Theater Review: “Never Ever Land” Explores the Michael Jackson Allegations Through a Problematic Lens

On October 27, 2019, in Los Angeles, I attended the final performance of the world premiere staging of the play “Never Ever Land”, written by Rider Strong, directed by Michael A. Shepperd, and produced by Andrew Carlberg. Several Michael Jackson fan community members were in attendance, including Charles Thomson (investigative reporter and Legal Correspondent for The MJCast), Angela Kande, “Square One” documentary creator Danny Wu, and others.

In the play’s press release, it is described as offering “a new perspective on one of the most notorious trials of all time, as well as our culture’s obsession with celebrity.” I was compelled by this, and very curious about how they would approach this issue, and what stance they would take regarding Michael Jackson.

While the play is based on the 1993 Jackson allegations, and the characters are representative of the members of the Chandler family, I want to emphasize that this is a fictional storyline. The facts about the family and the sequence of events are intentionally distorted. This is done, I assume, for the sake of artistic freedom, and perhaps also as protection from criticisms around accuracy–or lawsuits. And also because, ultimately, this play is not truly about Michael Jackson. (Except that it is also completely about him. I will explain my problems with this contradiction later.)

The show is, according to promotional materials, about the lasting effects on one family who has been “seduced by fame and greed”. Michael Jackson’s name is not uttered once through the entire production, though all transitional scenes use slightly warped, MIDI-style versions of Jackson songs, and he is referred to as “the White Whale” several times.

Looking at this play purely from a production standpoint, it has some merits: I found the acting to be powerful, and there was something compelling about the idea of a long-term implosion of family and identity because of the choices of the parents. However, I did not find the characters particularly sympathetic, even as the audience is supposed to connect with the trauma of the adult-version of the character based on Jordan Chandler, named here “Jacob Gable”.

The story alternates between two parallel timelines: We are taken back and forth between the ‘90s and a contemporary storyline set in 2012. I felt hopeful during the first half of the production, which focuses on how the parents fall into the world of celebrity. While they are pushing one son, “Tim”, to be in commercials and criticizing him for being overweight, they are pushing the other, “Jacob”, to secure a friendship with the unnamed, famous entertainer who never had a childhood. The mother is also trying to establish her own acting career, while the controlling, heavy-drinking, rage-filled dentist father is peddling his screenplay.

Opening the play, and woven throughout it, is the 2012 story about the adult Tim, who is trying to get a job with a tabloid journalism company, which is based on TMZ. He claims that he has absolute proof that his brother lied about the allegations. As a Jackson fan, this is, of course, attention-grabbing. It seemed that the play was moving in the direction of casting doubt on the allegations as a whole.

However, the second half of the play takes a very different turn. It veers from the allegations (and avoids making any statement at all about them, which will frustrate most fans) and puts complete focus on how the family has been damaged. It becomes clear that Tim is selling his brother’s secrets as a means to have a career and, finally, a life of his own. Jacob, the character based on Jordan Chandler, clearly has massive personal problems as an adult, but the play leaves the audience in the dark about the source of his trauma. And, ultimately, Tim reveals that there may not be any deep, dark secret, after all.

Naturally, I wanted to understand the production’s stance on the allegations. That was not to be. And I can accept that. Art is, after all, about exploring ideas, evoking emotion, and encouraging discussion. It is certainly not obligated to give its audience a clear answer or opinion on any particular topic. That said, I felt abandoned by the second half of the play, and left adrift, with no real understanding of what I should be taking away from the story, especially after the high-stakes set-up in the first half. Perhaps if I had connected more with the characters, it would have been more effective. In that scenario, I can envision an ending in which I would have understood the legacy of damage set off by greedy parents and bad decisions, and could have even accepted that the production chooses to leave its representation of the allegations so ambiguous. Yet, as is, the story fizzles into nothing, and seems to lose its purpose.

But here are my two primary problems with the play:

(1) I dislike the fact that this production directly exploits Michael Jackson, using his traumatic experience for its own gains, while simultaneously refusing to comment on that situation. I simply don’t think that is right. The playwright, Rider Strong, states that this is “the story of how one family was seduced by fame and greed”—but what does that mean, in this context? What is Strong really trying to say here? Ultimately, this just feels like Jackson being used all over again.

