I've just finished watching a really worrying interview with Michael Jackson on TV. I don't know if it has been (or will be) broadcast in the States but it's by a British documentary maker. The interview touched on his relationships with kids, plastic surgery (he denied ever having cosmetic surgery, apart from on his nose!) and fatherhood. They even showed footage of him with his kids.
The funniest moment, was when they filmed him shopping in a store in Vegas and he buys absolutely everything! And to top it off, he was picking out the ugliest shit I think I've ever seen in my entire life.
Now, I've never disliked MJ and I've always recognized his talent. I can sort of understand why he's created his own utopia... I suppose I can even understand his Peter-Pan complex. The things (he thinks) he stands for are essentially good and humaine. The world DOES need more love, but it's just his way of demonstrating his love that is unsettling. They showed him holding hands with some 12 year old, while confessing that they share a bedroom together. He maintained that it wasn't a sexual thing, and I really do believe him. He's completely harmless. He's just insane.
Did anyone else catch this interview? And if so what conclusion have you come to about him?

NewFunk said:

I arrived at a similar conclusion.
[This message was edited Mon Feb 3 16:05:45 PST 2003 by Anji]

Anji said:

And me.

I'd sleep over at Neverland if he took me shopping tho...

NewFunk said:

He could get you some really cool Prince stuff.with all that money.

I dunno... I feel sorry for him but he didn't do himself any favours either. As for denying the facial surgery, that's understandable given the apparent reasons why he was driven to change his face in the first place. He's obviously not goin to want to talk about it if he feels that way about his appearance.

Talking about having loads of kids all jam packed in bed with him made my skin crawl, even though he apparently doesn't see the world that way at all. Which I suppose is touching, but it's too naive.

I think it's true that the real reason MJ is so drawn to children in adult life is because he never had much of a childhood of his own. I think he is harmless, too - just a bit bizarre though.

Anji said:

Me too. I found myself feeling sorry for him. I just don't think he's a very sexual person. In fact, having watched this interview, it would surprise me if he'd ever had sex in his life.

He's so far removed from reality that it's quite unfair to judge him. I don't think he is molesting children though, although he is very naive to be so dismissive of the risks he's taking in terms of public opinion and opening himself up to more allegations.

I think he's basically got a good heart and is really trying to put more love into the world. I wish him well.

Fucking scary stuff.

I must say, before I saw the show I had a lot of sympathy for the guy. He's clearly a shy person, a talented person, and he's been given a rough ride by the press over the years.

However that show - which should have been a chance for him to set the record straight and be totally honest - did him no favours in my opinion. Being seen as a harmless eccentric is one thing, and lying about his cosmetic surgery is his own business... but that conversation at the end about having kids sleeping in his bed was unreal. The interviewer Martin asked him straight up - "can you understand why people would be worried about that?" and he just didn't get it.

I gotta say - if Prince did a show like that, he'd come out a lot better. He'd still be perceived as an eccentric and an odd person probably, but people would have a lot more respect for him. I've lost a bit of the respect I had for MJ after seeing that show.

ian said:

I agree, but he blatantly lied about the extent of his cosmetic surgery, so why should we believe him when he claims the relationships he has with children are non-sexual?

ian said:

I think Prince is probably a little bit more aware of how he's seen in public than MJ. However, both are living exclusive worlds designed by themselves, to satisfy themselves only. If we literally glimpsed into Prince's world, some things I'm sure would seem very strange to a person not living that life. Look at the Kevin Smith interview, for example.

Personally, as strange as MJ did come across, I only think it was because we cannot appreciate where he is coming from, the exclusive world he has built for himself. It goes both ways; just as much as we finds MJ's thoughts scary, MJ finds our thoughts scary too. The thought that we, the public, may think of him being sexual with children, genuinely seemed to shock him.

He's a harmless chipmonk.

Im usually the most cynical person I know but the interview really changed my opinion on him.I feel sorry for him,you can feel his lonliness.

He just doesnt seem to get that people are going to judge him if he has kids to "sleep overs" So like he says its completely innocent but that doesnt make it OK.

Those poor kids of his,what hope of having anything closely regarding a normal life do they ever have

Much love Pochacco

The guy's sinister, the sweet, harmless Peter Pan figure is just one personality IMO...

No real exclusives to be found in this docu. Despite being advertised as no question barred project recorded over eight months of filming the point of his having final say in the edit was clear. Little of musical note, just continuing the ridiculous assertions we all already know:

* That he's only ever had one operation of facial surgery. This being on his nose and only so that he can hit high notes, later admitted to two.

* Tried to say the children are his through normal relations with women, then it was sperm donor, then it was surrogate mothers. The latest (Prince II) being by a woman he's never met who's black, apparently. The truth is they ain't his in any way except he bought them.

