Stephen Campbell
/10 5 years ago
**_A difficult-to-watch examination of grooming and the psychological scars engendered by abuse_**
> _It's not sexual, we're going to sleep. I tuck them in. It's very charming, it's very sweet. Kids want to be loved, they want to be touched, they want to be held._
- Michael Jackson; Living with Michael Jackson: A Tonight Special; ITV (February 3, 2003)
> _Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind. He was a close friend of mine for 2__0 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk._
- Wade Robson; "My Mentor"; The Official Michael Jackson Opus (2009)
>_Michael Jackson is our brother and son. We are furious that the media, who without a shred of proof or single piece of physical evidence, chose to believe the word of two admitted liars over the word of hundreds of families and friends around the world who spent time with Michael, many at Neverland, and experienced his legendary kindness and global generosity. We are proud of what Michael Jackson stands for._
>_People have always loved to go after Michael. He was an easy target because he was unique. But Michael was subjected to a thorough investigation which included a surprise raid of Neverland and other properties as well as a jury trial where Michael was found to be COMPLETELY INNOCENT. There has never been one piece of proof of anything. Yet the media is eager to believe these lies._
>_Michael always turned the other cheek, and we have always turned the other cheek when people have gone after members of our family - that is the Jackson way. But we can't just stand by while this public lynching goes on, and the vulture tweeters and others who never met Michael go after him. Michael is not here to defend himself, otherwise these allegations would not have been made._
>_The creators of this film were not interested in the truth. They never interviewed a single solitary soul who knew Michael except the two perjurers and their families. That is not journalism, and it's not fair, yet the media are perpetuating these stories._
>_But the truth is on our side. Go do your research about these opportunists. The facts don't lie, people do. Michael Jackson was and always will be 100% innocent of these false allegations._
- Jackson family statement in response to Leaving Neverland première at Sundance (January 28, 2019)
>_Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist. It was apparent for decades that Jackson's cotton-candy lair was sulphurous. But as with other monsters - Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Singer - many turned a blind eye. Celebrity supersedes criminality. How can you see clearly when you're looking into the sun? How can an icon be a con?_
- Maureen Dowd; "The King of Pop - and Perversion"; The New York Times (February 16, 2019)
>_His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has. You can say 'molested', but those children, as you heard, say they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn't kill them._
- Barbara Streisand; "Barbra Streisand at 76: dog cloning, art collecting and being a grandma" (Ryan Pfluger) The Times (March 22, 2019)
_Leaving Neverland_ is not about Michael Jackson. It's not about Wade Robson. It's not about James Safechuck. It's about how paedophiles groom not just their victims, but their victims' families. It's about the complicated relationship that victims can form with their abusers. It's about the myriad of reasons that can conspire to prevent victims from coming forward, and in some cases, even deny that any abuse has taken place at all. It's about how the effects of childhood sexual abuse linger into adulthood, coursing through the victims' veins like a psychological lymphoma. Certainly the prejudices one brings to this documentary will colour how receptive one is to the accusations contained therein. Fans will argue, as they have for a long time, that Jackson didn't have a childhood, that he himself was a victim of non-sexual abuse at the hands of his father, that he was an innocent at heart who simply liked to make children happy, that his soul was generous to a fault. However, even his most fervent admirers have always found it difficult to rationalise the fact that this grown man chose to surround himself with prepubescent boys, with whom he would hold hands in public and share his bed in private. That's not normal, and no amount of blinkered rhetoric can render it so.
