0066 | April 8, 2019
Michael Jackson: “Leaving Neverland”
Dan Reed’s documentary “Leaving Neverland” offers a compelling but disturbing description of the alleged abuse suffered by James Safechuck and Wade Dobson at the hands of Michael Jackson. But how credible is Reed’s film? Join as we discuss “Leaving Neverland.”
| [music] | |
| C.T. WEBB: 00:19 | Good afternoon, good morning, or good evening, and welcome to The American Age Podcast. My name is C. Travis Webb, editor of The American Age, and I’m speaking to you from Southern California. |
| S. RODNEY: 00:28 | Hey. Hey, hey, hey. I’m Seph Rodney. I almost forgot who I was for a second there. But I’m present and accounted for in the South Bronx. I’m an editor at Hyperallergic and part-time faculty at Parsons in the New School. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 00:46 | And I am Steven G. Fullwood, co-founder of The Nomadic Archivists Project and I always wait for Seph to announce himself. But next time I think I’ll just jump in and announce [inaudible]. |
| S. RODNEY: 00:57 | Amen. Hallelujah, right [laughter]. |
| C.T. WEBB: 01:00 | This is to remind our listeners that we practice a form of what we like to call intellectual intimacy, which is giving each other the space and time to figure out things out loud with one another. So we’re continuing our conversation on Michael Jackson. Last week was our first conversation, kind of just laying the groundwork and, you know, some personal details Seph shared with us, so if you haven’t listened to that podcast, you should check it out. And we had all agreed that we’d do a little bit more just kind of familiarizing ourselves with kind of the state of affairs with sort of the allegations surrounding Michael Jackson, and kind of think through, watch “Leaving Neverland”, and then we’ll just kind of take the conversation from there. So Steven, Seph, anything on your mind immediately to jump into as far as where we left off next week, or where we want to segue into talking about I this week? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 01:58 | Well, you sent an Agrio article that I think maybe we should start with. Because I think it’s always a good idea to go against your feelings about something to see what the other argument is. And I think I mentioned this in the previous podcast that my YouTube has been loaded up with people who are in defense of Michael Jackson. And it started just as Leaving Neverland premiered at Sundance. So I was happy to get that article and thinking about it. So I was wondering– I had some thoughts about it. So the journalist who claims that James Safechuck’s abuse claims can be discredited because of a date. Because of the– |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:43 | One aspect of them can be discredited. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:44 | One aspect– I was going to get to that, right [laughter]? |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:46 | Oh, okay. Sorry, sorry, sorry [crosstalk]. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:48 | I just wanted to kind of set people up [laughter]. And– |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:52 | Sorry for ruining that for you. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:53 | No worries [laughter]. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:54 | Was it a merry-go-round, or what was it called– |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:56 | It was a train station. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:58 | Train station. |
| C.T. WEBB: 02:58 | Transportation center. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 02:59 | Wasn’t built at the time he claims he was abused. That it happened– that the train station was built after, correct? |
| C.T. WEBB: 03:07 | Mm-hmm. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 03:07 | Yes. |
| S. RODNEY: 03:07 | Yes, sir. |
| C.T. WEBB: 03:08 | Yes. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 03:09 | So what’s interesting to me and what I got out of the article and a few other things I’ve been listening to for this podcast, was that the largest issue with the documentary that most people seem to have that it only focuses on the testimony, or the accusations of these two [inaudible]. And that journalism wasn’t served by [inaudible]. So I wanted to kind of begin the conversation, how do we– what are your thoughts about Leaving Neverland [inaudible] you have seen, and the structure of it, rather than the content. But isn’t it fair for journalists to say, “Where’s the evidence?” Or, “What’s the other part of this?” |
| S. FULLWOOD: 03:51 | Yeah. [inaudible]. |
