Jeppe_Kleijngeld

As a devoted fan of 'The Sopranos' - my all-time favorite show - I thought there wasn't much left for me to discover. But HBO's new two part documentary 'Wise Guy: David Chase and The Sopranos' offers fresh insight, focusing primarily on the mastermind behind the series, David Chase, especially in its first half. Chase (1945) is a compelling figure: intelligent, introspective, and a natural storyteller. Director Alex Gibney ('Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson', 'Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room') places Chase in a metaphorical psychiatrist's chair, allowing him to speak candidly about his upbringing, his eccentric mother, dreams, death, and how these themes shaped 'The Sopranos'. Chase recalls his time in college down south, which he disliked, though he was exposed to European cinema by directors like Godard, Bergman, and Fellini. "I saw '8½', and I don't think I understood it, but it blew my mind", he reflects. This experience ignited his desire to become a filmmaker, leading him to study at Stanford's film school. The documentary even shows part of his student film - a gangster story with an attempted Godard flair, which is amusing in its ambition. While Chase's destiny wasn't in film directing, he found his calling in television. He worked on successful shows like 'The Rockford Files' and 'Northern Exposure', but his true breakthrough came when HBO greenlit 'The Sopranos' in 1998. The series became a cultural phenomenon, and Chase infused it with deeply personal elements, including therapy sessions and his tumultuous relationship with his mother. Other talented writers like Robin Green and Terence Winter also contributed significantly to the show's depth. In 'The Offer', a recent series about the making of 'The Godfather', we learn that Coppola saw the film as a commentary on capitalism. Similarly, 'The Sopranos' carries an underlying critique of America's decline. As Chase puts it, "Americans have gotten so materialistic and selfish that it made a mob boss sick." That vision, combined with Chase's storytelling genius, is part of what makes 'The Sopranos' so enduringly powerful.

I was relatively unbiased before. I never really wondered if Jackson was guilty of sexually abusing children. I didn't follow the 2005 trial, and always kind of supposed that it was a false claim. I had fallen for the Jackson narrative that 'he was just a child himself who liked to hang around with kids'.

How wrong I was.

Right from the start of Leaving Neverland, it was clear to me that these men - and their entire families - are telling what actually occurred. Not that I needed further convincing, but afterwards I saw several body language experts on tv confirming that they also thought Robson and Safechuck were absolutely speaking the truth. No doubt whatsoever.

Off course, fans are screaming that it's all about the money, but that doesn't make any sense. Like everybody's pointing out; there is no physical evidence, so it's gonna be very very hard to convince a court or jury. So where are these mountains of cash supposed to be coming from? Besides, what about their families? Are they also part of the 'conspiracy'? That doesn't make any sense if you think about it for more than a second.

The fans are also complaining that the movie is one-sided. Director Dan Reed's comment on this critique makes perfect sense. Nobody was in the bedroom with Jackson and these kids, so only they can tell what happened. (And off course Jackson, who's dead, gets to respond in footage from 2005 denying the charges). So what would be the value of adding friends and family members of Jackson telling us what a terrific guy he was?

Michael Jackson was a tormented person who had a horrible childhood. But that's no justification for the crimes he committed. And watching his manipulations during the 1993 and 2005 accusations is absolutely sickening. Not only was he a child abuser, he was also a liar and manipulator, who destroyed many many people's lives in his sex-obsessed craziness. Were the star struck parents not to blame? Off course, but that doesn't excuse the predator himself. Jackson got off easy by dying before ever being convicted.

You can say that one is innocent until proven guilty, but Louis Theroux said it right: 'Presumption of innocence is a criminal standard, but not a conversation-ending statement of historical fact. What about serial killer Fred West? He died unconvicted of any of his murders. Was he innocent?' Furthermore, if you need supporting evidence, there is plenty to be found on the internet. The only reason he wasn't convicted in 2005 is that he had a brilliant attorney, and the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Off course, it is extremely likely that there are (a lot) more victims, but as Robson and Safechuck have pointed out; coming out with this story is not easy. I hope in the future more victims will step forward, so that what should be obvious now becomes really undeniable.

Not that it will matter for the hardcore fans who will keep on defending him. Sticking your head in the sand is easier that confronting the ugly truth I guess. Michael Jackson really wasn't a saint. If his heritage is damaged, it's a consequence of the life he lead. It's not the fault of his accusers.

One of the reason I posted this review is that the internet is exploding with false accusations about Robson and Safechuck. That can be easily rebutted with a little bit of research. Not that one review with shift the balance, but still it's worth the effort. I support Robson and Safechuck 100% and hope they find some peace of mind after this.