* Tried to talk about girlfriends etc when his sexuality is clearly geared towards little boys. He's still sharing his bed with them and sat hand in hand with some little 12 year old bedmate. Multi million payoffs haven't stopped his flow any, still says he just didn't want a case played out on TV like OJ Simpson's because "It wouldn't look right". Even when given the benefit of the doubt, when he's feeling horny or aroused who's around and how will he relieve himself? Yes that's right.

Some won't like these points but if he's going to do a documentary on his lifestyle rather than just the music, thoughts will be told...

Essence said:[quote]The guy's sinister, the sweet, harmless Peter Pan figure is just one personality IMO...

Zzzz...

For once try to read BETWEEN the lines.

papaa said:[quote]

Essence said:

Educate me on the meaningful factors that lay between the lines papaa...

Essence said:[quote]

papaa said:

My friend, you've been educated ad finitum on this forum regarding Jackson. All I ask is for a little objectivity on your behalf.
[This message was edited Mon Feb 3 18:43:25 PST 2003 by papaa]

papaa said:[quote]

Essence said:

I think your confused man, I'm no constant "MJ hater" (Go check back on past threads here), I own all his albums and understand a bad childhood and life in the publiceye took him to where he is today.

Don't really understand the need to defend my credentials, I was solely commenting on the documentary as it was presented, which is this thread's purpose...

Essence said:The guy's sinister, the sweet, harmless Peter Pan figure is just one personality IMO...

* Tried to talk about girlfriends etc when his sexuality is clearly geared towards little boys.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR CREDENTIALS...

But you can explain how you reached these conclsuions from watching the documentary. Perhaps you were trying to be controversial - or disingenious - either way you're fully entitled to your opinion and I certainly won't begrudge you that.

"His sexuality is clearly geared towards little boys."

The documentary suggested nothing of the sort. In fact it confirmed my belief that Jackson is unashamedly asexual.

papaa said:

Fair enough. I reached my conclusions based on conceptions I had already came by in addition to this documentary. Your conclusion he's "asexual" and defence of him is equally open to ridicule as mine...

HE'S TRULY AMAZING.

The one thing that didn't make sense was when MJ was defending himself having kids sleeping over by saying that so many kids have neglectful parents that the world should be more like him because kids need their parents. Then he says that his kids don't see their mother!

Martin Bashir said that when he asked Prince "where's your mommy?" the kid said "I don't have a mommy."

Everyone needs their mother.

Thought i'd post this interesting point of view on here too;

How Many Times Can The Word "Disturbing" Be Used in One Night?
"Living With Michael Jackson".

by © Robin Meltzer MJNI, Tuesday 4th February 2003

It was billed as unprecedented access. It was certainly that. Michael Jackson let Martin Bashir into his life for eight months, apparently oblivious to the fact that Bashir is an investigative journalist with his own agenda. When push came to shove, it was irrelevant that Michael was disarmingly charming, open and friendly during their early conversations, because nothing was going to prevent Bashir from persevering with his crusade to expose the "disturbing" aspects of Michael's life.

So we were left with a Michael Jackson who was probably more genuine than anything we have seen before, and certainly by the end of the project, more angry and distressed than anything we have seen before. For fans of the artist, there will be mixed feelings. Perhaps some will be shocked that they did not know Michael Jackson as well as they thought. Perhaps – like me – it will be the opposite reaction: that Michael was behaving exactly as expected.

For me, it all boils down to a question of truth. Perhaps the most shocking thing for some fans to accept is the fact (and it is a fact) that Michael lied during the interview. But to concentrate blindly on this issue would mean missing one very vital point: even when he was lying, he was being utterly genuine. The things that he fibbed about (his face, the early explanations about Blanket's mother) were not great monumental questions of mankind. Those issues were his business, and he was very embarrassed and (for some reason) clearly did not expect to be probed like this.

Do I wish that Michael had been more open on those topics? Of course. Am I angry with him for not being open on those topics? Not in the slightest. I would question why it is that he has no-one around him that was able to explain to him that this was not going to be another Oprah Winfrey interview. This was going to be the Diane Sawyer interview on speed. This was going to be about feeding the public's taste for all things salacious. This was going to be about allowing Michael to open up to Bashir, climb trees with him, talk about his childhood – in order for Bashir to go in for the kill later. But to feel anger towards Michael for his naiveté and openness - openness which ironically led to him having to fib out of sheer embarrassment - is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about him. This is him being genuine. Evading questions that he sees as no-one else's business is what he does in real-life too! Over the years, I have spoken to countless friends and associates of Michael's, and none of them – even the closest – talks to him about his appearance. Apart from anything else, it quickly becomes ridiculous to remain focussed on that aspect of his life when he has clearly has so many other interesting things to say.