Undoubtedly, the documentary is unbalanced. However, it makes no claim to be a comprehensive presentation of both sides; no attempt was made to contact the Jackson estate, any of his family, or anyone who knew or worked for him, limiting itself instead to interviews with Robson, Safechuck, and each man's family. It also omits information concerning the ongoing lawsuits Robson and Safechuck have filed against the estate. Furthermore, it's aesthetically bland, with the majority of the runtime taken up with visually flat talking-head interviews filmed in standard mid-shots and close-ups. As an artistic endeavour, _Leaving Neverland_ offers virtually nothing of interest. However, this is very much by design; director Dan Reed (_Straightheads_; _Terror in Mumbai_; _Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks_) isn't concerned with bells and whistles or smoke and mirrors. This isn't a tabloid depiction of a salacious celebrity scandal – rather it has a troubling story to tell, an important point to make, a relevant theme to explore, and it wants to do so as unencumbered by the trappings of form as it can; think of it as the documentarian equivalent of an Ernest Hemingway short story. Is it artistic? Not in the slightest. Is it persuasive? That's really up to each viewer. Is it compelling, difficult to watch, and empathetic? Absolutely. It doesn't need to be as long as it is, and the lack of balance unquestionably leaves it open to criticism, but all things considered, this is an exceptional examination of grooming and the psychological effects of abuse.
So, before jumping into looking at the film itself, some background information may be useful (if you're already familiar with the events, you probably won't find much of interest in the next few paragraphs). In November 1987, whilst Jackson was in Australia on the _Bad World Tour_ (1987-1989), five-year-old Jackson-fanatic Wade Robson won a dance competition, the first prize of which was to meet the man himself backstage after a concert in Brisbane. However, Jackson was so impressed with Wade that he brought him on stage and let him do a dance number, beginning a relationship that would see Jackson remain in constant contact with Wade over the next few years.
In December, ten-year-old actor James Safechuck was cast in Jackson's new Pepsi commercial. Although he wasn't a fan before the shoot, the two became friends, with Jackson also growing close to James's mother Stephanie. Soon enough, Jackson was spending nights in the Safechuck's San Fernando home (according to Stephanie, "_he was like my son. I even washed his clothes_"). In February 1988, Jackson brought the Safechucks to Hawaii for a Pepsi convention, and broached the idea of James sleeping in his room, although Stephanie said no. Jackson subsequently brought them on the European portion of the _Bad World Tour_, introducing James to masturbation after a concert in Paris. As Jackson became a trusted friend, Stephanie finally agreed to allow James to sleep in Jackson's room. And once he had unfettered access to James, the abuse began in earnest. Jackson soon introduced him to hardcore porn and alcohol, and told him that he loved him (even staging a _faux_ wedding ceremony, including exchanging vows and giving James a diamond ring), explaining that if people ever found out what they were doing, both of them would spend the rest of their lives in prison. As the relationship grew, he started to isolate James from his family, telling him his mother was mean, and that women are evil.
Meanwhile, in February 1990, the Robsons travelled to the US and stayed at Jackson's Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara. However, when mother Joy, father Dennis, sister Chantal, and Wade's maternal grandparents went to the Grand Canyon for a five-day excursion, Jackson asked if Wade could remain behind with him, and Joy gave her blessing. According to Wade,
>_the first day at Neverland, was Michael making physical contact with me, like his hand on my thigh, hugs, you know. It felt great, and out of all the kids in the world, he chose me to be his friend and he's holding my hand. Within the context of what was going on, it seemed normal._
The following night, Jackson began to fondle Wade's penis, and over the course of the five days, he would try to drive a wedge between Wade and his family, with Wade explaining, "_when my parents came back at the end of week, I definitely remember a feeling of us and them._" Subsequently, whilst Dennis and Joy's parents went to San Francisco as the family had planned, Joy, Wade, and Chantal travelled to LA with Jackson, where both Wade and Chantal would spend the night in Jackson's bed, although according to Chantal, nothing ever happened in front of her. Upon the family heading back to Australia, Jackson would talk on the phone to Wade for hours almost every night. Several months later, Wade and Joy returned to LA when Jackson asked Wade to appear in a photo campaign for LA Gear. As the time approached to return to Australia, Jackson asked Joy if Wade could remain in the US for a year, but Joy said no. She did, however, suggest that they not return to Australia as planned, and instead spend another few months in LA. Around a year later, Joy decided to relocate permanently to LA with Wade, and Chantal chose to join them, leaving Dennis, Wade's older brother Shane, and Joy's parents in Australia. According to Wade, Jackson had promised him a role in the "Black or White" (1991) music video, but when they arrived in LA, the role had already been filled by ten-year-old actor Macaulay Culkin. With Joy and Wade living in rented accommodation, within the first 12 months of their time in LA, Wade only saw Jackson five times. When he asked Jackson if he could join him on the _Dangerous World Tour_ (1992-1993), Jackson said that children weren't allowed, only to then take ten-year-old Brett Barnes.
