Film review: The Souvenir (2019)


The Souvenir 2019.jpg


The review contains a discussion of the characters but no major spoilers. Won the Grand Jury Prize for Best International Drama at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. Also a 2020 Independent Spirit Award nominee for Best International Film.

Set in the UK in the 1980s, a semi-autobiographical story about the director (Joanna Hogg) as a young artist in the form of film student Julie. Probably will be best remembered for the performance of Tilda Swinton’s daughter Honor Swinton Byrne. The two Swinton’s play mother and daughter on screen.

thesouvenir swinton.jpg

Twentysomething Julie (Honor Swinton) behaves stupidly as she knows what her boyfriend is up to. Maybe she wanted to escape her overprotective parents no matter if the alternative was dubious. There’s a sense she’s too nice and loves Anthony (Tom Burke) despite his behaviour. She is most likely attracted to his experience and knowledge since he is a few years her senior. Perhaps Julie used Anthony as material for her film work, he is a mysterious, secretive man. Her privileged background also plays a part in the relationship and in her film projects.

Joanna Hogg: “I was very interested—first and foremost, really—in portraying the development of a young woman artist. I think that came out of a frustration at often seeing the lives of male artists portrayed

The characters are interesting enough to interpret so a pity the two leads have poor chemistry. Apparently the two actors met each other with no rehearsal on the first day of shooting. A missed opportunity with some mystery (as suggested by the poster above), but with little emotion and difficult to care about the characters. Julie grows through meeting new people and the film has been described as a coming of age self-portrait set in and around film school. A dinnner conversation with friend Patrick (Richard Ayoade) is a highlight, taking us behind the scenes of life as film students/filmmakers.
thesouvenir flat.jpg

Part of the narrative is an 80s nostalgia trip with the filmmaker going so far as to use the gold gilt bed Hogg owned at the time, and recreating the apartment environment she lived in. There’s also a soundtrack of music from the era and some opera.
As Hogg expressed: “It was important to furnish the set of Flat L with these personal items. They were very much the key to accessing my memories and feelings from that time”.


The title is a reference to the painting The Souvenir by Jean-Honoré Fragonard (above) which the couple talk about at a gallery, and there is a homage to it later on. The director was asked about the significance of the painting in an interview: “I was shown that painting by the man that I knew at the time, and it was important, though it was less important to me and more important to him”.

The Rotten Tomatoes score is polarizing from critics (90%) and audiences (34%).
Hogg has a follow-up in the works and said that part 2 “is not a sequel in a traditional sense”.
Rating 6/10




What do you think? As always, comments are welcome

Film review: Joker (2019)

joker 2019.jpg


Sold as a more grounded comic book film, an origin story. While does have scenes of stand-up and plenty of laughter, Joker (2019) is at its core a dark psychological crime drama. The first live-action theatrical film in the Batman film franchise to receive an R-rating. A lot has been written already and Joaquin Phoenix’s intense performance is the reason to watch. Has a realism that humanizes the joker, he is not just a bad person but you witness a troubled life which the audience can empathize with. We see his pained laughter, sort of a mask in a world where he is not liked but desperately wants to be. The disconnect and distrust of people is there on the screen, for example in the bus scene, a comment on our society. Disappointingly, the supporting characters, even Robert de Niro, aren’t given much screen time and are almost cameos. It’s Phoenix’s show.

Joker has been described as ambiguous in terms of the mental illness Arthur suffers from but the story is actually heavy-handed, about a man who isn’t loved and has never been happy, which in terms of psychopath characterization is a cliché. I can understand why Joker has been criticized as depicts someone with mental health problems as a danger to others. Most mentally ill people are not dangerous and the film unfortunately sells the negative stereotype. The film is also controversial for portraying a sympathetic homicidal loner, and how the unemployed could use violence and the media to enforce revolution and revenge, against the society that let them down. But obviously the joker is not a heroic figure, he is a villain we get to known beneath the exterior. I like that the story tries to understand Arthur Fleck’s frustrations which I think is important so we can offer help to these people. That said, I did also feel the story tries to evoke an emotional response from the audience at every opportunity, so you could easily accuse the character study of being manipulative in its attempt to win our empathy.

