Asks Will Leitch, in "The terrible Michael Jackson movie exposes a central cultural question. The film is indefensible. The impulse to see it is deeply human" (WaPo).
I don't know who wrote the headline, but I don't see Leitch attributing deep humanity to the millions of people who are seeing and loving "Michael" — which he and all the critics know "is a bad movie."
Those people who love "Michael" are, in Leitch's words, those who "generally don’t see mass culture as a moral issue, or a political one, or really as having much practical, tangible effect on their lives at all. They go to the movies, listen to music, watch television or read books, not to make some sort of statement about the world but to take a break from it. For most people, art and entertainment are just something that gets you out of the house for a while — and might even make you dance."In short, they are the very opposite of deep.
I would have liked to hear a sophisticated analysis of why it is deeply human to want to see Michael again, in his glory, without the ugliness of the accusations. It is deeply human to long for a return to feelings of joy and love that enveloped you when you were young. You're not a nitwit to want that.
పోస్ట్లు
77 కామెంట్లు:
"Michael" has a higher audience rating (97% at Rotten Tomatoes) than "Casablanca" (95%). The critics put "Michael" at 38% and "Casablanca" at 99%.
"Dolph" - a damaged war veteran finds peace through landscape painting, but then sees his dreams endangered by a metropolitan arts establishment that rejects his traditional aesthetic. CC, JSM
"Roman" - a Holocaust survivor, made a widower by a shocking cult crime, turns the cinematic world upside down. CC, JSM
It says every thing about lietch doesnt it
More seriously, if you are going to consume just the art, consume just the art. Don't watch a MJ biopic; just watch his videos. As soon as you start wanting to see what happens outside the studio or concert arena, you're lying to yourself if you exclude the bad stuff. CC, JSM
"R" - a young Black man rises above his upbringing in the projects to shake up the R&B industry. CC, JSM
And how much of the bad stuff was true, i'll say 20%
Ciso, you think only 20% of the accusations against MJ are true? CC, JSM
Yes im putting my cards on that
Sounds like people want more Michael Jackson and less Will Leitch. Gee, there's a headscratcher.
I don't think it's preferable to live a life encumbered by having to decide who is good and who is bad with respect to their art. It would become a part-time job figuring it all out.
Remember when Woody Allen’s autobiography was cancelled? Our betters told us was too toxic to read and was effectively banned.
If you listen to "A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs" at all, you will quickly learn that the reality behind the music is not always pretty and is mostly ugly.
There are plenty of ways to do musical biopics. Is this a musical or a documentary? The guy was a sick wierdo who was an absolute musical genius and talent. Nothing wrong with enjoying the music.
Some people love Che T-shirts. Meh…
I used to rub elbows with a gallery owner and her artists. I had opportunities to travel to art shows and plein air events. It became a thing to note the artist's personality-- were they "nice" or "arrogant" and how that would effect the opinion of the art itself. It would.
This is different I guess because the artist is a massive success. I never really understood it. A few of his songs stand out as solid pop songs - but otherwise... meh. Cannot get over his child abuse.. Just so creepy and weird. Not a movie I care about.
The argument is interesting. For years, people have avoided movies because of the politics and personal behaviors of the directors and actors performing in the movies. Now, WAPO suggests people should avoid movies based on the subject matter. I thought "One Battle After Another" covered both camps, but I bet WAPO loved it.
…I suppose if we devised a collective standard of what’s disqualifying, but we know the asymmetry of application is a requirement…
If I like the music or the art I will enjoy it. No need to like the artist. In fact, you can hate them and still enjoy their music.
…place any faith in Rotten Tomatoes ratings at your own peril…
When the left started going after Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, how whites living with slavery and then Jim Crow actually thought and spoke, maybe most of them were doing their best, etc., there was at least some intelligent debate about whether people with some bad attitudes and behaviors might create great art. Nazis arguably are associated with somewhat greater art and architecture than Communists, although with the Commies there is some idea of maintaining some traditions in classical music and ballet. Poor Michael didn't produce great pop music primarily, or at all, to propagandize for his weird sex life or cruelty to the chimp or whatever.