When Jackson was accused of molesting 13-year-old Jordan Chandler in 1993, Brett Barnes and Wade both publicly stated that although they had often shared a bed with Jackson, nothing sexual had ever happened. Wade was also subpoenaed and in private testimony, he reiterated this claim. James also gave a statement saying the same thing. Wade, Chantal, and Joy appeared on KNBC avowing Jackson's innocence, with Chantal stating, "_I think it's sick personally, because Michael loves little kids, you know, I have known Michael since I was 10 and he's never done anything to me, he's never done anything to my brother._" The three then appeared on CNN, with Wade stating, "_it's just a slumber party, we just have a lot of fun_" and Chantal reiterating, "_I've slept in the same bed as Michael. You just watch cartoons. You fall asleep. It's just a friendship, and I know he would never do anything to hurt my brother. He's the nicest guy you have ever met._" For her part, Joy explained,
>_I've been there when these kids have been in Michael's room. I've been there with them. It is just party time. They eat junk food. They play video games. They play so hard they fall asleep. They're exhausted. They fall asleep. There's nothing more to it than that._
When asked if she thought it was strange that a 34-year-old man had children sleeping in his bed, she answered, "_not when you know Michael's background. Under normal circumstances possibly, yes, but Michael, everybody knows he didn't have a childhood._" Jackson ultimately settled out of court with the Chandler family, paying them $15 million. No criminal charges had been filed. Although it's not covered in the documentary, in 1996, Jackson made another out-of-court settlement when he was accused of molesting ten-year-old Jason Francia, the son of his maid Blanca. This time, he paid out $2 million, again avoiding criminal charges. In 2005, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation relating to 12-year-old cancer patient Gavin Arvizo, stemming partly from comments Jackson made during the 2003 Martin Bashir documentary, _Living with Michael Jackson: A Tonight Special_, in which he acknowledged sharing his bed with Arvizo, explaining, "_it's very charming, it's very sweet. Kids want to be loved, they want to be touched, they want to be held._" Jackson reached out to both Wade and James, but whilst Wade agreed to act as a witness for the defence, along with Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, and Chantal, James refused, telling Stephanie for the first time that Jackson had molested him. Jackson was ultimately found not guilty on all counts. He died in June 2009 from cardiac arrest brought on by acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication.
In the previous decade or so, Wade had become a highly sought-after choreographer, who was seen as something of a child prodigy, having started working with Britney Spears when he was just 16, later choreographing her "I'm a Slave 4 U" (2001) music video and _Dream Within a Dream Tour_ and directing several *NSYNC videos and live shows and co-writing several songs on their 2001 album, _Celebrity_. In 2003, he created his own reality dance show on MTV, _The Wade Robson Project_, and won two Emmys for his work on _So You Think You Can Dance_ in 2007 and 2008. In 2011, he approached the Jackson estate, hoping to direct the Cirque du Soleil show, _Michael Jackson ONE_. However, Jamie King was hired instead. Wade was hired, however, to direct _Step Up Revolution_, but he quit during preproduction, shortly thereafter suffering a nervous breakdown partly brought on by continually seeing mental images of Jackson molesting his infant son, Koa. He suffered another breakdown in 2012, and for the first time, he admitted to being molested, telling his psychiatrist, and subsequently, his family and wife Amanda. In 2013, he went on the _Today Show_, revealing publicly that he had been molested. He also explained that his 1993 and 2005 denials were due to Jackson's "_complete manipulation and brainwashing_". He then sued the Jackson estate for a figure that some sources claim was as high as $1.6 billion, but the suit was dismissed in 2015 because Robson had missed the 12-month statutory deadline after Jackson's death. The judge, however, emphasised that his dismissal of the case was not a ruling on the credibility of the allegations. In 2016, Wade filed "_child sexual abuse_" claims against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, two companies founded by Jackson, which the suit asserted were "_co-conspirators, alter egos, aiders, abettors and agents for childhood sexual abuse_". The suit was dismissed in 2017 when the judge ruled that "_no one other than Michael Jackson had the legal ability or authority to control Michael Jackson._"
As for Safechuck, after several years thinking he was gay, he wed Laura Primack in 2008, and had two children, a son and a daughter. However, after the birth of his son, James began to worry that he could develop "_paedophilic urges_", and so he started seeing a psychiatrist in 2013, and was soon diagnosed with post-traumatic stress, panic disorder, and depression. Seeing Wade admit publicly that he had been molested inspired James to do the same thing, and the two got in touch with one another, with James adding his name to Wade's original suit in 2013. In 2016, like Wade, James brought a suit against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, but it was dismissed in 2018 for the same reasons as Wade's.
