XIXAX Film Forum


Recent Posts

91
News and Theory / Re: Who's Next To Croak?
« Last post by wilberfan on March 11, 2019, 11:00:48 PM »
Hal Blaine, "Wrecking Crew" drummer extraordinaire.
92
This Year In Film / Re: Leaving Neverland
« Last post by Drenk on March 11, 2019, 04:47:54 PM »
After Neverland




And if you want to watch the director being calm against someone trying to say that we can't know but really saying that he knows that it's not true, watch this...People buying the "they're suing for the money"...as if there never was money when you won, anyway, is...? Who cares if they get millions if we get some evidence by justice? All these people who worked for Jackson could testify...

(But that's a different story. The movie is way more important than this question, I think.)

93
This Year In Film / Re: Leaving Neverland
« Last post by wilberfan on March 11, 2019, 03:56:57 PM »
I agree it was a very compelling film.  I would also encourage everyone to watch the Oprah follow-up interview with the two victims.  (There's another film called "Abducted in Plain Sight" (a Netflix release) that reinforces the methodology of child sexual abuse.  Also a very compelling film.)


Perhaps I'm a little soft in the heart (or head)--and this probably isn't the forum to discuss Michael in detail--but I ultimately see everyone as a victim in this story.  Without excusing or apologizing for the behavior for a second, I don't think anyone picks up a sexuality catalog and runs their finger down the page and picks "Pedophile".  Michael had a full-spectrum of things wrong with him, and this was one (very serious) manifestation.  (A therapist friend of mine points out that many sexual abusers suffered the same (or similar) abuse themselves as children.)


One of the things this doc does so well--and which I think makes it culturally incredibly important--is to show how complex these scenarios are and to shed light on all of the dynamics employed to begin/maintain the abusive behavior.  It's very easy (without having seen the film) to dismiss one or all of the adults as idiots or worse.  But it's not that black and white.   
94
This Year In Film / Leaving Neverland
« Last post by Jeremy Blackman on March 11, 2019, 11:48:43 AM »


Leaving Neverland is a two-part documentary exploring the separate but parallel experiences of two young boys, James Safechuck, at age ten, and Wade Robson, at age seven, both of whom were befriended by Michael Jackson. Through gut-wrenching interviews with Safechuck, now 40, and Robson, now 36, as well as their mothers, wives and siblings, the film crafts a portrait of sustained abuse, exploring the complicated feelings that led both men to confront their experiences after both had a young son of his own.

Directed by Dan Reed.



This is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen. Going to say right now it's one of the best films of 2019.

I am a thousand percent convinced by these men's stories. Rarely have I been so thoroughly convinced of something to my core. Even setting aside the heaps of corroborating evidence, you know this kind of truth when you see it. Convincing yourself otherwise while watching this doc would take a lot of work.

Every skeptical take (and there actually aren't many) seems borne of profound ignorance. Once you know how "grooming" works, the pieces fall neatly into place. And oh boy was Michael Jackson good at grooming. His alien nature, rather than being off-putting, was actually central to his ability to groom — especially when it came to seducing the parents.

This doc, against all odds, actually sort of helps you understand how the parents did what they did. Letting your kid stay with a normal man would definitely be inappropriate, but, you know, Michael Jackson is not a normal human. He's a boy in an adult body who probably doesn't even have a sexuality! He never had a childhood, so he's living it out now, and can't we let him have that? He just wants friends to play with! Funny how many bought into that narrative, when it was conceived and repeated endlessly by Jackson himself.

Some light spoilers here... but yeah, Michael Jackson was definitely a straight-up hardcore pedophile. It wasn't just touching here and there. It was sex. It was as much sex as he could do with a 7-year old's body. It wasn't just sexual, either—he combined sex with romance to make the seduction complete. MJ's pedophilia was so extensive that I wonder how much of the "childlike" stuff was just a lure. The construction of Neverland came at an interesting time—it's like once he learned he could be successful seducing boys, he decided to go all-out.

I guess I expected some level of perversion, but it's actually difficult to come to terms with just how deeply evil this stuff was, and how much effort and passion Michael Jackson put into this project of building a harem of young boys. It's like it was his other life's work.

If MJ fans want to convince the public that he's innocent, they're going to have to convince us that 7-year-old boys can consent to sex. Good luck.
95
This Year In Film / Re: Transit
« Last post by eward on March 11, 2019, 06:36:06 AM »
Will finally have time to catch this this weekend, extra excited now. Planning to watch some of Petzold's other films in the meantime.
96
This Year In Film / Re: Transit
« Last post by samsong on March 10, 2019, 06:54:48 PM »
holy hell.  tremendous movie.  i hadn't been to the theater to see a movie in months so it was nice to break that lull with something of this quality.  petzold is the missing link between hitchcock and bresson.  graceful and devastating.  looking forward to revisiting. 
97
Paul Thomas Anderson / Re: Miscellaneous PTA Video Essays
« Last post by wilberfan on March 10, 2019, 01:02:52 AM »
I guess this could go here.  (Although, tbh, I'm not sure I grok what's going on...)


98
2018 In Film / Re: The Dawn Wall
« Last post by Jeremy Blackman on March 09, 2019, 01:24:32 PM »
Only 16 minutes into this movie and can already recommend it.  :yabbse-thumbup:
99
Martin Scorsese / Re: I Heard You Paint Houses/ The Irishman
« Last post by Drenk on March 09, 2019, 06:41:45 AM »
The first pages of this thread were fun to read again.

An answer to eward:

Personally, I think it will be really disappointing; I'm not familiar with the source material but I wonder why Scorsese wants to tell this story, why he needs that much money, and I don't think that it will be a hit. Can a Netflix movie be a hit? I don't even know. Why bother? They needs subscriptions and we'll never know how many people or money it will really make—this is abstract and can, therefore, make that kind of movie possible, but I'm worried that it doesn't also affect their existence. Netflix movies wither away more easily than other movies.

I'm curious as hell, though. Silence wasn't the disaster I expected like most of the "dream projects" are (remember Don Quixote by Gilliam? it was in cinemas in France for a week or two, people've seen it and all) but it was also not as strong as it should have been—as if, yes, it was too late. That director. That cast. That release. It will probably be spectral once the Oscar campaign is done. Or it will be halfway there? à la BlacKkKlansman?
100
News and Theory / Re: Who's Next To Croak?
« Last post by polkablues on March 08, 2019, 09:18:25 PM »
Rough week to be a handsome guy who was famous in the 90s.