Crucially, contrast his reaction to those issues to the issue that the world's media, in their insatiable hunt for paedophilia, will focus on. Michael's relationship with children is something that he is happy to talk about. In the early scenes with Gavin, the brave 12-year old who beat cancer, Michael was awkwardly aware of people's image of him but didn't attempt to stop Gavin speaking about their close friendship. Indeed, Michael actually confirmed that Gavin does sometimes sleep in his room. Even in the segment filmed in Miami in early 2003, when Michael is obviously feeling very angry and betrayed by Bashir, he is unwilling to "clean up" his story to satisfy his critics. Unlike the shape of his nose or the complex nature of his relationship with his children's mother, this is an issue that Michael is perfectly honest about. Yes, he says, children (not just boys – again, a tabloid fantasy) sleep in his bed if they want to. No, he says, he doesn't have sexual contact with them. I thought that his speech about bedtime stories and warmed-up milk was painfully honest, and not in the least bit sinister. It is therefore terribly ironic that this segment of the programme, when Michael was – even through his anger – refusing to be beaten by the aggressive line of Bashir's questioning, is going to be the segment that parts of the media will use as an indication of how "disturbing" he is.

How many times can the word "disturbing" be used in one night? Does Martin Bashir really have such a poor grasp on the English language that he has to revert to these Louis Theroux-esque clichés?

Why was Bashir pussyfooting around the issue? We saw a boy who had suffered from cancer and had expected to die. We know he spent a lot of time with Michael. We know they slept in the same room, possibly even in the same bed (I was angry that Michael felt he was compelled to reveal the exact sleeping position they adopted as if he was on trial). Why do those things become "disturbing" unless Bashir believes that Michael Jackson likes to have sex with 12-year old cancer victims? The innuendo and smut can only lead to one conclusion, or else it's just there for the sake of it. My opinion is that it's the latter.

If Bashir feels that Michael Jackson has sex with 12-year old cancer victims, he should have the courage to come out and say it. If he doesn't believe that, then he should not employ such tacky journalistic practices to imply something he does not believe.

The argument against what I have just said comes from the righteous brigade. The point, these people say, with copies of the Daily Mail shoved up their backside, is not that Michael is actually having sex with 12-year old cancer victims. It is the fact that he lives in his own fantasy world that has no connection to our world (the world of war, deceit and corruption presumably) and that he should therefore be made to recognise the responsibility that he, as a 44 year old, has when it comes to the welfare of children. We're not saying there's anything sinister about him, say the righteous brigade, but it's just not right that he should be left alone with children.

My answer is: yes it is. Leave your children with this man and perhaps they will be exposed to a belief system refreshingly different to the ignorant fever that modern society suffers from with regard to child sexual abuse. We're all obsessed with having sex with children. The papers are full of it. People go out in the streets to protest against it. Front page after front page is full of details about men who prey on children. It is simply not right, says the perceived wisdom, for men to be alone in a room (never mind a bedroom!) with a child who is not their own. All men want to do is to have sex with children.

Michael is a victim of other people's fear and depravity. Study after study has revealed that most child abuse occurs in the child's own home – either by parents or other family and carers. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to back up the image of an enormous underworld of strangers desperate to get into a child's underwear. Of course these things happen, and they are horrific. But if just a fraction of the attention that is spent creating a climate of fear was thrown in the direction of where the abuse actually occurs, perhaps we would be living in happier times. When Michael's silly baby-dangling moment was plastered across newspapers the world over, how many other children were genuinely at harm in their own home? When Gavin was holding Michael's hand tight as he revealed how Michael had helped him gain mental courage as he suffered from cancer, how many 12-year olds were actually being abused in their own home as the media pundits tut-tutted?

Michael has nothing to hide when it comes to this non-nose-job area of his life, and it seems to me that it is this openness that really "disturbs" people. Despite all the suggestive headlines and the pop-psychology (even Freud would be turning in his grave), I am pleased that Michael is still so real that he can speak perfectly candidly about the need to show affection to children despite everything that happened in 1993. It's one of the reasons I admire him.

The other reason, my main reason, is his music. Of course, we should not be surprised that an investigative journalist did not want to concentrate on the music of this living legend. Similarly, we do not know how much footage was left on the cutting room floor. And yet, would the public really have been so bored if we had heard some more about Michael's creative process? If Bashir had refrained for just 10 seconds from asking Michael about how he dare change his own nose, would the audience have been so disappointed? Someone, somewhere, bought enough Michael Jackson records to fund that lifestyle that Bashir finds so "disturbing" (how dare someone spend their own decently-earned money on creating a fantasy world!). More people have bought products bearing Michael Jackson's name than have bought products bearing the name of any other artist, anywhere in the world, at any time. Would none of those people have been interested in knowing a little more than simply how Michael does the moonwalk and where he was when he composed Billie Jean? Were none of these questions worth pursuing, or – if they were pursued – were none worth including in the final edit? I find this a great, if predictable, shame.

