R.I.P. Michael Jackson

[Jonathan Townsend]

How very interesting JT....

...your wistful post redundant...

It just seemed a way to separate the media/projection issues from any feelings about the passing of a person - reframing his image in terms of other cultural icons. The old robot/teenage vampire movies this summer seemed a pertinent.

[CraigMitchell]

Without concrete evidence - and a definitive finding by a court of law - you make enormous leaps in your assumptions in branding MJ guilty of a crime.

By all means have your suspicions - and disagree with due legal process - but none of us are in any position to play the role of judge and find the man guilty.

He was clearly disturbed and out of touch with reality - but that does not necessarily make him guilty.

On a separate note - Ed Alonzo talks about the show rehearsals:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 9249.story

Ethical question - for those who categorically believe MJ was guilty, is Ed Alonzo then wrong for accepting the job ? Or is a paying job a paying job no questions asked ?

[Jonathan Townsend]

He was clearly disturbed and out of touch with reality - ...

Bingo. And all that personal stuff aside - he was a talented performer and missed by many.

[erdnasephile]

Some years ago I saw Frontline's brilliant analysis of the Little Rascals child abuse case. I was astounded by how a modern judicial system could issue life sentences against innocent people based on zero evidence.
Most chilling was the prosecuting zealot - a beautiful trendy lawyer - who came so close to destroying all their lives.
A similar miscarriage of justice happened in Outreau, France very recently.
So, without hard evidence, I think we should be careful about branding Jackson as a criminal pedophile.

Another case that comes to mind is the McMartin Preschool case from the 1980's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial as well as the more recent Duke Lacrosse Team fiasco.

IMHO, Jackson was grossly inappropriate in the ways he admitted to interacting with kids (sleepovers, etc.) and appeared to be deeply disturbed based on his own words and weird public behavior. There is circumstantial evidence that certainly raises suspicions of wrong doing.

I am certainly no fan of Mr. Jackson's admitted behavior. I deal with victims of violent crime on a daily basis, and have seen first hand the destruction the type of behavior we are discussing can have and I HATE it. Even the hint of impropriety towards a child makes me angry.

However, my sense of justice and fairness compels me to agree with Mr. Stokes here, until hard evidence presents to the contrary.

[AJM]

Without concrete evidence - and a definitive finding by a court of law - you make enormous leaps in your assumptions in branding MJ guilty of a crime.

I'm assuming you're responding to someone else's post...as you clearly haven't read mine and those immediately preceding (nor indeed watched the Bashir interview).

Cheers

Andrew

[Roger M.]

"concrete evidence" as used in the above post is a subjective term. I have seen or read enough "concrete evidence" to be comfortable not mourning Jackson's passing.

O.J. Simpson also failed to be convicted by a jury despite overwhelming evidence that he committed the crimes.
Not being convicted is no indication that a person is innocent.

Paying a child (the first molestation case) $20,000,000.00 in order not to be taken to court and face charges of child molestation should be seen as the admission of guilt that it actually was.

There are far more worthy people in this world that deserve (and get) my sympathies in their passing.
No matter how much "good" Jackson did in his life offsets the fact that a he is an unrepentant child molester.

The children he bought (and called his own) are far safer today than they were a few days ago.

Men who purchase children outright (Jackson) usually do so for very different reasons than women who purchase children outright (Madonna).

In Jackson's case, and in light of his multiple child molestation charges and allegations, the children he purchased are already in a far better place than they were in, regardless of what legal wranglings there might be down the road to determine who will now raise them. Anybody in that family raising them will be better than Michael Jackson raising them.

More so than the singing and dancing on "Thriller", those three kids are all that really matter now in terms of Jackson's contributions to the world.

[Richard Stokes]

Bashir's selective 'documentary' was heavily discredited in the UK.
Michael was able to produce additional footage, damaging Bashir's credibility as an 'investigative journalist'.
Overall, I find Bashir's methods questionable and unethical.
He comes across as a manipulative and unscrupulous sycophant.

Later, Bashir conveniently refused to answer certain questions at the trial.