| S. RODNEY: 03:51 | Yeah. I can address that. I read a piece that you had sent around, Steven, written by Kierna Mayo in AFROPUNK, on the AFROPUNK site. The piece is titled, “He’s Out of My Life: Letting Go of Michael Jackson.” And she talks about people coming back at her, accusing her of– or accusing the film of not being journalistically rigorous enough, or presenting enough evidence. And she says there’s reams of evidence, and I agree with her. I think that that– let me make that point and then talk about a caveat. |
| C.T. WEBB: 04:34 | Okay. |
| S. RODNEY: 04:35 | We had talked about this in the last episode, and maybe we had had a conversation after the episode was ended – after the broadcast was over – where I recommend talking to you both about being shocked by the reams and reams of faxes sent by Michael Jackson to Robson, it was Wade he sent those to. That in and of itself, that– well, that and having six to seven-hour phone calls with the boy every day or every other day for a while, is just weird and inappropriate and a signal of some kind of relationship that a grown-ass man should not have with a child that is not his own. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 05:20 | Some might think of that as circumstantial. |
| S. RODNEY: 05:22 | Right. But my point being, there’s reams and reams of evidence besides the personal testimony. In fact, one of the things that Mayo points to as a particularly grueling moment in the film is when Safechuck brings out the rings that, the Cartier rings, that were bought for him allegedly by Michael Jackson. Altogether, I think the circumstantial evidence leads up to something. I [inaudible] that we also have to be careful with the use of the word “circumstantial”. I think you’re absolutely right in using it, Steven. You’re absolutely right. But legal cases are made from a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, right? Like it’s not just that the evidence is circumstantial and therefore it is not good enough, sterling enough, to convict someone of a crime. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 06:23 | That’s [crosstalk]. |
| S. RODNEY: 06:23 | It is– |
| C.T. WEBB: 06:24 | [crosstalk]. Right. Right. |
| S. RODNEY: 06:27 | Right. But it is the totality of that evidence plus the personal testimony that makes a case convincing. Now the caveat is that, yes, Safechuck certainly got the date wrong. Either he’s mistaken about that purposefully or unintentionally. |
| C.T. WEBB: 06:52 | Okay. |
| S. RODNEY: 06:54 | But I want to say that with cases like this, typically 20 years after the fact, how many years after the fact, it’s very difficult for people to get dates right. Because your 7-year-old self, your 10-year-old self, your 5-year-old self, doesn’t have the kind of sense of time that your 30-year-old self has. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 07:15 | Is that a problem with the filmmaker to not have researched them to some degree? |
| S. RODNEY: 07:19 | So, yes. [crosstalk] |
| C.T. WEBB: 07:22 | So I actually really appreciate you mentioning the circumstantial evidence. I was actually going to say something similar. I mean, this is exactly, I mean, this is what evidence is, it’s to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what the circumstances were because there are always multiple interpretations of an event. |
| S. RODNEY: 07:37 | Precisely. |
| C.T. WEBB: 07:39 | And the only– I’m with everything that Seph just said. The only piece I find the omission a little bit more suspicious than that because of the age. So the differences between he is saying the abuse ended at 14, versus 16. So to me, though, that doesn’t– I mean, I remember– you know, I am awful with dates. I am just awful, just my brain doesn’t work that way. We’ve kind of talked about that in previous podcasts. I tend to have an episodic memory. But that age, being able to know that something happened to me when I was a freshman in high school versus by the time I could drive, I feel like those are pretty solid markers in California– |
| S. RODNEY: 08:26 | Agreed. |
| C.T. WEBB: 08:26 | –that you’d be able to parse out. But to me, what that reads as is someone that is – and this is the same – now, obviously I’m psychologizing at this point – this is the same one who has not been able to forgive his mother for her complicity in what happened. So to me this also reads as someone that is having a difficult time with a sense of responsibility around what was going on. It’s really hard to – and I’m not saying that it’s not deserved, I’m saying just how we work psychologically – it’s hard to disavow any responsibility for something that you were doing at 16. It is much easier to do at 14. Again, I’m not saying that this person was not victimized, yes, slam dunk, absolutely, I believe that he was. I mean, I found his narrative comp– not just his, but I started reading around the case that was brought against Michael in the 90s. As far as I’m concerned he sounds pretty guilty. And, you know, I don’t know what a jury would have found. But I don’t think that that– let’s steer it back to what Steven had said so that you guys can jump in. Yeah, I do think that’s the fault of the filmmaker. Like you should you definitely should have been on that. Like you– that is definitely something he should have known and pushed his subject on because it only undermines the point of his– the goal of his film– |