(2) Playwright Strong also comments: “I wondered what it’s like to be known as the victim in a ridiculously famous lawsuit, especially if most people think you lied.” Common, mainstream (and uninformed) perception is that Michael Jackson settled in the ‘90s because he was guilty. Where is this idea coming from that most people think that Chandler lied? And does this mean that the underlying message of the play is really that Jackson was guilty, and the Chandler was, essentially, a double-victim? I’m left perplexed by this, and uncomfortable.

In the end, the simple truth is that I don’t know what to make of this play. It acts as if it wants to make a big statement, without making that statement. Really, I feel that this production is about the playwright’s own childhood. Strong was a child star in the ‘90s, best known for his role on “Boy Meets World”. I completely understand that he would want to explore the effects of that warped coming-of-age experience. That makes sense. But using Jackson as a vehicle is not appropriate or merited, in my view. It adds to the exact problem Strong claims he is addressing. And that simply feels wrong.

This world premiere run of “Never Ever Land” has ended, but you can learn more, including information about possible future performances here.

Article by Elise Capron.

Film Review: Danny Wu Goes Back to Square One with a Crucial Michael Jackson Allegations Documentary

“Square One” is the Michael Jackson documentary we need now.

It has been a tough year for the worldwide Michael Jackson fan community in the wake of “Leaving Neverland”. With celebrities like Oprah Winfrey hopping onto Dan Reed’s bandwagon, and almost all mainstream media purposely stifling any voice in protest of the film, or even any voice of reason, many fans have been left feeling hopeless. A select few podcasters, YouTubers, and media personalities have created great content countering “Leaving Neverland” but, as of yet, nothing has truly managed to get mainstream, lasting attention. And while the fan community awaits Taj Jackson’s docuseries (you can donate here), that project is still a long ways off.

But the tide may be changing. Just this month, three documentaries have been released in support of Michael Jackson (all of which The MJCast team discuss in #TheMJCastEp108): “Chase the Truth”, “Lies of Leaving Neverland”, and most importantly, in my view, “Square One”, by Danny Wu. After viewing the film at its premiere in Hollywood on September 28, 2019, I believe that Wu’s film has the potential to be a game-changer. It is the film we need in these times.

To give you some background on Danny Wu: Based in Vancouver, Canada, Wu is a YouTuber and up-and-coming filmmaker who grew up as an MJ fan, but who watched “Leaving Neverland” and was convinced of Jackson’s guilt. He decided to create a YouTube video presented as a compelling “Did he or didn’t he?” investigation. However, in the course of Wu’s extensive research, he realized that the facts didn’t add up, and that there could be no way that Michael Jackson was guilty of his accused crimes. Over this time, he interviewed Taj and Brandi Jackson and developed close ties with content creator Liam McEwen (who produced one of the first “Leaving Neverland” rebuttal videos, “Neverland Firsthand”). These relationships would solidify Wu’s support of Jackson’s innocence as well as his dedication to getting out the truth about the allegations. I want to emphasize that Wu “walks the walk”. His efforts are not motivated by money or attention-seeking. In fact, he has donated all of his YouTube revenue from his Jackson-related videos to Taj Jackson’s docuseries, and he self-funded “Square One”. When we interviewed him on The MJCast, he specifically recommended that anyone who wants to donate to him should give their money to Taj Jackson instead.

One might have assumed that Wu would create a film examining the lies in “Leaving Neverland”, since that has been the big focus of this year. But he took a different approach. Wu saw a video of Jackson’s 2005 defense lawyer, Tom Mesereau, in which he spoke about how, if Jordan Chandler had been called to speak in that trial, there would have been a line-up of Chandler’s friends ready to tell the opposite story. Inspired by this idea, Wu decided that he needed to find one of these friends who would be willing to speak publicly. And, in doing so, he could potentially take every allegation “back to square one”, where it all started. By focusing on the 1993 allegations and the Chandler family, he could expose the lies at their root.

With this context in mind, it was with great hope that I attended the film’s premiere on September 28, held at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It was hard to know what to expect for this event. Would the fans turn out? Would the film succeed in its goals? Wonderfully, Danny Wu’s “Square One” premiere was a night to remember, when the fan community came together to support a superb film that I believe will make a real difference. In attendance were all the stars of the film, including Danny Wu, Taj Jackson, Charles Thomson (investigative journalist and Legal Correspondent for The MJCast), Jenny Winings, Geraldine Hughes, and Josephine Zohny, who knew Jordan Chandler in college, had been on the 2005 trial witness list, and whose experiences with Chandler frame the film’s narrative. (More on that later.) The rest of the attendees represented a “who’s who” of the MJ community. It was an exciting, inspiring, and dynamic evening. Guest highlights included Tom Mesereau, Liam McEwan, John Ziegler, Tommy Organ, Thayana Sco Jackson, Edwin Costa (of @edwinsgeneration), filmmaker and podcaster Adam Green, actress Lori Petty, and many more. Fans had come from far and wide, with a few attendees flying from China for the event. There was a great energy, buzz, and a lot of love in the room in anticipation of the screening.