You could argue the substance of Joker (2019) is the sum of its influences yet the commentary about the availability of guns and health care is highly topical. Society and the system is also the villain here, causing Arthur to lose his way. The Gotham media is also at fault. As the Guardian wrote “the Gotham press eagerly spins (…) first killings into a city-wide “kill the rich” class war”

Joker was partly inspired by Alan Moore’s graphic novels V for Vendetta (1980s) and Batman: The Killing Joke (1988), the latter depicts the Joker as a failed stand-up comedian. Taxi Driver (1976) and King of Comedy (1982) are two other influences. To me, doesn’t reach those heights, the supporting cast is not as memorable as those films, and we’ve seen 100 times before the victim of a troubled past. Scorsese’s films did not deliver easy answers.

To sum up, Joaquin Phoenix manages to put a fresh spin on the joker with his mannerisms and laughing at inappropriate moments, and the script does have some arresting quotes, even if the victim aspect feels a bit clichéd and manipulative. Phoenix’s performance differs from Ledger and Nicholson with more innocence, pain, and humanity, and his work deserves a higher rating than the film itself.

Favorite quote: ”Those who have made something of our lives will always look at those who haven’t as nothing but clowns”.





What do you think? As always, comments are welcome

Film review: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)


Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 2019.jpg


*No major spoilers in the review* Quentin Tarantino films are not for everyone though they do feel like cinematic events. The director proudly wears his influences on his sleeve, you only have to look at the title which is a throwback to Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) and Once Upon a Time in America (1984). Tarantino’s latest (like the aforementioned Leone titles) is a period film, going for an authentic depiction of 1969. Some characters are real people, others are fictional. Sometimes the storytelling is slow yet I could see myself revisiting as many scenes have stuck with me. It feels rewatchable and you don’t need to remember the era to connect with the story. The director has assembled an incredible cast rivalling Stallone’s The Expendables line-up or the recent Marvel Avengers blockbusters.

Stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is one of QT’s most interesting characters, he’s a contradiction of good and bad, his past is shrouded in mystery, and not dissimilar to a real life tragedy involving actress Natalie Wood. Rebecca Gayheart stars as Booth’s wife in a role that is bizarrely comparable to her own tragic circumstances in which she killed a child in a 2001 road accident. The humor and innuendo in the film is pretty disturbing, however if you’ve seen QT’s filmography you know what to expect, in terms of mixing violence, comedy, and entertainment. Another controversy is making money off Roman Polanski’s misfortune. Polanski’s current wife Emmanuelle Seigner shaded QT for not even asking permission. A third controversy involves martial arts legend Bruce Lee which I won’t go into as it’s spoilery territory.

Leonardo DiCaprio’s storyline as actor Rick Dalton has pacing issues, the parts with him acting in westerns felt indulgent but are occasionally heartfelt or funny. Tarantino has admitted Dalton is bipolar which adds another dimension to the character. If you are interested in the stress and challenges of acting, and the hard work that goes into it, then it takes you to those places. The theme of Dalton feeling like a has-been in the industry is juxtapositioned with Sharon Tate’s rise to fame and optimism for the future. The aged relic aspect also has a meta angle to it,  as Tarantino himself is reassessed in a post-Weinstein age. Perhaps QT watched The House That Jack Built (2018), a late career work by Lars von Trier, which on one level is a response to the Danish director’s own conduct and history.



