JMBarrie
JMBarrie => Peter Pan => Topic started by: andrew on June 26, 2009, 05:39:34 PM
-
I've read several times that Michael Jackson gave Peter Pan "a bad name". I disagree. When in 1982 I was asked by The Observer to give my opinion on the rumoured casting of M J as P P in Spielberg's proposed film, I said I thought Barrie would be "turning in his grave... with exhiliration". Of course this was not what the reporter wanted to hear - at the time most P P purists considered such an idea to be sacrilege - but I meant it, although I doubt Spielberg would have had the vision to pull it off (not if the execrable Hook was anything to go by). It seemed to me that M J, in those days, possessed that elusive quality Tyrone Guthrie felt essential in any actor playing Peter: to be at once "as delicate as a moth, as deadly as a bomb". And boy, did he know how to fly! Whether he could have pulled it off we'll never know, but it would have been a brave try; and I sure hope he's now having more fun in the real Neverland than he ever had in that ersatz pile he built to house himself in this life. RIP
-
Been gone all day but was hoping to type something to MJ here. The wise words that Mr. Birkin said did an awesome message of RIP far better than I ever could, not to mention breathes a rare breath of fresh air about the Peter Pan connection. And I couldn't agree more...that would have been awesome to see him try the boy who never grew up years ago (though not in any of the versions produced then - or since then even!).
Saw the news yesterday with some people who were talking on and on of all that blah, blah bullshit about Jackson we usually hear, my mum and I both scoffed at the same time for them to shut the F*** for at least one second. But like 96% of the world, they didn't. After which, we both moved away and were quite for awhile until it made my mum sad and she started talking about the half n half. "Don't know 1/4 of the things that really happened! But poor boy, poor man. Michael was so different from Barrie," she said. "Such different kinds of lives and suffering, but he wanted to connect to him." I replied, "now he's met an awfully big adventure."
As for you, Michael, I never really checked out your music, listened to news or ever debated on you, cared for that ranch, nor even knew much about you, but I can't deny that I too was blown away by your frailty and power as you went about your music. There was so much crap in experiencing other people and fame -such is life. Because of all that, you were really a child. So glad you're free and flying now. BTW, my little brother still dances as the wild lost boy that he is to that orca song by you, which I gave him when he was small. We'll both join you and many others in flights through Neverland one day too. Sweet dreams of waking...
-
It was actually because of Michael Jackson I became interested in J.M Barrie...
I don't think either, that MJ gave P.P a bad name.
May you R.I.P Michael Jackson. Peace you never realy were allowed to have here.
Thank you for your beautiful insights, music, dedication, and love for the world, despite what it has thrown at you.
-
MJ was a great singer and dancer, but I think there's all together too much hyperbole being thrown around.
Just because someone is a talented entertainer it does not make them a great person. It reminds me of when Princess Diana died and every bleeding heart had to be seen to suffer on t.v. giving their condolences. The same week Mother Theresa of Calcutta died, a woman that devoted her whole life to live in poverty and look after the sick and dying, she got 2 % of the air time that Diana got.
If Michael Jackson had worked tirelessly for world peace, used his VAST fortune to do good then, perhaps, he would have been worthy of the worship he's been receiving in the media.
Please understand that I'm not knocking the forum users, but I do think it's a weakness of society in general that we credit greatness, and often goodness, to fame, often when it is undeserved.
Isn't there a saying that a beggar who gives half of his lunch to a needy person is far more than the millionaire who gives a thousand pounds. Well it's something like that, never have been very good at remembering quotes.
-
On this website, MJ was brought up because of the JM Barrie connection. I'm sure people on the forum think about many things as well as that throughout the days and nights.
-
Hello smiles,
Michael Jackson not only gave millions to good causes, he too personally reached out to people who needed help, in any way he could. If you would have taken the time to learn about the person, you would not have said such thing, sorry to say...
Yes his death is widely reported, but then again, sadly, wasn't every step he made reported as if world peace had been declared?
Whatever Michael Jackson did or didn't do, he was news the moment he stepped out of his door.
-
Hannah has already said as much, but I would reiterate that I brought up M J in the context of Peter Pan, and whether or not he might have made a remarkable P P had Spielberg used him back in 1982. It had nothing to do with Fame, Diana, Good Causes, Mother Teresa or anything else... not that you aren't entirely welcome to post your views - nor do I necessarily disagree with them - but it's another topic, and rather off the P P track.
-
true, true, and I deleated my own ramblings. As Andrew said, they have nothing to do with Peter Pan, and weren't really a response to the original topic...
