and I can count those articles mostly on one hand. He was villified as one who had already been tried and convicted.

        But if we cast aside such extreme, diehard hatemongers as Peyser, Diane Dimond, Orth, etc., most journalists today know that anything said about Michael Jackson is always going to come full circle back to the old stand-by “We simply don’t know; he was never convicted and regardless of what we think, that is where it has to lie.” Like anything else, when there is no longer any fresh or exciting new spins to put on a story, it loses its luster. And I think that goes pretty far in explaining why his name simply doesn’t come up as often as a point of comparison in articles about Allen and others. But as I have said here before, there does seem to be a new generation of journalists coming to the front who do not seem quite as prone to the witch hunt mentality of some of their forebears. If that is the case, it can only mean a step up the ladder of civility.

        1. I think the main reason Woody Allen is not being compared to Michael Jackson is because Woody comes off looking horrible. Dylan Farrow is made sick by Woody’s lifetime achievement awards, and can’t stand any mention of him, while Garvin Arvizo bops to Michael’s music at his wedding, with a grin on his face. Michael never took lewd photos of Jordan Chandler, the Arvizos, or Wade Robson, while Woody left porno shots of Soon-Yi out in the open for her mother to find. Woody was in therapy for his “inappropriate” obsession with Dylan. In nearly every photo with Woody, Dylan looks stressed and unhappy. Woody jokes about sex with underage girls in most of the films he’s made. There are no such ‘hints’ in Michael’s work. Woody is constantly seen holding the hand of his adopted Asian daughter, who is really too old for that; the white daughter seems to be constantly fending him off.

          There’s tons more evidence suggestive of Woody’s guilt than Michael’s. That’s why the media doesn’t make the comparison. BTW I read that Peyser is related to Woody Allen. If true, it explains a lot.

  9. While the double standards are so blatant that its ridiculous, why drag Michael into it. He has nothing to do with Woody Allens problems . If we ever want to get rid of the stigma we should stop refering to him every time child abuse is in the news.

  10. When you say “double standard,” are you referring to the way race plays an inextricable part in determining someone’s culpability? Just wondering if you mean that Michael Jackson is black, and therefore gets pilloried for a certain (alleged) crime, whereas Woody Allen, a white man, gets a pass.

    1. I can’t speak for Sina, but in my case I haven’t thought about it so much as a racial issue. I just know it obviously exists. But I would chalk it up more to Allen being a long established and entrenched member of Hollywood society, whereas Michael (even in his triumphant heyday) was always viewed more as an oddball outsider to the establishment. I liken it to the way “Old Money” people look down on “New Money” people. Hollywood, and by default the media, always circles the wagons around their own. But their does seem to be a tendency to villify black artists more than white ones, even when the same crimes are involved. Perhaps some of it is done on a sub conscious level, I don’t know. But it is obviously there. Chuck Berry went to prison for doing no more than what Elvis got away with for years. With white artists, there seems to be more of a tendency to extend benefit of the doubt, and to hang onto it for as long as possible until some smoking gun surfaces. But black artists have always been victims of a certain “thug mentality” among the establishment. And I think the media reflects that. A black artist is almost always more likely to be presumed guilty of his or her alleged crime, and accordingly lynched in the press. History has borne this out, time and again. In fact, I am developing a piece right now on that very topic (though it may not be “post ready” for some time yet). I certainly believe that in Michael’s case it wasn’t “just” his race. I think there were many contributing factors, but all of them combined made for one very heady brew.

      1. I agree with Raven that there is an old boys’ network that dominates the media, medics, business ,entertainment and legislation with strong lobbies in politics. However these networks originated and developed along ethnic lines of the dominant culture and even today hardly include African- , Native-, Asian- or Latin Americans.
        Michael met more heads of state , royalty, and dignitaries than the Walters, Dimonds and Peysers of this world combined, but would never be allowed in their inner sanctum, despite his wealth, worldwide appreciation and his association with old Hollywood :Taylor, Fisher, Minelli, Brando, some of whom got away with conduct that for Michael would be unforgivable.
        Is it a coincidence that the same media(Dimond, Peyser Walters)who now demand privacy for WA, verbally lynched MJ when he was ACCUSED of the same crime, shortly after WA.
        The way WA is questioned by only a handful of media is a far cry from the way MJ was scrutinized and in no way affects WAs personal life, businesses and career the way it did Michaels. The same goes for Polanski who was convicted of a crime but simply escaped and lived happily ever after.
        Is it a coincidence that most of the faux convicts who spend decades in prison before their innocence is acknowledged, are black men.

        Imagine for a second if in a 47yr old MJs home secretly shot, pornographic photos of let’s say LMP’s 19/20 year old daughter were found. Would they also make excuses that it was consensual, that she was of legal age and that they are not(blood) related, even after his(WA) own child accused him of sexual abuse. WA deserves the benefit of the doubt as it was never proven in a court of law, but Michael was already guilty in the eyes of the public, the media and many lawyers, only for being accused.

        But even if the double standards re culpability are class rather than race related, does not make the it less abject.

  11. This country was founded on racism. Black people were bought and sold in the public square. Jim Crow laws in the south and discrimination in the north made it extremely difficult for black citizens to “secure the blessings of liberty” for generations. Why on earth would anyone have the slightest doubt that the media and ‘justice’ system lynching of Michael Jackson was racially motivated?

    1. I don’t think there is any doubt of that. But I think in Michael’s case, there were many complex factors. To put it all down to race is, I think, too simplistic. If it were as simple as that, then all successful black artists would be similarly taken down by the same means. However, it is fair to say that few black artists have achieved the LEVEL of global fame and power that Michael achieved, and indeed I believe that was very threatening to the establishment. It’s one thing to be a commercially succesful, Grammy award winning artist who makes great music; quite another when said artist suddenly owns a huge chunk of the establishment’s profits. There are a lot of things that I find disturbing, such as how the Illuminati rumors almost universally target successful black artists and/or successful black people like Oprah Winfrey and Obama. (While I’m certainly no huge fan of Oprah, going so far as to call her a “Luciferian” is just ridiculous). I do believe there is a definite undercurrent of fear and paranoia against blacks who become too powerful, whether politically or in entertainment. It’s much more subtle than in the past, but that doesn’t mean it is any less real. It is certainly not something that can be ignored or swept under the rug when we discuss what happened to Michael Jackson, and that would never be my intent. I just think we also have to acknowledge that it is not the only factor. As I said, I believe in Michael’s case it was many complex issues, certainly far more than I can cover in one comment (or even one post). But this is a topic I am especially sensitive to right now, since I have been deeply engrossed the last few weeks in reading many of the famous African-American authors of the Harlem Renaissance (I am teaching American Lit this semester) and what many of them endured as succesful writers and celebrities at a time when white society still called all the shots, and when you knew to a certain extent that, no matter how good you were or how talented, you had to deliver what the white liberals wanted-that is, if you wanted to eat and survive. This has given me an excellent opportunity to reflect on what happened in Michael’s case from a historical perspective, and I will be writing some posts on this topic in the very near future.

Leave a Reply