Sharon Tate Margot Robbie.jpg



Actress Sharon Tate (played by Margot Robbie) isn’t given much to do in the film but there is a sense of a character. Her already troubled marriage to Polanski isn’t delved into at all, maybe that’s not relevant to what Tarantino is doing here. Sharon Tate’s murder by the Manson gang is seen as symbolic of the end of the Sixties and overshadowed her film work. In the movie, Tarantino wants to focus on her innocence, love of life, going to parties, and enjoying Hollywood stardom. Tarantino goes for a romanticized woman rather than a truthful representation of Tate’s life. If you are hoping to learn about the real Sharon Tate, then you should probably look elsewhere. Instead Tarantino prefers to explore the joy of all aspiring stars seeing themselves on posters and movie screens. It’s easy to label Robbie’s scenes as simplistic, yet despite the sugar-coating of reality, I find her less cartoonish compared to previous cool-for-the-sake of-being-cool Tarantino characters. We only follow Tate for brief amounts of time so it’s hard to dig deeper, but you could question if she is in love with fame and has a need for admiration,  a character study of the pitfalls of fame. Margot Robbie’s performance is engrossing in spite of how few lines she has in the film.

I go to the cinema not to watch politically correct characters but to be surprised and this movie certainly is daring and unpredictable. QT has made a name for himself where anything can happen to any character, and this is what makes his films special. The director’s latest will probably be nominated for an oscar for the meticulous retro 1960s production design albeit disappointing the impatient camera doesn’t linger on the sets which a director’s cut version might fix. Perhaps QT should have turned the script into a TV-series as 2 hours 41 minutes isn’t enough time to tell all these stories while also being too long for a single sitting. A four hour cut is rumored to be heading to Netflix.



once upon a time in hollywood.jpg


The soundtrack features lots of great songs from the era. Probably the most memorable choices are Neil Diamond’s Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show and Bring a Little Lovin’ by Los Bravos which play nostalgically when Cliff drives his car and bumps into Margaret Qualley’s hippie character. Qualley could well be in consideration for supporting actress awards.

While QT still continues his juvenile tendency to bask in over-the-top violence, arguably OUATIH is his most melancholy, nostalgic, and compassionate film to date, a love letter to people grinding out unexceptional work. There are parallels to the decline of Hollywood now and the rise of streaming services, as well as the transition from TV to film, and vice versa.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has its moments but is not perfect and in need of an editor. The most vibrant sequences are when Cliff goes to the Manson ranch and the ending. Cliff Booth is one of the most ambiguous characters QT has penned and Brad Pitt may finally win an acting oscar for this performance.

Rating 7/10




What do you think? As always, comments are welcome

The Great Villain Blogathon: Michael Jackson in Leaving Neverland (2019)








My contribution to the The Great Villain Blogathon, May 24-26 2019. The rules are simple:
Just pick any evildoer, outlaw or monster, from any era, country or genre. From creeps to cads to criminals, sinners and psychos, all movie villains are welcome.


Even in death singer Michael Jackson can still create headlines. There will always be doubt and speculations about his behavior, and in some respects he invited the controversy with his use of masks, make-up, and friendships with children. But was he a villain or not? Leaving Neverland is a controversial, presumptuous four hour documentary that premiered at Sundance in January 2019. Airing on TV in March, the documentary has caused much debate and (as of April 2019) is already the second most watched on HBO in the past ten years with 7.5 million viewers for Part 1.


In the film, an idol becomes a monster. It’s as disturbing as watching a horror movie, because (if he is guilty as it is suggested) I was deceived by someone I trusted and admired. A great musician and dancer who gave millions to charity but behind closed doors a man who allegedly ruined those boys he molested.


The documentary highlights the complicated relationship between the abused and their perpetrator. Nadia Wager, Forensic Psychology, University of Huddersfield, and expert in child abuse, claims after watching the documentary Michael Jackson’s grooming technique is believable.
Some argue Michael Jackson not only groomed young boys and their families, but groomed his fans into believing he was a child-like, innocent man. For example in public settings he changed his voice to sound high-pitched, so was he putting on a performance the whole time?


There’s still doubt in my mind if he was a monster or a naive man-child who was unsuited to the harsh world. The problem with the documentary is it aims for shock value but isn’t as clear-cut as presented. Director Dan Reed should be impartial and question Robson’s and Safechuck’s motivations. There’s no direct proof so Wade Robson’s and James Safechuck’s word against MJs. The accounts they give are so similar. You see the trauma has caused them and their families. Truly heartbreaking to watch. A relief for the two men to finally tell their stories. Still, it’s obvious that the star-struck parents didn’t do enough to protect their children and were seduced by Jackson’s celebrity and wealth.


