AIBU to be shocked by public celebration of Michael Jackson?

[2021x]

Now the MJ film is out my social media feed is flooded with people doing the dances and talking about the movie etc. My local cinema is holding special events and screenings.

I personally have no doubt that he was a predatory paedophile. All the signs are there, especially how he talks about how he would never hurt a child and sharing a bed with them is the "most loving thing you can do in the world". He manipulated the world into thinking he had a "child-like persona" but was able to manage a music career worth millions... which someone who is naive would never be able to manage.

I also do not judge people who enjoy his music. It was very popular at the time, and would be associated with all types nostaligic memories. I listen to problematic artists all the time, but I don't pretend that they weren't abusive.

AIBU to be astounded that any business/media outlet would be seen dead even associating with him let alone celebrating such a horrifically abusive man.

Yes this is what I think too.

He knew he had to leave the most famous ones alone or it might not have been so easy to get away with it/they could have fought him in court/not accepted a pay off.

I saw Wade Robson had posted a message to all SA victims and it made me feel ill. He was 100% guilty.

@LeBonBon I absolutely agree with you, that's why I believe Macaulkey Culkin about not being abused.. why would that paedo abuse a child actor with a semblence of power? Having his testimony as " no everything is cool" is like future proofing

Ī really appreciate all the discussion on this thread.

When ever I try an speak about people get a weird tone in their voice and they say "separated the art from the artist" or "I don't think he was guilty".

As I have said a couple of times I am not interested in why they made the movie. Michael is the cash cow of the Jackson family so they are incredibly motivated to keep people listening and talking about him.

I am interested why we as a society tolerate it to the point of celebration and also why parents are taking their kids to see it? One of my favourite films is "Spotlight" and the quote from the lawyer is "If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one". I had just been hopeful from the Catholic Chruch scandall and Jimmy Saville and post the #MeToo that we would have been able to have a grown up discussion about it.

Yes of course, WE see that clearly. But did he? Michael Jackson certainly didn't think like me. I wouldn't for intance have a pet chimp, or destroy my face.
As I said in my original comment, I'm not defending him. I no longer get the pleasure I once did from hearing his music. The doubts hang in the air.
I feel similarly about Elvis for whom I was a massive fan.
The point I was making was he had a sad and extremely bizarre childhood, and never left the bubble. None of us can know for sure the effect that had on his thought processes and decision making.None of us KNOW anything, except of course the individual alleged victims.

Yes, they do.

Have you heard of Martha Stewart? Felicity Huffman? Lauryn Hill? Bill Cosby?

David Bowie slept with two 13 year old girls but hes still considered a hero. Also Bill wyman slept with a 14 year old and didnt get prosecuted. Sickening.

I agree. I mentioned Bowie earlier on this thread. Everyone seems to have no problem with him, also wife beater John Lennon.

Next up, a new movie about Jimmy Saville focussing entirely on his terrific DJ skills and extraordinary charity work.

I think people are just celebrating his music .he was an incredibly talented man .you have to think of him in two halves brilliant entertainer. Questiable morals .and after all he was found not guilty
But as we see in the jimmy Seville case that goes for nothing

I didn't realise John Lennons son was also one of MJ's 'special friends'.
His music video for 'bubbles burst' made me feel physically sick. The lyrics and the video are so disturbing.

Yes, the film will focus on his younger days when, as a child, he couldn't be accused of being what he was.... A pedophile.

Post aged 18, he began to get creepy, was creepy, was v creepy, behaved illegally, got caught, paid millions to hide the truth, remained creepy, super creepy, more illegal, then money worries, forced to tour, died before tour... I mean, it's hardly a story of joy behind the facade and music is it????

People the world over still celebrate Elvis and he was 24 when he met 14 year old Priscilla. Gerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin when he was 22 althoughh not half as famous I guess. I am not saying celebrate the men but I do separate the men from the music. We are in a time when if you were to look deep enough into most men you would find something disturbing - 62 billion reasons to think this - and we would have a very limited amount of things to listen to and watch.

It’s still performing strongly at the box office:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/apr/27/michael-jackson-biopic-record-box-office

I don't think many people below a certain age celebrate Elvis. I had one friend who loved him which was extremely unusual for a teen in the 00s.