_Leaving Neverland_ itself proved controversial even before its broadcast in North America on HBO on March 3 and 4, 2019, and in the UK and Ireland on Channel 4 on March 6 and 7. On February 7, two weeks after the film had screened at the Sundance Film Festival, Howard Weitzman, the Jackson estate's attorney, wrote to HBO chief executive Richard Plepler citing the documentary as "_part of Robson's and Safechuck's legal strategy_", and demanding that HBO cancel the planned broadcast. When they refused, although the estate couldn't sue for defamation of character, as Jackson is dead, they instead sued for $100 million on the grounds that HBO had breached a non- disparagement clause signed in 1992 when the channel had broadcast _Michael Jackson Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour_. HBO denied the breach of contract and went ahead with the broadcast, although Plepler resigned on February 28 after he was allegedly told by a shareholder that by greenlighting _Leaving Neverland_, he'd opened the company up to a nine-figure lawsuit. On May 2, HBO filed a motion arguing that the stipulations from the 1992 contract expired once both sides had fulfilled their obligations, and that the estate's argument that the contract mandated perpetual immunity from disparagement was a misinterpretation. On August 29, HBO sought to dismiss the suit under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which prohibits frivolous lawsuits that threaten free speech in relation to matters of public concern. The estate, however, argued that the suit is a federal matter under the Federal Arbitration Act, and hence California SLAPP law could not take precedence. On September 20, Judge George H. Wu agreed with the estate, and denied HBO's motion to dismiss. At the time of writing, HBO are appealing the ruling.
Outside the legal arena, there was a frenzied response to the film. Significant backlash included some radio stations pulling his music, the withdrawal from circulation of the 1991 _Simpsons_ episode, "Stark Raving Dad", the dropping of Jackson parodies from "Weird Al" Yankovic's _Strings Attached Tour_, and the renaming of a Quincy Jones show in London, from _Quincy Jones Presents: Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad – Three Iconic Albums Performed Back to Back_ to _Quincy Jones Presents: Soundtrack of the '80s – Iconic Songs and Defining Albums_. However, sales of Jackson's catalogue rose significantly in the days after the broadcast, whilst multiple pro-Jackson documentaries appeared, the best known of which is probably Jordan Hill's _Michael Jackson: Chase the Truth_, which was released on Amazon Prime in August. Other examples include Jin Chohan's _Leaving Neverland: The Aftermath_ (released in June), Danny Wu's _Square One_ (released in October), and multiple shorter documentaries. Numerous pro-Jackson websites also appeared online, such as _leavingneverlandfacts.com_, whilst existing websites such as _mjworld.net_, _themichaeljacksonallegations.com_, and _themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com_ published extensive criticisms of the film. On the other side of the equation, immediately following the broadcast of the second half of the film, HBO screened _Oprah Winfrey Presents: After Neverland_, an interview with Wade, James, and Reed after a screening of the film for an audience made up of survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
All of which (finally) brings us to the film itself. According to Reed, _Leaving Neverland_ is a "_study of the psychology of child sexual abuse, told through two ordinary families groomed for twenty years by a paedophile masquerading as a trusted friend._" This is as succinct an overview as you're going to get; the film is less concerned with the actual abuse (although time is certainly given over to that) than with the process of grooming and the psychological aftereffects – both boys genuinely thought they were in a loving romantic relationship with Jackson, and both were devastated when they saw Jackson lose interest in them as they got older. Indeed, so successful had Jackson been in grooming them, that neither realised they'd been molested until years later.