[Mark Lewis]

Paying out a lot of money to make something go away is not evidence to me. It is well known that Michael Jackson had a habit of overspending. He always thought he had more money than he actually had. I can quite see him paying someone off for a bit of peace and quiet.

I believe it backfired on him because it set a precedent. Somebody else saw that he paid up and was probably hoping for the same results.So they accused him and it got nowhere. He was found NOT GUILTY despite all the prejudical pre trial publicity and people here seem to forget that.

I have never thought he had anything to do with the accusations. He was just far too open and naive for that.

I predicted that he would be acquitted and I was correct.

[Matt Sedlak]

Oj was acquitted...and since he has damn near admitted to doing it since then..

If someone without Jackson's fame had admitted the things he did and stood trial my guess is that the outcome would have been different. We have a history in this country of letting certain people get away with things which is unfortunate. Thankfully that trend has been declining a bit.

It is possible he is innocent but being acquitted is no more proof that someone is innocent than being convicted is proof that someone is guilty. Personally I find it hard to combine the things Jackson said together and his actions, with the history of accusations and not think there is something odd going on. But given my own past I admit to being biased on the matter.

I'll never understand the importance we attribute to our celebrities. Why someone who merely entertains us is so important that he "shuts down the internet" when he dies but some great teachers who make an incredible difference in some children's lives go unnoticed. It's the nature of the beast but it reminds me of how silly we are that the news of an entertainers death essentially drowns out the news about the tons of actually important things that are happening in the world.

That said, I overheard this joke earlier today and thought I would share: When Farrah Fawcett died she went to heaven and God said to her, "Farrah you have lead such a good life. I will grant you any wish you want." Farrah replied, "I want all the boys and girls of the world to be safe."

[Mark Lewis]

I think two things would improve the American judicial system. One is the strict application of the Sub Judice rule which is the norm in the United Kingdom.
And the other is the adoption of the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" which really means "We think you did it but we can't prove it so we will reluctantly have to let you off"

[Jonathan Townsend]

...
I'll never understand the importance we attribute to our celebrities. Why someone who merely entertains us is so important that he ...

permits many to ignore that parents were bringing over their children to sleep over at the home of and with a person they know has deep issues as if they were lottery tickets.

Now that's misdirection.

[Terry]

I think two things would improve the American judicial system. One is the strict application of the Sub Judice rule which is the norm in the United Kingdom.

No thanks. Our judicial system is flawed, but still better than most. Just have to get rid of the black robed legislators who want to make law and not their job of administration.

And the other is the adoption of the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" which really means "We think you did it but we can't prove it so we will reluctantly have to let you off"

We have something like that here in KY. Defendant can plead "I know there is enough evidence to convict me, so I'm pleading to a reduced charge". They are guilty, but avoid a public trial and serve less time.

[Kevin Connolly]

I hear that Billy Mays was just found dead.

[Bob Cunningham]

I though maybe that was some kind of weird joke or internet rummor - but you are right

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/ ... 6879.story

[David Alexander]

I will shed no tears for Jackson's departure as I have no sympathy for pedophiles. No innocent person pays a complaining witness $15 million and the witnesss father $5 million when he has the money to mount the best defense in the world.

The first action against Jackson collapsed when that complaining witness refused to testify in the criminal case. The second case went to trial. Jackson's behavior in that process was bizarre dancing on the roof of an SUV, coming to court in pajamas. It wasnt so much a trial as a circus but it was world-wide publicty for Jackson.

One of the most telling aspects of the second investigation was the secret switch in the hallway that lead to Jackson's bedroom that operated a buzzer warning him whenever anyone approached the door. Convenient when you have little boys sleeping over.

Then there's his Pilipino housekeeper who was making a fortune by her countrys standards who abruptly quit and moved back to the Philippines when Jackson started paying attention to her pre-pubescent son. I found that telling.

After the second case one of his sisters publicly said, Michael, this has to stop.

As was previously posted, OJ was guilty but the trial run poorly and the jury massively sub-par. The judge wasnt much good, either. The quiet opinion floating around LA at the time was that the city couldnt stand for another riot so the case was not well-run by the District Attorneys office. There are several books that have dissected the case.