| S. FULLWOD: 10:03 | Absolutely. |
| C.T. WEBB: 10:05 | –he has now undermined by not adhering to kind of standard journalistic or documentarian standards, so. |
| S. RODNEY: 10:13 | Yeah. I think those are generally documentarian standards. I mean, I– |
| C.T. WEBB: 10:16 | Right, right, right, right. |
| S. RODNEY 10:20 | –I deal with similar issues as an editor at Hyperallergic. There have been pieces that people have published through us that I’ve edited that required a particularly attentive eye. Because the piece was going to be, and was, subjected to a lot of public scrutiny. When I’ve edited those pieces and have had conversations with my boss, [Harag?], about this, she and I have talked about how important it is that I get this right. Did I carefully check everything? |
| C.T. WEBB: 10:56 | Mm-hmm. |
| S. RODNEY: 10:57 | And that I have flagged discrepancies. I mean, this is my tendency anyway and I was born anal retentive. So my typical response to a piece of writing is to say, “Well, why is this comment here? Why are you setting up a speaker that is not believable? Why add this paragraph at the end that doesn’t seem to propel the piece?” But especially in a case like this with a film like this, that is your due diligence as a filmmaker. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 11:37 | Mm-hmm. |
| C.T. WEBB: 11:37 | Mm-hmm. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 11:39 | I’ve watched him on several shows, Dan Reed, I think– |
| C.T. WEBB: 11:43 | That sounds right to me. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 11:44 | –yeah, I’ve watched him on several morning shows, and he seems like that’s the question he gets the most. The question of, “Why didn’t you speak with other people? Did you [inaudible]?” He says this was their story, and I wanted them to be [inaudible]. And I feel like you guys that more details will likely come out. You know, somebody who’s been following the case. [inaudible] people following this case from ’93 on. And so they are ready with, “This is incorrect. This is incorrect. Why is he saying this? Why is he saying that?” And what I came up with towards the end of like just watching all that stuff was that, there’s probably truth everywhere. You know, it’s not just that they were totally correct and that he– who knows? Because it’s almost like the Mueller Report and what Barr did, you know, William Barr, what he did was he– this four-page memo that he claims is a summary. It’s not a summary [laughter]. |
| C.T. WEBB: 12:40 | Right [laughter]. Right. |
| S. RODNEY: 12:42 | Right. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 12:42 | That he’s undermining and poisoning public opinion about what the Mueller Report is actually about. So I feel like this documentary in a sense does the same thing. It’s like it puts it out there and it’s very compelling, extremely compelling, and I feel that the guys are telling the truth, but people who have details and come with [inaudible] are going to undermine what this guy’s trying to get across. And it’s going to affect both of their cases. [inaudible] both dismissed and that they’re– I guess [inaudible] again, you know, suing Jackson’s estate. So it undermines it, so you don’t want to put something out there that [inaudible]. |
| S. RODNEY: 13:19 | Well, I like the analogy. I just want to follow up on it a little bit. So what you’re saying is when you say “it”, when it undermines “it”, you’re saying that in some ways the film, the film is a bad summary of their experiences– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 13:33 | It’s a troubling summary. |
| S. RODNEY: 13:35 | Right. Fair enough. Fair enough, right. |
| C.T. WEBB: 13:37 | Yeah. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 13:37 | It’s a conflicted– |
| C.T. WEBB: 13:38 | [crosstalk]. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 13:38 | Okay. |
| C.T. WEBB: 13:39 | Yeah, I felt that– now every, obviously, every craft involves manipulation, right? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 13:48 | Mm-hmm. |
