Leaving Neverland.

Leaving Neverland, the new, four-hour documentary airing exclusively on HBO, is a difficult watch. Two men who say that Michael Jackson sexually molested them repeatedly over a period of many years repeat those claims on camera in unsparing detail, which in and of itself would be a painful and infuriating scene to see and hear, but that’s only a small part of what makes this film both powerful and very uncomfortable. It’s far more than a new indictment of Jackson, whose status as a serial sexual abuser is beyond doubt (and beyond remedy) at this point, but serves more as a portrait of the spiraling, exponential damage wrought on their victims and their families years after the abuse has stopped.

Wade Robson and James Safechuck both say in Leaving Neverland that Jackson began abusing them when they were very young – Robson from age 7, Safechuck around the same age – and that it continued for many years, accompanied by all of the behavior we now associate with serial abusers: grooming, co-opting, and above all threatening. Robson says many times that Jackson convinced him that they would both go to jail if they were caught. Both Robson’s and Safechuck’s mothers appear in the documentary as well, as both were there when Jackson met the boys and fell under the singer’s spell, becoming unwitting accomplices to the abuse, agreeing to let their sons spend many nights sleeping at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch and accepting their sons’ answers at the time that no abuse was taking place.

While the documentary tells the history of the abuse and the public accusations of Jackson while the singer was still alive, including the 1993 accusation by Jordy Chandler, settled out of court for $23 million, and the 2003-04 accusations by Gavin Arvizo, which led to a criminal trial and an acquittal on all charges, it’s far more about the victims here than the pedophile at its center. (That said, there are some shocking moments from historical footage, including one of Jackson’s lawyers standing before the media in 2003, threatening to ruin the lives of anyone who might come forward to accuse Jackson of further crimes.) Robson was born in Brisbane, and won a dance contest that allowed him to meet Jackson, who thoroughly bamboozled Robson’s mother to the point that she left Australia and her husband, taking Wade and his sister Chantal to California in the belief that Jackson would help develop her son’s career as a dancer. Safechuck, who was the boy in the dressing room in that famous Pepsi commercial with Jackson (if you’re old enough, you almost certainly remember it), is an only child, but Jackson’s ‘interest’ in him led his mother to similarly turn their lives upside down to try to further James’ career, driving a wedge between her and his father that persists today. (His father doesn’t appear in the film.)

There’s too much commentary out there already about the mothers’ culpability in allowing the abuse to begin and continue, as well as a comment from one of the jurors in the 2003 trial that Gavin’s parents were idiots for letting the boy sleep with Jackson, but Leaving Neverland documents how well-meaning, loving parents can be hoodwinked by a sociopathic, determined pedophile who has the means to assuage any doubts or, unfortunately, buy them away. He showered the families with gifts, flew them places first-class, gave the boys unforgettable experiences on stage, while also presenting himself to the families as a lonely, misunderstood adult whose childhood was stolen from him by the pressures of global stardom. The way that the victims and their families describe the early stages of Jackson’s grooming of the boys, you can see how someone in the moment might have felt sorry for the singer, whose childhood was obviously difficult and who said he was beaten by his father, but it also becomes clear that Jackson used his past as a wedge he could drive between his victims and their parents – and that he did so with the help of enabling assistants who probably should have long ago been called to account for their actions.

Part one of the documentary delivers a lot of prologue, explaining how the two boys met Jackson and ended up victims, but part two is where the point of the story lies, as we hear, in their own words and those of family members, about the permanent damage wreaked upon them all by Jackson’s abuse. Both men speak of mental health issues, never saying PTSD but clearly suffering from it, and are still coping with their effects, while their relationships with family members are all fractured, some likely beyond any repair. Both mothers are themselves wracked with guilt that will never fade, because the damage cannot be undone, to their sons and to their families, and to other victims who might have been spared had anyone picked up on the signs of abuse and put a stop to Jackson’s ‘sleepovers’ sooner.

Both men describe the molestation in specific terms, which is a potential trigger for some viewers and worth bearing in mind before you watch Leaving Neverland. I was not personally triggered by that, but the part of the documentary – and the online response – I’ve found profoundly unsettling is the support for the abusive pedophile at the heart of the story. We see scenes of supporters outside the courthouse with signs proclaiming Jackson’s innocence (really, how could you know?), including some dingbat releasing white doves when the not guilty charges come through. We see videos of people attacking Robson online from when he went public with his abuse story, contradicting testimony he’d given in the 2003 trial that Jackson had never molested him. And if you’ve been on Twitter at all the last few nights and clicked on the #LeavingNeverland hashtag or searched for names involved in the documentary, you’ve seen all manner of support for the singer, saying he was innocent and attacking the victims and their families. You have to be deeply deluded to think that all four of the accusers we know about have lied about everything, even though these two men tell stories that are highly specific and show a pattern of behavior, to still think Jackson is the real victim here.