Now, onto the part you’re waiting for: So, how was the film?

“Square One” is a brilliant, professional, and entirely convincing film which will, in my view, speak both to fans and to a mainstream audience. When non-fans, or even casual fans, have asked me this year how to address the questions brought up by “Leaving Neverland”, I have found myself pointing to a lot of different resources, but they are typically overflowing with far more information than the average person is willing to sort through. Enter “Square One”, which is now the film to which I will direct people to understand the 1993 allegations and everything that would come after. The way in which it walks the viewer through a complex set of circumstances is impeccable: easy to absorb, concise, grounded in facts, and it lays the groundwork for precisely why things happened as they did, and how the 1993 allegations would set the stage for the Arvizo trial, Robson, Safechuck, and more. As Josephine Zohny says in the film, “Every allegation is built on the ’93 allegations”. By understanding the chain of events involving the Chandler family, the spider web of misfortunes that plagued Michael Jackson throughout the rest of his life are illuminated.

The structure of the film: First, I want to make clear that there are no surprise bombshells in this film. Serious fans will know this information already. (Though, for casual fans or non-fans, most of the facts presented in this film will be new and, I imagine, revelatory.) Its value is not in making new claims, but in presenting the information in the clearest way imaginable, and in doing so with authority. The film is framed by Zohny’s experiences with Jordan Chandler, with powerful interviews with Taj Jackson, Jenny Winings (who, like Zohny, was on the 2005 trial witness list), and Geraldine Hughes woven throughout the narrative. Caroline Fristedt also appears a few times, if briefly, and some archival audio from “Big Al” Scanlan is included. Danny Wu appears in the film to move the story along at certain points, though it is really Charles Thomson who serves as the film’s primary narrator. (It is worth noting that Thomson did not go into this project realizing that his interview would become so key to the film, and it is a testament to his encyclopedic mastery of this chronology that he can provide such a perfect explanation of the chain of events in two unscripted interviews.) Thomson essentially walks us through every step of the 1993 allegations, with the other interviewees highlighting key moments. The rest of the film is primarily made up of archival audio, video, articles and legal documents, which are all well-presented and well-edited. There is no feeling of a passionate “fan-made defense video” here. The information is serious, journalistic, grounded and credible. I particularly appreciate that the film immediately opens by clarifying a few major questions which seem to eternally emerge up in the Jackson allegation conversation: No child pornography was ever found at Neverland, and nothing was ever discovered during the extended, off-and-on investigation of Jackson by the FBI. The actual chronology of the film walks us through the history of the Chandler family, with a particular focus, of course, on Evan Chandler, and his growing rage. It establishes perfectly the sequence of events leading to Chandler’s extortion of Jackson and why Chandler filed a criminal report, when he clearly had had no intention of alerting authorities regarding the supposed abuse of his child. The film makes very clear, as well, why Jackson settled, and how this settlement never voided the possibility of a criminal trial if there had been any evidence to do so. Wu also addresses and clarifies La Toya Jackson’s support (at the time) of the allegations, Victor Gutierrez and Rodney Allen’s role in the fiasco, and concludes with a short section touching on the Arvizo case. The film’s greatest accomplishment is to put all these puzzle pieces together in a way that any viewer can comprehend. Once set in place, there is a sense of crystal-clear understanding that, as Geraldine Hughes says, “Michael Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion scheme which launched the allegations.”

Why Josephine Zohny? Zohny has been unfairly criticized by some people online, saying that she is not a credible source. I completely disagree with this. She, along with Jenny Winings, were on the 2005 trial witness list, and would have been part of that trial if Chandler had been brought into the case. Also, Zohny is not motivated by anything but telling the truth: She gave one statement when she was put on the 2005 witness list, but has never spoken publicly about her experiences otherwise. She has never sold her story, nor has she told conflicting or exaggerated tales. And, while it’s true that she was not a close friend of Chandler’s, just an acquaintance, she had interactions with him on multiple occasions when they were classmates together at NYU, and heard him make statements specifically related to Jackson. According to her, Chandler surrounded himself with MJ memorabilia and fan friends, and, upon the release of Martin Bashir’s “Living with Michael Jackson”, Chandler stated, in front of multiple witnesses, that Jackson was “not capable of the things he was being accused of”. In sum, Zohny has put herself in the spotlight at personal risk (she has had to deal with internet trolls and her professional website being hacked) in order to defend Michael Jackson, and I have absolutely no doubt that viewers will find her story compelling and credible.