Or, more accurately, "Michael Jackson’s Music Was too Lucrative to Be Canceled". Principles die on the balance sheet.
I think there's a difference between continuing to stream the music and rushing to sanitize the man. "The art vs. the artist" question has always existed, but we need the cultural maturity to avoid swinging back and forth between absolute cancelation and uncritical adulation. Similarly, I'd never refuse to look at the art of Picasso or Caravaggio. Many, many artists of all disciplines have severely compromised backgrounds.
I boycott artists (and their products) who I find odious. The ever-expanding list includes Springsteen, Neil Young, DeNiro, Stephen King, Mark Ruffalo, John Legend, Colbert & Kimmel. They don't get my money, clicks or ratings.
I have no feelings either way so n this. I will point out that the Crintical Drinker liked it.
I dunno, Jackson became a more deeply flawed human being as he accumulated more wealth. He was flat out weird, some might say mentally ill. The world could see it, but kept silent for whatever reason.
As the cash rolls in, I see his surviving family is planing 2 sequels.
My 76 year old sister-in- law will probably watch the movie 10 times.
with you on that Baghdadbob.
We look at the jaundiced eye of the entertainment and sports media admittedly some of his later work was overpraised but then theres the mountain of garbage that was thrown at him
Conversely look at how freddie mercurys flaws were papered over in that film
Fame can't protect the guileless from predators. I think Jackson was a bit like Elvis, a pop culture product that was over-managed into destruction by those who stood to profit. I can't imagine being subjected to that for an entire lifetime, as Jackson pretty much was. Was he a pedophile? He may have been, or he was - to those who stood to profit.
It is deeply human to long for a return to feelings of joy and love that enveloped you when you were young. - Well said. Very true.
I dont see whats so surprising. MJ was the No. 1 recording artist in the world for almost 10 years. He's up there with Sinatra, Elvis, and the Beatles. His songs never did anything for me, but people my age and younger worshipped him.
And they don't really care that he had "issues". Why would they?
Its interesting how leftists always view everything through a political lens. And judge each other and other people on who they listen to and read. And not just leftists its assholes like Rod Dreher. You're not supposed to like X or have Y on your program because that means you like X and Y. And are supporting them. Which is childish and stupid but the Left enforces their party line and they get no organized pushback.
This sort of article is hilarious in a way. I doubt the author would have any problem going to a Roman Polanski movie or defending him as a movie-maker, but somehow a MJ movie is indefensible. LOL.
Kak-a-bot - wrong again -- People like Michael Jackson for his music.
The balance sheet has nothing to do with it.
Plenty of great artists were creeps as human beings. Lots of them are/were egomanics who didn't think the rules applied to them, or thought their wives were there to serve them and their genius. Not the sort of people you'd want to baby-sit your kids. Does it matter?
Its not like they were ax murderers. Many of them supported Stalin and the USSR, the greatest tyranny of the 20th Century. Hemingway, for example was a Communist. He not only supported the Party while married to martha gellhorn, he gave the Cuban Communist money in the 50s. Hemingway also went through 4 wives, and was an untrustworthy friend. So, he was not admirable. But how does that invalidate the greatest of sun also rises or his short stories?
Go down the road of not caring about artists because of their cultural and political attitudes and you end up in the same place as Israelis who refuse to listen to Wagner and Beethoven. IOW, as a moron, cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Getting back to MJ. I never did understand what was proven and not proven. IRC, he weirdly got into bed with his boy guests but never tried to molest them or had sex with them. Was there something else?
Im guessing much of it is garbage
The idea that one should look to artists as moral or philosophical exemplars should have died a painful death in the 20th century when half the art world decided they loved omnicidal left-wing dictatorships and many of the rest fell in love with a genocidal right-wing dictatorship. And hardly surprising that the artistically inclined were revealed in the last century to have less moral sense than the average shopkeeper or tradesman, as so many artists in the past were such repellent maniacs.
Art can be beautiful, moving, horrifying, but the artist himself is hardly worth considering as a subject for moral evaluation at all, at least, no more than any random man on the street. He is a craftsman, skilled in arranging the elements of his craft -- whether it's words or paint or musical notes -- in such fashion as to produce particular effects in the audience, effects which earn the awe and perhaps affection of his audience. And Michael Jackson was a very, very skilled craftsman.