| C.T. WEBB: 13:48 | You’re trying to invoke emotions in your viewer. But I felt that it wore it a little too heavily on its sleeve at times. I don’t know if you guys– I started thinking – because we were doing it for the podcast – I was looking at it more critically. Usually when descriptions of abuse were happening he would use this above the [crosstalk]. |
| S. RODNEY: 14:11 | The drone shot, yes. |
| C.T. WEBB: 14:12 | –the horizon. Well, yeah, so that was used too, but also like on the subject the camera was above horizontal so the angle was looking down. Which, you know, communicates a sense of powerlessness, and so you are clearly, you’re adding weight to the victim’s tale. And it just– okay, fine. I get that. I understand that that is part of what he was trying to do. He believes these people’s story. He believes that there was an injustice happening and he’s trying to engage with that. I respect that mission more so because I think, you know, it sounds like that these men, and other boys, were abused. I’m sorry, the boys were abused and then these men are talking about the abuse. Yes, the drone shots. Like I really, it had this sort of like, “there’s a predator lurking out there” feel. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 15:04 | Oh, yeah, yeah. |
| S. RODNEY: 15:06 | Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. |
| C.T. WEBB: 15:06 | And the constant talk like from the mothers about how alone and isolated. And the film does not really touch on– because it becomes a more difficult case to prove, even though I think it’s probably, again, true. He was never alone. I mean, how many bodyguards worked on that estate? How many handlers? How many maids? How many managers, how many– like there is no way that Michael Jackson – other than in the closet inside the closet – was alone with these boys. And there’s no way that– like there was a systemic abuse of these boys. That was not just– Michael Jackson may have been at the locus of it, he may have been at the center, but it was aided and abetted by people who were very well-paid. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 16:01 | Yeah. So is your argument that there’s no way for this truth not to come out? |
| C.T. WEBB: 16:07 | Yeah, so– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 16:08 | [inaudible] the fact he did it? Because there would be other witnesses? Is that what you’re saying? |
| C.T. WEBB: 16:11 | That is very generous. I don’t know that I [laughter]– I don’t know that my meandering a couple minutes had an argument [laughter]. But thank you for that. I do think– honestly, I think the truth has kind of come out. Like the maid talked about like the pornography that was in the ro– I mean, this was only mentioned briefly in the documentary. And I think, again, because he says like, “Well, what do they add to the story for me to put the maid on camera?” Well, I think it’s more a choice if he puts the maid on camera, he’s got to start putting other people on camera. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 16:41 | Absolutely. |
| C.T. WEBB: 16:43 | So I think it was more of like, “I want to just put the victims front and center and the fam– or the mothers, too.” Which that’s an– I know it’s a side discussion for another day. I think that the movie also partakes in– is complicit in this vilification of women. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 16:58 | Are you kidding me? |
| C.T. WEBB: 17:00 | I mean, so– |
| S. RODNEY: 17:01 | [inaudible] to bring it up. |
| C.T. WEBB: 17:02 | And I’m not saying that the mothers are not guilty. I do blame them. But where were the fathers like during any of this sort of– like where, where were they in the room? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 17:14 | Well, we talked about that. People have a reasonable expectation that if your boy with an adult, that that adult’s not going to attack your kid. |
| C.T. WEBB: 17:22 | Not for five days in a row. No way. No way. |
| C.T. WEBB: 17:25 | I just– [crosstalk]. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 17:26 | [crosstalk] as a stranger. Definitely a stranger. |
| C.T. WEBB: 17:28 | I hear what you’re saying. I hear what you’re saying. But as a parent – you were a parent, too – I mean, you still are a parent, but I mean, [inaudible] a child. Your son’s grown, right? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 17:36 | Yeah, true. Mm-hmm. |
| C.T. WEBB: 17:38 | But, no. I know that is not something I would be comfortable with. And I actually am uncomfortable when we leave Dean with like who is our regular babysitter. We did a background check on her. Like through the Department of Justice. Like I absolutely– and while I understand that you can’t ever guarantee safety, your ass can do more than that they did to– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 18:06 | And also [crosstalk]– |