The minuses: I have very few critiques of this film, which I hope will be widely shared across the global MJ fan community and far beyond, except to point out that it could have benefited from a bit more editing. Wu created “Square One” in just a couple of months, which is deeply impressive, so I am perfectly willing to excuse any slight imperfections. I personally wish that Charles Thomson’s narration wasn’t via a sometimes-crackly speakerphone, for example, but that is a small complaint. So many long-time fans have spent years exploring the issues around the Jackson allegations, but no one has managed to create anything quite like this, and I encourage every Jackson fan to come together to support this film in whatever way we can.

I’ll conclude with a few words from Tom Mesereau, who was interviewed by John Ziegler immediately after the film premiere:

“It’s a fabulous film. It is high quality. It was carefully investigated. It was condensed in a very professional attempt to find the truth, and it tells the truth. Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. He never should have been put through what he was put through, starting with the case in ’92-’93. And I commend Danny Wu and all of his people for the fabulous job they did, and I can’t wait to hear this circulating through society, because we live in very, very biased, troubled times. Michael Jackson was never a pedophile, never should have been accused as such, and his life was destroyed by greed, by people without integrity, by people without a conscience. This film starts the road back from some of the recent developments, which have been very troubling. [Wu] did a tremendous job in showing the truth.”

Let’s gather as a community to support this film and other quality content being released in Michael Jackson’s defense. This is our moment.

How to watch “Square One”:

October 5, 2019: Worldwide debut of “Square One” on YouTube.

London premiere: UK residents can attend a screening of the film on October 5th in London. Danny Wu will be in attendance, and possibly other stars of the film. Information here.

Learn more:

The MJCast’s interview with Danny Wu.

Danny Wu’s TwitterInstagram and Facebook pages.

Other episodes from The MJCast related to the allegations:

Episode 108 – Back to Square One

Episode 103 – Vindication Day Special with Larry Nimmer

Episode 099 – Leaving Neverland Q&A

Episode 095 – Leaving Neverland Roundtable

Episode 081 – Vindication Day Special with Aphrodite Jones

Episode 058 – Vindication Day Special (Pirates in Neverland: The Michael Jackson Allegations)

Episode 033 – Vindication Day Special with Scott Ross

Article by Elise Capron.

Thoughts on Sony…

As Sony Music issues an email to retailers calling Michael Jackson the ‘self-proclaimed King of Pop’ and referring to him as ‘Jacko’, The MJCast’s Jamon Bull explores the star’s troubled relationship with the label.

In the summer of 2002, Michael Jackson put his career on the line. Taking the stage on July 9th, at the headquarters of Reverend Al Sharpton’s National Action Network in Harlem, New York, Jackson was the main speaker at an event titled “Equality for Blacks in the Music World”. Standing shoulder to shoulder with a host of musicians, producers and music executives, the King of Pop accused the record industry of racism and corruption, alleging a ‘conspiracy’ to create a systemic disadvantage for black artists signed to major record companies, including himself. His childhood heroes – game-changing artists whose innovations continued to inspire new generations – were never adequately compensated, he lamented.

“It’s very sad to see that these artists really are penniless,” he told the crowd. “They created so much joy for the world and the system, meaning, the record companies, totally took advantage of them. And it’s not like they always say, you know, ‘They built a big house, they spent a lot of money, they bought a lot of cars’. That’s stupid. That’s just an excuse. That’s nothing compared to what artists make [for the record labels]. I’m really, really tired of the manipulation. I’m tired of how the press is manipulating everything that’s been happening in this situation. They do not tell the truth.”

The July 9th event was the third time in less than a month that Jackson had excoriated the music industry in a public speech – and the media reaction to the previous two had been unkind. His latest album, Invincible, had sold just over five-million copies since its release eight months earlier – a colossal hit for any other artist, but below what Jackson, his label and the media had come to expect from the King of Pop. The project had been branded a ‘flop’ and a public war of words had broken out between the artist and the label.

