Leaving Neverland
Leaving Neverland is a 2019 documentary film directed and produced by Dan Reed. It focuses on two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who allege they were sexually abused as children by the American singer Michael Jackson. Their allegations are the subject of a recent legal ruling, Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, clearing the way for a trial of their long-running claims.[4]
Leaving Neverland
Dan Reed
- Michael Jackson (archival footage)
- Wade Robson
- James Safechuck
Dan Reed
Jules Cornell
Chad Hobson
- January 25, 2019 (Sundance)
- March 3, 2019 (United States)
- March 6, 2019 (United Kingdom)
- United Kingdom
- United States
English
The film is a co-production between Channel 4 and HBO. Following its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on January 25, 2019, it was broadcast in two parts on HBO and as a shortened version on Channel 4 in March 2019. It received acclaim from critics, winning the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special,[5][6][7] but mixed reviews from viewers.[8][9]
Leaving Neverland triggered a media backlash against Jackson and a reassessment of his legacy. However, it boosted sales of his music. Some dismissed the film as one-sided and questioned its veracity; the Jackson estate condemned it as a "tabloid character assassination",[10] while Jackson's fans organized protests. A number of rebuttal documentaries seeking to refute the allegations were released.[11][12] As of 2020, Reed was developing a follow-up documentary, with Robson and Safechuck returning.[13]
In February 2019, the Jackson estate sued HBO for breaching a non-disparagement clause from a 1992 Jackson concert contract by distributing the disparaging film.
Production
Leaving Neverland was conceived by Channel 4 editors. After Reed produced enough material to make a four-hour film, HBO joined the production.[15] He felt the length was necessary to present the story "in a way that makes it fully understandable in all its complexity." Reed said he did not use the film to comment on Jackson's actions or motivations and did not want to interview other key figures because they might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.[16][17] The UK version of the film was trimmed by 47 minutes.[3]
In February 2017, Reed and assistant producer Marguerite Gaudin flew to Hawaii to interview Robson, who agreed to tell his story chronologically and without omission of any unpleasant details.[18] A camera failed shortly after shooting began, but a solution was found; shooting continued until nighttime and continued throughout the second day. Reed traveled to Los Angeles later that week to shoot Safechuck's story in two days.[18] Reed said that Robson, Safechuck, and their families received no financial compensation for the film.[19]
After filming, Reed returned to London and began corroborating the stories. Wondering how Robson's and Safechuck's mothers could have allowed their sons to be allegedly abused, he returned to Los Angeles in November 2017 and interviewed their families.[18] The interview in which Safechuck discusses and shows the wedding ring was filmed in July 2018.[20] Reed decided that footage he had shot of former detectives and prosecutors from the 1993 case and the 2005 trial was unnecessary.[17] Reed was unable to contact Jordan Chandler for the documentary and assumed he preferred to remain private. Reed also said the Chandler and Arvizo stories could form the basis for a second documentary.[21]
The documentary was scored by Chad Hobson, who said his approach was to "imagine a walk through a beautiful and magical forest ... But as you travel deeper into the forest it becomes darker, more distorted, the limbs of the trees becoming more twisted and sinister."[22]
Reception
Critical response
On Rotten Tomatoes, Leaving Neverland holds an approval rating of 98% based on 95 reviews, with an average score of 8/10. Its consensus states: "Crucial and careful, Leaving Neverland gives empathetic breadth and depth to the complicated afterlife of child sexual abuse as experienced by adult survivors."[36] On Metacritic, it holds a weighted average of 85 out of 100, indicating "universal acclaim", based on 23 reviews.[37]
In Vanity Fair, Owen Gleiberman described Safechuck and Robson's stories as "overwhelmingly powerful and convincing".[38] Hank Stuever of The Washington Post thought the documentary was "riveting" and "devastating", ending his review with a plea: "Turn off the music and listen to these men."[39] Melanie McFarland of Salon believed the film's "intent isn't to merely grant these men and their families a platform to air their stories in all their painful fullness, but to place the viewer inside the perspectives of everyone who was taken in by the dream... it does leave the viewer in the thorny clarity of what we know now."[40] Matthew Gilbert of The Boston Globe wrote that the film was not "particularly imaginative", yet he admired how it chronicled Robson's and Safechuck's emotional narrative: "It accounts for every stage of their respective recoveries, which are still in progress, including their darkest feelings of fear, denial, and shame."[41]