| C.T. WEBB: 18:06 | –to make sure that your kid is reasonably safe. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 18:09 | In all fairness, I agree with you. I just feel like that this is a new time to think about this thing. I don’t think people were thinking about those things ’70s, ’80s. I don’t. I feel like the consciousness around the child abuse in the home, but outside of the home is a very recent thing. I really do. So I think that this background check, I don’t– unless you were hiring an au pair and you were rich or something, I don’t think that you’re doing the background checks. I think you’re [inaudible] lady has a [inaudible] on the way. Oh, she’s about 16 or so. Do you think she should babysit my kid? I don’t think the people were thinking of. And then Michael– |
| C.T. WEBB: 18:45 | Yeah, that’s fair. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 18:45 | –add to Michael Jackson himself and what people– I’m just amazed at this man’s power. I think this is the most dazzling, look at someone who has so much power. And I think Michele Wallace says it best in one of her essays I’m about to bring up very briefly. The essay is called, “Michael Jackson Black Modernisms and the Ecstasy of Communication.” Michele Wallace is a black intellectual. A very smart woman– |
| C.T. WEBB: 19:09 | Good title. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 19:10 | –[crosstalk]. I know, right? And so in it she goes she feels like Jackson’s videos may be capable of playing a key role through evolving public discourses of race, sex, and class. First, Jackson’s a black performer. Given his race he has achieved an entirely unprecedented and gargantuan fame in a previously white supremist music industry where which he routinely objectifies colonized the third world and people of color. He may, in fact, be his own media hype and never tires of suggesting that he is the new Elvis or the Beatles. This was written before the King of Pop [inaudible]. But what I thought was really interesting is that he’s a person through which we can look at ourselves. The mothers are vilified. The fathers were absent, and there are just these two kids of these males. And the structure of the documentary, I’m so glad you brought the documentary, Seph had mentioned this before and it’s something I noticed when I watched it, how quiet [inaudible] when they’re talking at times. Like this is very deliberate. It was in some ways, without a critical eye you’re just drawn in, you know. And I was drawn in, you know, I must admit, so. |
| S. RODNEY: 20:11 | So I want to follow up what you just quoted, Steven, with something from one of the pieces that you had sent around to us, the other one– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 20:17 | Mm-hmm. |
| S. RODNEY: 20:19 | –of the two, which was a New York Times article by Wesley Morris titled, “Michael Jackson Cast A Spell. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Breaks It.” “He lived in defiance of physics and race and gender, and we just kind of lived with that.” And I think this is part of the documentary, too, that the filmmaker does a good job of. Which is giving us a sense of the kind of physics-defying entity that Michael Jackson was. There is something about him that – and I know that you both are conscientious, clear-headed human beings – I wonder what it would have been like for you to have been in the presence of a mega star like Michael Jackson who said, “Hey, I just want to spend the afternoon alone with your child, your son. I’m just going to take care of him.” I mean, I do think that as much as the movie– the film does– the documentary does vilify the moms, I agree with that. I do think that there is something to be said for not being – particularly in the ’80’s – not being prepared emotionally, socially. Because we hadn’t had these conversations then, right? Being prepared to have someone of his status, stay in your home, and then say to you, “I trust you to hold me, to hold this space for us, to keep me safe.” And then, of course, turn around and– and then turn around and say, “Well, you know, you kept me safe. Let me keep your son safe with me for a while and just spend time with him.” Like I think you would have had, if you were in those circumstances, a difficult time negotiating– simply just saying, no. I mean, but clearly, it was inappropriate. And at some point the mothers did realize like – especially when he– |
| C.T. WEBB: 22:19 | [inaudible] for a year. |
| S. RODNEY: 22:19 | –went so far as to ask, yes, ask to spend a year with the boy. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 22:23 | A year with the child. |