Sony claimed it had spent twenty-six million dollars on promotion but that Jackson had demanded unjustifiable sums for music videos and refused to travel or tour to boost sales. Jackson countered that Sony was lying about how much it had spent, saying he believed the label was deliberately sabotaging the project to ensure it made a loss, so executives could try to seize his fifty per cent share in the company’s music publishing catalogue as payment for the debt. Sony’s former vice president Cory Rooney would later say in an interview that Jackson had been correct all along.

His trip to New York had come shortly after a visit to London, where he had demonstrated outside Sony’s UK headquarters with fans and, on June 15th, delivered a speech claiming the label was trying to sabotage him.

“Being the artist that I am at Sony, I’ve generated several billion dollars for Sony,” he said. “I’m leaving Sony a free agent, owning half of Sony… and they’re very angry at me because, well, I just did good business, you know? So the way they get revenge is to try and destroy my album.”

“Michael’s going gangsta today!” one excited fan screamed.

But he wasn’t done. On July 6th, he took to the stage at the National Action Network for the first time and ramped up the pressure on Sony, this time making a potentially industry-shaking claim – that the company’s CEO, Tommy Mottola, was a racist.

“The record companies really, really do conspire against their artists,” he told an assortment of national and international news crews. “They steal, they cheat, they do whatever they can. Especially the black artists. Sony, Tommy Motolla is the president of the record division. He is mean, he is a racist and he is very, very, very devilish… Tommy Motolla made some very racist remarks. What he said was, to one of the artists who worked at Sony, who has a contract with the record company – he called him a ‘fat, black n****r’.”

The comments sent shockwaves throughout both the record industry and the media. One can’t underestimate just how bold an act this was for Jackson. He wasn’t just attacking one of the most important men in the recording industry, but as a board member of Sony Music and fifty per cent owner of its publishing empire, he was blowing the whistle on his own company, which he had helped to build.

But what fans saw as Michael’s ’emancipation’ moment, the media appeared to consider as little more than an uppity black man playing the race card. The media scolded Jackson for daring to bite the hand that fed him.

Sony issued a statement calling Jackson’s allegations ‘ludicrous’, ‘spiteful’, ‘hurtful’, ‘unfounded’, ‘unwarranted’ and ‘a serious abuse of the power that comes with celebrity’. Suggesting Jackson was mentally unstable, the company he co-owned stated: “The bizarre, false statements Mr Jackson made on Saturday make it clear that his difficulties lie elsewhere than with the marketing and promotion of Invincible.”

According to several media outlets, Sony sources began briefing off-the-record that the real reason Invincible hadn’t sold well was because Jackson was perceived as a child molester – although that would fail to explain the far greater sales of other Jackson projects released subsequent to his having been accused in 1993 of abuse. The New York Daily News quoted one anonymous executive saying: “Charges of pedophilia have really spooked a lot of American record buyers.”

The Washington Post accused Jackson of ‘pulling the race card’ because his career was ‘sliding into the abyss’. It said ‘riled up’ Sony execs were briefing the media that Jackson was a ‘weirdo’ and a ‘pouty diva’. Mocking Jackson’s skin condition vitiligo, WPGC-FM radio DJ joked that Jackson’s next song should be, ‘Say It Loud, I’m Vanilla and I’m Proud’. Michael Miller, at Columbus Business First, branded Jackson ‘a flaky, spoiled has-been, more famous for his plastic surgery than his music’.

The New York Post’s Eric Fettmann said Jackson’s ‘wild charges’ had made for a ‘bizarre spectacle’, particularly given Jackson was ‘racially androgynous’: “[Jackson] has made millions upon millions of dollars, but now plays the race card in a desperate attempt to deal with his declining popularity and precariously dwindling finances.”

The media backlash was so severe that even Al Sharpton distanced himself from Jackson’s comments, saying: “I have known Tommy for fifteen or twenty years, and never once have I known him to say or do anything that would be considered racist.”

But the suggestion that Jackson’s gripe with Sony was rooted in poor sales of his album Invincible was disingenuous. The first sign of tensions between the two appeared in an interview Jackson conducted with a fan magazine, Black and White, in 1998. The star and his interviewer were discussing his 1997 album Blood on the Dancefloor, which – despite fairly recent allegations of child abuse – had broken a Guinness World Record to become the biggest selling remix album of all time.

Asked whether he liked the remixes, Jackson responded that he didn’t: “The least I can say is that I don’t like them. I don’t like that they come in and change my songs completely. But Sony says that the kids love remixes.”

Upon hearing from the fan that the fans didn’t really like remixes, Jackson reportedly threw a fist in the air, then sighed and shook his head, muttering: “I knew it. I was sure.”

