Leaving Neverland

It is the mark of an impressive documentary when it does not merely reveal new information about a subject, but makes us question all the information we have previously received on the matter. When the subject of the documentary is one of the most relentlessly discussed men to have ever lived, the achievement is only greater.

Leaving Neverland tells the story of two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who both claim to have been sexually abused by Michael Jackson as young boys. Even though accusations and rumours of abuse enveloped the last two decades of Jackson’s life, the revelations contained within Dan Reed’s film are shocking, its minimalistic approach only rendering Robson and Safechuck’s stories more harrowing.

Such is the fervour of Jackson’s tunnel-visioned fanbase, this documentary was always going to be controversial, and the main criticism raised so far is that Leaving Neverland is overwhelmingly one-sided. The film certainly has an agenda, and there is a conspicuous lack of voices taking Jackson’s side, likely down to their refusal to participate in the project.

However, it is not intended as the final word on Jackson’s life, or on his alleged crimes. Rather, it is a means of telling the stories of Robson and Safechuck, who until recently had denied any misconduct on the part of the late entertainer.

The focus is on the two men and their families, all of whom introduce themselves to the viewer verbally, rather than through subtitles, which produces a disconcertingly intimate effect. Jackson, who died a decade ago, is a spectral presence, seen sparingly in rare archive footage, and it is a real strength of Leaving Neverland that it is never overwhelmed by a figure who several of its participants refer to as ‘larger than life.’

The two men’s stories are certainly convincing, and align in revealing Jackson’s chilling sexual routine, methods by which he allegedly seduced many more underage boys. This seduction took place on several levels, not just directed towards children but also in gaining the trust of their families.

Our viewing instinct is to condemn Robson and Safechuck’s parents for letting their sons sleep in the same bed as an adult stranger, but, as the film progresses over its three hour runtime, we are exposed to the singer’s disarmingly infantile charm, an apparent mask for his predatory tendencies.

The two men claim that Jackson’s emotional manipulation prevented them from going public with their stories sooner, and some of the language they use to describe his grooming of them, with seemingly perverse references to ‘making love’, is consistent with the long-term Stockholm syndrome suffered by victims of abuse. The film’s linear structure covers not just the initial allegations of sexual abuse levelled at Jackson in 1993 and his trial following fresh accusations twelve years later, but also the way in which Robson and Safechuck’s lives developed after Jackson discarded them for new, younger boys. Robson’s family was particularly affected by the singer’s involvement in their lives, with his parents divorcing and his father later dying by suicide. In a painful moment, Wade’s mother says that she can forgive Jackson’s ‘sickness’ before she forgives her own neglect. It is unclear now whether this film will irrevocably change our perception of Jackson, but, as a viewing experience, it feels like the puncturing of a honeyed reverie.

 

Image: John Wiley via Wikimedia

Related News

2 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Lisa
    Aug 07, 2019 - 03:40 AM

    You are a bit late to the party. Their stories have been completely debunked. How are the stories convincing? Safechuck never slept with Michael Jackson. You are simply taking his word for it without any evidence. The buildings he mentioned did not exist, the rooms he mentioned did not have beds, the meetings he mentioned never happened. Those are the facts. A sad story about sleeping on the sofa in his apartment, but not mentioning that there were no beds in that apartment. Safechuck claiming he wanted sex with an adult man when he was 10 years old, giving him secret hand signals. Gross! 10 Year olds aren’t even horny. Robson talking about his 7 year old penis and covering his laughter behind his hand. It is all so fake. How can you find that trash convincing? It is not sex, it is not love. That is what pedophiles would say. You write about a pedophile propaganda movie and calling it convincing. What does that say about you?

    Reply
    • Rob Lownie
      Aug 14, 2019 - 07:53 PM

      Hi Lisa, glad you enjoyed my article!

      I would like to make clear that this is a personal review, outlining my own response to the programme, and in no way reflects the opinions or attitudes of The Student. I appreciate that the subject matter explored in the documentary is extremely sensitive, not to mention inconclusively backed up by genuine evidence, so you will have noticed that I took care to use words like ‘claim’, ‘allegedly’ and ‘allegations’. I also acknowledge that the film has an agenda, though ‘paedophile propaganda’, as you describe it, might be putting it somewhat strongly.

      In the course of my research into the subject, I didn’t come across any material which ‘completely debunked’ Robson and Safechuck’s stories, so would greatly appreciate it if you could provide links which support this. I try to elucidate the two men’s descriptions of the alleged molestation by referencing the Stockholm syndrome commonly endured by abuse sufferers, and hope that this, as well as the prism of hero-worship through which they viewed Jackson, goes some way to quelling your doubts about Safechuck’s ambiguous feelings about his relationship with the singer.

      Thanks again for your feedback!

      Rob

      Reply

Say something

The Student Newspaper 2016