Speaking of which, as for the casting of Peter Pan (that is, if one were to use an adult as Speilberg did), I would have definately given a chance to MJ - he's got the movement, which I've never seen really done in any version. I wonder if he could have pulled off the boy in carelessness as well as emotion though? Mia Farrow had that devil in her, I thought so anyway. MJ seemed very shy in his personality...I'm certain he could do Pan's cries in the nightmares as well as his pain in coming into Wendy's nursery or memory of his mother in a soft and unique way. I'm not referring to his controversial life, but as a performer, could he play a murderer, having a love affair... someone that you can't really say is the devil or hero? If his pitch in heartlessness and innocence can vary as much as his dancing, than certainly! I really haven't seen him in anything on screen, so others will have to elaborate on that, or maybe one day I'll spend some time and watch his stuff on youtube. One thing is for certain, I'd be more interested in watching him than Robin Williams, who didn't remind me of Peter at all! But then I don't think MJ could play such a character as the "Pan" that was designed in Hook's not-anything-like-Barrie storyline (as Andrew already pointed out).
I know Barrie wouldn't have liked Hook, but I wonder what he would have said of MJ, or who we would have picked if not Michael. Jumping back to another decade and time in film, didn't JM Barrie once want Charlie Chaplin to play Peter? I remember that from somwhere, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hmm...well, he certainly had the atheletic ability, and emotional/physical affection, and I'm sure I'd fall off my seat laughing to see his humour in killing pirates, but I don't know if I can quite see him as Peter, not exactly a child, nor is he devlish. Charlie was bold in his politics and techniques, but with danger and death, he seems too safe for Peter in flickers. But I'm a poor judge for film, and maybe I'm just thinking of films in those days, and too much of the Little Tramp now! Barrie must have known what he was talking about.
Ah, would've been nice if we all could see the original Pan performance. I've heard nice descriptions, of course, but I wonder what she was like...
-
Apologies for the earlier post if anyone took offence, it was a bit of a selfish rant.
-
I feel that in many ways, Mr. Barrie and MJ both lost their childhood. Barrie lost part of his because of the death of his brother, the trauma of it all, and the way his mother reacted to it. MJ's childhood was just sad. A meal ticket from the time he was a very small boy. Both of them have their own version of Neverland..and I pray both are a peace. The only way we will ever have peace again is if we can be children again. I respect both of these men.
-
Hmmmm. I just can't see Chaplin as Pan, surely he represents one side of the coin but seemed to be devoid of the devilish half (at least on screen).
Saying that it's amazing how some actors seem to turn themselves into something special for certain roles.
-
I feel that in many ways, Mr. Barrie and MJ both lost their childhood. Barrie lost part of his because of the death of his brother, the trauma of it all, and the way his mother reacted to it. MJ's childhood was just sad. A meal ticket from the time he was a very small boy. Both of them have their own version of Neverland..and I pray both are a peace. The only way we will ever have peace again is if we can be children again. I respect both of these men.
I agree with this..not finding peace unless we are children again but I must say...since me and my boyfriend found each other.....it's lightened the load the world puts on us to a HUGE extent. We strangely enough I suppose...both had our childhoods but....we are still not content...we still don't want to grow up and refuse to. Both Barrie and Jackson have been big figures in our lives. This stuff about Charlie Chaplin is interesting..it seems I've always been drawn to this type of person as I got into Charlie Chaplin around age 7. It's very strange because I'm beginning to see a connection with some of these people. Barrie starts it off....Jackson wants to live it....Jackson ...also loved Charlie Chaplin....when I was little I was ...well...like the book says of Wendy...somehow from my toddler years on I knew I didn't want to grow up and that it felt like the beginning of the end..I dunno how I felt this but I did and I related to that line far too much in the book. And now as I learn more about these people it makes sense why they've always appealed to me....and then imagine my suprise when I found out Jackson loved Chaplin as well.
Barrie will never die ...he lives on in all of us...when we don't conform or let go of our childhoods...When Jackson died..i felt and still do feel like I lost a family member....I wanted to befriend him...so did my boyfriend....not for his fame ...but for what he lived...who he was...we were going to write him a letter when we finally had a permanent address and now sadly this will never happen. The day after Michael died....we were heading to DisneyWorld with my boyfriends parents..and everything felt so weird ....there has been a very weird ambience since he passed...we're not sure what to make of it really.