In the next few years, as he recorded Invincible, relations between the artist and label worsened – particularly between Jackson and Mottola. According to a source who spoke to Rolling Stone magazine, Mottola became somewhat obsessed with Jackson, hiring spies to monitor his activities. The source was quoted as saying: “The minute Michael would get close to anyone, Tommy would hire a detective to investigate him.”

Jackson was even seen crying in the studio during recording sessions Mottola would visit. Music producer Bryan Loren recently sat down with The MJCast for a podcast interview and discussed how emotionally disturbed Jackson would become when Mottola showed up at the studio.

“I watched him go through a bunch of stuff even while I was with him… I watched Tommy Mottola dig in on him because he wanted to get the record done. We were working on Dangerous and I watched Tommy dig in on him. I didn’t see it. You know, Tommy came to the studio, went in the room, they were in the room for ten minutes, he came out and left and when Michael came out he was crying.”

Jackson’s aversion to Sony continued long after 2002, until his death – again undermining any suggestion that it was, as Sony called it at the time, a mere ‘publicity stunt’. Bodyguard Javon Beard said of Jackson’s final years: “His hatred of Sony was on a whole other level. One day, Mr. Jackson told us he wanted some headphones to listen to music while he walked on the treadmill. One of the other security guys went out and got him a pair. I was in the house less than a week later, and I saw that they’d been broken in half. These things weren’t dropped. They were broken on purpose. I picked them up and saw they were Sony headphones. I wouldn’t have bought him anything that said Sony on it, but whoever purchased them probably wasn’t aware of the situation.”

In terms of knowing exactly what Michael stood for, the 2000’s was simply not a confusing for Michael Jackson fans. It was a trying time perhaps, seeing their hero so embattled, but not confusing. Jackson was actively protesting Sony. And so did his fans. They saw him bravely waving protest placards above an open top bus, wearing a bullet proof vest. It was a call to arms, and fans proudly defended their hero through boycotts. Many still do.

In 2009, Jackson was tragically killed whilst rehearsing for his sold out London concert residency. Months after his homicide, the executors of his Estate sold him straight back to the very company he’d despised and spent the last seven years boycotting. Just over a year after his manslaughter, Sony released its first posthumous album – of remixes – to extreme criticism. Acting directly against the express wishes of his grieving relatives, studio collaborators and fans, Sony included three fake Michael Jackson songs, sung by a white vocal impersonator, on the album’s track-list. That incident remains the subject of ongoing litigation, in which Sony and Jackson’s Estate have conceded that the tracks are likely fake – but they continue to sell them.

Now – eight years after the Cascio fiasco, and sixteen years after Jackson’s anti-Sony protests, the label continues to disrespect him. Roughly a week ago, on July 23rd, a listener of our podcast leaked us an email from a high level executive at Sony Music Australia. This email, titled “SURPRISE: PRE-ORDER SETUP :: MICHAEL JACKSON PICTURE DISC VINYL RELEASES” contains extensive information around track-lists and “blurbs for websites” that wish to promote this new product. This collection of picture discs is a box set being released by Sony and Jackson’s Estate in celebration of his ‘diamond anniversary’.

Although there are a myriad of issues with this instructional email, there are two that can’t be overlooked. The author of this email provides the following information for retailers in describing the album Invincible:

“The question for a 42-year-old Michael Jackson heading towards the end of 2001 was whether or not the self-proclaimed King Of Pop could make his presence known on the charts after having spent much of the ’90s laying low. If the chart-topping position achieved by INVINCIBLE is any indication, then the answer is a resounding yes. The album is primarily produced by Jersey wunderkind Rodney Jerkins, and Jacko wasted no time tapping other top-flight artists and knob-twirlers to help out, including Teddy Riley, Babyface and R. Kelly.”

For a casual observer not averse to poking fun at Jackson as some kind of societal punching bag, the terms ‘self-proclaimed King of Pop’ and ‘Jacko’ may not appear particularly inflammatory. But for educated Michael Jackson fans, the use of this language by a company supposed to be representing Jackson’s interests is beyond incompetence. This belittling description was disseminated in an email by one of Sony’s highest paid employees. Their identity is being protected at the request of the person who leaked us the material.

The term ‘Jacko’ has long been a thorn in the side of Michael Jackson fans around the world. It was first used by British tabloid The Sun during the mid-to-late 80’s in the form of ‘Wacko Jacko’. This effort to paint Jackson as mentally ill and then mock him for it with a demeaning moniker stands in stark contrast to how the press have elevated white entertainment icons like Elvis and Bruce Springsteen, referring to them, respectively, as The King and The Boss. 