Director Dan Reed largely stays out of the way of the story here – aside from some drone shots of LA that don’t add much except some running time – but there is also a clear subtext to Leaving Neverland about the allure of celebrity, and how Jackson used it to seduce the families of both boys, and then to seduce the boys themselves. Both mothers, interviewed very extensively on camera, speak of Jackson’s interest in their sons’ careers and in their families as immensely flattering, and the combination of power and money led them to choose to upend their personal lives and helped blind them to what, in hindsight, should have been blindingly obvious.

Robson’s sister and Safechuck both say that they’re not asking people to forget Jackson’s artistry, but to remember the whole person – that this incredibly talented human was also a pedophile and sexual predator. I don’t see how we can continue to separate the art from the artist in this case, not now that I’ve seen the movie. You can’t simply “cancel” a musician of his importance and influence; we can stop playing Jackson’s music, and certainly Capital One should stop playing its commercial with “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough” now, but Jackson has directly and indirectly influenced multiple generations of pop musicians since “I Want You Back” was their first hit in 1969. There is no erasure here, only a time for an overdue reckoning with his legacy as a talented person who did unspeakable things and ruined many lives. Leaving Neverland won’t convince people who don’t want to hear it, but it is a devastating portrait of grooming, sexual abuse, and the cascading ramifications that come years after it ends.

Comments

  1. Good luck to your spam filter. It might be working hard today.

    • in my experience with posts that might be ‘controversial,’ it’ll be quiet for a few days, maybe weeks, and then a bunch of stans will show up to comment and yell at me (and they’ll get stuck in moderation).

  2. I also watched the documentary and had the same reaction, Keith. Like you, I’m astonished by the outpouring of support for Jackson, even after it has long been documented that he was a serial pedophile. These supporters (apologists?) should ask themselves if they would be so quick to turn the other way if a teacher, cop, lawyer, priest, kindly uncle, construction worker or anyone other than a celebrity did these heinous acts? Reminds me of the anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers who refuse to accept facts simply because they don’t fit with their own uninformed biases.

  3. I have a friend who is a prosecutor in the Child Services department for our county. She once explained the behaviors exhibited by serial pedophiles, and how similar they seem to be for this type of predator. They align exactly with what both victims described, specifically with regards to how the isolate victims, escalate their behavior, and are able to convince them it’s dangerous to them if they tell anyone about it.

  4. When I was 10 years old, I was on a trip to Madrid in 1988 with my Godparents and we happened to be staying at the same hotel as all of Jackson’s people–his team, the roadies, etc–during the “Bad” tour. My Godfather, as he often did, left me and my Godmother in the room while he went downstairs and had many drinks at the bar. He was very good at making friends and found himself talking to one of Michael Jackson’s people. Upon hearing about me and that I was a fan, this man offered to put us on the VIP pass list and personally introduce me to Michael Jackson backstage.

    I was going through a phase where I was becoming a bit more aware of what was “cool” and even I knew then that there was nothing “Bad” about Michael Jackson. I vehemently refused the offer and my baffled Godfather told the guy that we’d made other plans and we moved on with our lives.

    Years later, it occurred to me that that nice gentleman from the bar may just have been out scouting for Michael. I mean, more than likely he just really enjoyed that my Godfather was buying him drinks and felt obligated to put us on the pass list. But there’s always that part of me that thinks he may have been contributing to an active predator.

    Either way, I sure am glad that I felt too cool to see a Michael Jackson show shortly before his downfall.

  5. Michael Sixel

    I’m not suggesting we never listen to his music again, or watch movies starring people that have done bad, or whatever………but……the number of people that think that their favorite (artist, sports’ team, actor, et. al.) person is innocent, no matter what, or that they should be actively cheered for as long as they help their team win….it boggles the mind. People think winning sports’ teams are more important than almost anything. Sports as tribalism.

  6. I think Pete Davidson’s take is another option, if you can stand to listen to it, where you at least offer money to charity that benefits people who have experienced trauma like the artist has (allegedly) perpetrated.

    I don’t care too much if an artist is a general type jerk, a curmudgeon, whatever (I listen to Billy Corgan’s music, for example), but one has to draw the line somewhere, and I think the type of behavior Michael Jackson likely engaged in is enough for me to get him off my phone. His estate doesn’t need my paltry fractions of pennies per listen, but I want to be able to listen to music without feeling guilty for it.

    I saw Michael Jackson “ONE” last year in Las Vegas and it portrays a very strong portrait of a man victimized by the world who persevered. It is possible that man exists. But it is also possible, and at this point seems very likely, that he victimized others. I just can’t listen to it anymore.