HBO Leaving Neverland Documentary About Michael Jackson

Mike Krumlauf

Mike Krumlauf

Award Winning Filmmaker
Very interesting stuff happening at Sundance. Lots of docs telling "stories" about abuse in hollywood. Honestly (unlike Harvey, Cosby, and Spacey) I never have believed MJ did anything.. but as a filmmaker, i am interested to see how this 4 hour long documentary was put together. The thing that drives me nuts is that HBO bought the film... I've heard people where speechless after the sundance screening but what I dont get is, we are suppose to place judgement on MJ from 4hrs worth of elaborate storytelling? It was said there is not one credible piece of evidence on this documentary, we all just have go off of wade and the other guy's story.. and for something as serious as abuse, i cant just go off someones story, especially when I know the sums of money he is after with MJ's estate. I am believing this documentary will be very elaborate propaganda journalism but i'm interested to hear what anyone else on here thinks? If this film is too political in a way for discussion on DVXuser then my advanced apologies for trying to start a conversation.
 
Aren't you pretty much doing the same thing you're worried the documentary is going to make people do? Judging something in the absence of first-hand experience?
 
Aren't you pretty much doing the same thing you're worried the documentary is going to make people do? Judging something in the absence of first-hand experience?

It's true we don't have first hand evidence and hence no way of knowing for a fact what happened.

But.

Newsflash - unless you are involved in the crime one way or another, nobody EVER has "first-hand experience"... no jury in the world, yet we do it all the time, and that's how our system works.

We certainly can judge - EVERYONE FOR THEMSELVES - whether we found the documentary convincing or not, whether it changed your mind or not, whether you feel it was done ethically, whether it was done skillfully, whether it seemed to have an agenda etc.

Everyone can come to their own conclusion about the documentary.

Everyone can make an argument(s) to the next person as to what they *think* (find convincing) about the situation. And either change the other person's mind, or not.

Don't juries do exactly the same thing? Nobody says to jurors - "you can't reach a conclusion, you weren't there!". Yes they can - based on which presentation they believed more - prosecution or defence. Oh, you say, "but we don't have the EVIDENCE". Umm, yes we do - SOME evidence that's been presented out there in the public. And either we find the accusers (documentary) credible ("prosecution") or the defence more credible.

We don't have ALL the evidence? Hello? - nobody ever has "all" the evidence including the juries at any trial ever. Period.

What juries judge is which story is more credible - the one presented by the prosecution, or the defence... we never have ALL the evidence, we were NOT there, all we can do is make a judgement.

How is this any different? A case is presented, by the documentary, and we either find it credible or not. It's perfectly fine to discuss the documentary and whether we find it convincing, well made, ethical etc. - all in our own personal opinion. That's how it works!
 
@Mike, why is that concept so strange to you?

For most of the time what we do here is placing a judgement on cameras that we either didn't experienced first hand or didn't have the qualified expertise to judge them.
 
laverdir said:
@Mike, why is that concept so strange to you?

For most of the time what we do here is placing a judgement on cameras that we either didn't experienced first hand or didn't have the qualified expertise to judge them.
Click to expand...

I just cant understand how HBO of all companies is going to let a one sided documentary be released.. its not balanced.. nobody talked to michaels family there is not a pro and a con level. How are audiences members suppose to make a fair evaluation of the "narrative" without both sides of the problem to speak their voice? Michael is also dead so he sure as s*%t can't defend himself.

Case in point.. when I made my documentary about my friend that passed away there was talk about including the fact that the kid my friend was drag racing with fled the country because he was an illegal alien and left the scene of a crime.. a rich topic for a film of course but, ethically there was no way i could interview this kid or his family i.e - i couldnt let him defend himself and share his side of the story of what happened that night and the reasons why he took the actions he and his family did. Because of this, i stayed away from that part of my friends death and focused on things i could get a complete answer too which was the impact he left on his friends, family and community.. his legacy.. I didnt have the resources to fairly investigate his cause of death and drama that came from the other racer leaving the country to avoid prosecution.

Thats all im saying.. if you are going to do a documentary and convict someone on film of something they did, allow the film to let both sides speak their peace, otherwise its unfair.
 
I’m all for fairness, but I’m also(maybe moreso) for the facts. Present me with the facts. If one side chooses not to answer if given the chance or puts themselves in a purposefully unreachable position, then that’s on them and has nothing to do with fairness, but don’t withhold any facts just because both sides can’t or won’t give their take on them.

I understand what you’re saying, using your own doc example, Mike, but leaving out that the other person involved was in the country illegally and then fled to avoid prosecution is a significant part of the story. Just because you can’t interview that person so they can present their side has nothing to do with fairness. It’s facts and you left a huge one out of your story.

I’m also not defending the doc that is the original topic of this thread, as I have not seen it, and I do agree that so many docs are lopsided in their portrayals of subject matter, because so many producers/directors have agendas.

As the saying goes, “Just the facts, ma’am”.
 
My point is that we do not know much of anything about the documentary itself other than the fact that some viewers have had extreme reactions to it. Forget the subject matter. How can we discuss a documentary that none of us has seen and none of us knows much if anything about?

It’s a form of pointless speculation. I recall years ago when the remains of what turned out to be Nazi Josef Mengele were unearthed in Brazil. Before tests could be conducted people were asking, “Think it’s him?” My response was “How the hell should I know? I guess it could be.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top