-
I've read several times that Michael Jackson gave Peter Pan "a bad name". I disagree. When in 1982 I was asked by The Observer to give my opinion on the rumoured casting of M J as P P in Spielberg's proposed film, I said I thought Barrie would be "turning in his grave... with exhiliration". Of course this was not what the reporter wanted to hear - at the time most P P purists considered such an idea to be sacrilege - but I meant it, although I doubt Spielberg would have had the vision to pull it off (not if the execrable Hook was anything to go by). It seemed to me that M J, in those days, possessed that elusive quality Tyrone Guthrie felt essential in any actor playing Peter: to be at once "as delicate as a moth, as deadly as a bomb". And boy, did he know how to fly! Whether he could have pulled it off we'll never know, but it would have been a brave try; and I sure hope he's now having more fun in the real Neverland than he ever had in that ersatz pile he built to house himself in this life. RIP
God!!!!
I wish I could have written these words.
Exactly what I think.
-
Bless you people! This is such a wonderful discussion compared to so many, and points to a truly thoughtful and tolerant group. I agree, Michael as a young man would have been a great choice for Peter Pan. Barrie left this open by providing little if any description of Peter, (heck, he was usually played by a girl!) and Michael had the movement and CERTAINLY the ability to pull it off. If you watch his music or other videos, heck yes he could stab somebody and come out looking cute. :D
It seems Michael later had a falling-out with Spielberg, who has been known to promise projects with people and then go off and do something else, though one of Michael's favorite movies was E. T.
For those wishing to check out his music, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zNtK-N5vw is a great place to start. For such an early song, it is so prophetic of what he represented and tried to become and there is a really Peter Pan quality to it. I am requesting this to be played at my funeral, seriously.
Agreed, he was no money manager and his fortune would have gone to good use in other ways, though at least he did spend more time and money than most people get to on helping others. It would have been really nice if he could have left something to perpetuate the Barrie legacy. Perhaps people looking to make donations in his memory would consider this.
Has anyone thought of writing a detailed book on the similarities and differences in Jackson's and Barrie's Neverlands?
-
Whoa Andrew. I am sure I will be disliked for speaking up, but Michael Jackson cetainly tarniished Perter Pan and Neverland. I will agree he fought growing up and had Captain Hook as a father. Taking my view from the inner circle, Michael was NEVER seriously considered for the role of Peter Pan. The 2 cases brought against Michael on child molestation still cast a questionable light on him, the extreme behaviour, sleeping with young boys, the drugs, the decline of Neverland Ranch. Michael was more like the film The Lost Boys than Peter Pan.
One can only hope that in time his connection with Peter Pan will be forgotten.
-
Whoa Andrew. I am sure I will be disliked for speaking up, but Michael Jackson cetainly tarniished Perter Pan and Neverland. I will agree he fought growing up and had Captain Hook as a father. Taking my view from the inner circle, Michael was NEVER seriously considered for the role of Peter Pan. The 2 cases brought against Michael on child molestation still cast a questionable light on him, the extreme behaviour, sleeping with young boys, the drugs, the decline of Neverland Ranch. Michael was more like the film The Lost Boys than Peter Pan.
One can only hope that in time his connection with Peter Pan will be forgotten.
The media are a nasty bunch I wouldn't keep jumping on that bandwagon personally. There has never been any proof whatsoever as to him molesting anyone. The first boy didn't even draw him circumsized (sp?) which apparently he was. He was aquitted at the second trial. Many children have spoken out saying nothing ever happened. Typically pedophiles don't only go after one or two people...it tends to be a compulsion. One person after another has stated nothing ever happened. I've also heard Michael say he would sleep on the floor and the children in the bed. And it wasn't only boys but girls as well. One interview I saw someone mentioned pictures..just normal pictures not nude..of boys were found..and he was quick to point out there were girls as well. The media will tell you what they want and it's not always truthful. They love to cause juicy gossip good for you for falling for it. Also his houses were searched up and down and nothing was ever found to prove that he was a pedophile at all.
As for the drugs...first off..yes...drugs = bad but we all have problems...his were caused by an accident on the pepsi commercial in the 80's that burned off all his hair...starting an obsession with plastic surgery and an addiction to pain killers..and believe me..it is an easy thing to get addicted to. I've never been addicted to it but I've never taken anything powerful either. He was also on many benzodiazipines...I am on one called Clonazapam for anxiety disorder...he had a lot of trauma in his life that i'm sure contibuted to that as well as sleeping problems. In the end he had crappy doctors. And in the end I think you need to step back and look at what caused some people to get these problems in the first place. Not everyone who has a drug addiction had it because they just wanted a high. I think Michael had a lot of physical and emotional pain in his life and I think it's kind of an unfair judgement to make of him. Same on the molestation charges.