| S. RODNEY: 22:24 | Oh, Jesus. [crosstalk]– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 22:26 | [crosstalk]. |
| S. RODNEY: 22:26 | –know, yeah, obviously no that’s not going to happen. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 22:29 | Mm-hmm. |
| S. RODNEY: 22:30 | I think it was hard for her, it was hard for them, to tell this man, no. |
| C.T. WEBB: 22:37 | So I– I mean, you asked a specific question. I actually had thought about this a lot when I was watching it. I don’t think I would. And, but, I think there’s a pretty specific reason, and that is– |
| S. RODNEY: 22:53 | You don’t think he would what, Travis? |
| C.T. WEBB: 22:55 | –I don’t think I would be charmed by that status. But there’s a specific reason for that. And I actually have kind of, I’ve sort of explored this in myself as a reaction. When I was younger, I was very self-conscious about my own social anxiety and insecurity around that social anxiety. And one of the protective mechanisms that I developed a while in order to deal with that and sort of start to move through the world with some kind of agency, was to completely like slam down my overt social responses. So if I saw someone, an attractive woman, or if I was in a situation in which I would have been awestruck, star struck, or whatever, my response to that was to deal with it with at least a veneer of stoicism. And I did that for enough years that that is now how I react to those things. I have a reflexive– I mean, this happened actually in a New York restaurant. I went to La Grenouille, which is, you know, the French restaurant that’s there in Midtown somewhere. |
| S. RODNEY: 24:12 | As you know. |
| S. RODNEY: 24:13 | [crosstalk]. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 24:14 | As we all know. |
| C.T. WEBB: 24:14 | Because I think it’s a– no, I think it’s a well-known restaurant, that’s why. I mean, that’s [inaudible] I brought it up. |
| S. RODNEY: 24:18 | No, no, no, no, no. I’m only poking fun at you. |
| C.T. WEBB: 24:22 | That’s right, that’s right [crosstalk]. |
| S. RODNEY: 24:23 | Go on with your bad self. I know! |
| C.T. WEBB: 24:26 | So Molly and I. Molly and I were at that restaurant, and seated next to us was Uma Thurman. And who some, I assumed to be Wall Street banker. I mean, you could just tell by the sort of suit. And I looked it up later and it was, and it apparently was her husband, or I guess, been married, divorced a couple of times. I looked at her when we came in, and I did not look at her again the entire meal. Intentionally. Because I was not going to be all the other people in the room. Now not all the other people, I think a lot of them were probably regulars because they seemed sort of unfazed by the event. But there were definitely people that came in and the attention in the room was drawn to her. And I just, I literally, I just did not look. Consciously, intentionally, did not do that. Now was that natural? No, right? The natural response was to be like, “Oh, look, that’s Uma–,” I’m telling you now, like this is a story I tell at par– right? So, I mean, so clearly I am aware of the social cache of that, the proximity. But the actual suspension of judgment, absolutely not. And I would go so far as to say I feel like we should all have a similar response to someone with that much social power. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 25:44 | I’ll give you that. I think… |
| C.T. WEBB: 25:45 | I do not think we should ever react that way to anyone’s social power. But, I’m sorry, go ahead. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 25:52 | I think I would have gone with Michael Jackson. I would have given all of my children, I would have [laughter]– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 25:58 | –I would have surrendered everything to Michael Jackson [laughter]. And he wasn’t even my favorite star [inaudible]. And I thought about what you said, when I was younger I did something similar where I would just– I rejected everything super popular. I was like, you guys don’t know– oh, Prince was popular [inaudible] Purple Rain. I was that kind of kid. But I was stunned by Michael Jackson’s success. I grew up with Michael Jackson’s music, I watched the shows, watched [inaudible] so much of his music was a [inaudible]. Not necessary a soundtrack, but was just part of our lives. I tried to turn my siblings into the Fullwood Five. We couldn’t sing or dance, [laughter] but, you can see how that turned out [laughter]. I remember feeling there was something about the ’80s and about the accessibility of some stars like a Madonna. She looked like she could just [inaudible] down the street. But then there was the Michael Jacksons. There were the people who had been around for so long and I did see him moonwalk on TV at Motown 25 and was like, you know, “Oh, my God. This was the most amazing thing.” |
