logo
Can Michael Jackson's music survive the accusations against him? It's complicated

Can Michael Jackson's music survive the accusations against him? It's complicated

Independent19-03-2025

It is now six years since the release of Dan Reed's documentary Leaving Neverland, a film that cast the late megastar Michael Jackson as a serial paedophile. Over four hours, Reed profiled two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who allege Jackson abused them when they were young children. The details were harrowing — the lavishness of their seduction, the closed doors and elaborate warning systems, the spare telling of the acts that took place.
The response, among critics and film festival audiences, was commendatory, and the film seemed then part of the wider groundswell that led to the toppling of a number of monolithic men – among them R Kelly, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. Their work has duly been tarnished as a result. The fact that the same has not happened to Jackson is intriguing, and certainly attributable to more than the absence of a conviction.
But in some fierce quarters, Leaving Neverland was denounced; Jackson's estate called it lurid, outrageous, pathetic. Furious fans rallied outside screenings. Even the less fervent wondered whether perhaps the allegations were rooted in some great misunderstanding. Others accused Robson and Safechuck of being little more than opportunists, in search of fame and fortune. Reed received death threats.
That the three would be prepared to re-enter the fray for Leaving Neverland 2 might seem surprising, but this sister documentary, broadcast on Tuesday night, is an important work, one that follows both the men's 10-year legal journey, and the fallout of the original film. It explores how speaking publicly can lead to an almost excavatory trauma, and forces us to question, once again, why we remain so in thrall to Michael Jackson. In the immediate aftermath of the original Leaving Neverland broadcast, data analysts Nielsen Music reported a dip in both streaming and airplay for Jackson's catalogue. But by the end of that year, the singer saw growth again, with 2.1 billion streams compared to 2018's 1.8 billion. He ended 2019 at the top of Forbes' highest-earning dead celebrity list. Again. In the years since, Jackson's streaming has continued to grow – last year, Thriller became his first album to surpass five billion streams.
It is worth saying that Jackson has not, to date, ever been convicted of any charge. In 2005, he was acquitted of molestation charges. Lawsuits filed by both Safechuck and Robson were dismissed for technical reasons. The closest admission of anything came in 1993, when the singer reached a financial settlement with an underage boy he was accused of molesting.
Still, for the last 15 years of his life, the accusations hovered. They were even addressed, vaguely, in Martin Bashir's famed documentary, Living with Michael Jackson. Jackson shrugged the suggestions off with an innocent question: 'What's wrong with love?' The darkness lay in our minds, he suggested; the impure thoughts were our own.
There was an attempt to understand or account for the strangeness of a grown man sharing his time and his bed with young boys: Jackson was such an oddity, a Peter Pan, a preserved child, a product of his own abusive upbringing. He was also a global superstar who had never lived in the normal world. Perhaps the usual rules did not quite apply?
Somewhere along the line, we began the intricate process of untangling the art from the artist; of creating a world where we could watch a documentary like Leaving Neverland, but still admire 'Billie Jean'. He was not the only artist who prompted this conundrum and contortion – fans were already attempting similar tricks for Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.
But this urge to forget seemed somehow more pronounced in the case of Jackson. A 2016 documentary by Spike Lee explored the artistry of Jackson, but lacked the filmmaker's trademark interrogation, seen in films such as 4 Little Girls or When the Levees Broke, choosing instead to simply bask in a celebration of Jackson's back catalogue.
And, of course, in purely technical terms, the music remained immaculate, undimmed, irresistible. As the actor Andy Serkis, discussing cancellation culture in this newspaper, summed it up: 'When Michael Jackson's music starts to come on, I defy anyone not to tap their foot to it… And if your body won't let you cancel it…' In this way, we made it the music's fault; ascribed to ourselves a kind of powerlessness in its presence. When MJ the Musical opened in London's West End in 2022, the world stood unruffled.
There is a John Jeremiah Sullivan essay about Jackson that I often revisit. Written in the wake of the singer's death, it is an exceptional and iIlluminating piece of writing; one that attempts to make this global megastar, this cartoon figure, human.
Sullivan traces Jackson's lineage back to an Alabama cotton plantation slave named Prince Screws (and so, Prince, the name he gave his oldest son, which we took for a flourish of egotism, becomes understandable). He documents the childhood menageries, the relentless racism that made the singer speak so much more candidly to the black music press. He is victim, genius, 'the greatest work of postmodern American sculpture', and of course, a complicated figure to love.
Time, and repeated reading, has made the piece more complicated, too. But at its heart are truths I believe – that hurt people hurt others, that good people do bad things, and bad people make good music. That, above all else, few people are wholly good or wholly bad. We contain multitudes.
Sullivan is most tender in his discussion of Jackson's approach to music, detailing how the singer was interested in the 'anatomy' of a song, how he studied the work of his peers, how he recorded in the dark, illuminated only when he drew close to the microphone. It's an image that has long stuck in my head: Jackson, sublime in the act of musical creation, doing who-knows-what in the darkness beyond.
I think often of another detail in Sullivan's piece. How, in the early demo for 'Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough', Jackson worked his way into that famed voice, from a relaxed, high-pitched man's voice, through something softer, quieter, and on until he finds 'a full-on girlish peal'.
It is conscious artistry, of course; an illustration of his gift. But it is also the reason I find it so hard to listen to his music these days. This is the act of a man who knew how a line, a vocal tone must land for maximum impact. This is a man who, through his music, succeeded in seducing us all.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wimbledon icon Maria Sharapova looks totally different five years after retiring
Wimbledon icon Maria Sharapova looks totally different five years after retiring