I'm not a christian or anything but honestly..let he who has no sin cast the first stone. We all have problems and I feel sorry for Michael's because I'm sure it wasn't about the high. I'm sure it was about covering up the pain..physical and emotional underneath. He was a kind and giving soul and I hope he's in the real Neverland now.
That's all I have to say on the topic. The instant belief in modern media actually telling the truth about this stuff on your part is enough for me to not talk about this anymore. They're rabid dogs and that's all I can say about them.
-
One connection I see between Barrie and Jackson is that both were decietful in gaining 'ownership' of children. How on Earth Michael Jackson has been allowed to claim legal parentage of 'his' children I just don't know, anyone with a pair of eyes can see it.
-
I don't believe for a minute that Barrie was intentionally "deceitful" in gaining "ownership" of the Davies boys. As I said in my book - and Nico agreed - I'm sure enough that the mistranscription of Sylvia's (2nd) Will was accidental when he replaced "Jenny" with "Jimmy" - why else would he have preserved Sylvia's original, with his own note that "this was written by Mrs Davies on her death bed"? He hardly needed to falsify this sentence in any event since in the next paragraph Sylvia writes, "I would like Mama and J.M.B and Guy [du Maurier] and Crompton [Llewelyn Davies] to be trustees and guardians to the boys..." The originals can be viewed in the database - just search for "sylvia will" ...
-
I knew this would open a can of worms, but I can't believe someone quoted the casting of stones. I am not casting stones. But get your facts straight. In the Entertainment world, we here in Los Angeles, see and hear more than the general public. Where there is sm9oke there is usually fire. You do not pay out millions if you are innocent. You clear your name so things do not keep repeating. What is covered up does not remain so for long here. Not all of us are role models for children. That is where I have a problem with putting Michael Jackson up so high. It is not a matter of who has sinned and who has not. I don't feel you can really say someone is kind and giving unless you personally know them. Often people give to make up for sins or hide them. Michael Jackson wore many masks.
Hey I'm not literally talking about sin just so you know. But I'm making my point that NO ONE is perfect. That's all. I'm sure you've done things in your life you wouldn't be proud of either. As for being in the area where this stuff is happening....I live in a city off the east coast of canada and I will tell you that it doesn't matter where you are..gossip and lies happen including out there...I've had things said about me within my own family by my estranged father that the family believes even though they know me and know it's not true. So why should I believe ANYONE knows who Michael really was is my point? All we can do is go by what we know and what I do know is he was under a lot of stress and his LEGAL COUNCIL advised him to pay it off and get them out of his hair. IMO I don't think parents would just accept money without him also admitting to the crime. I know many catholic priests have paid people for their emotional damages but they were also found guilty or admitted to it to my recollection. I personally know I wouldn't be able to handle the stress and if the benzodiazipines he was on say anything I think he might have had anxiety problems. And don't start with people with anxiety can't be performers because many people are including myself. Theatre and music can be therapuetic. Anxiety can also be a big cause of insomnia.
People have many reasons why they settle out of court...bottom line they found NOTHING. And I will quote him on that "Nothing, Nothing Nothing nothing NOTHING". In fact the only porn that they found (not that porn is good either IMO) was of WOMEN.
Let me ask you..did YOU know him personally? Cause if not you have no right to judge him on the opposite end of the spectrum that I do either. But I'm looking for the best in people but I'm also not blind. It's not like the second time he was brought in about this stuff I didn't get disheartened and wonder if he was guilty...everyone WONDERS. But I just don't see any evidence to support it. Even the footage Martin Bashir took for "Living With Michael Jackson" can attest to something. I doubt he faked all that time. He was there too long following him around. He could have used what ever he wanted. And if you saw the footage Michael's camera's caught that Bashir edited out you'd know he left out all the great things he was saying to him about how he is with the children. Bashir was a snake just like the rest of the media.
Believe me I am not a "brainwashed fan" I really do look at everything. And when it comes down to it...what Michael himself said is true...and the court papers which can be found different places online....show it. There was NOTHING. Now leave the man alone and let him RIP. To me he was no different than Barrie in this respect and I agree with Andrew I don't think Barrie did anything deceitful either. I don't think either of them did and I think they're both in the real Neverland now. Although you might think I'm crazy to actually believe in the place ...I don't really care :P
-
On a side note I would also like to point out to smiles...in relation to Michael Jackson's children. I'm getting the impression that you don't think they are biologically his. Well let me tell you besides the obvious #1: We can't know that for sure. Personally the two older children I've seen in shorts and what not and they both have his skinny chicken legs :D I can also see Michael's eyes in his two boys. I don't care what people say about the eldest being blond...many people turn darker later on..that being said there are freak times when the recessive genes actually take over. Sometimes due to a parent having blond hair or blue eyes or even a grandparent..it happens. So don't get tell me they're not his because of hair color or eye color. The youngest totally looks like his for sure as well.