I don't know how Michael Jackson has got to this stage in his life with no adequate system in place to protect his unusual personality from other people's agendas. However, I am pleased that he has remained true to his beliefs, and that when it came to the really important things, the things that are not purely to do with himself but can actually relate to us all, Michael consistently tried to be open and honest, even in the midst of what was clearly, by the end, an aggressive questioner.

In the article that Martin Bashir wrote for the Sunday Times on 2nd February 2003, he said that while he was pleased to have spent so much time with Michael, "it will be a relief to walk away from Neverland and return to the relative normality of a family life, three naturally conceived children and the weekly trip to Sainsbury’s." Well, I would have thought that it would have been quite a relief for Michael too. Let Bashir have his delightfully normal, inoffensive life. I don't see Michael, or anyone else, laying claim to know how best Bashir should live. There is no proof that Michael Jackson's way of life harms anyone; there is plenty of proof that it helps many disadvantaged people. My favourite scene from Living With Michael Jackson was the one of Michael walking over the bridge at Neverland with all the children around him. I dare anyone to find anything sinister in that; if you can, than I suggest the problem lies not with Michael but with you. If Bashir is so offended by this that he can't wait to get back to normality, then that's fine. Each to his own. In the mean time, I'm glad Michael's still there, doing what he does. And making no apologies.

+++

not my words but definately my thoughts.

Marrk said:

Cool, that's the opinion of you both. I just wonder if it would be possible to have this defence by a non fan? I am a follower of his music and I catch heat from some "fans" for my honest assessment of the documentary.

"Michael is a victim of other people's fear and depravity" blah blah , this man is a victim of himself, he's a fucked up pathetic liar

The documentary suggested nothing of the sort. In fact it confirmed my belief that Jackson is unashamedly asexual.[/quote]


If you read "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" By Victor Gueterez (I probably didn't spell that right.)

You'll see some interesting stuff.

(But this isn't place for it.)

Is anyone has the 90 minute UK version of this I'd like a copy.

I'm in the states and I'll have it transferred from pal to nlstc or whatever it is. I think the 20/20 thing is 60 minutes. Also If you have the Prince BBC special.

I'll pay for shipping the cost of the tape, etc.

I'm at cranshaw2003@aol.com

I would've asked MJ: "Michael, you love children, right? What if Paul McCartney had a twelve year old son and he asked: "Michael, can my father have his copyrights to ATV? He's getting old and we wish to keep some of his legacy when he passes on."

I bet MJ would stop the interview and have Joe Jackson after me with a baseball bat!

If anyone can spare a copy of both videos please e-mail when you have time.

Thank you veddy veddy much.

jnoel said:

Apparently got 14 million viewers. (That's very roughly one quarter of UK population.)

But then, Victorian circuses(sp?) were popular too.

After seeing this I immediately remembered my psychology lectures from University studying medicine.
There is no doubt in my mind that Michael has a psychotic illness. What it is, I can not say for certain. However, look at all the evidence; habitual lying, delusional thoughts and delusions of grandeur amongst others. Most obvious is that he has the mind of a pre-teen child, whom has lived for 44 years. He is obsessed with theme park rides, has sleepovers with his 'friends' and showed the eagerness of a child in climbing the tree. Possible scizophrenia is most likely the cause for some or all of this behaviour and the continual need to change his appearance. One of the personalities inside him could be a white boy-remember he hated his looks as a youngster and was teased by his dad and others for his nose,pimples etc. Commonly schizophrenics develop personalities which take them to a different world. he is then in constant denial about skin bleaching and face work as the personality is white. Also look at certain stages of the show where he seemed agitated and doing everything at double speed. This is a sign of some medications or possibly recreational drugs. Look at the scenes involving the Berlin hotel.
As far as sex I don't think he has ever had it. His story regarding Tatum O'Neal was very telling. She may have been overpowering but his response was that of a very immature child. I believe the only sexual contact he has had would probably be with the young children as he believes himself to be one. I'm not saying sexual intercourse, I believe it is the sexual experimentation that kids go through pre-teen i.e. I'll show you mine if you show me yours, and possibly touching each others genitals out of curiosity.
I feel sorry for the 3 kids as they are being bought up to follow in his footsteps.

mashedpotato said:

That's kind of sad if that's the conclusion you've come to.Sad that people immediately think the worst case scenario is what is happening.

I don't agree with you BTW.