Using the term ‘Jacko’ wasn’t the first instance of The Sun publicly belittling a black luminary through attaching a derogatory title that calls into question their mental state. Following world boxing champion Frank Bruno’s retirement, and eventual mental health problems, the Sun ran a front page calling him ‘Bonkers Bruno’. The outcry was immediate, enormous and the paper had to change the front page for later editions and publicly apologise. Meanwhile, ‘Wacko Jacko’, also a slur on somebody for perceived mental health problems, continues to go totally unchallenged.

Michael Jackson himself made clear how hurtful he found the name ‘Jacko’ in a 1997 interview with Barbara Walters. When asked about the derogatory name, he passionately responded: “You should not say he’s ‘Jacko’. I’m not a Jacko. I’m Jackson… Yeah, Wacko Jacko. Where did that come from? Some English tabloid. I have a heart and I have feelings. I feel that when you do that to me. It’s not nice… Don’t do it. I’m not a wacko.”

Yet here we are in 2018, and his own record label is instructing music retailers to call Michael ‘Jacko’.

Sony’s instructional email also expressly tells retailers to call Michael Jackson the ‘self-proclaimed King of Pop’. Jackson himself refuted the allegation that he’d given himself this title, telling Oprah Winfrey in 1993: “I didn’t proclaim myself to be anything. I’m happy to be alive, I’m happy to be who I am. ‘King of Pop’ was first said by Elizabeth Taylor on one of the award shows.” In this instance, it’s likely that Jackson was actually wrong. The phrase ‘King of Pop’ was used to describe him as early as February 1985, by TV Guide.

The frustration for Michael Jackson fans with Sony’s album blurbs will not end with the use of this denigrating language. They are also riddled with errors. They claim that Jackson was ‘laying low’ in the 1990’s and that HIStory album includes the theme of suicide. The label even gets his age wrong and lists Leave Me Alone as being on the Bad vinyl when it actually isn’t.

Upon spotting these errors, The MJCast contacted the Sony executive who sent them out. Correspondence lasted several days. He seemed more interested in finding out the source of the leak than actually fixing the problems. Of course, the problems weren’t fixed, as retailers like JB Hi-Fi and Sanity are still using Sony’s descriptions on their websites.

In some handy investigative work, Richard Lecocq, co-author of ‘Michael Jackson: All the Songs – The Story Behind Every Track’, discovered that the text certainly didn’t originate from Sony, but was probably lifted from this website.

This has to stop. Sony and the Estate’s ongoing disregard for Michael Jackson must stop. They continue to sell fake songs on the Michael album. They continue to produce factually incorrect and ludicrous social media posts on their official accounts, including accidentally tweeting photos of impersonators, tweeting fabricated images and praising magazines who used the word ‘Jacko’. They continue to ignore fans’ wishes. And now, they’re actively calling Jackson a belittling name that he detested, while instructing major retailers to do the same. Michael Jackson didn’t protest this company in 2002 for nothing. He did it so his fans could rally behind him in demanding they treat him and all other black artists with the dignity they deserve.

To join us in expressing your frustration around this, email Sony Music Australia’s CEO at [removed] and tweet the company publicly at [removed] on Twitter. Demand that they contact music retailers and ask them to amend their advertisements to fix inaccuracies and remove the insulting names ‘Jacko’ and ‘self-proclaimed King of Pop’.

He’s not a Jacko. He’s Jackson.

Jamon Bull

Update (06/08/2018 5:50pm) – Gordon Pitt (General Manager of Sony Music Australia​, Legal & Business Affairs) has emailed The MJCast​ to apologise for errors in their marketing email and not correcting the language when I pointed it out to them. Sony has now contacted retailers who used the information to have it corrected. I can confirm that this is the case. JB Hi-Fi and Sanity have both updated their Invincible vinyl re-issue listings to remove offensive descriptions of Michael Jackson and factual errors. Thanks everyone in the fan community who raised their voices as one to fix this. Gordon has given us permission to share the below email.