Michael famously never had a childhood and his way of dealing with it was to spend a lot of time with kids and according to Dan Reed’s film rob some of the young boys of their innocence.
Safechuck’s mother: ”He took my son’s childhood away. He took the man he could have been away”
But just because you are an eccentric who went too far with plastic surgery, dangled your baby over a balcony to please your screaming fans, and enjoyed the company of kids, doesn’t automatically mean you are a child abuser. The documentary pushes the guilty card a little too strongly, not showing the full facts so the viewer is unable to make up their mind unless you do your own research. Child abuse is unforgivable, but it’s not forbidden to be inspired by the innocence of children, animals and nature. MJ explains in interview footage from 1983 that these are his greatest inspirations. The way the media and the documentary force the anti-Michael Jackson message on us is disturbing. If the man is innocent, which we still don’t know for sure, it’s a savage, exploitative witch-hunt.


It’s no coincidence Jackson has named the Oscar-winning Sling Blade (1996) among his favorite films which depicts a small-town man-child out of touch with reality who is released from a mental hospital as an adult due to committing murder as a child. As a free man he befriends a 12-year-old boy. Not that MJ necessarily behaved as innocently towards children as the character but the movie is a window into Jackson’s mindset.
As described in Leaving Neverland, Take Two, MJ experienced a very strict, controlled childhood with a domineering father. But as an adult he developed a defiant side, when people said stop sharing your bed with kids he’s all over the TV saying I’m going to keep sharing my bed with children. His motto seems to have been a reaction to his childhood, whatever you tell me to do, I’m going to do the opposite, because I don’t have to do what you tell me to do.


The Daily Mail reported on March 8 2019 on the iron-clad NDA contracts Michael Jackson used to keep his employees from divulging details of his intimacy with young boys – demanding staffers report concerns to the singer’s team – not the police – or be fired. This looks suspicious from that controversial headline.
But Jackson showed signs of paranoid behavior during his life. You only have to look at the lyrics for his album HIStory (1995) and songs such as Money, Tabloid Junkie and D.S. (a KaiMakesMusic 2019 remix surfaced with new lyric “Wade Robson is a cold man”) These 1995 songs were Jackson’s responses to the 1993 Jordan Chandler case. Probably Michael’s paranoia extended to his employees and it’s no secret he had trouble trusting people. So is it really that surprising his employee contracts were uncompromising with people trying to take advantage of his fortune. The New York Post even ran an article entitled Michael Jackson was the king of paranoid.


#MeToo is not going away and giving a voice to survivors and a platform to talk about victims. Be it this HBO documentary, the recent Surviving R. Kelly, Shirkers (2018), The Tale (2018), Queen of Hearts (2019), Holiday (2018), Revenge (2017), or Elle (2016). And if you look back there are other examples such as The Accused (1988), The Color Purple (1985), The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011), or Compliance (2012).
Perhaps Abducted in Plain Sight (2017) is the documentary Leaving Neverland has the most in common with in terms of inattentive parenting and gullible kids. You could also draw parallels with 1980 TV-episode Tales of the Unexpected: The Flypaper and its chilling line “It’s the sweetness that attracts them, you see, and then the stickiness prevents them from getting away”. 


The reaction to the Leaving Neverland documentary has seen Jackson’s music pulled from some, but not all, radio stations. It is tempting for the media to tie Jackson into a larger narrative about sexual misconduct. Yet that is a dangerous leap, as noted by Jackson defender and biographer Joe Vogel. He argues Leaving Neverland decontextualized what happened. Michael Jackson has always been a target for litigation. In the 1993 Jordan Chandler case, Chandler’s father subsequently committed suicide and is heard on tape admitting it was for money and Jordan has later confessed he was told to lie by his father. Jackson was found innocent in the 2004-2005 trial. Robson’s mother, Joy, testified in 2005 about dropping her son off to stay with Jackson, saying she wasn’t concerned for Wade’s safety. 