Culled from 27 hours of interview material with Wade and 18 with James, _Leaving Neverland_ is a behemoth, running just under 240 minutes. In a Q&A with _channel4.com_, Reed defended the length, arguing
>_it's four hours long because it's a story that takes four hours to tell in a way that makes it fully understandable in all its complexity. We're involving our audience in the lives of these families and trying to get them to understand all the complicated family dynamics that evolved over years. Why was it the mothers never realised? How could this have gone on for so long? Why didn't Robson or Safechuck tell anyone? And why have they decided to speak about it now, after denying it for so long? The answer to all of that is made plain in the film, but you need to watch the whole thing. So much of it is in the nuance of individual behaviour, relationships, and of the bonds between people. You must go on the journey of these relationships to see how all this went down in detail. We are asking people to dedicate some time to best understand and process this extraordinary testimony._
Similarly, he told _Variety_,
>_it's four hours because it's the history of two families over 20 years. It's only by telling that story and threading the theme through the story and building the characters and getting to know the family and getting to know the relationships and understanding what happened that you can really understand why it was that Wade changed his story and how it was that the sexual abuse at the hands of Michael Jackson manifested itself, why he didn't understand what it was and how it all happened, in the greatest detail, and I think the four-hour platform is the shortest way to tell the story._
Interestingly enough, despite the runtime, the only interviewees are, on the Robson side, Wade, Joy (mother), Chantal (sister), Shane (brother), Lorraine Jean Cullen (maternal grandmother), and Amanda Rodriguez (wife), whilst on the Safechuck side there's James, Stephanie (mother), and Laura Primark (wife). Concerning this, Reed explains,
>_the focus of the documentary is deliberately narrow. I did interview former detectives and prosecutors from the two principal investigations into Jackson, but I realised that the families' telling of the story was so complete already. The changes within the family – mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives – become the echo chamber of the story. You feel like you are inside the family, and I felt that interviews from the public sphere would break that spell and place us back on the outside._
As the main subjects, Wade and James couldn't be more different, despite the similarities of their stories. Wade, who is used to talking to journalists and appearing in the public eye, is equal parts quiet anger and wilful determination, whereas James is far more melancholy and subdued, his haunted psychology more apparent at the surface level. Tellingly, whereas Wade speaks always in first-person past, James often speaks in second-person present. So, for example,
>_Michael has a lot of great attributes and he's great in a lot of ways, and you love him in a lot of ways, and then Michael does these things to you that are not healthy, but you still have love for him, so it's really hard to have those two feelings together._
Coming out of its Sundance première, where the documentary initially made waves was in the graphic descriptions of the various sex acts, with each man telling a broadly similar story – non-sexual physical contact would progress to more intimate touching before moving into overtly sexual activity; both men say that Jackson liked them to bend over and spread their ass cheeks whilst he masturbated, both say that he liked having his nipples squeezed and sucked, both say that he enjoyed receiving fellatio, both say he had rigged up a series of alarms in Neverland which would warn him of anyone approaching long before they got to the bedroom. Indeed, so graphic are the descriptions that the HBO website for the film includes a "Viewing Support Guide", which advises, "_if the material becomes overwhelming and you are concerned about receiving content that may negatively impact you or you become distressed, allow yourself to take a break, walk away, or turn it off._"
Aesthetically, the film is as plain as possible. Whereas Wade and James's accounts are graphic and difficult to hear, they are never sensationalised, with Reed allowing their words to speak for themselves – there's no cutaways to experts telling us what to think, no graphics or voice-over to tie the individual stories into a larger socio-political canvas, no montages with on-the-nose musical cues to suture us into the 80s timeframe. Indeed, at times, Reed's camera sits patiently as an interviewee formulates their thoughts – a kind of "dead air" that one doesn't find in most documentaries, and which has the effect of giving the film an unhurried vibe.