Wales Online

time6 hours ago

  • Wales Online

Wimbledon icon Maria Sharapova looks totally different five years after retiring

Wimbledon icon Maria Sharapova looks totally different five years after retiring The former tennis superstar has left fans doing a double take after changing her iconic look in recent years Sharapova shot to fame after winning Wimbledon as a teenager in 2004 Former tennis superstar Maria Sharapova has undergone a striking transformation since the glory days of her career, leaving a number of fans doing a double take as she was pictured at an event earlier this week. The 38-year-old - who retired from professional tennis in 2020 - shot to fame as a fresh-faced teenager, when she beat top seed Serena Williams in the final at Wimbledon to lift the title aged just 17. She kept her iconic blonde locks throughout her career, but Sharapova now has a different look five years after leaving the sport behind. ‌ Alongside her British businessman fiance Alex Gilkes, she attended the 60th anniversary celebration of the Hotel II Pellicano in Monte Argentario, Italy, on Monday, with photos from the event leading fans to brand her as "unrecognisable", having ditched her famous blonde hair for a more natural brunette look. ‌ As a player, of course, Sharapova went on to win all four Grand Slam titles, following up her 2004 Wimbledon triumph with a US Open title two years later. The Russian star then won the Australian Open in 2008 before tasting victory twice at Roland Garros as she won the French Open in both 2012 and 2014, having also reached the final in 2013. In 2012, she won an Olympic silver medal at the London Games, losing to Williams in the women's singles final at SW19. Article continues below As well as being the third-youngest woman to win a Wimbledon title, Sharapova also became the first Russian player to complete a career Grand Slam. Her accolades weren't just confined to the tennis court, however, as her global profile soared and she was named as "the hottest athlete in the world" by Maxim for four consecutive years. The tennis star was also named as one of the top 100 most powerful celebrities in the world by Forbes between 2005 and 2011, while she modelled for the likes of Sports Illustrated. ‌ Sharapova and her fiance Alex Gilkes at the Hotel Il Pellicano 60th anniversary in Monte Argentario, Italy However, Sharapova's illustrious career was marred n 2016 when she received a 15-month suspension - reduced from two years - for failing a drug test for meldonium. While she owned up to the mistake, she maintained that she had mistakenly taken the drug on her doctor's advice, without realising it had been banned by WADA. Since leaving tennis behind, Sharapova - who has 4.6 million followers on Instagram - has made the most of her life in retirement, jetting off on luxury trips with Gilkes, who she revealed she was engaged to in December 2020. ‌ In July 2022, the pair welcomed their first child, Theodore, together, with Sharapova's Instagram bio now proudly reading 'Mama'. The fomer tennis icon - who boasts career winnings of £31 million - has also successfully transitioned into business, launching her confectionary brand Sugarpova and investing in sunscreen brand supergoop at the height of her career. However, she has stepped up her business ambitions since retiring, investing in wellness brand therabody before joing the board of directors of top fashion brand Moncler in 2022. Article continues below Sharapova also acts as an advisor to brands Naked Retail and Bright, while she has invested in several other companies including UFC, Tonal, Moonpay and Clio Snacks.