In 2017, Joe Vogel agreed to write a new edition of his influential 2011 book about Michael Jackson Man in the Music,  to be released this summer for the 10th anniversary of the singer’s death. Recently, Vogel told the New York Times the new documentary “complicates things in ways that are just really, really challenging,” “Not only are you thinking about how do you deal with this on a personal level, you’re also thinking about how to handle it professionally.” Three authors are revising their books about the singer and will release new editions this year.



Some have commented the late 80s classic Man in the Mirror takes on a whole other disturbing meaning now and that is a valid reading. But what those critics fail to remember is it’s one of the few songs on the Bad album MJ didn’t write himself. So it’s unfair to bash Glen Ballard’s and Siedah Garrett’s wonderful lyrics. Same with Pretty Young Thing (PYT), it may be difficult to enjoy now after the accusations, but the lyrics were penned by Quincy Jones and James Ingram.


The documentary encourages you to empathize with the victims but Jackson is also given opportunity to defend himself via a statement he made in 1993. Strangely not included in the documentary, Robson and Safechuck sued the Jackson estate, claiming that Jackson’s business associates knew he was molesting underage boys but turned a blind eye. Robson sued Jackson’s estate for £1.2billion over the abuse.
If true, awful what happened to both men yet they are hardly unimpeachable since they committed perjury by defending a child molester in 1993 and 2004-2005 (not James Safechuck in 2005) and could have potentially prevented more abuse if they had spoken up then.
Wade Robson states in Leaving Neverland that he had perjured himself because he could not bear to see Jackson, the man he loved, go to jail. 
A problem with their cases is there’s a statute of limitation on child abuse (they are currently on appeal). In other words, the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. So he and James Safechuck wanted to get their story out in other ways. Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits were dismissed by the court though the judge did not rule on the credibility of their allegations.


The Jackson estate have sued HBO and defended Michael. Saying Wade Robson is trying to make money, and there is evidence Robson has been shopping a tell-all book but failed to get a publisher. The Jackson’s also point out Wade Robson and James Safechuck lied under oath and therefore are not to be trusted now.


I can definitely see why fans would have issues with the documentary, as abuse victims paying tribute to their molester for many years, and then turning on him suddenly, is very odd. Yet as we hear, it’s not uncommon for victims of child abuse to come forward many years later as adults due to shame and love for the perpetrator. Not realizing the acts were wrong when they were children.
Hard to come to terms with your idol of many years may not be what they seem.
Some fans prefer to shelter themselves from the allegations as it could tarnish your happy memories of listening to Michael Jackson’s music and I completely understand those who avoid the documentary. Jackson was never found guilty in a court of law so it makes sense he still has supporters. As said on Good Morning Britain, the documentary is devastating if it’s true, and equally devastating if it’s not true.


A tweet that nephew Taj Jackson, Tito Jackson’s eldest son, sent of what appears to be a screenshot of Robson requesting tickets for him and his family to attend Jackson’s memorial is often used by fans as alleged proof that Robson’s relationship with Jackson was always great and he concocted his abuse story when he was cash-strapped. In 2011, Robson was dropped as choreographer from MJ’s Cirque du Soleil show and a letter Robson wrote exists where he begs for the job. So the timing fits in terms of needing the money and accusing Jackson in a 2013 lawsuit.
But Robson could be looking for personal gain while also a victim of abuse. One doesn’t rule out the other.
Of course, the Jackson family including Taj, Brandi and others have a financial agenda of their own as it’s in the family’s best interest to keep Michael innocent since he is still the top earning deceased artist in the world according to Forbes 2018 list.


According to biographer Mike Smallcombe, Safechuck’s story of being abused in Neverland’s train station cannot be true as it was built two years after he said the assaults stopped. However, quotes found in the books of Jackson’s bodyguards have called this into question, as they describe in detail a train station structure that existed in 1990. Turns out Jackson built it without a permit.  Michael Jackson’s personal photographer @harrisonfunk said in a January 2019 podcast that the train station was already complete before the 1993 construction permit was approved, but Funk doesn’t provide an exact date. 