This tendency to leave the stories unadorned ties into the usage of such a small pool of interviewees – this is Wade and James's story, and anything or anyone which can't speak to that very specific rubric isn't featured. Something else Reed omits is any attempt to tie Jackson's behaviour back to his own abusive upbringing. It's mentioned a couple of times, but the film makes no attempt to portray Jackson as somehow less culpable because he didn't have a childhood. In fact, it makes no attempt to portray him at all. Again, this is Wade and James's story, and for better or worse, Reed concerns himself with only that story and how the abuse rippled out through the two families. Thus we have Chantal, who was convinced for decades that nothing untoward had ever happened, who defended Jackson in public and in court, and who was left utterly deflated by Wade's accusations; Amanda and Laura, each of whom only learned of the abuse after they were married and had had a son, and each of whom dug in, determined to help their spouse; Shane, who had to sit by helplessly as his family imploded around him; Joy and Stephanie, whose own desires seemed to override their maternal instincts, leading to them ignoring red flag after red flag after red flag (although Joy is significantly worse in this respect than Stephanie), and who today are working as much to forgive themselves as they are to atone to their children. In relation to this, Stephanie explains,
>_I didn't protect my son. That will always, always haunt me. I had one job. I had one child. And I had one job. And I fucked up. So, I had all these months of loving my life with Michael, and travelling, and living the good life, so to speak, all those wonderful moments, it was all based on the suffering of my son. My son had to suffer for me to have this life._
For her part, Joy states simply, "_maybe I can forgive him, at some point, if I tried to understand that he was sick. But forgiving myself is another thing. I don't know if I will ever do that._"
However, as much as the film indicts the parents, so too does it indict society at large. Reed continuously cuts from the talking-head interviews to archival footage of Robson and Safechuck as boys in Jackson's presence (as well as giving us fleeting glimpses of Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes). By doing this, Reed can wordlessly comment on the collective societal obliviousness and blind hero worship that allowed Jackson to publicly surround himself with children without anyone standing up and saying, "_this is kinda weird_". And just as people such as R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, and Bill O'Reilly got away with predatory behaviour, Jackson's celebrity was simply too big, dwarfing any sense of criminality; his star power was such that we dismissed what, in hindsight, was textbook grooming, as we put his fondness for prepubescent boys down to nothing more than his young-at-heart idiosyncrasy. Of course, that this was the case with Jackson really shouldn't surprise anyone, as the times haven't changed that much; after all, Donald Trump has been accused of multiple sexual assaults, including at least one rape, and is on tape bragging about how he can sexually assault women with impunity because he's famous. And how was he punished? He was elected President. Celebrity Trumps criminality (pun very much intended).
Unsurprisingly, forgiveness is a major theme. James revealed to Stephanie that Jackson had abused him in 2005, eight years before Wade would tell Joy, and although he seems to find it difficult to accept that Stephanie failed to protect him, he is on the road. Wade, however, seems as if he has much further to go, and in a heartbreaking moment, we learn that when he told Joy about what had really happened, he also told her he no longer loves her. Along similar lines, Shane states,
>_I don't know if I'll ever really fully forgive her for what happened to the family and what happened to Wade. I still love her, still support her as much as I can, but there's some things that I don't know if I can forgive._
Of course, another major theme is the manipulative nature inherent to grooming. As Oprah Winfrey says in _After Neverland_, "_this wasn't just sexual abuse, it was also sexual seduction._" However, it was also non-sexual seduction of the child's family, and the more successful the grooming, the harder it is for the child to recover as they grow into adulthood. Reed tells _channel4.com_,
>_I wanted people to understand that when a child is groomed by a predator, it's a very complex relationship. The parents are manipulated. It's all very gentle, and often manifested as love to the child. The families still hang onto the mentorship, love and attention that Jackson brought into their lives, and find themselves grappling with the contradictions of their relationship._
He also explains the process by which an abuser undermines the child's parents;
>_you insert yourself into the family so that you can ultimately isolate and separate the child. You charm the parents, usually flattering the mother while keeping the father at a distance until you can substitute yourself – remember, Robson talks about wanting Jackson to be his "real father." Privately, with the child, you undermine the parents, particularly the mother, which Jackson did to both boys, encouraging them to blame their mothers as their marriages started to fall apart. You become everything to the child: father, brother, mentor, then sexual abuser. The child is overwhelmed and can't reach out and connect to the things that had previously formed their identity._
Tied into this is that both men admit they still love Jackson to a certain extent, so completely were they in love with him as children.