Protein review – gym-obsessed serial killer bites off more than he can chew
Protein review – gym-obsessed serial killer bites off more than he can chew

The Guardian

time16 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Protein review – gym-obsessed serial killer bites off more than he can chew

'It's basic detective work,' says veteran smalltown cop Stanton (Charles Dale), trying to justify pressurising a lead about her love life. 'Very fucking basic,' says Patch (Andrea Hall), a London colleague who has come to the sticks because of a possible connection with a grisly serial killer. That's the narky style of this ramshackle but moreish Welsh thriller, which takes place in the coke-sniffing milieu of endemic poverty and petty criminality, under ubiquitous sallow street lighting, in which everyone's looking for an out. Patch is right about the serial killer: drifter Sion (Craig Russell) has pitched up in town and blags a cleaning job at a local gym. A traumatised ex-squaddie with an inferiority complex, he takes offence at the group of hoodlums lording it over the machines. So he hammers in the skull of bouncer Dwayne (Kai Owen) and stores some choice morsels in a freezer; an extra protein source for his iron-pumping. But Sion is oblivious to Dwayne having recently cut in on a drug deal with rival Albanian gangsters – so his seemingly brutal murder threatens to kick off a turf war. The title suggests some kind of exposé or The Substance-style satire on modern gym-culture toxicity. And with the meatshake-quaffing Sion, and an ambient whiff of stale testosterone among most of the cast, it is to some extent. But the protagonist – for whom we're ladled out a facile backstory but who is also off the screen much of the time – is too marooned within the film to fully bring that aspect home. More nutritious are the ratty comic exchanges at which debut director Tony Burke excels, like a cokehead Mike Leigh. From five guys arguing about guns in a Yaris, to Stanton and Patch expeditiously shaking down suspects, the repartee not only effectively conveys the diminished expectations in this seedy bearpit, but also squeezes out unexpected vulnerability for the actors to capitalise on. The standouts are Dale, as the ironclad stalwart hiding tragedy, Hall with her personable cynicism, and Steve Meo as the would-be playas' whipping boy, spiralling out into uproarious panic. Too diffuse and unfocused it may be, but Protein has a hotline into great British bathos. Protein is released in UK cinemas from 13 June, and available on digital platforms from 14 July.

‘He changed the rules for all of us who came after': Lee Child remembers Frederick Forsyth
‘He changed the rules for all of us who came after': Lee Child remembers Frederick Forsyth

The Guardian

timea day ago

  • The Guardian

‘He changed the rules for all of us who came after': Lee Child remembers Frederick Forsyth

I remember two things about the first full week of January 1972. I passed my driving test on the Monday, and on the Friday I made my weekly trip to the library and borrowed The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth. I had no idea I would one day be a writer myself – at that point I was merely an insatiable reader – but in retrospect that Friday marked an important way station on the journey from one to the other. I gobbled up the book and thought it was fantastic – fast, pacy, exciting, suspenseful and laced with detail and intrigue. Then I thought, wait, what? How was this book working? It was a twin-track thriller – an assassin hunts his target while law enforcement hunts the assassin. But the intended victim was Charles de Gaulle, a real person, the president of France, who had died from an aneurysm in 1970. Therefore we all knew the assassin had failed. How did that not short-circuit the will-he-won't-he suspense that thrillers seemed to require? And the main character was an absolute cipher – a completely blank slate. No backstory, no history, no explanation, no reason, no justification. No description. Not even a name. Yet we all rooted for him. We secretly admired him. We wanted him to succeed. How-to books about writing tell us to create sympathetic, fleshed-out characters, and then place them in great peril, and leave the outcome uncertain until the last page. Forsyth ignored all that. In so doing, he showed us that the how question was as powerful as the who, why, where and when. He showed us that intriguing detail and inside information was compelling in itself. He created a year-zero thriller that reset the whole genre. Sign up to Bookmarks Discover new books and learn more about your favourite authors with our expert reviews, interviews and news stories. Literary delights delivered direct to you after newsletter promotion Inadvertently, he claimed. I met him in the early 2010s and we began hanging out occasionally and corresponding fairly often – he by typed snail-mail, me by email printed for him by his wife. He said he knew he had to write the book because he was unemployed and broke, but at first he had trouble feeling his way into it. He was a journalist by trade, and his lightbulb moment was to imagine he was doing a book-length true-crime feature about recent events. The result was a novel that changed the rules for all of us that came after.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store