The jury admitted that they didnt know the difference between blood typing and DNA. After all the time spent in presenting evidence, they less than three or four hours deliberating and OJ walked.

The McMartin Pre-School trial was a farce that came about by a sad nexus of individuals and groups all of whom had their own agendas, none of which involved the protection of children - an ambitious LA District Attorney who wanted a state office, a poorly trained small town police department who had no idea how to conduct an investigation, a mentally-ill woman who started the ball rolling, avaricious real estate operators, venal TV reporters, and an inept and publicity-hungry child advocacy organization. Lots of people piled on (several clearly mentally ill) and the result was a massively expensive trial that never should have happened and a lot of lives destroyed. Very sad.

[David Alexander]

Sorry to hear about Billy Mays. I've been enjoying his "reality" show "Pitchmen."

[Jacky Kahan]

Paying out a lot of money to make something go away is not evidence to me. It is well known that Michael Jackson had a habit of overspending. He always thought he had more money than he actually had. I can quite see him paying someone off for a bit of peace and quiet.

I don't know if MJ is guilty or not... but think about this : as a parent would you accept 20.000.000 $ to keep quiet? I think not, I believe you would do everything to have the guilty in jail, I believe they (the parents) just wanted the money...

[David Alexander]

Not necessarily. There is always the possibility that the guilty party - in this case famous and wealthy - will beat the system. That makes the collection of damages later more difficult. In the second case, that is exactly what happened.

In the first case the parent and the child took the money as reparation for damages. I always viewed the payment of that much money as an admission of guilt, regardless of what the legal papers might have said.

[Francesca Moffet]

That last sentence of Francesca's was quite funny. Think about it............

I'm not saying that magicians aren't entertaining...honest. :blush:

I go to plenty of conventions so I am obviously entertained, hehehe.

[Richard Stokes]

Vincent Price's words from the end of Thriller now have new meaning:

"Darkness falls across the land
The midnite hour is close at hand
Creatures crawl in search of blood..."

ie those eager to pre-judge him and destroy him?

"And whosoever shall be found...
Must stand and face the hounds of hell
And rot inside a corpses shell..."

ie Michael as victim of a relentless unforgiving witch-hunt - a process that will kill him.

"... grizzy ghouls from every tomb
Are closing in to seal your doom..."

And even when he's dead, they want to completely trash him,drag his corpse thru the streets, as if he's committed some kind of blood libel.

Poor guy!
And to be finished off by your own trusted physician was the final insult.
The doctor deserves the Harold Shipman award for Patient Care.

[Ray Eden]

I don't know Francesca... I would argue that there are a whole lot of "magicians" who aren't entertainers. That's what made your statement so funny and... dare I say, pertinent!

[Francesca Moffet]

I don't know Francesca... I would argue that there are a whole lot of "magicians" who aren't entertainers. That's what made your statement so funny and... dare I say, pertinent!

I unfortunately had to endure the most dire stage competition at a convention last year. It was horrendous, lots of techical errors and the stage curtain seemed to have a mind of it's own. It made chinese water torture seem like pleasant relief.

It got so bad one hour in that I was kicking myself for not having The Samaritans on speed dial as I was close to chucking myself off the balcony.

I've just noticed that all the music shops around here are now stocked to bursting point with Jackson CDs.

[Ray Eden]

But with all that said... every magician SHOULD be an entertainer. I fall into the category that believes we are entertainers first and magicians second. If no magician is not their for the audience than it is nothing.

[Mark Lewis]

I have never believed that a magician and an entertainer were two separate things. If you are not an entertainer to me you are not a magician no matter how creative and how technically skilled you are. Rather than saying that the two things are separate I believe that being a good entertainer is part and parcel of being a good magician. It is actually a tool of your trade. Both must go together to make a whole.

A musician or a singer can often get by without showmanship by the sheer power of their technical talent. A magician can't because nobody would want to watch in the first place.