Another significant theme, and again, something that's more pronounced the more successful the grooming is, is that neither boy realised he was being abused as it was happening. In After Neverland, Wade explains,
>_I had no understanding of it being abused. I loved Michael, and all the times that I testified, and the many, many times that I gushed over him publicly in the interviews, that was from a real place. But having no understanding that it was abuse, having no concept in my mind that anything about Michael could ever be bad, everything that Michael did was right to me for so many years._
In this sense, the film is as much about the complex, often contradictory relationships that victims can develop with their abusers as it is with the abuse itself. This speaks to why both Wade and James lied for so long – they weren't just lying to other people, they were lying to themselves without fully realising it. And ultimately, the film suggests that rather than being indicative of a fabrication, such falsehoods are a normal and understandable reaction to sustained abuse – the compulsion to keep the secret is an intrinsic element of that which is being kept secret, with Wade stating, "_I want to be able to speak the truth as loud as I had to speak the lie for so long._"
Of course, there are problems, several of which I've already touched on. The imbalance for example. I understand why Reed confined his interviews to just Wade, James, and their families, but by doing so, he has opened himself and the film (and HBO) up to a not illegitimate form of attack – "_look how unbalanced this hit piece is, it's all from their perspective, no check and balances._" Indeed, the only opposing viewpoints presented are those in the form of archival footage of Jackson, and YouTube videos of hysterical Jackson fans wishing fire and brimstone on Wade and, to a lesser extent, James. And because this makes the film easier to critique, it makes it easier to dismiss, and thus easier to ignore, which is pretty much the opposite of what you want to happen as a documentarian.
Another problem is that it doesn't need to be four-hours long. Two probably wouldn't have been enough, but three would have been spot on. There are several lengthy narrative digressions that, although they help to flesh out the home lives of Wade and James, do very little to inform the allegations against Jackson. Reed also tends to use drone shots of LA, Neverland, and Brisbane. Nothing wrong with doing that to establish setting, but he uses it time and time again throughout the film, almost like paragraph breaks, and it becomes both repetitive and, eventually, irritating. Indeed, as already mentioned, from an aesthetic perspective, the film is exceptionally bland, doing virtually nothing that one could describe as visually interesting. Again, I understand what Reed is aiming at here, but for a four-hour film to consist almost exclusively of archival footage and talking-head interviews (and drone shots), it really wouldn't have hurt to switch things up a bit.
And then, of course, there are the omissions, which have proven to be a red flag to a bull for Jackson fans. For example, that Wade is suing the Jackson estate is mentioned once, very briefly, and never alluded to again. That James is also suing the estate is never mentioned at all. Along the same lines, there's no mention of the fact that Brandi Jackson, Michael's niece, has claimed she and Wade dated from 1992 to 1999 (although, to be fair, she didn't reveal this until after the documentary had aired, and if she's lying, which Reed says is the case, obviously it wouldn't have been mentioned in the film).
In the end, the lack of balance is a significant problem, but not to the extent that it undermines the way Reed presents the accusations, the way he teases out the process of grooming, the way he unflinchingly presents the abuse itself, the way he comes to focus on the years after the abuse ended – the film's cumulative effect is startlingly raw and generally persuasive. It looks at the process by which Jackson manoeuvred himself into a position to abuse the boys as much as at the abuse itself and at the psychological effects of telling the lie for so long as much as at the lie itself. In this sense, this is a hugely valuable document, not necessarily in terms of the specifics of Wade and James's stories, but in relation to the broader issues of child sexual abuse, and the misconceptions that permeate the zeitgeist. Whether one chooses to believe the claims contained within depends entirely on each individual viewer, but irrespective of one's acceptance or denial, the film opens a very important dialogue in a very public sphere in a manner which has never quite before been seen.