Smallcombe also pointed out Wade spoke inaccurately in Leaving Neverland. In Joy Robson’s 2016 deposition, she confirms her whole family including Wade went to the Grand Canyon. Wade claims in Leaving Neverland he stayed at the ranch while his family went to the Canyon. Wade Robson can’t seem to keep his story straight as he says the abuse started when he was seven yet an audio interview has surfaced with his mother Joy revealing Wade was almost nine when the Robson family traveled to America.


If you watch the video Revealed! Why Safechuck is REALLY suing Michael Jackson!,  the family appear to have a motive for suing Jackson’s estate in 2013 due to financial problems in their company Sea/Sue Inc/Anderson Rubbish Corporation and a lawsuit against them of $840.086. Safechuck’s parents are named  in the court documents as co-conspirators. So if they are facing bankruptcy makes sense to try and get money from Jackson. Yet as with Wade Robson, he may have been abused while also trying to get a portion of Jackson’s money. It is not illegal to seek financial compensation for child abuse. If it’s matter of pretending you are abused then Safechuck and Robson are hoping to achieve a check in the way Jordan Chandler’s family did in 1993. In Leaving Neverland, James Safechuck says MJ asked him to testify in the 2005 trial but James refused and MJ became angry with him. However Safechuck wasn’t even allowed to testify as he was regarded by the judge as “non-entity” in the trial.


In a similar fashion to the rebuttal following Martin Bashir’s 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson, Taj Jackson has started a GoFundMe to finance a documentary rebuttal series that, he says, “will conclusively destroy decades of salacious myths which have been told and sold about Michael Jackson ad nauseum.”. There is already a teaser trailer for a  rebuttal documentary titled Michael Jackson: Chase The Truth.


I’m not defending Michael, but the one-sidedness of the documentary has distorted the truth and left facts out that would show Robson differently. The images in the end credits say more than words as Wade Robson burns his MJ memorabilia. After watching, I think a few people will do the same and throw their Michael Jackson albums in the trash.
But no mention of Wade cashing in on his most valuable MJ memorabilia a few years earlier without wanting his name disclosed in the sale, which lessens the impact of the aforementioned ending where Robson is seen burning a replica Thriller jacket and other items. Robson says he sold the memorabilia to afford therapy at the time.


MJ helped Robson with his rap group Quo in the mid 90s whereas the film portrays Robson as put to the side in the early 90s as MJ moved on to other boys. Also not mentioned is Robson cheated on his girlfriend Brandi Jackson with Britney Spears, splitting up Britney and Justin Timberlake. So the documentary presents Robson and Safechuck as better guys than they are by only showing them as victims and not revealing their questionable behavior.
Another problematic aspect in Leaving Neverland is Jackson is accused of manipulating the boys to dislike women, yet Jackson’s niece Brandi said in Neverland Firsthand: Investigating the Michael Jackson Documentary that MJ set her up with Robson and they dated for seven years as teenagers.


You could say the one-sidedness of Leaving Neverland doesn’t give Jackson’s relatives or friends a chance to tell their side of the story. And it’s also unfair the man himself cannot defend himself now. Brett Barnes (who as a young boy went on tour with Jackson in the early 90s) tweeted a defence of the King of Pop: “So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ’96. I think it was called Independence Day.” Although the validly of the twitter account is uncertain as could be a fan impersonating Barnes(who disappeared from  public view).
Other aspects missing in the documentary include testimonials from Jackson’s former staff members (who Robson and Safechuck claim in their lawsuit were enablers), and the lengthy FBI investigation into the child molestation allegations.
But as a speaker on WGBH News noted, you don’t have to include friends defending Michael in the documentary, as “it would be like saying I knew Ted Bundy and he didn’t kill me so therefore he’s not such a bad guy, those testimonies (Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman) I find to be irrelevant”.