Was Jerry Lew Lewis not 'cancelled' after that? I've literally never ever heard him mentioned except for when people are discussing how Elvis didn't get cancelled (or whatever expression was used before that word became common) but the other guy did because he wasn't as popular. I looked up his most famous songs to see if I knew them, I see it's great balls of fire, which presumably everyone knows but I never knew who actually sang the song because his name isn't familiar at all.

If we are going after men meeting their future wives at a young age how about Prince Philip and the Queen (13) or Muhammad and Aisha (6?).

The film Elvis was a huge commercial success in 2022 and won a ton of awards. Jerry Lee Lewis went on to have big hits a long time after he married his cousin (there was a bit of a fallow period for about a decade after the scandal broke but even during this period he still performed publicly and released records).

(Edited to add disclaimer: I am not interested in viewing this film or contributing to its profits).

In response to the disparaging tone of 'separating the art from the artist'. I'm including here those who have in some way influenced or contributed to intellectual thinking in the last century.

D H Lawrence
Wyndham Lewis
Virginia Woolf
Valdimir Nabokov
T S Eliot
Michel Foucault
Gertrude Stein
Martin Heidegger
Aldous Huxley

All these people had some notoriously hard right wing views, or networks or companions who did, or indulged in or wrote about some taboo and in some cases dubious sexual practices. (And a second disclaimer: I'm not comparing the 'genius' of Jackson with the likes of Heidegger).

Would the literary, philosophical and theoretical canons be richer and more desirable for exclusion of these figures?

Yes or no?

Does Jerry Lee Lewis have fans though? Not of his music but like fans who love him as a person the way they do with Elvis or Michael? 😅 Genuinely curious

I know technically it was a success, like they obviously more than made their money back it but they were obviously going to do that, but compared to other movies it didn't seem to be that successful. I know there was a ton of streams etc also though. I haven't watched it myself but watched the Priscilla movie

It personally doesn't bother me when people say they separate the art from the artist, I had a class before and the teacher asked if everyone was ok with using an MJ song for a routine and we were all fine with it, and one person in the class has openly spoken many times of how they experienced CSA.

I do admit that I've been surprised by the response of a couple of people on social media, who post very regularly about abusive men and the people who support them, but who then posted after seeing the MJ movie about what a legend of a man he is, not just about his work, but about him as a person. But then I do think he has managed to groom the world so it makes sense in that regard.

Did you even read the article? He's not saying Michael Jackson abused him, he's saying that he can't defend michael jackson because he was a victim of abuse elsewhere and him defending him just because it didn't happen to him personally doesn't give him the right to say 'he didn't do it to me so he can't have done it to anyone else'.

Yep, hate seeing all the adds on the TV and radio . I’ve always believed he’s guilty . If he was some Joe blow from next door with the same accusations people would have had a completely different view.

In 2005 he also said " "I started looking at each piece of information, and with that came this sickening realization that there have been many occurrences in my life and in my relationship to Michael that have created a question of doubt".

He also said that MJ showed him a book of nude images which was about STDs when he was 13.

Another comment he made was that 'He did real damage in my overall life. I was a 12-year-old boy who was hurt by his family and ignored by people at school. Michael would sit and talk to me for hours and he would listen. Then he would get bored. The biggest thing that Michael's done to children is befriending the ones that are in need and then abandoning them."

That's something that a lot of his supporters really brush over, if he really was just so nice and loved children so much then how could he do that, did he not understand the damage that that could cause? and if so how did he not? Could he really have been that naive?

I'm not surprised, even though it's been mostly panned by the critics. It was always going to make money, which is the main reason why the MJ myth has endured.

He was found NG. And unlike OJ there wasn't a civil finding of liability at all.

We will never truly know if he did it or not. He can't defend himself, he's not here anymore.

It doesn't stop me enjoying the absolute bangers of songs that he made.

I dont know about Bowie but apparently Wyman didnt sleep with Mandy Smith according to her. But of course he wouldnt get prosecuted because you need an allegation and a statement by the victim to get there

In terms of them both, I dont think they fall into the category of predators or people that sought young girls out just because they were young girls. Im not sure either of them were attracted to '13/14' year olds per se, they're attracted to adult looking women

Thats not the same with Jackson, he specifically sought out, one after the other after the other as a pattern, young boys who were just coming into puberty and then ditched them once they got past that stage.

The situations are not comparable.