| S. RODNEY: 27:02 | It was like a miracle. It really was. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 27:03 | It was like a miracle, but the thing is, what I’m really moved by what you’re saying, Travis, is this social cache not being fooled by it, or romanced by it, or obsessed by it, or lured in by it. Today I’m a little different. It’s New York City. Every other person’s walking down the street, it seems Is someone who has been on a show or is popular, and you kind of go, “Oh, okay.” And then you have to go catch your train. You know, but then there are other people who do stop me and I go, “Oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. This is such-and-such and she just tapped me on the shoulder, asked me where the gum was.” That kind of stuff. Those things still have currency. And I do agree with– I think that we should definitely, definitely not give someone who has a social cache any more trust than we would a regular person. Or a stranger. Because that’s what they are; we don’t know them. |
| C.T. WEBB: 27:54 | That’s what they are. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 27:55 | They’re strangers. |
| S. RODNEY: 27:55 | But you know, so here’s the thing. And this will tie us back into this sort of importance, significance of Michael Jackson as a cultural and social figure. That he sort of marked the transition. Or maybe for us because we are of around the same age – late 40s, early 50s – maybe Michael Jackson marked for us that transition from a kind of – and this is perhaps putting too fine a point on it, but – a kind of age of innocence, to an age of almost – and this is [inaudible] – of an age of, “Oh, we realize now that people with that kind of star power are often tax cheats, or pedophiles, or just straight up weirdos.” We don’t have– I mean, this was the era before TMZ, right? This was the era before– |
| S. RODNEY: 28:55 | But no, the National Enquirer. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 28:56 | We had [inaudible] actually, we had Hollywood Confidential magazine– |
| C.T. WEBB: 28:58 | No, that’s right. There was– |
| S. FULLWOOD: 28:59 | We had all that, yeah. |
| S. RODNEY: 29:00 | No, we definitely were, I think we had– part of our culture is definitely focused on that kind of dialectical relationship with star power, right? Which is that we worship them, but we really want to tear them down. We love to see them torn down. Which is why National Enquirer essentially made a fortune staking out, you know, stars who were getting older, or were falling off the radar, at the beach, you know, with shots of– showing us their cellulite, right? |
| S. FULLWOOD: 29:35 | Look at that body, ickk. |
| S. RODNEY: 29:37 | Yeah, exactly, like, “How could you do that to yourself? How could you be human?” |
| S. FULLWOOD: 29:41 | How could you do that to us? |
| C.T. WEBB: 29:43 | Right. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 29:43 | How could you do that. |
| C.T. WEBB: 29:44 | Right. |
| S. RODNEY: 29:45 | I do think that there is a– that Michael Jackson sort of marks the moment when generally in popular culture we stopped being as worshipful as we were in previous decades, and we started– |
| C.T. WEBB: 30:00 | Interesting. |
| S. RODNEY: 30:01 | –being more, “Oh, I cannot wait to see them fall. I cannot wait to see the underside of this myth. Of this story they’ve been weaving for us for a long time.” I will– I don’t know if I wanted to go into this [inaudible], but maybe it’s not the right time. |
| C.T, WEBB: 30:24 | Maybe for the next episode? |
| S. RODNEY: 30:25 | Yeah. Yeah. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 30:25 | [inaudible] the next [crosstalk]. |
| C.T. WEBB: 30:29 | So I’m going to say that we’ve kind of trailed into a topic that I wanted to give a little bit more space to. And Seph called it out specifically, which is this fascination with innocence and this commitment to innocence as a narrative, whether it be for children. Well, in particular, I think for children given the subject matter, and how that plays into sexuality and whatnot. So I’d like to maybe, maybe in the next episode we could lead off with, Seph, whatever anecdote you were going to lead off with and we can maybe kind of transition into that discussion of innocence. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 31:09 | Oh. |
| S. RODNEY: 31:11 | Yeah. That sounds good. |
| C.T. WEBB: 31:12 | All right. Okay. Gentlemen, thanks very much for the conversation. |
| S. FULLWOOD: 31:15 | Thanks a lot. |
| S. RODNEY: 31:15 | Thank you. |
| C.T. WEBB: 31:16 | And I’ll talk to you soon. |
| [music] | |
References
**No references for Podcast 0066**