Regrettably because of this lack of showmanship magicians generally are not very good entertainers. And that automatically makes them not very good magicians either in my honest opinion. Presentation skills are far more vital than technical skills even though the latter is not unimportant.

A brilliant entertainer with weak material will probably do far better than a mediocre entertainer who happens to be performing strong material.

Naturally the ideal is to have both showmanship skills as well as good material. However if I had to choose one or the other then let me choose the showmanship hands down. In a nanosecond in fact.

[Ray Eden]

In magic I do believe that one can be a "magician" of sorts and not be an entertainer. This type of "Magician" falls into the group that I call the Tricksters, "magicians" who are far more interested in fooling and tricking the spectator for their own benefit instead of actually entertaining the audience. They leave their audiences with the feeling that they have seen a very interesting puzzle that needs to be reasoned out. This type of "magic" doesn't interest me in the least.

[Francesca Moffet]

I personally class magicians and entertainers in seperate catagories. If someone said to me that they were an entertainer I'd immediately get the image of the cheesy Butlins holiday camp type act but if someone says they are a magician then I find that far more interesting, I guess it just depends on personal opinion.

[Mark Lewis]

To me if a "magician" is not entertaining then he isn't a magician in the first place. He is just someone doing tricks.

The troubling part of my definition is that it means that only 10% of the magical community are actually magicians. The rest are just laymen who happen to know how the tricks are done.

Again I believe that to be entertaining is PART AND PARCEL of being a magician. If you aren't entertaining you are NOT a magician since you haven't mastered the most important part of the art. It is a vital and necessary tool of the trade not an optional extra.

[mrgoat]

Again I believe that to be entertaining is PART AND PARCEL of being a magician. If you aren't entertaining you are NOT a magician since you haven't mastered the most important part of the art. It is a vital and necessary tool of the trade not an optional extra.

OK. So, an artist needs to be able to draw first and foremost.

A trumpet player needs to be able to play the horn. As it were.

A runner needs to be able to run.

A magician needs to be...able to do magic.

Surely, by definition, Mark, a magician needs to be able to do magic first and foremost?

He may or may not earn the adjective 'entertaining' at some point. But at the bottom of it, he is a magician. Someone that does magic.

Now, the fact that most magicians are fools, with playing card bow ties and flashing bunny pins, and 'hold out your hand, no the clean one' etc a divide has been created. Some good magicians are so embarassed by these weird Annoying Uncle magicians that they attempt to distance themselves, by saying they are now ENTERTAINERS not magicians.

If ALL magicians were as great as Teller, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Ray Eden]

The troubling part of my definition is that it means that only 10% of the magical community are actually magicians. The rest are just laymen who happen to know how the tricks are done.

I would say that your 10% ratio is quite generous.

A true magician is an entertainer first and foremost. The quote has almost become clique at that is point, but "A magician is an actor playing the role of a magician". That's being an entertainer. A magician is (at least should be) an actor who has accepted the role of magician. And I fully agree that a magician can not truly be a magician unless he is an entertainer. That is why I draw the distinction between Trickster and Magician. To be a Magician is by far the more desirable.

And I 2nd your statement about Teller. Teller is not a Trickster. He has DEVELOPED and CREATED a CHARACTER that is part and parcel to the Penn and Teller Act. He has created a role that is truly the Magician.

[Ray Eden]

Of course... this thread is supposed to be about MJ. Regardless of one's opinion regarding the court case and yada yada, MJ was an ENTERTAINER bar none. Anyone could use MJ's timing, stage presence, movements, lighting, and the list goes on and on as a buffet of examples for improving one's own magic act. Take for example the Super Bowl performance in which just the turning of MJ's head brings roars of applause from the gathered throng. And not just once... but two or three time! And he didn't open his mouth for a minute or longer. I haven't timed the exact length, but he made more out of a moment of silence than most MAGICIANS can make out of their whole act.

In my opinion, Madonna is about the only other contemporary performer who is able to create a truly magickal experience at her performances. They are/were the only two who have the financial ability to put on such epic performances as well.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I hear that Billy Mays was just found dead.

Yup, even more misdirection.

Anyone else pick up on Uri's cues about priorities?