If you "find out" that an artist is a terrible person? Find out? I just assume all artists (and athletes and politicians) are terrible people. There are occasional outliers, but I am seldom wrong on this.
Going whitey was an interesting lifestyle change.
Why did they decide that michael jackson was a fit target, befause he didnt virtue signal except that 1992 video
At DD, everyone has flaws, some more worse than others. No mystery there.
One of our grandsons - who turns two this coming week - entertains all of our family with his attempts to mimic wacko jacko’s dance moves from various music videos. 😁
I could see from early on that Michael Jackson was deeply weird and likely mentally ill. I didn't care then and I don't care now- his music from 1979-1989 was a big part of the soundtrack to my life from age 13-23. I won't be watching the biopic, however- if I want to put myself into reminiscent mood of those years, I will just pop "Off the Wall", "Thriller", or "Bad" into the CD in my car.
Think of it as a record (or whatever has replaced vinyl records). When you put a record on, you just want the music, not a "VH-1 Behind the Music" documentary. Musician biopics all have their hero's "struggle" against "inner demons" and have become cliched and trite. This movie follows the cliche when it comes to Michael's struggle against his father, but leaves out his other demons. Good or bad? I don't know, but it's not like there haven't been other presentations showing the other side of the story.
As for who to trust in the value of the biopic itself- it is always a good idea to trust the people who pay to consume a product rather than the critics- the audience is almost certainly smarter by a fair degree.
…for those of us of a certain age Michael was also a child star along with his brothers. I find it hard to square that with the adult crazy persona.. Perhaps that’s part of the appeal for movie goers?
…and Polanski was mentioned- yes, the asymmetry what makes the leftie virtuousness worthwhile. For me the DeNiros are a problem mostly because it spoils their acting. No matter the character they are always their screechy preachy selves. Actors used to fear over exposure. Some things are too important I guess…
The Jackson Five, Four, Three, Two, One.
Mostly I separate the artist from the art. Mostly. Not sure I'd be comfortable watching anything with OJ Simpson in it. Jackson, meh; I really like some of his J-5 stuff though.
I do believe there's a wide gulf between left and right on this sort of thing, or at least The Left and Everyone Else. The Rest of Us will generally enjoy art by people whose politics we find objectionable and be fine with it; so many on the left will just cancel 'em. Ted Nugent should be in the mix for icons of '70s rock, but he's been thoroughly canceled because of his politics.
Welcome to the adaptation-writer's world. See: "H.P. Lovecraft."
“ Mostly I separate the artist from the art. Mostly.”
Caused me to think about that well known artist Hunter Biden and his art. The meteoric rise in the value of art was a sight to behold. I missed out.
I like the poetry of Ezra Pound. He was a fool. In prison after the war he wrote the Pisan Cantos (he was TS Eliot's il miglior fabro). He wrote I"s a hunchback's art crooked because he is a hunchback?"
Separate the art from the artist. Perhaps Cicero or Homer, or Virgil were nasty bits of work. I don't care. It's their work I love.
Marx was an awful person.
You've just spoiled "Duck Soup" for me forever. Satisfied?
So I should take down my cityscape of Vienna by Hitler?
What about my Picasso?
And my Dali?
And my Warhols
John Henry
"If it turned out the Wright brothers were pedophiles, would you stop flying and take the bus everywhere?"
--Jim Norton
Terrible wicked or terrible-terrible?
Not harpo
“ If it turned out the Wright brothers were pedophiles, would you stop flying and take the bus everywhere?"
--Jim Norton
Everywhere? Not if it was an EV bus, it wouldn’t get you very far.”
Teh Wright Bros were pedalphiles.
NTTAWWT.
I suppose it's fair to separate the artist's art from his life. As I understand, this movie separates MJ's life from his life. One critic said it's like a biopic of OJ that ends with him winning the Heisman.....I understand there's going to be a MJ II. Perhaps then the filmmakers can address the issue. Maybe it's just as well to duck the issue. I suppose there's a way to present such a problem sympathetically, but I'd just as soon not see it.