As detailed in Comodin Cam’s YouTube video The Lies & Facts, fans have found other problems with the documentary, such as the dinner scene not matching the timeline, which was subsequently omitted from the shorter UK version of Leaving Neverland. Another inconsistency is Safechuck’s mother says she was glad Michael died in 2009 but it’s not until 2013 James Safechuck admitted he had been abused. The Comodin Cam video also looks at other flimsy parts, such as the shocking wedding ring scene which would be far more plausible if there was a signed marriage certificate (there isn’t but maybe it will turn up eventually?). The bells and alarms at the Neverland ranch to allegedly warn the singer of anyone catching him doing something inappropriate may not be as creepy as suggested, because if you are that famous it’s not unimaginable you would be worried about your own safety so could be an innocent security measure.


It’s complicated for the consumer when an artist’s legacy intertwines with unacceptable behavior. We haven’t cancelled Elvis who dated a minor (Priscilla was 14 and Elvis was 24), Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page had an underage teenage girlfriend in the 1970s, Bill Wyman (bass guitarist of The Rolling Stones) scandalously dated Mandy Smith when she was underage and married her in 1989 when he was 49 and she was 18. We still watch films by Alfred Hitchcock who behaved inappropriately towards actress Tippi Hedren.
Should we discontinue using the light bulb because its inventor Thomas Edison was a horrible person who publicly tortured animals to discredit AC power. Or stop publishing important feminist Simone de Beauvoir who seduced a minor and was suspended from her job as a teacher. Pablo Picasso was a serial abuser in psychological and physical ways towards women, which hasn’t stopped museums displaying Picasso’s art. Wagner was promoted during the Nazi era as one of Hitler’s favourite composers. Historical perception of Wagner has been tainted with this association ever since, and there is debate over whether Wagner’s writings, operas, anti-semitism and purported Aryan-Germanic racism might have influenced the creation of Nazi Germany. Woody Allen has come under fire again in the #MeToo era despite passing a lie detector test and being cleared of all charges. Roman Polanski won an Oscar for Best Director for The Pianist (2002) despite raping a minor and fleeing the US in the 70s, facing the possibility of prison if he returned to America. In the wake of #MeToo, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences expelled Roman Polanski, citing “ethical standards,” the Oscar winner has sued and is demanding his reinstatement.
The list goes on and on. But should that taint extend to their most beloved works? Enough time has passed so many of these stories have died down. Yet is it fair to ban one artist and let the others get a free pass? When is the misdeed bad enough to warrant cancelling them, and should a musician never convicted be banned based on a documentary? I think  Michael Jackson’s music will probably stand the test of time.


Should be up to the individual if you want to listen to music or watch films by morally questionable artists. The documentary is not fact, it is an opinion. Critical thinking is important and someone shouldn’t be labelled a conspiracy theorist if you question the documentary. Everyone should be entitled to form their own opinion by doing their own research into the matter. To many he is now a villain, but to his children, he was a loving father who is being dragged through the dirt again. I feel sorry not just for Wade Robson and James Safechuck, but for MJ’s daughter and two sons. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I don’t know for sure if MJ is guilty or innocent. I tried to look at both sides in this post and be as impartial as I can. There are reasons to doubt Robson’s and Safechuck’s accusations while also reasons to believe the boys were abused. We need more evidence. A lie detector test (polygraph) for Wade Robson & James Safechuck would come in handy right now! Fans have already demanded for this to happen. It’s possible Jackson could have been predator and victim on separate occasions. So the simplistic either/or debate may not hold up. Impossible to know for sure as we weren’t in the room. What we do know is Jackson never tried to hide his friendships with children and he saw nothing wrong with it. However most would agree spending so much time with children you are not blood related to is inappropriate however you try to justify it. Sure, kids were (and still are) inspired by Michael’s  music and he could likewise be energized by them, but you have to set boundaries. In his autobiography Moonwalk Michael is quoted on page 274: “That’s what I love about being with kids. They notice everything. They aren’t jaded. They get excited about things we’ve forgotten to get excited about any more. They are so natural too, so unself-conscious. I love being around them. There always seems to be a bunch of kids over at the house and they’re always welcome. They energize me-just being around them. They look at everything with such fresh eyes, such open minds. That’s part of what makes kids so creative. they don’ t worry about the rules. The picture doesn’t have to be in the center of the paper. The sky doesn’t have to be blue. They are accepting of people too. The only demand they make is to be treated fairly-and to be loved. I think that’s what we all want. I would like to think I’m an inspiration for the children I meet. I want kids to like my music. Their approval means more to me than anyone else’s. It’s always the kids who know which song is going to be a hit”.