But my main point I wanted to make was #2....he didn't get these children in any diabolical way. Even IF they were not biologically his. Do people not adopt anymore? Yes they do. If someone chose to be a surrogate and give him children that's their perogitive and there is nothing wrong with it. For all you know Michael was impotent or had low sperm count. We'll never know. If a close friend wanted to do that for him I see nothing wrong with it. And personally from what I've seen he seemed like an awesome daddy and a lot of people will vouche for that who knew him and that's not just his family. Even Martin Bashir thought he was. And like I said he equals a snake.
Someone's father is not simply their DNA dad...it's the person who raised them. My dad isn't anything more than a DNA strand to me. I consider my grandfather to be my real father in the end.
So what shady stuff you are talking about I don't know.
-
I just read your reply on Jackson's children. I agree a father is more than DNA but again, you pick and choose the facts you wish to believe. They are sometimes confusing because Michael fed so much to the press and then denied. Are they his children by blood? Probably not but that shouldn't matter to anyone. Chicken legs prove nothing.
Again here where all this took place, things slip out, people in the know talk. It is the same with some of our murder trials. The evidence not allowed in court is common knowledge here.
Michael was not a mean spirited man and he certainly had more to share with the world in his music. His death was more an involuntary suicide as he knew the risk he was taking in demanding the drugs he took.
-
What has any of this got to do with Mr. Barrie, the Davies, or Peter Pan? I thought this forum was for all of us who enjoy all things Barrie....no offence, but you really need to take this discussion to another site..in my opinion, which I am well aware means.....nothing.
-
Taylor wrote: "But get your facts straight. In the Entertainment world, we here in Los Angeles, see and hear more than the general public. Where there is sm9oke there is usually fire. You do not pay out millions if you are innocent. "
There is evidence he did not do it, actually. For one the first boys father said so himself during a recorded conversation. Unfortunately, that didn't realy cover the news. One might wonder why. Myths, I guess, sell better.
But do not speak about someone else getting their facts straight, when you yourself, clearly haven't. ;)
I'm sure you hear a lot in the entertainment world. But that doesn't make them true. But you know that, I'm sure...
As for his kids, what does it matter? They look bright, healthy and well mannered, and loved their father dearly. ( I do think they are his, look closer at the pictures)
Michael had quite an unusual life, and he sure was 'different'. But that does not make him a criminal.
I also don't think he tarnished Peter Pan. It might have gotten a 'bad name' so to speak, but was that realy his fault? I don't think so. Because he did not molest any kid! I followed the trial closely, and did research on the earlier accusation.
I'm glad he didn't get the part though, simply because I don't like the movie and I don't think his acting skills to be that well...
-
wow. isn't the heading Michael Jackson. And wasn't it started by Andrew himself? You don't have to read these posts. that is what a forum is all about. Opinions.
-
Wait, wait...really? I know about Neverland, but Peter...I thought Peter was original. Obviously, not the name Pan (from the faun/chaos god), but wasn't Barrie's combination of Pan and baby Peter his own? I have to study a lot more, but I thought the idea of a boy who stays young forever was original (at least the way his character is, it certainly is!) And do share more about that tale of a boy who goes with kids to cross over (maybe from eariler mythlogies -none that I'm aware of though, but i love this stuff, please enlighten me!). Are you sure? I thought that boy with dead kids was Peter Pan by Barrie, and that Peter's name was Barrie's child in more than a play/book's sense. Is he a real boy like Peter or a spirit like an angel... share more.
-
This is certainly news to me too! In all my Peter Pan dealings spanning over 30 years (including legal dealings with GOSH, the ghastly 1974 Danny Kaye/Mia Farrow musical, Mel Ferrer and Francis F Coppola, my own PP script for Coppola/Paramount in 1982, the more recent Universal movie, blah blah blah) I have never, ever heard anyone mention a pre-Victorian legend about a boy called Peter Pan... which of course doesn't mean to say there isn't/wasn't one, but without verifiable evidence I do remain a severely Doubting Thomas.