The Catholic Church is currently struggling with exactly this issue with regard to the now-former Jesuit priest Marco Rupnik, an artist renowned for his mosaics. They have been widely installed around the world, including in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., the Vatican, and Lourdes. Accusations of sexual improprieties, including rape, are at the heart of the controversy. Many of his mosaics have been covered up as church officials grapple with what to do with art by despicable artists.
The problem is not new. In the 1930s Eric Gill (best known today for various fonts and typefaces that he designed) designed stations of the cross for Westminster Cathedral (not Westminster Abbey), the Roman Catholic cathedral in London. Many of the works were controversial at the time of their creation because of explicit sexuality, but subsequent revelations of his sexual abuse of his daughter cast these works into a new light. Nevertheless, the works have not been removed from public display.
Personally, I have never found Rupnik's artistic works particularly impressive, so their removal would be of no great loss in my opinion.
RCOCEAN II said...
“Getting back to MJ. I never did understand what was proven and not proven. IRC, he weirdly got into bed with his boy guests but never tried to molest them or had sex with them. Was there something else?”
5/1/26, 8:46 AM
My theory – for what it's worth – was that he and his brothers were cheated out of their childhoods, being looked upon as nothing more than cash cows by their parents. There was nothing in their lives that was normal; no hanging out with friends, sleep-overs, etc. And MJ had been so abused as a youngster (indeed, all those boys were, and even LaToya) and so once he hit his early teen years and all the crazy puberty/hormonal changes he had no ability to manage any of that properly. There were stories that the boys were beaten regularly for the most minor of infractions – their father was a miserable tyrant for much of their young lives.
I also heard/read the same thing regarding the young boys who were his guests at the ranch – he was so emotionally starved for some level of that innocent friendship and love – something he was denied and unable to express as an adult with all the sexual baggage that can go with it.
This is well plowed ground. Yes I love listening to Wagner, no I am not a Nazi. Nuff said.
KellyM, I agree. I think he never really developed an adult mindset, since he went from isolation under his father to isolation facilitated by his hangers-on. His pharmaceutical-caused death was another aspect of the same thing. Just never really learned to make decisions for himself. CC, JSM
Gary Glitter is still on the playlist. Polanski's movies are still great. If people think they're fruit from the poisoned tree, that's OK. Me, I'll take the good because I don't doubt we'll get the bad.
Well chinatown yes frantic no the ghost actually pretty good
Well chinatown yes frantic no the ghost actually pretty good
"If you find out that an artist whose work you consume is a terrible person, and you still choose to consume it, are you a terrible person?"
Asks Will Leitch, in "The terrible Michael Jackson movie exposes a central cultural question. The film is indefensible. The impulse to see it is deeply human" (WaPo).
Realize that most of the people asking this question were Clinton/Biden/Obama voters.
When you don't have an Objective Morality it allows you to use your feelings instead.
That allows people who voted for known rapists to still pretend they care about morality.
Polanski was always a hack director so it was easy for me to write his movies off. Why make allowances for a pedophile rapist - who isnt even that good? And Michael Jackson could've been a saint and I still wouldn't see the movie or listen to his music.
Its harder when you get to someone like, say Hemingway. But then "Papa" was smart enough to keep his commie politics out of his fiction. His hero in "For whom the bell tolls" is a commie named "Smith" but he's so apolitical the character could be a Shriner who doesn't like fascists.
The other thing is you have to go out of your way to learn about musicians or painters and their politics/private lives. If we found out Mrs. Rembrandt painted everything, would it change anything?
Why would anyone want to remove Rusnick Church moasics because the artist was an 'Fill in the blank'. Do you go to a church and look at the art or stained glass and go "Wow, X did that and boy I sure dont like X".
Of course most Protestants and Jews don't have the problem of artists and their places of worship since they contain no art worth mentioning.
Just found out Svengoolie is showing Rosemary's Baby in a couple of weeks. He does some film history in his breaks nowadays - interesting to see what he'll say about Polanski. It is a family show....CC, JSM
Well he was a gangster in chinatown
It would have been interesting for him to adapt robert harris ancient noir pompeii
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.