The two main questions that I will address are interlinked: which elements and/or directions of the film support or challenge a particular documentary status, and how can these elements and/or directions hypothetically affect the relation between the maker(s) (in this case mainly director/cinematographer/producer Dan Reed) and the audience? In discussing ‘’documentary status’’, I am less interested in constructing an initial categorical argument than I am in the subsequent discursive questions which are (re-)introduced by this case study. In the first part, I discuss Leaving Neverland in relation to the category of documentary. My main question is: how can we understand the ambivalent reception of the truth claims of Leaving Neverland, both in terms of the documentary’s production and construction and the nature of some particular critical responses? This paper serves to inquire why this was the case. Independent of the realness of multiple personal memories and experiences concerning physical and mental abuse worldwide (be it kept private or not), and the momentum of the social movement(s) surrounding them, many viewers of the documentary questioned and/or debated whether these particular testimonies could be trusted. The factor is the ambivalent public reception of the truth claims embedded in the testimonies of Robson and Safechuck. This paper discusses the central factor that fiercely complicates this particular relation between Leaving Neverland and the idea of a ‘mirror response’. in digitalized and mediatized terms) context in which people may feel encouraged to speak up rather than to remain silent about the personal histories they may have to process themselves. In this sense, I reason from the assumption that the #MeToo-movement and related organizations, such as Time’s Up, have brought about a global (e.g. Thus, in order to understand how Leaving Neverland has affected audiences, we have to consider, at least partly, the idea that the film has served as a mirror. This is only one example of how the documentary was not merely ‘broadcast’, but concretely and deliberately linked to potential negative memories and experiences of individual viewers. In The Netherlands, where I live and witnessed the publicity that surrounded the release, broadcast organization VPRO included talks in which the audience was informed about MIND Korrelatie, a psychological heath foundation.
In the United States, for instance, an interview with the two accusers, hosted by established television personality Oprah Winfrey (1954), premiered on HBO directly ‘’After Neverland’’.
In fact, many broadcasters took the opportunity to fashion their premiere of Leaving Neverland as a documentary event, with additional discussions and commentaries to accompany the main content. Directed and produced by the British filmmaker Dan Reed ( Children of the Tsunami, 3 Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks), and co-produced by Channel 4 (UK) and HBO (USA), the documentary film gained tremendous attention from media and audiences worldwide, especially after tailor-made versions were broadcast on television in several countries. In its four-hour course, Wade Robson (1982) and James Safechuck (1978) speak extensively about their childhood years, in which they claim to have been sexually abused by Jackson. Leaving Neverland was released almost ten years after the demise of celebrity pop singer Michael Jackson (1958-2009). Leaving Neverland: on the ambivalent reception
#Leaving neverland documentary netflix full#
You can find the full text below and on Academia. I wrote the piece in the context of my final master course on documentary film (UvA, 2020). Thus opens my paper on a film that aroused endless discussions last year.
0 kommentar(er)
