GSince the entertainment industry prefers simple, tightly packed messages, there is an ironic drawback in the latest Michael Jackson documentary, as well as Bryan Singer's Bohemian Rhapsody, continuing its insincere award. Although Singer was removed as a director near the end of Bohemian Rhapsody's filming for absences – not for the litany of abuse, assault and rape charges covering his entire career – the studio that produces his upcoming film, Red Sonja, challenges her insistently. The singer remains attached to it.
Last week, Atlantic ran a lengthy investigation, counting on more than 50 sources, claiming the predatory and abusive behavior of director X-Men – including rape – in relation to boys and underage boys. Many adolescents were vulnerable and without family support. The magazine builds a powerful argument that friends, associates and, ultimately, their industry helped and encouraged Singer.
However, Avi Lerner, whose Millennium Films is the studio that produces Red Sonja, rejected this week as "false news". He added that "the more than $ 800 million raised by Bohemian Rhapsody, making it the highest-grossing drama in film history, bear witness to [Singer’s] vision and insight. " Well. Avi is hardly the first person to ask himself, "How can one be bad when he makes so much money?" But he may be the first to say it out loud.
And so, for Jackson, whose fans believe he is currently riding the great Ferris wheel in the sky, while his detractors expect him to be tied to a circle of flames in Tartarus. For those of us who idealize earthly justice, unfortunately, the Leaving Neverland documentary that premiered at the Sundance festival last weekend is likely to be just one more piece in a puzzle whose image should have been clear for decades to everyone except for the intentional blind. Just as there was with R Kelly, unfortunately, there are entire realms worth the blind intent.
The film, in which two men detail their alleged childhood abuse by Jackson and the endless damage that is still spreading, was judged so disturbing that his producers made counselors available in the lobby afterwards. As for the classic patterns of child abuse, shame, and fear set forth by Wade Robson and James Safechuck, we can only wonder if they will be the last evidence to make perfectly intelligent people publicly ask, "Who knew?" Those who are determined to knock him out can still pay Jackson a kind of mastery. This week, the two men's attorney stated that Jackson "was performing the most sophisticated child sexual operation the world has ever known."
And yet, was it? There he is hiding in sight, and then he's literally building a giant fair in his garden, admitting that you sleep with children, and spending decades struggling and paying children – always boys of the same age – who accuse you of sexual assault. . I mean really, who knew?
The reality, of course, is that a large number of people had specific knowledge of Jackson's behavior and ignored him because of the money. "Sophisticated" is actually a comforting euphemism for "expensive". All this is about money: who does it and why it makes things go away. How much of Jackson paid off for a record company – Sony – that incurred precisely at zero public censorship. How much of this could he give lawyers to silence a parade of children accusing him of the same things, in identical patterns. How much of that he could pass on to the servants who depended on him financially in order to continue to close their eyes to the endless parties of pajamas with boys while they tended their own children in some other wing of Neverland.
Who knew? In 1993, Jackson and his team fought against accusations of abuse by preteen Jordy Chandler to the extent that the child was able to describe distinct spots on Jackson's buttocks and penis. After a legally mandated photoshoot of his genital area, Jackson suddenly turned around and decided to settle for $ 23 million. To be continued. A child cancer survivor; a bed fellow child whose book he inscribed "on my rubba rubba boy." And so on.
As, in fact, he is accused of having continued with Singer, who has long been accused of sexual assault. He denies all the revelations of the Atlantic. Before denying this, he had a few decades denying others, whose most basic bones are as follows. Singer was sued in the 1990s by the parents of several extra children who claimed to have been filmed naked for a bath scene without permission. The cases were dismissed for lack of evidence.
The first accusation of rape came in 2014, when a former child actor accused Singer of using him with drugs and alcohol and raping him. He ended the case after his lawyers abandoned him. By this time, Singer would be fighting the claim of a 17-year-old boy that he had sexually assaulted and tried to rape him. This case was finally rejected at the request of the accuser. In late 2014, a documentary called An Open Secret debuted at a prestigious documentary festival. Featuring actors such as Corey Feldman and Todd Bridges, he sought to illuminate the culture of child sexual exploitation in Hollywood and contained numerous references to Singer. "We have zero offers from Hollywood to distribute the film," the producer noted. "Not even one. Literally there are no offers at any price."
In 2016, actor Noah Galvin told a newspaper telling him that "Bryan Singer likes to invite little boys to his pool and cheated them in the dark of the night." Later he apologized. "My comments were false and unjustified. It was irresponsible and idiotic of me to make such allegations against Bryan, and I am deeply sorry to have done so. "In 2017, Singer was charged with raping a 17-year-old boy in 2003; this case is still ongoing.
When allegations against Harvey Weinstein were dropped, and #MeToo was in a snowball, Westworld star Evan Rachel Wood tweeted, "Let's not forget Bryan Singer too." This post was later deleted. However, to be erased, however, is another Wood January tweet this year that asks, "So, we just … are we still pretending we do not know about Bryan Singer? Because it worked very well with # Spacey and #Weinstein.
If at this point it seems that there is not enough money in the world to save Singer, Lerner's invocation of Bohemian Rhapsody's box office shots should remind him that he still exists. Regrettably, Lerner stated that he signed this statement alone, but did not write or read first. Not that he wants to retract. He would have just put it differently, by emphasizing his decision to retain that Singer received no criticism from the industry. "No one called me, not an agency," he said. "I got support from the head of a studio to say, 'Well done, Avi. You defend what you believe in and people should be innocent until proven guilty. "No one told me they are not going to work with me."
Sweetly, several publications, in turn, rejected Lerner's accounts of the zero industry blowback as a "claim." Can we stop calling this a complaint? Let's take a leap and believe in it. They already knew about Singer. What could be more believable than the notion that the big players were left out, or looked away or applauded, and finally agreed with Lerner's dominant thesis: Bryan Singer makes this city a lot of money. And who are we to doubt the moral weight of this?