In Entertainment Weekly, Kristen Baldwin gave the film a B grade. She criticized it as "woefully one-sided" and concluded: "As a documentary, Leaving Neverland is a failure. As a reckoning, though, it is unforgettable."[42] In The Hollywood Reporter, Daniel Fienberg wrote: Leaving Neverland is "about the 20+ years... Robson and Safechuck [held secrets, lied, covered up] — and the damage that can do — as it is about the alleged crimes." He concluded: "It's doubtful you'll feel exactly the same after watching."[43] The Daily Telegraph awarded it five out of five, describing it as "a horrifying picture of child abuse".[44]
David Fear wrote in Rolling Stone: "By offering these men a forum, this doc has clearly chosen a side. Yet the thoroughness with which it details this history of allegations, and the way it personalizes them to a startling degree, is hard to shake off."[45] IndieWire's David Ehrlich wrote that the film was "dry" and "hardly great cinema", but a "crucial document for a culture that still can't see itself clearly in Michael Jackson's shadow".[46] Alissa Wilkinson described the documentary as "a devastating case" that "may forever" change Jackson's legacy.[47] In the Chicago Sun-Times, Richard Roeper described it as a "devastating and undeniably persuasive film".[48] Leaving Neverland earned the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special[5] and the TCA Award for Outstanding Achievement in News and Information.[49]
Controversy
Criticisms of allegations
In January 2019, the Jackson estate issued a press release condemning the film: "The two accusers testified under oath that these events never occurred. They have provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations."[97] In February 2019, the estate filed a $100 million lawsuit against HBO, petitioning a court to compel their arbitrate cooperation regarding the film's broadcast.[98] As Jackson is deceased, HBO cannot be sued for defamation. Instead, the estate claimed HBO had violated a 1992 agreement never to disparage Jackson's public image, stipulated in the terms for broadcasting his concert film Live in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour.[99] On the day of the HBO premiere of Leaving Neverland: Part One, the estate posted Live in Bucharest on YouTube. The next day, to coincide with the broadcast of Part Two, the estate posted another concert film, Live at Wembley July 16, 1988.[100]
Fans of Jackson demanded the Sundance Film Festival cancel the screening.[101] At the Sundance premiere, Robson and Safechuck said they had received death threats from some fans.[102] Fans organized protests outside Channel 4's office, an internet campaign against the film, and a crowdfunded campaign placing posters with the slogan "Facts don't lie. People do" on public transport.[15][103] On 27 February 2019, The Southern Christian Leadership Conference wrote a letter to HBO asking the network to reconsider airing the film, calling it a 'posthumous lynching' of Michael Jackson.[104] On March 13, Transport for London announced it would remove the adverts after the charity Survivors Trust complained that they could discourage victims of sexual abuse from coming forward.[105][106]
Several men who were friends of Jackson as children, including some who were named in the documentary as other victims, defended him and denounced the documentary; the American actor Corey Feldman called the documentary "one-sided" and said Jackson never approached him inappropriately.[107] He later partially softened his words by saying that his comments "[weren't] meant in any way to question the validity of the victims".[108] Feldman told Rolling Stone that his relationship with Jackson was "the standard grooming process that [Robson and Safechuck] describe ... everything was similar [to what happened to me] up until the sexual part."[109][110] The American singer Aaron Carter, a friend of Jackson as a child, said in 2019 "there was one thing that he [Jackson] did that was a little bit inappropriate";[111] however after the release of Leaving Neverland, he clarified that the incident had not been sexual. He remembered Jackson as "an amazing guy" and said his accusers were "full of crap".[112] Barnes and Culkin, whom the documentary suggests replaced Robson and Safechuck when Jackson "pushed them out", also denied any inappropriate behavior from Jackson.[113] Culkin restated that he had never seen inappropriate behavior from Jackson, and said he had "no reason to hold anything back" now that Jackson had died.[114]
The English singer Boy George expressed skepticism about the documentary: "It's just taken almost for granted that this is what happened and therefore we all should accept it."[115] The American singer Madonna, who was a friend of Jackson, told British Vogue: "I don't have a lynch-mob mentality, so in my mind, people are innocent until proven guilty ... Are there people asking for money, is there some kind of extortion thing happening?"[116] Joey Fatone of NSYNC, who had worked with Robson at the 2001 MTV Video Music Awards, also expressed skepticism: "[At the time] it seemed like nothing was going on, that's the whole thing. To come out later on and have these repercussions, it's kind of weird and interesting because you never know what's true."[117]
The Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe argued that Safechuck's claims of sexual abuse at Neverland's train station at age 10 between 1988 and 1992 could not be true because the train station had not been built until 1994, when Safechuck was at least 16. Reed responded: "There seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date [the accusers] have wrong is the end of the abuse." He said that Safechuck was present at Neverland before and after the construction of the station and that it was "just one of the many locations where James remembers sexual activity taking place". However, this contradicts Safechuck's claim that his alleged abuse ended in 1992 because he grew too old.[118] Smallcombe dismissed Reed's response,[119] and criticized the documentary for omitting the debts Robson and Safechuck allegedly owe Jackson's estate in court costs.[120]
Another Jackson biographer, J. Randy Taraborrelli, felt that Jackson's friendships with children were "weird", but saw nothing sexual about them. He said he would have felt that Robson and Safechuck were telling the truth "if it wasn't Michael they were talking about".[121] Bill Whitfield, Jackson's former head of security, also disputed Robson's account that Robson and his wife visited Jackson at his home in Las Vegas in 2008, and said that Robson had never visited.[122]
Additional background
Prior accusations against Jackson
In 1993, Jackson was accused of sexually molesting 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. Jackson denied the claims and settled the case out of court for a US$23 million payment.[123][124] No charges were filed after a criminal investigation due to a lack of evidence and testimony from the alleged victim.[125][126] In 1996, Jackson made an out-of-court settlement with the mother of another boy, Jason Francia, for more than US$2 million, who, in 1993, previously told police that Jackson never molested him.[127][128] The Francias never filed a lawsuit.[129] In 2005, Jackson was criminally tried for several counts of child molestation charges following concerns raised in the 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson. In that film, he was seen holding hands with 12-year-old Gavin Arvizo and talked about sharing a bed with him. Jackson was acquitted of all charges.[126]
Cirque du Soleil
In May 2011, Wade Robson, a choreographer and former friend of Jackson's, approached John Branca, co-executor of the Jackson estate, following up on an offer to discuss directing the Jackson-Cirque du Soleil joint production Michael Jackson: One. Robson wanted the job "badly",[16][130] but the estate had already chosen someone else for the production.
Safechuck and Robson lawsuits
Robson states in his 2013 complaint that he had suffered two nervous breakdowns in April 2011 and March 2012.[131] According to Robson, his second breakdown was triggered by an obsessive desire for success juxtaposed with a failing career. Joseph Vogel, criticising Leaving Neverland in a Forbes article, wrote that Robson was "shopping a book" about his alleged sexual abuse by Jackson.[16]
In 2013, Robson filed a lawsuit alleging that Jackson had sexually abused him for seven years, beginning when he was seven years old; the suit was reportedly worth up to US$1 billion.[16][132] The following year, James Safechuck, another former friend of Jackson, filed a lawsuit alleging he was sexually abused by Jackson over four years, beginning when he was ten years old.[133][134] Safechuck said he realized he was abused by Jackson after seeing Robson on television. A probate court dismissed Safechuck's suit in 2017.[16] Both men had previously testified that Jackson never molested them—Safechuck as a child during the 1993 investigation, and Robson as a child in 1993 and as a young adult in 2005.[135][136]
In 2015, Robson's case against Jackson's estate was dismissed because it was "untimely."[137][138][139] This fact would later be pointed out again in the Jackson estate's petition to compel arbitration against HBO for airing the film in 2019.[140] Robson's attorney, Maryann Marzano, said they would appeal the ruling and that they would pursue Jackson's business entities.[141] In 2017, it was ruled that the corporations formerly owned by Jackson could not be held accountable for Jackson's alleged past actions.[142][143] The rulings were appealed because of a change in California law that extended that statutes of limitation. On October 20, 2020, Safechuck's lawsuit against Jackson's corporations was again dismissed, with the presiding judge ruling that as a matter of law, Jackson's companies had no duty to keep Safechuck safe from Jackson's alleged predation.[144][145] On April 26, 2021, Robson's case was dismissed because of a lack of supporting evidence that the defendants exercised control over Jackson.[146] In 2023, an appellate court revived both Safechuck and Robson's cases in the Safechuck v. MJJ Productions decision.