So, any bets on the Jackson's tour that was planned for next year?
here's a link for the lost: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Jackson- ... 3233.shtml

Or must we dwell on pedophilia?*

* honestly folks - unless you were/are involved in such things there are much greater problems in the world to fret over.

[Mark Lewis]

Actually the often quoted Robert-Houdin has been taken out of context for years. He wasn't talking about acting at all. He was taking a jab at jugglers and flourishers when he said it. But that is another discussion for another time.

Other disciplines are different. A runner is not an entertainer.
And neither is someone who draws pictures. They don't have to be entertaining although I suppose they can if they want to. And I have already alluded to the fact that musicians and singers can get away with not being showmen because the music itself is inherently entertaining. Of course a bit of showmanship would help them immensely as it did Michael Jackson. However they can get by if need be without it.

Not so for a magician. He HAS to be entertaining otherwise there is no point him doing it in the first place. Again PART AND PARCEL of his job.

[mrgoat]

He HAS to be entertaining otherwise there is no point him doing it in the first place.

Well yes, but if he isn't entertaining, that doesn't stop him being a magician, does it?

It stops him being an entertaining magician, possibly. But he'll still be doing magic. Just not awfully well.

[Francesca Moffet]

He HAS to be entertaining otherwise there is no point him doing it in the first place.

Well yes, but if he isn't entertaining, that doesn't stop him being a magician, does it?

It stops him being an entertaining magician, possibly. But he'll still be doing magic. Just not awfully well.

Sad but true unfortunately, and bad magicians still get work...although I am amazed how they manage it. Clearly there is no audition needed beforehand.

[Ray Eden]

I repeat my opinion once more.... if he's not entertaining he's not a magician but a Trickster. If he's not entertaining, then he is not performing for his audience, he is performing for his own gratification alone. A magician who seeks to entertain puts the audience first and foremost.

[mrgoat]

A magician who seeks to entertain puts the audience first and foremost.

You can repeat your opinion as often as you chose, kind Sir.

However, it doesn't stop your redefinition of the word being wrong.

First and foremost, a magician is someone that does magic. Period. Anything else neither adds nor subtracts from the basic premise, the basic definition of the word. From the Oxford Dictionary:

magician
noun 1 a person with magical powers. 2 a conjuror.

They don't mention entertainment.

I agree with your sentiment that magicians should be entertaining, but not with your attempt to redefine words. :)

[Ray Eden]

LOL... What a world. What a world.

Magic falls under the heading of ENTERTAINMENT. Therefore, a magician is an entertainer. If you really think that the Oxford dictionary, two word definition, "a conjuror" suffices, I would argue for a long time. These words define nothing! It offers another word for "magician" not a definition. It is a thesaurus word. I'm not using anything as prestigious as the Oxford Dictionary, but the MicroSoft Word program's built in thesaurus offers three alternatives for the word magician: conjuror, juggler, entertainer. So... "conjuror" is not a definition, it is an alternative word used for magician. I do find it of interest that MicroSoft Word suggests the word "entertainer" for "magician". Seems the programmers seems to believe that a magician should entertain as well.

If you want to get down to brass tacks... a magician of the past, before magic was supplanted by the entertainment magician, was a priest who used the art as religious rituals for control and manipulation of the people. This relates to the first of Oxford Dictionary's definition, which is a real definition; although concise.

So, in the end, I am not trying to redefine the word, I am giving it a fleshed out, full definition.

[El Mystico]

"weird Annoying Uncle magicians"

I take offence.

[Jonathan Townsend]

LOL... What a world. What a world.

Magic falls under the heading of ENTERTAINMENT.... I am giving it a fleshed out, full definition.

Magic is will in action.

Some entertainers are magicians. Most magicians are not entertainers - just watch for yourself.

What a world indeed.

In the mean time - anyone else enjoying "the wrong door"?

[The Magic Apple]

Michael was the single greatest entertainer on the planet, there would be no Usher, Chris Brown or Justin Timberlake without him. NO ONE WILL EVER match his talents.

No one.

what a loss.