Thoughts on Leaks…

 

By late 2002 I’d been a Michael Jackson fan for just one year. His last album of new material, Invincible, was released a year prior. Sadly, this ended up being the first and only time I had the privilege of experiencing the release of a studio album that Jackson himself had given his blessing. The recording sessions for Invincible are rumoured to have been some of the most fruitful of his career, producing dozens of musical pieces, many of which the public are still yet to hear. Due to nefarious actions that are yet to be fully uncovered, one such piece of music, a full and complete song that was not released on the album, leaked to the public. The song was titled Escape. In response, Michael Jackson issued a statement outlining his disappointment with the leak. As much as I loved hearing this masterpiece of a song, its premature release clearly hurt him.

Jump forward five years, and it’s 2008. Michael is beginning the process of working with a range of contemporary producers to potentially flesh out a new sound for his upcoming studio album. Among these producers is the R&B hit-maker Akon. Michael spent weeks in the studio with Akon crafting the sublime ballad Hold My Hand, which would end up having its own sad history despite its uplifting nature. Not only would the song suffer the same fate as Escape and prematurely leak to the public, but it would eventually go on to serve as the lead single from his ill-fated first posthumous album of new material, Michael. Jackson family members and many fans would agree that Hold My Hand was a song Michael cared deeply about. Since then, there have been many more song leaks, some when Michael was alive, but most after his death. These leaks continue to be the source of debate amongst the Michael Jackson fan community.

Today another Michael Jackson song leaked, but this time a piece that was worked on during the Dangerous sessions called Ghost of Another Lover. The leak occurred due to an attendee of a Michael Jackson convention recording the song whilst it was played for the audience by one of Michael’s studio engineers. They did this against the wishes of the convention organisers and the engineer. I won’t name the person who recorded it, the engineer who decided to play it or the event at which it was played, as I don’t think these are crucial elements of the scenario. Like times previous, rich debate is currently taking place within the Michael Jackson fan community around how leaks should be handled, and for good reason.

Seldom does widespread public debate over the ethical nature of something occur when there’s some simple, logical answer regarding the correct way that thing should be. I feel this conflict over leaks acutely as not only am I a Michael Jackson fan who desires to honour and respect Michael’s artistic privacy, but I am also a historian, who recognises the immense cultural value Jackson’s art has, at any stage of completion.

Ultimately, I do feel that if previously unreleased Michael Jackson material is to be played for a paying audience, it should first have the approval of his Estate beneficiaries with the full knowledge and understanding of the risks involved regarding potential leaks. That’s fairly black and white for me. No conflict there. But it’s after leaks happen where things get murky. Michael Jackson’s music grows legs of its own. And with good reason, because it’s usually excellent music. In the age of digital file sharing and social media, there’s no stopping how far and wide this material can reach. In an instance such as today, when a previously unheard Michael Jackson song leaks, I believe that it’s a matter of historical importance that knowledgeable fans, scholars of Michael Jackson, deconstruct and analyse the material so that a historically accurate narrative can be built. As an example, Ghost of Another Lover today leaked with completely the wrong title! A fan uploaded it as Ghost of Another Girl. Knowledgable Michael Jackson fans picked this up swiftly. Not only this, but there’s a certain inevitability to leaked material being discussed. It’s pointless to think it won’t be. Sharing and discussing leaks is inevitable, and both are very, very different behaviours to facilitating or instigating a leak.

Yet at a deeper level, it’s the ethics around actually releasing Michael’s previously unheard work at all that interests me. Earlier I opined that Michael’s estate beneficiaries should have the final say. And this is true for now, especially in our lifetimes where there are many people still alive directly connected to him. Artistic collaborators, close friends, business partners, fans and most importantly…family. Yet Michael is now gone, and it can’t be argued that his art doesn’t have immense historical value, even his unreleased material including demos which serve the purpose of teaching us how he created, flaws and all.

Ethically, at what point does it become acceptable for his unfinished work to actually come out without debate? Would anybody disagree now with an unfinished Michaelangelo piece being displayed in an art gallery for scholarly debate? I don’t think so. A lot of this debate comes from the fact that Michael has so recently passed away and many people in some way feel emotionally connected to him and naturally want to defend or protect his wishes. The MJ fan side of me certainly feels that, but as previously mentioned, the historian in me feels the importance of learning as much about his genius as possible, especially while his artistic collaborators are here to engage in dialogue around his work. Like I said, conflict. There is no easy answer.

There will be more Xscape, Hold My Hand and Ghost of Another Lover moments in the future and opinions will vary around these leaks depending on who you talk to. But suffice it to say, while people are around who are still emotionally connected to Michael Jackson as a person, the best people to judge whether his unreleased art should be seen by the public are those who were closest to him, those whom he left his Estate to, his beneficiaries.

Jamon Bull