-
PS Taylor, would you be kind enough to start your response as a new topic under "Peter Pan" as it has nothing (thankfully!) to do with M Jackson. And btw, I got the feeling Sunset was referring to the dismal 2003 movie rather than the excerable Hook...
-
Hi Andrew,
Oh no, I ment Hook. :)
-
This is certainly news to me too! In all my Peter Pan dealings spanning over 30 years (including legal dealings with GOSH, the ghastly 1974 Danny Kaye/Mia Farrow musical, Mel Ferrer and Francis F Coppola, my own PP script for Coppola/Paramount in 1982, the more recent Universal movie, blah blah blah) I have never, ever heard anyone mention a pre-Victorian legend about a boy called Peter Pan... which of course doesn't mean to say there isn't/wasn't one, but without verifiable evidence I do remain a severely Doubting Thomas.
Not to continue the off-topic, but I agree--anyone can make the claim without providing evidence for it, though I don't wish to accuse anyone of lying.
At the very least, that comment about "falling out the nursery window" certainly makes me think about the story in another light now....
-
I do not lie. I have a LARGE bill for the copyright attorney, Michael Lorimer. In a seguel I was allowede by copyright law to use Neverland and Peter Pan. If J. M. Barrie had invented either, this would not have been allowed. However if a use of the name pre 1904 could be found then it becomes public domain.
I just presented this as an interesting fact not to be put on trial. I will delete my post.
-
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Which bit was the lie?
Under the old Universal Copyright Convention (as opposed to the Berne Convention), the names Peter Pan, Hook, Tinkerbell et al went into the public domain 52 years after they were first coined in print in the USA, to wit the New York Times in 1905, who published a full synopsis of the play. Thus you or anyone else would have been legally entitled to use the name Peter Pan at any point thereafter in all countries subscribing to the UCC - but not of course the UK, or any other Berne Convention member.
Incidentally, the place in Australia is called "Never Never Land", not Neverland.
-
we're not putting you on trial. Just curious. My question is not your legal dealings, but where did you (or whoever) find the name Peter Pan before Barrie. A storybook from before the 1900s, an oral tale? And where did you hear of a legand of a boy taking kids over? I'm not challenging you, don't be offended, I'm just curious.
-
Andrew. no studio would even consider such a project without world wide release. My attorneys had to find a solution and they found one. you as an author should have search beyond the obvious. I have the documents and you can easily email me off list.
And I don't feel the Mia Farrow/Danny Kaye version was all that terrible. It just lacked magic, but it did have some very nice moments. Your work in that project is certainly not to be frowned upon. My brother was one of the Twins in the Mary Martin production and the whole Mysterious Lady section bothered me in that version. But magical it was so flaws are overlooked.
-
I just read your reply on Jackson's children. I agree a father is more than DNA but again, you pick and choose the facts you wish to believe. They are sometimes confusing because Michael fed so much to the press and then denied. Are they his children by blood? Probably not but that shouldn't matter to anyone. Chicken legs prove nothing.
Again here where all this took place, things slip out, people in the know talk. It is the same with some of our murder trials. The evidence not allowed in court is common knowledge here.
Michael was not a mean spirited man and he certainly had more to share with the world in his music. His death was more an involuntary suicide as he knew the risk he was taking in demanding the drugs he took.
If you want to call that involuntary suicide I could argue that we all at some point put ourselves in the way of possibly causing involuntary suicide. There are prescription drugs out there that have numerous side effects for some..sometimes..though rarely it can be serious. I took an anti biotic called sulfamethoxozole (spelling?) for a UTI last fall and my doctor concluded i'm allergic to it when i started laughing at things that were not funny, giggling in my sleep, sick all the time, and sitting and staring at the wall all day..among the more serious effects of this drug...one of which ironically happened to a woman in my province just after christmas....is the skin detaching from the body..and is VERY life threatening. But it's a simple anti biotic that can cause bad effects in some people. Now while I'm not advocating and saying it was okay that Michael took some of the stuff that he did...i dont think involuntary suicide says ANYTHING. The man-boy had problems....and I think they were more emotional and psychological and I think he had a lot of things haunting and bothering him and I think he needed some genuine people in his life. Even his family is full of backstabbers. Don't even get me started on LaToya or his father. He needed some genuine friends and I can honestly say as talented an entertainer as he is..I would have loved to have been his FRIEND more than anything. Fame or not. He's the kind of person I'd want to hang around with. And I think he needed many GENUINE friends who didn't care about the fame or money. Sadly I think he died without many. You know...since he died numerous people have said "oh me and Michael were close"...yet Michael himself said in an interview he can count the amount of close friends he had on one hand. It's frikkin tragic is what it is and I feel horrible for him. Just because your in hollywood doesn't mean crap to me anymore than my estranged father thinking he knows what goes through my head and why i go around wearing a disney faeries bookbag. You know NOTHING. The only people that know are the ones who were there. But I'm going to go by the evidence and there is NONE that he was guilty. Only that he was troubled and in pain and couldn't sleep. Are you actually in hollywood btw cause I used your e-mail to check myspace and it says you are in the UK. Just curious.