The most ambiguous quote from the 1988 Moonwalk autobiography is when MJ says on page 104: “I’m certainly no angel, and I may have my own bad habits, but drugs aren’t among them”. He doesn’t go into his flaws in the book and this quote is very general and non-specific, but there is no indication if the bad habits could be criminal or non-criminal, so I am none the wiser. MJ doesn’t feel comfortable writing about his girlfriend’s so that is at a minimum. He prefers to keep that private and you can’t blame him. He confesses on page 254 that he “believes in love – very much so – how can you not believe after you’ve experienced it?”. Yet at this stage at his commercial peak he acknowledges he is married to his work: “Right now, my work still takes up most of my time and most of my emotional life”.


While journalistically unsound, ignoring Robson’s and Safechuck’s financial goal to reach a payout via their lawsuits, and ignoring Jackson’s side of the story, Leaving Neverland is still an important documentary. It has a bigger scope than the people involved, by depicting how a grooming process potentially happens, and hopefully can educate parents (and children) to look for signs of wrongdoing, and be courageous enough to speak up. Jackson’s reputation is in tatters, yet the bigger picture is the documentary could help change the statute of limitation laws for child abuse. This is already taking place in various US states. I’m sure we haven’t heard the last on Michael Jackson. Discovery recently bought documentary Killing Michael Jackson for its European networks. The Jackson estate is also still continuing with Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough, a jukebox musical scheduled to hit Broadway in 2020.






Any thoughts? Can you separate an artist’s legacy when intertwines with unacceptable behavior? Do you think Michael Jackson was framed or was he guilty? As always, comments are welcome.

Film review: If Beale Street Could Talk (2018)


If Beale Street Could Talk 2018.jpg


Based on James Baldwin’s 1974 novel. Has its memorable moments such as the argument between the families, when the mother comforts her adult daughter when she’s in bed, the situation by the store, and the Puerto Rico sequence. The narrative consists of mostly platitudes such as ‘you are not alone when you have a family’, ‘love makes you see the world anew’. Yet the acting and presentation transcends the clichés.

Besides the love story focuses on the hardship of the blacks, harassment on the street by whites, treatment during a criminal case, trouble renting a place to live, etc. The last act may frustrate some viewers as the story feels unfinished.
The blaxploitation movies from the 1970s tended to present whites as the villain without much nuance. In contrast, Baldwin’s/Jenkins’ universe is more realistic by including sympathetic white characters.

So why not a higher rating? To me, great art allows for multiple interpretations and I don’t see that here. The message of injustice towards blacks is as relevant today as it was in the 1970s but the storytelling forces its opinion on you and playing the race card feels a bit obvious. A good watch with a touching story about the communal bond between members of an oppressed minority though I’m not the biggest fan of one-dimensional message movies. As Alissa Evans wrote in her review, the characters’ personalities feel secondary to their circumstance. The lead Stephan James has kind, gentle eyes which might be the reason he was picked. KiKi Layne is likeable as well while Regina King and Brian Tyree Henry shine in supporting roles. The jazz score is accomplished and is incorporated well.
Jenkins told The Los Angeles Times on the subject of films based on black literature. “I don’t want to sound as though every novel by a black author should be translated to the screen, but I’m damn sure many more of them should be.”

If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) is important and competently made yet didn’t quite manage to rock me to the core in the way Moonlight did. The characters lacked the deeper, emotional weight of Jenkins’ 2016 film. A sense of wretchedness was missing. Perhaps better captured in Baldwin’s book.


What do you think? As always, comments are welcome