流量异常,请尝试更换网络环境

For director Dan Reed, “Leaving Neverland” was never about Michael Jackson.

Reed expressed, during a Zoom conversation from London, that “It was their tale,” referring to Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who in their groundbreaking 2019 documentary accused Michael Jackson, the legendary pop star, of sexually abusing them as children. He emphasized that many perceive it as a story about Michael Jackson, but it is fundamentally the narrative of these two individuals. The film, he continued, is merely a depiction of what transpired subsequently.

Reed is discussing “Leaving Neverland 2: Enduring Michael Jackson,” a long-awaited sequel that will premiere on Tuesday – airing on Channel 4 in the UK and YouTube in the US after six years. This 50-minute documentary offers unique insights from court proceedings, primarily focusing on Robson and Safechuck’s pursuit of justice following their lawsuits against Jackson’s companies, managed by his estate, for failing to prevent the alleged abuse they experienced.

Since his passing in 2009, Jackson repeatedly refuted the accusations that were leveled against him. Even after his death, his estate has maintained this stance. The assertions made against Jackson are not new; they first surfaced in 1993 when he was accused by a 13-year-old named Jordan Chandler. This case was resolved out of court for $23 million. Later in 2005, he faced trial for charges of child molestation and providing alcohol to a minor, but was found not guilty.

Jackson kept saying the accusations weren’t true even up until his death in 2009. His estate still says the same thing now. These allegations were first made against him back in 1993 by a boy named Jordan Chandler, and they ended up getting settled out of court for $23 million. In 2005, he went on trial for molesting children and giving them alcohol, but was found not guilty.

Robson, a renowned dance maker who collaborated with NSYNC and Britney Spears, and Safechuck, an executive at a digital creative firm, each encountered Jackson when they were young. They claim that Jackson had separate romantic relationships with them as children. Initially, both of them testified under oath that Jackson never abused them – Safechuck during the 1993 investigation, and Robson in 2005 as an adult. However, they later filed lawsuits against Jackson’s businesses in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

Following more than ten years of navigating the legal system, a California appeals court decided in 2023 that Robson and Safechuck’s joint lawsuit will proceed to trial, scheduled for the following year. Reed expressed his intention to film this event too, as part of the finale for a “Leaving Neverland” trilogy. Reed described “Surviving Michael Jackson,” which he began filming shortly after the initial release of “Leaving Neverland” in March 2019, as a bridge film between an already high-profile beginning and what he hopes will be a climactic ending.

Initially, HBO broadcasted “Leaving Neverland” within the U.S., but they’re not participating in its sequel. Before the initial documentary aired in 2019, the Jackson estate filed a lawsuit against HBO for $100 million, claiming a breach of a 1992 non-disparagement clause related to a concert film from his “Dangerous” tour. Instead of the second installment airing on traditional television networks, it will be streamed on YouTube through Little Dot Studios’ Real Stories channel. When trying to find another platform for distribution, Reed considered innovative ways to make the film accessible and asked himself: “What can we do that’s unique and thrilling, making this film easily viewable with just a mouse click?

As Robson and Safechuck prepare for their upcoming trial, there’s also the Lionsgate biopic on Jackson, titled “Michael,” which is supported by his estate and set to release in October. Directed by Antoine Fuqua, this film stars Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson alongside Colman Domingo, Nia Long, and Miles Teller. Originally, the movie was intended to tackle the allegations against Jackson; however, a January report from Puck revealed that reshoots were necessary due to an agreement with Wade Robson, who claimed his story couldn’t be dramatized. According to Reed, an early version of the script he read portrayed Robson as a liar and his family as gold diggers. However, a source close to production denies this claim, stating that such characterization is merely Reed’s personal opinion and that the script never depicted the Robsons in such a manner.

Neither HBO nor Lionsgate provided comments regarding this matter, and there was no response from the Jackson estate after a request for comment was made by EbMaster.

Reed elaborates on the reasons for creating another documentary, opting to publish it on YouTube rather than a streaming platform, and shares his opinions regarding the “Michael” biography film.

How did the second installment come about? Were you always planning on making one?

As a film enthusiast, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to delve into “Leaving Neverland 1” at first, given the inherent skepticism one might have towards such stories. However, the film’s impact surpassed our expectations, and upon reflection, we understood that Michael Jackson’s accusers were still fighting for their day in court amidst all the media attention and criticism. This aspect of their struggle resonated deeply within “Leaving Neverland,” but I felt it was essential to provide a glimpse into their daily lives, which is crucial for their ongoing legal battles. It has taken Wade an astounding 12 years just to secure a court date.

Were Robson and Safechuck at all hesitant about making a second part?

Instead of stopping, I posed the question to them, “May we continue with the recording?” At that point, their cases had been dismissed but later reinstated due to a change in California’s statute of limitations law. It was uncertain if they would succeed in having their day in court since Jackson’s lawyers intended to challenge the cases again. With Channel 4 funding our early stages of filming, we began production, as there was a possibility that it could all have been for naught.