-
Without naming names, I know 2 of the friends MJ could count on 1 hand, and both convinced me that he was an innocent in every sense of the word. He may well have wanted/needed to touch or even cuddle with those children he loved, but he did not have sex with them. I am more inclined to believe these two people (1 male, 1 female) than all the tatty Tinseltown gossip put together.
-
Without naming names, I know 2 of the friends MJ could count on 1 hand, and both convinced me that he was an innocent in every sense of the word. He may well have wanted/needed to touch or even cuddle with those children he loved, but he did not have sex with them. I am more inclined to believe these two people (1 male, 1 female) than all the tatty Tinseltown gossip put together.
Amen Andrew! I always thought the tv show "Hollywood Babylon" was well titled. They'll say whatever they want as long as it will be juicy or bring in money.
-
Regarding Michael Jackson, it's widely known that millions were paid out to the first accuser but not as well known that this was done entirely by Jackson's insurance company without authorization from Jackson or anyone in his camp. (Wonder how he managed to maintain insurance when he continued to sleep with children after the first accusations.) ??? Also, the first accuser never testified at the trial brought about by the second accuser! Did the payoff come with a gag order, or did the first accuser not have the gall to lie under oath? >:(
As far as the kids being biologically his, both boys have clear resemblances to him. Supposedly he opted for a donor to avoid passing on vitiligo, but Prince shows signs of vitiligo as well as other physical similarities. Yes, hair is blond but the mother's hair was blond, it's an awfully dark blond and getting darker.
As for Mark Lester's claims or what were reported as claims on his part. Yes, there are similarities between him as a child, his daughter Harriet, and Paris Jackson, moreso than with Michael Jackson, but if Mark is the father, WHO was the mother? Sure as hell not that albino Debbie Rowe, who is lighter than Mark! Look at Mark, Harriet, and then Paris http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1205288/Is-Mark-Lester-father-Michael-Jacksons-daughter-Paris.html and see if you can seriously state that Debbie Rowe and Mark Lester produced that child!
Where Blanket is concerned, anyone who doesn't see the resemblance, hasn't got eyes. ::) That child is either Michael Jackson's own flesh and blood or the offspring of someone hand-chosen by Jackson for similarities. You'd have more chance of winning the lottery than of having that kind of resemblance with an anonymous donor! Jackson may have been misleading in implying the mother was black...if so, awfully light-skinned black...but my money is on the kids being his!
-
Regarding Michael Jackson, it's widely known that millions were paid out to the first accuser but not as well known that this was done entirely by Jackson's insurance company without authorization from Jackson or anyone in his camp. (Wonder how he managed to maintain insurance when he continued to sleep with children after the first accusations.) ??? Also, the first accuser never testified at the trial brought about by the second accuser! Did the payoff come with a gag order, or did the first accuser not have the gall to lie under oath? >:(
As far as the kids being biologically his, both boys have clear resemblances to him. Supposedly he opted for a donor to avoid passing on vitiligo, but Prince shows signs of vitiligo as well as other physical similarities. Yes, hair is blond but the mother's hair was blond, it's an awfully dark blond and getting darker.
As for Mark Lester's claims or what were reported as claims on his part. Yes, there are similarities between him as a child, his daughter Harriet, and Paris Jackson, moreso than with Michael Jackson, but if Mark is the father, WHO was the mother? Sure as hell not that albino Debbie Rowe, who is lighter than Mark! Look at Mark, Harriet, and then Paris http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1205288/Is-Mark-Lester-father-Michael-Jacksons-daughter-Paris.html and see if you can seriously state that Debbie Rowe and Mark Lester produced that child!
Where Blanket is concerned, anyone who doesn't see the resemblance, hasn't got eyes. ::) That child is either Michael Jackson's own flesh and blood or the offspring of someone hand-chosen by Jackson for similarities. You'd have more chance of winning the lottery than of having that kind of resemblance with an anonymous donor! Jackson may have been misleading in implying the mother was black...if so, awfully light-skinned black...but my money is on the kids being his!