Despite the appellate court’s decision not overturning the initial verdict, our film could have been made, but it wouldn’t have been as fulfilling. I felt a sense of responsibility to depict what transpired next since these individuals are widely supported. However, navigating the intricate legal aspects was challenging. Channel 4 expressed concern that this might result in a rather dull movie. We put immense effort into creating it, ensuring it wasn’t just enjoyable but also accessible and easy to comprehend. This was all during the COVID-19 pandemic, making the process extremely difficult. To attend the court hearings in Los Angeles, we had to spend two weeks in Serbia because of travel restrictions, as direct flights from London to L.A. were not permitted at that time.

In “Leaving Neverland 2,” the lawyers for Jackson’s estate are heard in court but again declined to be on camera or participate in interviews. Why do you think that is?

Eager to understand your perspective on this matter, I yearned to learn more about their viewpoints, particularly why James and Wade might not be reliable witnesses in this case. Could you share with me the reasons that cast doubt on their credibility? I’m genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts. However, it seems they don’t have much substantial information to offer beyond accusations against Wade and James. In my opinion, these allegations didn’t hold up well. In the film, you can see me sending an email pleading for more insights, saying “I am begging you, give me something.” Unfortunately, they only mocked my request. This, I believe, highlights their lack of willingness to present a balanced account. Moreover, it appears they intended to tell their story through a biopic.

Speaking of the biopic, I know you’ve spoken out before about an early version of the script. What are your thoughts on recent reports that the third act had to be reshot due to the estate’s agreement that Chandler’s story couldn’t be dramatized?

It seems surprising that such high-profile lawyers, associated with Hollywood, didn’t bother to scrutinize the settlement agreement they signed to silence the initial accuser. Evidently, they overlooked this crucial step. In essence, it was a significant blunder.

I suspect there might be two perspectives at play here. On one hand, they could be thinking, “Let’s simply release the movie with its soundtrack.” This move would likely generate a substantial income of around $200 million, and despite potential criticism from publications like The New York Times and Vanity Fair, the financial gain would outweigh any ridicule. On the other hand, they might be too proud to resort to such tactics. However, it’s also possible that they didn’t fully comprehend the gravity of their oversight.

The script attempted to address the controversy surrounding Jordie Chandler, depicting him as a liar and his parents as money-hungry individuals. However, it contained some blatant untruths, which were likely removed for obvious reasons. Now, I’m curious about how they will present their storyline without those parts.

The way you represent the estate’s side is through interviews with superfans — though they won’t be in the Channel 4 version. Why not and what was the experience like of interviewing them?

Channel 4 expressed their ambivalence by saying, “We’re not particularly fond of U.S. fans.” I appreciate the courage of those fans who participated and agreed to an interview. Indeed, one might wonder what they would have to say. They seem to embody the perspective that Jackson was an untouchable figure, almost a divine being with no sexual desires, which upon reflection, is illogical. I engage these fans because it’s challenging to reach the representatives or family members directly, and partly because Jackson transcended cultural norms, and these individuals, in some way, embody the cultural influence he had. These are devotees who idolize him, viewing him as something greater than a mere human being. Thus, they provide insight into the challenges we face.

Additionally, I’m quite fond of individual Z, who initially adored Michael Jackson before watching “Leaving Neverland.” His perspective shifted significantly after that. He articulated a profound thought when he said, “Many believe he couldn’t be a pedophile because of his dancing skills or catchy tunes. But it’s possible for him to possess both those talents and still be guilty.” I believe he hit the nail on the head with this observation.

The first “Leaving Neverland” was on HBO in the U.S., while this next installment will be available on YouTube. Tell me about how that decision came to be — is it because of the lawsuit HBO was involved in with the first doc?

Initially, it was my hope to collaborate with HBO on the release of this project. Unfortunately, that wasn’t an option due to the ongoing lawsuit or arbitration dispute. They didn’t explicitly communicate the details about the case, leaving everything under wraps and me in the dark. As a result, they couldn’t proceed with our project, leading us to brainstorm alternative ideas. We wanted something unique, engaging, and easily accessible for audiences, which is why we eventually decided digital distribution would be the best option. In my opinion, we’ve experienced a golden era of documentaries and overall content creation with the emergence of streaming platforms, but I believe the future lies in digital media.

You’re planning on making a third installment to document Robson and Safechuck’s trial against Jackson’s companies, which is currently set for next year. Are you hopeful that HBO will release that?

Yes, I am.

What would you say to those who still assert Jackson’s innocence?

It’s worth noting that die-hard fans often remain unwavering in their beliefs. Presenting them with compelling evidence, such as a video showing misconduct by Michael Jackson, might not be enough to alter their deeply ingrained perspective. This behavior could be likened to a cult mentality. I don’t anticipate a significant decrease in people listening to Michael Jackson’s music.

As a passionate movie enthusiast, I can’t help but express my enthusiasm for this intriguing narrative. It’s a tale that centers around two resilient young men on a mission to uncover a past injustice perpetrated against them as children. What started as a personal quest has grown into something far larger than any of us anticipated. My primary aim is to remain truthful in portraying their harrowing journey, shedding light on the arduous process of standing before a jury. I hope that audiences will be captivated not just by the drama, but also by the stark reality of child sexual abuse, dispelling common misconceptions and myths. If I manage to accomplish this, then my mission is complete. It’s never been about bringing down an icon; it has always been about telling a compelling story, one that unfolds to its very end.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

2025-03-19 01:19