I completely agree! And as I said before..especially with the two boys...their eyes remind me a lot of their fathers...a feature that has always stayed the same with him....through all the changes he made to his face his eyes have been the same since he was physically a child...I can see Michael in their eyes.
-
Glad to see what Andrew posted regarding Michael's innocence. After his death it was mentioned that he spent most of his childhood in two-bed hotel rooms with his brothers. With five or six boys and two beds, do the math. ::) He was simply USED to sleeping with young boys and missed it as an adult!
-
Glad to see what Andrew posted regarding Michael's innocence. After his death it was mentioned that he spent most of his childhood in two-bed hotel rooms with his brothers. With five or six boys and two beds, do the math. ::) He was simply USED to sleeping with young boys and missed it as an adult!
I will fully admit until I was 20 I couldn't sleep alone...at least half the time I'd end up crawling in bed with my mom at night. Some might say I'm a big baby but oh well...was her fault for telling me there were monsters were i was three who were going to come get me if i didn't go to sleep....yeah she wasn't too bright back then lol hahaha but seriously...now i can't imagine sleeping alone..i went on to get married..that ended..i spent so many months sleeping alone and HATED it...and now i can't imagine ever not having my boyfriend there.
-
You all must have some odd glasses. Those 2 older children do not resemble Michael Jackson. You seem to pick what media hype you want to believe. But it does not matter. He accepted them as his children and the rest is his business.
If you truly believe MJ was innocent, read the FBI files on him. They are documented in a book written by the Uncle of the first boy. (who by the way wanted to give the money back and testify after he became of age.
California DA said no.)
Why do you ask where i live? Yes I live in London and Los Angeles. My surname is Taylor you can figure out the rest for yourself. End of discussion.
-
You all must have some odd glasses. Those 2 older children do not resemble Michael Jackson. You seem to pick what media hype you want to believe. But it does not matter. He accepted them as his children and the rest is his business.
If you truly believe MJ was innocent, read the FBI files on him. They are documented in a book written by the Uncle of the first boy. (who by the way wanted to give the money back and testify after he became of age.
California DA said no.)
Why do you ask where i live? Yes I live in London and Los Angeles. My surname is Taylor you can figure out the rest for yourself. End of discussion.
There are court files that talk of how the first boy didn't have a clue what he was drawing when asked to draw the genetalia. He drew him uncircumsised and apparently he WAS circumsised. To me that is ONE BIG FLAW. The father of the first boy has been heard on recording about how he was going to ruin Michael Jackson and stuff I don't believe a word of it I think it all speaks for itself.
-
Apologies if anyone has already drawn attention to this lovely video on YouTube, put together by 'Peter Pan' and 'TheWendyBird', which has Michael Jackson's Have You Seen My Childhood as a soundtrack to excerpts largely from Andrew's/BBC's "The Lost Boys" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ansJ1V_mW7M
-
Apologies if anyone has already drawn attention to this lovely video on YouTube, put together by 'Peter Pan' and 'TheWendyBird', which has Michael Jackson's Have You Seen My Childhood as a soundtrack to excerpts largely from Andrew's/BBC's "The Lost Boys" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ansJ1V_mW7M
Aww thanks so much for posting the vid :)
-
Called to mind something said after the trial, along the lines of, "Michael Jackson may have molested children, but he did not molest *this* child." Yet never has any case surfaced where it could be proven he did! And never mind extortion attempts on Jackson--how about all the muckrakers who would have been waving money at any legitimate victim? I saw the statements of the first boy, which, it seemed, could have been easily invented. As for the second boy, I never read the transcripts, just brief descriptions of the court proceedings. As for interviews, Jackson seemed to be a pathological liar on many subjects. I can't speculate on why--anything from a wish to maintain an air of mystery to really something to hide to serious psychological problems. In any event, it was very hard to tell what to believe based only on his words. One has to weigh them along with other sources. One thing that could very well have been true, if the leaked autopsy results are accurate, is that he could have produced children. According to the report, his reproductive organs were present and functioning, which puts the lie to a number of stories which had been circulating.
-
I always wondered if Michael would have been a good Peter Pan. He seemed to fit the part quite well. He had a youth-like feeling to him, and he always wanted "to be a little boy and to have fun!" (Quote taken from JM Barrie's Peter Pan).
-
Just wanted to say, Michael had two boys and a girl, just like in Peter Pan. I gave a thought today that this is their first Christmas without Daddy :'( and hope they experience it as well as possible.